Canyons of the Ancients 

National Monument

HERIT AGE CENTER

ANASAZI

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE IN

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEM

Volume I

Draft Resource Management Plan 

& Draft Environmental Impact Statement

September 2007
 Cover Photograph by Bill Proud ©2000 


U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Colorado State Office 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

DRAFT 

September 2007 
MISSION STATEMENT 

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency of the Department of the 

Interior, to manage BLM-administered lands and resources in a manner that best serves the 

needs of the American people. Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield taking into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and 

non-renewable resources. 
Volume I 

DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Proposed Action Location: Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 U.S. Department of the Interior 

 Bureau of Land Management 

 Dolores and Montezuma Counties, Colorado 

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior 

 Bureau of Land Management 

 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 27501 Hwy 184 

 Dolores, CO 81323 

 970-882-5600 

Responsible Official: LouAnn Jacobson, Monument Manager 

 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 27501 Hwy 184 

 Dolores, CO 81323 

 970-882-5600 

Contact: Heather Musclow, Monument Planner 

 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 27501 Hwy 184 

 Dolores, CO 81323 

 970-882-5632 

September 2007 
ABSTRACT: This Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DRMP/DEIS) addresses future management options for approximately 165,000 

acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Canyons of the 

Ancients National Monument (the Monument). The Monument is located in the Four Corners 

region of southwestern Colorado (approximately 50 miles west of Durango, 10 miles west of 

Cortez, and 12 miles west of Mesa Verde National Park). Information provided by the public, 

Federal, State and local agencies and organizations; and BLM personnel has been used to 

develop and analyze the five alternatives considered in this document. Alternative I is the No 

Action Alternative and represents the continuation of current management direction. Alternative 

II maximizes cultural resource protection by avoiding impacts to cultural resource communities, 

sites, and isolated finds. Alternative III emphasizes the protection of cultural resource 

communities and sites and natural resource values while providing for resource use and 

development. Alternative IV emphasizes the protection of cultural resource communities and 

sites and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. 

Alternative V, the Preferred Alternative, was developed using a combination of management 

actions from Alternatives I through IV. This alternative emphasizes cultural resource values 

(including tribal values), protection of cultural resource communities and sites and protection 

and enhancement of natural resources, while providing for resource use and development. 
MISSION STATEMENT 

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency of the Department of the 

Interior, to manage BLM-administered lands and resources in a manner that best serves the 

needs of the American people. Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield taking into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and 

non-renewable resources. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

i 

Table of Contents 

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

1.0 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED...............................................................................1

1.1. Introduction and Historical Background ...................................................................1

1.2. Overview of the Plan................................................................................................2

1.3. Purpose and Need for the Plan ...............................................................................7

1.4. Planning Area ..........................................................................................................9

1.5. Scoping Process and Issues ...................................................................................9

1.5.1. Major Issues Addressed ........................................................................................10

1.6. Planning Criteria ....................................................................................................11

1.6.1. Proclamation Requirements ..................................................................................13

1.7. Planning Process...................................................................................................14

1.7.1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs..............................................15

1.7.2. Consultation and Coordination ..............................................................................17

1.8. Related Plans ........................................................................................................19

1.9. Policy .....................................................................................................................20

1.9.1. Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) ...................................................20

1.9.2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)............................................................20

1.9.3. Clean Air Act..........................................................................................................20

1.9.4. Clean Water Act (CWA).........................................................................................20

1.9.5. Endangered Species Act (ESA).............................................................................20

1.9.6. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)............................................................21

1.9.7. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)..........................................................................21

1.9.8. The Brunot Treaty..................................................................................................21

1.10. Overall Vision.........................................................................................................22

2.0 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................23

2.1. Alternative Development, Including the Preferred Alternative ...............................23

2.1.1. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed ............................................................24

2.2. General Description of Alternatives .......................................................................25

2.2.1. Alternative I............................................................................................................29

2.2.2. Alternative II...........................................................................................................29

2.2.3. Alternative III..........................................................................................................30

2.2.4. Alternative IV .........................................................................................................30

2.2.5. Alternative V ..........................................................................................................31
 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ii 

3.0 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................142

3.1. Resources............................................................................................................142

3.1.1. Air Quality and Climate ........................................................................................142

3.1.1.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................142

3.1.1.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................143

3.1.2. Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................147

3.1.2.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................150

3.1.2.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................154

3.1.3. Fuels and Fire Management................................................................................155

3.1.3.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................156

3.1.3.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................157

3.1.4. Geologic Resources ............................................................................................159

3.1.4.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................159

3.1.4.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................160

3.1.5. Paleontological Resources ..................................................................................165

3.1.5.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................165

3.1.5.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................167

3.1.6. Soil Resources.....................................................................................................168

3.1.6.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................168

3.1.6.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................169

3.1.7. Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife ............................................................................178

3.1.7.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................178

3.1.7.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................180

3.1.8. Vegetation Resources .........................................................................................190

3.1.8.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................191

3.1.8.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................192

3.1.9. Visual Resources.................................................................................................205

3.1.9.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................206

3.1.9.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................206

3.1.10. Water Resources...............................................................................................209

3.1.10.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................209

3.1.10.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................211

3.2. Resource Uses ....................................................................................................215

3.2.1. Education and Interpretation................................................................................215

3.2.1.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................215

3.2.1.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................215

3.2.2. Facilities and Infrastructure..................................................................................217

3.2.2.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................217
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

iii 

3.2.2.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................217

3.2.3. Special Forest Products.......................................................................................217

3.2.3.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................217

3.2.3.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................218

3.2.4. Lands and Realty.................................................................................................218

3.2.4.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................219

3.2.4.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................220

3.2.5. Minerals - Fluid ....................................................................................................221

3.2.5.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................221

3.2.5.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................222

3.2.6. Minerals - Solid ....................................................................................................225

3.2.6.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................225

3.2.6.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................226

3.2.7. Rangeland Resources .........................................................................................226

3.2.7.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................227

3.2.7.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................228

3.2.8. Recreation ...........................................................................................................231

3.2.8.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................232

3.2.8.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................233

3.2.9. Transportation......................................................................................................235

3.2.9.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................236

3.2.9.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................236

3.3. Special Designations ...........................................................................................239

3.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)..............................................239

3.3.1.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................239

3.3.1.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................240

3.3.2. Scenic and Historic Byway ..................................................................................240

3.3.2.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................240

3.3.2.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................240

3.3.3. Research Natural Areas (RNAs)..........................................................................241

3.3.3.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................241

3.3.3.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................241

3.3.4. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) ..........................................................................241

3.3.4.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................241

3.3.4.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................241

3.3.5. Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) .........................................................................242

3.3.5.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................242

3.3.5.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................242
 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

iv 

3.4. Social and Economic Conditions .........................................................................243

3.4.1. Public Safety and Law Enforcement....................................................................243

3.4.1.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework............................................244

3.4.1.2. Current Conditions and Trends .................................................................245

3.4.2. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .......................................................245

3.4.2.1. Population..................................................................................................245

3.4.2.2. Employment and Income...........................................................................247

3.4.2.3. Economic Assessment and Key Planning Issues......................................249

3.4.2.4. Social Assessment ....................................................................................251

3.4.2.5. Environmental Justice ...............................................................................252

4.0 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.................................................254

4.1. Impact Analysis Methods and Assumptions ........................................................255

4.1.1. Analysis of Alternatives........................................................................................255

4.1.2. Impact Analysis....................................................................................................255

4.1.3. Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................257

4.1.4. General Levels of Impacts ...................................................................................258

4.1.5. Impact Analysis Components ..............................................................................258

4.1.5.1. Protective Stipulations and Other Restrictions on Surface Use.................264

4.2. Resources and Resource Uses ...........................................................................265

4.2.1. Air Quality ............................................................................................................265

4.2.1.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................266

4.2.1.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................268

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................268

Action Alternatives.....................................................................................................268

4.2.2. Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................275

4.2.2.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................277

4.2.2.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................278

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................278

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................280

Alternative III .............................................................................................................282

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................285

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................287

4.2.2.3. Cultural Resources Management Impact Comparison..............................289

4.2.2.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................289

4.2.3. Fuels and Fire Management................................................................................293

4.2.3.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................293

4.2.3.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................294

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................294

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................295

Alternative III .............................................................................................................297

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................298

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................300
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

v 

4.2.3.3. Fuels and Fire Management Impact Comparison .....................................301

4.2.3.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................301

4.2.4. Geologic Resources ............................................................................................303

4.2.4.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................303

4.2.4.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................303

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................304

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................304

Alternative III .............................................................................................................306

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................307

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................308

4.2.4.3. Geologic Resources Management Impact Comparison ............................310

4.2.4.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................310

4.2.5. Paleontological Resources ..................................................................................313

4.2.5.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................313

4.2.5.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................313

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................314

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................315

Alternative III .............................................................................................................316

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................318

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................319

4.2.5.3. Paleontological Resources Management Impact Comparison..................320

4.2.5.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................321

4.2.6. Soil Resources.....................................................................................................324

4.2.6.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................325

4.2.6.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................325

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................325

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................327

Alternative III .............................................................................................................329

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................331

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................333

4.2.6.3. Soil Resources Management Impact Comparison ....................................335

4.2.6.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................335

4.2.7. Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife ............................................................................338

4.2.7.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................342

4.2.7.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................343

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................343

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................346

Alternative III .............................................................................................................349

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................351

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................353

4.2.7.3. Wildlife and Special Status Species Management Impact Comparison ....356

4.2.7.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................356

4.2.8. Vegetation Resources .........................................................................................359

4.2.8.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................360

4.2.8.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................361

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................361
 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

vi 

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................363

Alternative III .............................................................................................................366

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................368

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................370

4.2.8.3. Vegetation Resources Management Impact Comparison .........................372

4.2.8.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................373

4.2.9. Visual Resources.................................................................................................378

4.2.9.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................378

4.2.9.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................378

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................378

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................380

Alternative III .............................................................................................................381

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................383

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................385

4.2.9.3. Visual Resources Management Impact Comparison ................................387

4.2.9.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................387

4.2.10. Water Resources...............................................................................................390

4.2.10.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................392

4.2.10.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................393

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................393

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................395

Alternative III .............................................................................................................397

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................399

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................402

4.2.10.3. Water Resources Management Impact Comparison.................................404

4.2.10.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................404

4.2.11. Education and Interpretation .............................................................................408

4.2.11.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................408

4.2.11.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................409

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................409

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................410

Alternative III .............................................................................................................411

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................412

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................413

4.2.11.3. Education and Interpretation Management Impact Comparison ...............414

4.2.11.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................414

4.2.12. Facilities and Infrastructure ...............................................................................416

4.2.12.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................416

4.2.12.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................416

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................416

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................418

Alternative III .............................................................................................................419

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................420

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................421

4.2.12.3. Facilities and Infrastructure Management Impact Comparison .................423

4.2.12.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................423
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

vii 

4.2.13. Special Forest Products ....................................................................................425

4.2.13.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................425

4.2.13.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................426

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................426

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................427

Alternative III .............................................................................................................428

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................430

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................432

4.2.13.3. Special Forest Products Management Impact Comparison ......................433

4.2.13.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................433

4.2.14. Lands and Realty ..............................................................................................437

4.2.14.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................437

4.2.14.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................438

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................438

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................439

Alternative III .............................................................................................................440

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................442

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................444

4.2.14.3. Lands and Realty Management Impact Comparison.................................446

4.2.14.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................446

4.2.15. Minerals.............................................................................................................449

4.2.15.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................450

4.2.15.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................451

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................451

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................451

Alternative III .............................................................................................................452

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................453

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................454

4.2.15.3. Minerals Management Impact Comparison...............................................455

4.2.15.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................455

4.2.16. Rangeland Resources.......................................................................................457

4.2.16.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................458

4.2.16.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................459

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................459

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................461

Alternative III .............................................................................................................463

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................465

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................467

4.2.16.3. Rangeland Resources Management Impact Comparison.........................469

4.2.16.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................469

4.2.17. Recreation .........................................................................................................473

4.2.17.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................473

4.2.17.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................474

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................474

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................475

Alternative III .............................................................................................................476
 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

viii 

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................478

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................479

4.2.17.3. Recreation Management Impact Comparison ...........................................480

4.2.17.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................480

4.2.18. Transportation ...................................................................................................484

4.2.18.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................485

4.2.18.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................486

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................486

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................487

Alternative III .............................................................................................................489

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................490

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................492

4.2.18.3. Transportation Management Impact Comparison .....................................493

4.2.18.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................493

4.3. Special Designations ...........................................................................................497

4.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.............................................................497

4.3.1.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................497

4.3.1.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................497

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................497

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................498

Alternative III .............................................................................................................499

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................500

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................501

4.3.1.3. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Impact Comparison...................502

4.3.1.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................502

4.3.2. Scenic and Historic Byway ..................................................................................505

4.3.2.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................505

4.3.2.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................505

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................506

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................506

Alternative III .............................................................................................................507

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................508

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................509

4.3.2.3. Scenic and Historic Byway Management Impact Comparison ..................510

4.3.2.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................510

4.3.3. Research Natural Areas ......................................................................................513

4.3.3.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................513

4.3.3.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................513

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................514

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................514

Alternative III .............................................................................................................515

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................516

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................517

4.3.3.3. Research Natural Areas Management Impact Comparison ......................518

4.3.3.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................518

4.3.4. Wild and Scenic Rivers........................................................................................520
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ix 

4.3.4.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................520

4.3.4.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................520

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................521

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................521

Alternative III .............................................................................................................522

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................523

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................523

4.3.4.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Impact Comparison........................524

4.3.4.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................524

4.3.5. Wilderness Study Areas ......................................................................................526

4.3.5.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................526

4.3.5.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................526

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................526

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................527

Alternative III .............................................................................................................528

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................529

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................530

4.3.5.3. Wilderness Study Areas Management Impact Comparison ......................532

4.3.5.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................532

4.3.6. Public Safety and Law Enforcement....................................................................534

4.3.6.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions.........................................................534

4.3.6.2. Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................534

Alternative I (No Action Alternative) ..........................................................................535

Alternative II ..............................................................................................................536

Alternative III .............................................................................................................537

Alternative IV.............................................................................................................538

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................................539

4.3.6.3. Public Safety and Law Enforcement Management Impact Comparison....540

4.3.6.4. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................540

4.4. Social and Economic Conditions .........................................................................542

4.4.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................542

4.4.2. Economic Impact Analysis...................................................................................542

4.4.2.1. Social Impact Analysis...............................................................................546

4.4.2.2. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................549

4.4.2.3. Environmental Justice ...............................................................................550

5.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................552
 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

x 

List of Tables 

Table 1-1 Public Workshop Summary ....................................................................................10

Table 1-2 Planning Issues Raised by Public and Agency Staff During Scoping (Percent of 

Comments) ............................................................................................................11

Table 1-3 Existing and Associated BLM Management Plans and Policies.............................15

Table 2-1 Management Actions for Alternatives I Through V .................................................32

Air Quality................................................................................................................................32

Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................32

Fuels and Fire Management ...................................................................................................47

Geology...................................................................................................................................56

Paleontological Resources......................................................................................................57

Soil Resources ........................................................................................................................58

Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species and Habitats.............................................................59

Vegetation Resources.............................................................................................................66

Visual Resources ....................................................................................................................73

Water Resources.....................................................................................................................74

Education and Interpretation ...................................................................................................80

Facilities and Infrastructure .....................................................................................................83

Special Forest Products ..........................................................................................................84

Lands and Realty ....................................................................................................................85

Minerals...................................................................................................................................90

Rangeland Resources...........................................................................................................101

Recreation.............................................................................................................................110

Transportation .......................................................................................................................121

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) .................................................................132

Scenic and Historic Byway ....................................................................................................133

Research Natural Area (RNA)...............................................................................................134

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR)..............................................................................................135

Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) ............................................................................................136

Public Safety and Law Enforcement .....................................................................................137

Table 2-2 Surface Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Currently Unleased Federal and 

Split-Mineral Estate Over 20-Year Planning Period.............................................139

Table 2-3 Current Permitted and Calculated Allocation AUMs, by Allotment .......................140

Table 3-1 Air Quality Standards, Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs), and Air Quality 

Related Value (AQRV) Criteria ............................................................................144
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xi 

Table 3-2 Summary of Background Air Quality and AQRV Data..........................................146

Table 3-3 National Register Status of Recorded Cultural Resources, by Component..........148

Table 3-4 Cultural Chronology for Southwest Colorado .......................................................150

Table 3-5 Cultural Resource Mandates and/or Authorities ...................................................152

Table 3-6 Geologic Time Periods in the Monument..............................................................162

Table 3-7 Soil Properties for Soil in Canyons and on Hills, Federal Land Only....................169

Table 3-8 Soil Properties for Soils on Hills and Mesas .........................................................170

Table 3-9 Soil Properties on Floodplains, Stream Terraces, and Alluvial Fans, Federal Land 

Only .....................................................................................................................173

Table 3-10 Public Land Health Assessment Ratings for Soil and Site Stability......................175

Table 3-11 Public Land Health Assessment Rating for Hydrologic Function..........................176

Table 3-12 Average Ground Cover Values (%) for Ecological Sites in the Monument...........177

Table 3-13 Average, Highest, and Lowest Ground Cover Values (%) for the Monument.......178

Table 3-14 Special Status Wildlife Species Present or Potentially Present............................184

Table 3-15 General Vegetation Types and Constituent Ecological Sites ...............................191

Table 3-16 Public Land Health Evaluation Ratings for Biotic Integrity and Vegetation Condition 

Ratings.................................................................................................................193

Table 3-17 Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Ratings for Evaluated Springs and Seeps..197

Table 3-18 Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Ratings for Evaluated Lotic Riparian Systems

.............................................................................................................................199

Table 3-19 Federal, BLM, and USFS Sensitive Plant Species Known or Suspected to Occur in 

the Monument......................................................................................................201

Table 3-20 Scenic Quality Rating Units (SQRUs)...................................................................207

Table 3-21 Perennial Streams in the Monument ....................................................................211

Table 3-22 Intermittent Streams With Established Riparian Areas in the Monument .............212

Table 3-23 Deep Groundwater Aquifers and Associated Stratigraphic Units .........................214

Table 3-24 Active BLM Authorizations for Rights-of Ways (ROWs) .......................................220

Table 3-25 Estimated Oil and Gas Reserves of Units Inside and Outside the Monument......223

Table 3-26 Lease Status of Federal Mineral Estates in the Monument ..................................224

Table 3-27 Standards for Public Land Health – BLM Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Determinations

.............................................................................................................................228

Table 3-28 Outfitters and Guides Operating in the Monument ...............................................233

Table 3-29 Total Commercial Client Days by Outfitter for Years 1999 through 2003.............234

Table 3-30 County Roads Intersecting Canyons of the Ancients National Monument ...........237

Table 3-31 Road Categories, Specifications, and Lengths Within Canyons of the Ancients 

National Monument..............................................................................................238
 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xii 

Table 3-32 Wild and Scenic River (WSR) Eligibility Summary................................................242

Table 3-33 Existing Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal Areas

.............................................................................................................................243

Table 3-34 Study Area Population .........................................................................................246

Table 3-35 Employment and Income Summary for Montezuma County 2005 .......................248

Table 3-36 Employment and Income Summary for Dolores County 2005..............................249

Table 4-1 Impact Analysis Components ...............................................................................259

Table 4-2 Air Quality Standards, Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs), and Air Quality 

Related Value (AQRV) Criteria ............................................................................270

Table 4-3 Summary of Project Emissions.............................................................................271

Table 4-4 Comparison of Direct Project Impacts to Class II Significant Impact Levels (SILs)

.............................................................................................................................271

Table 4-5 Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to Class II PSD Increments.......271

Table 4-6 Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to NAAQS .................................272

Table 4-7 Comparison of Direct Project Impacts to Class I Significant Impact Levels (SILs)

.............................................................................................................................273

Table 4-8 Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to Class I PSD Increments........273

Table 4-9 Sulfur and Nitrogen Deposition Impacts ...............................................................274

Table 4-10 Comparison of Impacts to Cultural Resources .....................................................291

Table 4-11 Comparison of Impacts to Fuels and Fire Management.......................................302

Table 4-12 Comparison of Impacts to Geologic Resources ...................................................311

Table 4-13 Comparison of Impacts to Paleontological Resources .........................................322

Table 4-14 Comparison of Impacts to Soil Resources............................................................336

Table 4-15 Comparison of Impacts to Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species .....................357

Table 4-16 Comparison of Impacts to Vegetation Resources ................................................375

Table 4-17 Comparison of Impacts to Visual Resources........................................................388

Table 4-18 Comparison of Impacts to Water Resources ........................................................407

Table 4-19 Comparison of Impacts to Education and Interpretation.......................................415

Table 4-20 Comparison of Impacts to Facilities and Infrastructure........................................424

Table 4-21 Comparison of Impacts to Special Forest Products.............................................435

Table 4-22 Comparison of Impacts to Lands and Realty.......................................................447

Table 4-23 Surface Impacts of Fluid Minerals Development on Currently Unleased Federal 

and Split- Minerals Estate Over 20-Year Planning Period...................................449

Table 4-24 Comparison of Impacts to Fluid Minerals Management ......................................456

Table 4-25 Comparison of Impacts to Rangeland Resources ...............................................471

Table 4-26 Comparison of Impacts to Recreation Management ...........................................482
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xiii 

Table 4-27 Comparison of Impacts to Transportation Management......................................495

Table 4-28 Comparison of Impacts to Areas of Critical Environmental Concern...................503

Table 4-29 Comparison of Impacts to Scenic and Historic Byway ........................................512

Table 4-30 Comparison of Impacts to Research Natural Areas ............................................519

Table 4-31 Comparison of Impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers..............................................525

Table 4-32 Comparison of Impacts to Wilderness Study Areas ............................................533

Table 4-33 Comparison of Impacts to Public Safety and Law Enforcement..........................541

Table 4-34 Summary of Economic Impacts, End of Planning Period ....................................542

Table 4-35 Summary of Economic Baseline/No Action Forecast for Study Area ..................543

Table 4-36 Economic Impacts for Baseline/Alternative I (No Action Alternative)...................544

Table 4-37 Economic Impacts for Alternative II .....................................................................545

Table 4-38 Economic Impacts for Alternative IV....................................................................546

Table 4-39 Economic Impacts for Alternative V (Preferred Alternative).................................546

Table 4-40 Measures for Social and Cumulative Impact Analysis.........................................547

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Location....................................................................................................................4

Figure 1-2 Land Ownership .......................................................................................................5

Figure 1-3 Topography ..............................................................................................................6

Figure 3-1 Population Trends for Montezuma and Dolores Counties....................................246

Figure 3-2 Total Employment in Montezuma and Dolores Counties......................................247

Figure 3-3 Total Personal Income in Montezuma and Dolores Counties...............................248

Figure 3-4 Net Farm Income for Dolores and Montezuma Counties .....................................251

Figure 3-5 Individuals Below Poverty Threshold in 2000.......................................................253

List of Maps 

Map 1 Distribution of Inventoried Cultural Resources 

Map 2 Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Map 3 Livestock Grazing Allotments 

Map 4 Recreation Management, by Alternative 

Map 5 Transportation Roads, by Alternative 

Map 6 Fuels and Fire Management, by Alternative 

Map 7 Visual Resource Management, by Alternative 

Map 8 Special Designation Areas, by Alternative 
 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xiv 

Map 9 Geology 

Map 10 Soils 

Map 11 Wildlife 

Map 12 Vegetation 

Map 13 Special Status Plant Species and Significant Plant Communities 

Map 14 Water Resources 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A Monument Proclamation

Appendix B Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

Appendix C Recreation Analysis Process

Appendix D BLM Colorado Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Management

Appendix E Best Management Practices

Appendix F Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Advisory Committee Considerations 

and Guidance For Management Decisions 

Appendix G Travel Management Network Methodology

Appendix H Terrestrial and Aquatic Vertebrate Wildlife Species Known to Occur, or with a 

Reasonable Potential to Occur, as Residents or Breeding Migrants

Appendix I Socioeconomics

Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Air Quality Assessment Technical 

Support Document

Appendix K Stipulations

Acronyms 

Glossary 

List of Preparers 
Executive 

Summary
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Executive Summary 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (the Monument), administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), is located in the Four Corners area of southwestern Colorado, 

approximately 50 miles west of Durango, 10 miles west of Cortez, and 12 miles west of Mesa 

Verde National Park in Dolores and Montezuma Counties. The “Monument”, consists of lands 

within the original Monument boundary including inholdings that have been acquired since the 

Monument was established in June 2000. The entire planning area includes the Monument, 

acquired edgeholdings, and the Anasazi Heritage Center. This DRMP/DEIS presents 

alternative options for the management of the Monument, as well as an analysis of impacts for 

these alternatives. The 165,000-acre Monument contains the highest known density of 

archaeological sites in the United States. It offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native 

American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique 

recreation opportunities. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires the development and 

maintenance, and, as appropriate, the revision of Resource Management Plans (RMPs), or land 

use plans, for public lands. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as 

amended, requires Federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 

major Federal actions that could significantly affect the environment. BLM Interim Management 

for all National Monuments (BLM 2001a) requires completion of land use plan evaluations and 

stand-alone RMPs for all National Monuments. In fulfillment of these requirements, this Draft 

Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS) documents 

the comprehensive analysis of alternatives and environmental impacts for the planning and 

management of public lands and resources administered by the BLM in the Monument. The 

purpose, or goal, in developing this land use plan is to ensure that public lands and mineral 

estate administered by the BLM in the Monument are managed in accordance with applicable 

laws, as well as with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The Monument, 

although under the administrative care and management of BLM staff, belongs to the American 

people; thus, it is the overriding goal of the BLM to actively seek out, engage, and include the 

public, and all other interested parties, in this planning process – a process that could shape 

how visitors perceive, experience, use, and enjoy this National Monument. 

PLAN FOUNDATION 

The Monument was established in 2000 by Presidential Proclamation Number 7317 (the 

Proclamation, Executive Order 2000), pursuant to Section 2 of the Antiquities Act of June 8, 

1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S. Code [USC] 431), to preserve the cultural and natural objects of the 

Monument. The Proclamation (Appendix A) states: 

Containing the highest known density of archaeological sites in the Nation...natural 

resources and spectacular landforms...rugged and dissected geology...and wildlife 

species...I do proclaim... for the purpose of protecting the objects identified 

above...Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. 

As mandated by the Proclamation, the focus of this DRMP/DEIS is the preservation of the 

objects of the Monument, as required by the Proclamation, within the context of multiple uses 

under BLM management. This mandate remained the central focus of the Monument Manager 

and staff as issues and alternatives were identified in the planning process, and resulted in a 

more narrow range of alternatives than that typically found in other land use assessments. Four 

primary issues are considered throughout this DRMP/DEIS: cultural resources management, 
Executive Summary Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-2 

rangeland management, oil and gas management, and transportation and recreation 

management. The following chart represents the Monument’s approach to meeting 

Proclamation requirements while, at the same time, effectively managing these primary issues: 

In accordance with the Proclamation, this DRMP/DEIS was developed to guide and define 

Monument management actions, and to provide an integrated plan that guides future land use 

decisions and project-specific analyses in the Monument, while complying with the requirements 

of the FLPMA and the NEPA. This DRMP/DEIS addresses land use issues identified through 

BLM agency, interagency, and public scoping efforts and establishes a range of alternatives that 

support management goals and objectives, via specific management actions, in accordance 

with BLM policies and land use planning guidelines. 

Prior to the issuance of the Proclamation, the Monument was managed as an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC), established in the San Juan/San Miguel Resource 

Management Plan/Record of Decision (San Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD) (BLM 1985). Oil and 

gas development within the Monument has been managed in accordance with the San 

Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD Amendment (BLM 1991a). 

This DRMP/DEIS provides updated management direction that addresses social, 

environmental, and administrative conditions that have changed since the San Juan/San Miguel 

RMP ROD (BLM 1985) was developed. This document also addresses a number of new 

issues, higher levels of controversy around existing issues, and concerns over new public land 

uses that were not addressed in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD (BLM 1985). 

The formal scoping process for this document was initiated on April 24, 2002, with the 

publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a DRMP/DEIS in the Federal Register. The 

BLM provided an extended public scoping period between April 2002 and November 2003 to 

allow ample opportunity for public comment and for involvement in the initial stages of planning. 

During this time, input was received from BLM staff, other resource and land management 

agencies, local governments, State government, Native American tribes, individual citizens, 

environmental groups, industry, and other interested parties. In 2003 numerous meetings were 

Oil and Gas 

Management 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Management 

Rangeland 

Management 

Cultural and 

Natural Resources 

Management 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Executive Summary 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-3 

held with the Monument Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee 

identified six priority issues and provided recommendations for each issue. 

MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Five management alternatives, and their associated environmental impacts and related issues, 

are described and analyzed in this document. The alternatives reflect a reasonable range of 

potential management actions, based on the language in the Presidential Proclamation, the 

Analysis of the Management Situation, and public scoping. The alternatives in this DRMP/DEIS 

seek to fully address the changing needs of the planning area, with the goal of selecting a 

management strategy that best achieves an effective combination of management actions, 

including: 

 addressing all of the BLM-administered public lands within the Monument; 

 employing a community-based planning approach that complies with applicable local, 

State, Federal, and Native American tribal laws, standards, policies, and implementation 

plans, as well as with all BLM polices and regulations; 

 recognizing valid existing rights while complying with the FLPMA, the NEPA, and all 

applicable laws, regulations, policies, and guidance; 

 coordinating with Native American tribes to identify sites, areas, and objects important to 

their cultural and religious heritage; 

 establishing goals and objectives (desired outcomes) for managing resources and 

resource values according to the principles of multiple use and sustained yield while, 

adhering to the Proclamation mandate to protect the objects of the Monument; 

 identifying land use planning decisions that will serve to guide future land management 

actions and site-specific implementation decisions in the Monument; 

 considering current scientific information, research, new technologies, and the results of 

relevant resource assessments, monitoring, and coordination; 

 considering current and potential future uses of the public lands in the Monument 

through the development of reasonable foreseeable future developments and activity 

scenarios based on historical, existing, and projected levels of use; 

 recognizing the Nation’s needs for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber, 

and incorporating the requirements of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

Reauthorization, the Energy Policy Act, the National Fire Plan, the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act, and the Healthy Forest Initiative; and 

 retaining flexibility so that the Monument can adapt to new and emerging issues and 

opportunities and provide for adjustments to decisions over time, based on new 

information and monitoring. 

ISSUES 

Planning issues identify demands, concerns, and/or conflicts regarding the use or management 

of public lands and resources. These issues typically express potential impacts on land and 

resource values. For this DRMP/DEIS, seven issues accounted for almost 77 percent of the 

scoping comments received from local communities (including Durango, Dolores, Cortez, and 

Mancos) and agencies. These issues were taken into consideration during the formulation of 

the DRMP/DEIS alternatives, as well as during the evaluation of those alternatives. These 

issues include the following (see Table 1-2): 
Executive Summary Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-4 

 Cultural Issues: Concerns included the protection/preservation of cultural resources for 

purposes of current and future scientific research, education, and Native American 

cultural heritage; development opportunities; access to cultural resource sites; and 

looting. 

 General Recreation: Concerns included permitted and restricted types of recreation 

and their allocated “zones” or locations, and related roads and transportation issues, 

such as motorized and mechanized access and limitations. 

 Transportation Network: Concerns included road closures and access, and road 

maintenance and improvements. 

 Rangeland Management/Grazing: Concerns included management for Public Land 

Health Standards, administration of grazing allotments, and evaluation of grazing 

impacts in terms of current standards and guidelines. 

 Mineral Resources: Concerns included limitations on oil and gas exploration and 

development, mitigation of impacts from existing and new mineral exploration and 

development. 

 Visitor Use: Concerns included visitor education opportunities, facility development and 

improvements, and commercial and not-for-profit tours. 

ALTERNATIVES 

The alternatives analyzed in this DRMP/DEIS are numbered I through V. These alternatives 

represent a range in management actions, as summarized below, and are described in terms of 

the four primary management programs: cultural resources, oil and gas resources, rangeland 

resources, and recreation and transportation (See Table ES-1). 

 Alternative I: Alternative I is the No Action Alternative, representing no change from 

current management. The NEPA of 1969 requires consideration of a No Action 

Alternative. This Alternative provides a basis for comparing the impacts of the other 

alternatives. 

 Alternative II: Alternative II emphasizes cultural resource values, i.e., communities, 

sites, and isolated finds and including Native American tribal values, cultural resource 

protection, and natural resource protection and enhancement. 

 Alternative III: Alternative III emphasizes cultural resource site protection, i.e., 

communities and sites, and natural resource values protection and enhancement while 

at the same time, providing for resource use and development. 

 Alternative IV: Alternative IV emphasizes cultural resource site protection, i.e., 

communities and sites, and natural resource values protection and enhancement while 

encouraging resource use and development. 

 Alternative V: Alternative V is the Preferred Alternative and was developed using a 

combination of management actions from Alternatives I through IV. This alternative 

emphasizes cultural resource values, i.e., communities and sites, and including tribal 

values, cultural resource and natural resource protection and enhancement, while 

providing for resource use and development. 

Cultural Resources 

To protect cultural resources, so that information can be obtained from individual artifacts and/or 

sites as well as at the community or landscape level, development of all fluid mineral lease 

areas in the Monument will be carried out utilizing the Best Management Practices (BMPs) 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Executive Summary 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-5 

strategy entitled “Geographic Area Development Plan” (GADP), that is described in BLM 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-152. A GADP is the result of comprehensive development 

planning for a proposed or defined oil and gas field(s) or a limited geographic area within a field, 

that meets both the environmental management needs of the BLM, and the economic needs of 

the company. Once cultural resource data collection is completed, this data will be used as the 

basis for delineating prehistoric communities that are defined by the time period of occupation 

and use of an area. Proposed oil and gas development locations will be evaluated to determine 

if placement of developments without direct impacts to communities, sites, and/or isolated finds 

is possible based upon the distribution and density of prehistoric communities. Finally, areas or 

locations will be identified in which no oil and gas development will be allowed, as well as areas 

or locations where development may occur without direct impacts to communities, sites, and 

isolated artifacts. A prehistoric community is defined as the collective physical remains or 

expressions of a cultural group’s occupation and use of a geographical area during an 

established chronological period of time. 

Oil and Gas Resources 

To provide a reasonable range of alternatives for oil and gas development, Alternatives I and IV 

were analyzed, although neither are considered viable options. Under Alternative I, there would 

be no new issuance of oil and gas leases (although existing leases would not be affected). 

While the Proclamation specifically states that the Monument shall remain open to oil and gas 

leasing, a settlement agreement related to the Mail Trail Seismic Project halted leasing until the 

Monument Plan was complete (SJCA v. Gale Norton 2002). By law, the BLM must, at a 

minimum, lease for drainage purposes. Alternative IV allows 24,462 new acres to be available 

for leasing with a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation for cultural resource protection. 

However, given the high density of cultural resource sites, leasing 24,462 acres for mineral 

development is considered outside the mandate of the Proclamation. Implementing a 

NSO/NGD stipulation on this large acreage is not feasible. 

Rangeland Resources 

Five livestock grazing allotments are proposed to be closed in Alternatives II, III, and V to 

prevent conflicts with recreational activities and to prevent damage to cultural resources. These 

allotments are permitted for 124 animal unit months (AUMs). Four of the five allotments 

proposed for closure are currently vacant. Actions proposed under the various alternatives 

serve the primary objective of meeting Colorado Standards for Public Land Health. Meeting 

these standards is required. The primary difference between alternatives is the amount of time 

it will take, based on actions proposed, to achieve the standards. 

Recreation Management 

The BLM designates Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) to help manage 

recreation opportunities in the Monument. The alternatives identify a range of activities that 

would be permitted in six SRMAs. The SRMAs would be managed to protect the natural setting 

while allowing primitive and some developed recreation experiences, as well as opportunities to 

visit unique cultural resource sites. The Preferred Alternative would prohibit recreational 

shooting in the Monument. There are currently no organized recreational shooting groups with 

Special Recreation Permits nor are there BLM-designated areas for recreational shooting in the 

Monument. However, recreational shooting is resulting in damage (vandalism) to cultural 

resource sites (rock art panels and standing masonry walls) and natural resources (cliff faces 

and litter, including shell casings, clay pigeons, broken glass, cans, etc.). Visitor safety is a 

major concern, especially in high visitor use areas such as Sand Canyon, Sand Canyon Pueblo, 

Painted Hand Pueblo, and Lowry Pueblo. As stated in the Proclamation, hunting would be 

allowed and would continue to be managed by the State of Colorado. 
Executive Summary Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-6 

Transportation Management 

Based on direction from the Secretary of the Interior and the BLM Washington and State 

Offices, the Monument has worked with constituents, local governments, communities, Native 

American tribes, partners, and other groups and agencies to develop a preferred alternative with 

regard to transportation issues. The Monument was directed to look at transportation issues, 

specifically mountain biking issues, during the planning process. The Proclamation states, “For 

the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, the Secretary of the Interior shall prohibit 

all motorized and mechanized use off road, except for emergency or authorized administrative 

purposes.” However, the Proclamation does not specifically define “off-road”. In 2000, the 

Secretary of the Interior instructed, “The Proclamation will be implemented through the 

management plan for the area and should include a transportation plan that addresses road 

closures, travel restrictions as necessary to protect the objects identified in the Proclamation, 

and the continued use of the Sand Canyon/East Fork Rock Creek mountain bike loop.” (Memo 

dated June 28, 2000 from the Secretary of the Interior to the Director, Bureau of Land 

Management). Based on several years of monitoring, the Preferred Alternative considers 

mechanized travel (bicycles) a conditional use in the Sand Canyon/Rock Creek Special 

Recreation Management Area (SRMA). If damage begins to occur to the objects of the 

Monument because of this mechanized travel, the use would no longer be allowed. The 

Preferred Alternative reflects what the Monument Manager and staff believe will best “protect 

the objects of the Monument” while, at the same time, allowing mountain biking on some 

existing roads. (NOTE: For the purpose of this DRMP/DEIS, a “road” is defined as an open way 

for the passage of vehicles, persons, or animals on land, regardless of the type of travel; and 

“off-road” is defined as cross-country travel between designated roads. All off-road travel by 

motorized and/or mechanized vehicles is prohibited in the Monument.) 

Alternative I 

Alternative I, required by NEPA, is the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, current 

management actions and goals would continue, and existing or approved land uses would 

continue. Current management actions are derived from the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (BLM 

1985) with its amendments; the Anasazi ACEC Plan Management Guideline (BLM 1986a); and 

the Monument Proclamation (Appendix A), BLM Director's Interim Management Policy for 

Bureau of Land Management Monuments and National Conservation Areas (BLM 2001a), BLM 

Colorado State Director's Guidance for Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM 

2001b), the Secretary of the Interior's Memorandum for Management of the Canyons of the 

Ancients National Monument (USDOI 2000), and the Interim Management Guidance for Oil and 

Gas Leasing and Development of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM 

2001c). Under this alternative, cultural resource sites would continue to be developed for 

visitation and for interpretation. 

While the Proclamation specifically states that the Monument shall remain open to oil and gas 

leasing, a settlement agreement related to the Mail Trail Seismic Project halted leasing until the 

Monument Plan was complete (SJCA v. Gale Norton 2002). However, by law, the BLM must, at 

a minimum, lease for drainage purposes. This deferment is analyzed in the No Action 

Alternative. Rangeland resources would be based upon 8,492 active AUMs, with 1,692 AUMs 

suspended. Under Alternative I, the implemented recreation/transportation system would be 

based the 1985 San Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD (BLM 1985), with regard to seven recreation 

and transportation facilities and 149 miles of roads. This alternative does not include the 

development of a comprehensive transportation plan, which the Proclamation mandates. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Executive Summary 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-7 

Alternative II 

This alternative maximizes cultural resource protection by avoiding impacts to cultural resource 

communities, sites, and isolated finds. This management strategy maintains large blocks of 

undisturbed land that provide information on not only individual sites and artifacts but also on 

their interconnectedness (i.e., how they relate to each other). Alternative II would develop the 

outdoor museum concept where Monument visitors can experience cultural and natural 

resources through self-discovery. This outdoor museum concept would provide a backcountry 

experience to the visiting public. In addition, 13 cultural sites would be developed and visitation 

would be facilitated through the use of developed roads and interpretive signs. The 

development of these cultural resource sites would enhance the visitor experience. 

To protect against drainage, it is estimated that up to 880 acres would be available for new fluid 

mineral leases. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between livestock 

grazing and recreational activities, and to protect cultural resources by closing five livestock 

grazing allotments. Under Alternative II, rangeland allocation would be calculated at 6,437 

active AUMs and at 3,706 suspended AUMs. Common reserve allotments would be 

established. The Monument would meet Public Land Health Standards by reducing authorized 

use, by adjusting the duration and extent of spring livestock grazing, and by implementing restrotation grazing schedules. 

Alternative II would achieve recreation objectives through the management of SRMAs, and 

Recreation Management Zones (RMZs). Seven facilities, and supporting infrastructure, would 

be developed for recreation and transportation use, which would promote a less developed 

recreation strategy. A total of 139 miles of access roads would be maintained under Alternative 

II, with most existing user-created roads closed and reclaimed. 

Alternative III 

Alternative III emphasizes the protection of cultural resource communities and sites while, at the 

same time, providing for resource use and development. This management strategy would 

maintain large blocks of undisturbed land, although not as large as Alternative II, and would 

provide for the retrieval of information on not only individual sites and artifacts, but also on their 

interconnectedness (i.e., how they relate to each other). Alternative III would develop the 

outdoor museum concept of self-discovery of cultural and natural resources. In addition, 13 to 

25 sites would be developed and visitation would be facilitated through the use of developed 

roads and interpretive signs. 

Under this alternative, approximately 3,021 acres would be available for new oil and gas leases; 

however, these would be limited to areas within the McElmo Dome Unit boundary. Rangeland 

resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between livestock grazing and recreational 

activities, and to protect cultural resources by closing five livestock grazing allotments. 

Allocation would be calculated at 8,368 active AUMs, with 1,655 AUMs suspended. Common 

reserve allotments would be established. The Monument would meet Public Land Health 

Standards by adjusting the duration and extent of spring livestock grazing, and by implementing 

rest-rotation grazing schedules. 

Alternative III would achieve recreation objectives through the management of SRMAs and 

RMZs. Thirteen facilities, and their supporting infrastructure, would be developed for recreation 

and transportation use, which would promote a destination management strategy. A total of 189 

miles of roads would be maintained under Alternative III, with some existing user-created roads 

closed and reclaimed. 
Executive Summary Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-8 

Alternative IV 

This alternative emphasizes the protection of cultural resource communities and sites while, at 

the same time, encouraging resource use and development. This management strategy would 

maintain large blocks of undisturbed land, although not as large as Alternative II, and would 

provide for the retrieval of information on not only individual sites and artifacts, but also on their 

interconnectedness (i.e., how they relate to each other). Alternative IV would develop the 

outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources. In addition, 13 to 

25 sites would be developed and visitation would be facilitated through the use of developed 

roads and interpretive signs. 

Under this alternative, approximately 24,462 acres would be available for new oil and gas 

leases. Rangeland allocation would be calculated at 8,492 active AUMs, with 1,692 suspended 

AUMs. Common reserve allotments would be established. The Monument would meet Public 

Land Health Standards by adjusting the duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and by 

implementing rest-rotation schedules. Alternative IV would identify recreation objectives 

through the management of SRMAs and RMZs. Twenty facilities, and supporting infrastructure, 

would be developed for recreation and transportation use, which would promote a destination 

management strategy. A total of 213 miles of roads would be maintained under Alternative IV, 

with no user-created roads closed or reclaimed. 

Alternative V 

As the Preferred Alternative, Alternative V represents the best fit between protecting the objects 

of the Monument and allowing multiple uses of appropriate resources. Alternative V 

emphasizes the protection of cultural resource communities and sites while, at the same time, 

providing for resource use and development. This management strategy would maintain large 

blocks of undisturbed land, although not as large as Alternative II, and would provide for the 

retrieval of information on not only individual sites and artifacts, but also on their 

interconnectedness (i.e., how they relate to each other). Alternative V would develop the 

outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources. In addition, 13 to 

25 sites would be developed and visitation would be facilitated through the use of developed 

roads and interpretive signs. 

To protect against drainage, it is estimated that up to 880 acres would be made available for oil 

and gas leases. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between livestock 

grazing and recreational activities, and to protect cultural resources by closing five livestock 

grazing allotments. Allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active AUMs, with 3,706 suspended 

AUMs. Common reserve allotments would be established. The Monument would meet Public 

Land Health Standards by emphasizing a reduction of authorized use, by adjusting the duration 

and extent of spring livestock grazing, and by implementing rest-rotation grazing schedules. 

Alternative V would achieve recreation objectives through the management of SRMAs, 

consisting of several RMZs. Eleven facilities, and supporting infrastructure, would be developed 

to support recreation and transportation use. A total of 169 miles of roads would be maintained 

under this alternative, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The environmental consequences that could result from the management prescriptions of the 

five alternatives are described in Chapter 4. These potential consequences are analyzed and 

discussed for each resource or resource use, providing an analysis of environmental effects 

resulting from management of all resources and resource uses. This discussion includes an 

analysis of cumulative effects, which are defined as the impacts that result from the incremental 

impact of an action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Executive Summary 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-9 

The BLM encourages the public to review and comment on the alternatives and to raise 

concerns, if any, about proposed management. 

READER’S GUIDE 

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT 

This document is presented in five chapters and appendices, consistent with all applicable 

Federal requirements guiding the preparation of a Draft Resource Management Plan (DRMP) 

and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The following are the chapter titles for this 

document and brief descriptions of the chapter contents: 

 Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need: This chapter offers a brief history and background of 

the Monument and describes the purpose and need for the action, the scoping process 

and issues, planning criteria, the planning process, related plans and relevant policy, 

and the overall vision of the DRMP/DEIS. 

 Chapter 2 - Alternatives: This chapter describes potential management approaches or 

“alternatives” and discusses the alternative development process. It describes five 

alternative land use plans evaluated in detail in this DRMP/DEIS, including the No Action 

Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. 

 Chapter 3 - Affected Environment: This chapter describes the current physical, 

biological, human, and land use environments of the Monument. The description 

provides a baseline against which to compare the impacts of the alternatives. The 

baseline described in this chapter represents environmental and social conditions and 

trends in the Monument at the time this document was being prepared. 

 Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences: This chapter evaluates how, and to what 

extent, baseline conditions would be altered by the alternatives. These changes are 

measured in terms of adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, and 

individual and cumulative impacts. 

 Chapter 5 - References: This chapter provides full citation information for all 

references, published and unpublished, cited in this document, as well as personal 

contacts used in developing this DRMP/DEIS. 

Appendices A through K provide supporting information for the chapters described above. The 

appendices and glossary provided in this document offer more detailed information, which some 

readers may find helpful when reviewing the main text of the document. 

NOTE: Potential decisions and/or other discussions contained in this document may refer 

directly to maps and figures. In fact, many potential decisions are “map based”. Therefore, the 

reader must rely on the text, maps, and figures taken together to fully understand the potential 

decisions described for each alternative. 

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS DOCUMENT 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of Availability (NOA) published in the Federal 

Register, initiates a 90-day public review and comment period. You may submit comments by 

any of the following methods: 

Website: http://www.blm.gov/rmp/canm/

Fax: 970-882-7035 
Executive Summary Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-10 

Mail: Monument Manager 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

27501 Hwy 184 

Dolores, CO 81323 

Comments may also be made in person at one of the public meetings conducted in local 

communities. The specific locations, dates, and times for these meetings will be announced in 

local newspapers, in a newsletter, and on the BLM website. 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CONSIDERATIONS 

Public comments submitted during this planning review, including names and street addresses 

of respondents, will be available for public review at the Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument office during regular business hours (9 a.m. to 5 p.m., March through October; 

10 a.m. to 4 p.m., November through February), Monday through Friday, except holidays. 

Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or 

address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must 

state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. Such requests will be honored to the 

extent allowed by law; however, there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so. All 

submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public 

inspection in their entirety. 

TIPS FOR REVIEWING AND COMMENTING ON THIS DOCUMENT 

Some questions you may want to consider while reading this document include: 

 Does the Preferred Alternative provide for the uses and activities you consider to be the 

most important and relevant for the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument? If not, 

why not? 

 Does the Preferred Alternative adequately protect the values, resources, and/or 

conditions that you consider to be the most important for the Canyons of the Ancients 

Monument? If not, why not? 

 Is there new or additional information that you believe would have a bearing on the 

analysis? If so, what specifically? 

 Do you believe that the BLM needs to clarify any of the potential decisions? If so, which 

ones? 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Executive Summary

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-11 

Table ES-1 Summary of Major Management Actions by Alternative 

Alternative I 

(No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Cultural Resource Management 

Develop the Outdoor Museum Concept 

Allocate sites for uses 

specified in BLM Manual Allocate 13 sites for public 

use 

Allocate 13 to 25 sites for 

public use 

Allocate 13 to 25 sites for 

public use 

Allocate 13 to 25 sites for 

public use 

Meet NHPA Section 106 

requirements 

Meet NHPA Section 106 

requirements; 

protect cultural resource 

communities, sites, and 

isolated finds 

Meet NHPA Section 106 requirements; 

protect cultural resource communities and sites 

Stabilize or repair 240 sites 

Document and allow 

standing walls to 

deteriorate 

Document and allow 

standing walls to 

deteriorate 

Stabilize and preserve 

standing walls 

Document and allow 

standing walls to 

deteriorate; consider 

stabilization for humancaused impacts 

Conduct Class III inventory 

of cultural resource 

emphasis areas 

Conduct Class II inventory of areas receiving high public use, lacking intensive inventory, needing records 

clarification, and areas with little previous inventory, as funding is available 

Conduct investigations 

according to current policy 

Develop research goals via 

Advisory Panel 

Develop research goals via 

Monument staff, with peer 

review 

Develop research goals via 

Monument staff 

Develop research goals via 

Monument staff, with peer 

review 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Permit 8,492 active 

preference animal unit 

months (AUMs) 

Permit 6,437 active 

preference AUMs 

Permit 8,368 active 

preference AUMs 

Permit 8,492 active 

preference AUMs 

Permit 6,437 active 

preference AUMs 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Executive Summary

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-12 

Table ES-1 Summary of Major Management Actions by Alternative 

Alternative I 

(No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Administer 28 allotments Administer 23 allotments Administer 23 allotments Administer 28 allotments Administer 23 allotments 

Establish no common 

reserves 

Establish common reserve allotments 

Oil and Gas 

Defer leasing until 

completion of the 

DRMP/DEIS 

Lease up to 880 new acres 

for drainage only 

Lease up to 3,021 new 

acres 

Lease up to 24,462 new 

acres 

Lease up to 880 new acres 

for drainage only 

Permit up to 2 new well 

pads in 20 years on new 

leases 

Permit up to 8 new well 

pads in 20 years on new 

leases 

Permit up to 59 new well 

pads in 20 years on new 

leases 

Permit up to 2 new well 

pads in 20 years on new 

leases 

Recreation Management 

Develop no promotion 

strategy; develop facilities 

as needed; maintain 

developed recreation sites 

at Lowry, Painted Hand, 

and Sand Canyon Pueblo 

for interpretation 

Promote an undeveloped 

management strategy; 

focus on incidental visitors 

and/or local residents; 

minimize infrastructure and 

visitor facilities 

Promote a destination 

management strategy; 

focus on establishing 

destinations for regional 

visitors, actively marketing 

communities in the Four 

Corners area; provide 

specific public access 

points and appropriate 

support facilities 

Promote a destination 

management strategy; 

focus on establishing 

destinations for national 

and international, as well 

as local and regional 

visitors; provide specific 

public access points with 

more infrastructure and 

visitor facilities 

Promote an undeveloped 

management strategy for 

three SRMAs; promote a 

destination management 

strategy for three other 

SRMAs 

Make no designations 

Manage 8,211 acres for 

public visitation; 157,124 

acres managed for 

backcountry use 

Manage 18,875 acres for 

public visitation; 146,460 

acres managed for 

backcountry use 

Manage 47,056 acres for 

public visitation; 118,279 

acres managed for 

backcountry use 

Manage 7,875 acres for 

public visitation; 157,460 

acres managed for 

backcountry use 

Continue dispersed Prohibit recreational Prohibit recreational Prohibit recreational Prohibit recreational 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Executive Summary

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-13 

Table ES-1 Summary of Major Management Actions by Alternative 

Alternative I 

(No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

recreational camping shooting, geocaching, 

climbing, camping, and 

campfires 

shooting, geocaching, and 

climbing 

Prohibit camping and 

campfires in Pueblo sites, 

Sand Canyon-Rock Creek, 

and Anasazi Heritage 

Center (AHC) SRMAs; 

allow these activities in 

other SRMAs 

shooting, geocaching, and 

climbing 

Prohibit camping and 

campfires in Pueblo sites, 

Sand Canyon-Rock Creek, 

and AHC SRMAs, except 

in designated sites; allow 

these activities in other 

SRMAs 

shooting and geocaching 

Allow climbing in 

designated areas only. 

Prohibit camping and 

campfires in Pueblo sites, 

Sand Canyon-Rock Creek, 

and AHC SRMAs; allow 

these activities in other 

SRMAs 

Identify 7 recreation/ 

transportation facilities 

Identify 7 recreation/ 

transportation facilities 

Identify 13 recreation/ 

transportation facilities 

Identify 20 recreation/ 

transportation facilities 

Identify 11 recreation/ 

transportation facilities 

No new commercial 

permits 

No new recreation special 

use permits; no renewal of 

existing special use 

permits 

No new recreation special 

use permits; allow renewal 

of existing permits 

Allow new recreation 

special use permits, on a 

case-by-case basis 

Allow up to 10 recreation 

special use permits 

Transportation Management 

Total roads (public access 

+ Administrative)=149 

miles 

Total roads (public access 

+ Administrative)=139 

miles 

Total roads (public access 

+ Administrative)=189 

miles 

Total roads (public access 

+ Administrative)=213 

miles 

Total roads (public access 

+ Administrative)=169 

miles 

OHV travel classified as 

Closed on 25,976 acres 

and Limited on 139,359 

acres; travel on designated 

roads only 

OHV travel classified as 

Closed on 38,598 acres 

and Limited on 126,737 

acres; travel on designated 

roads only 

OHV travel classified as 

Closed on 25,976 acres 

and Limited on 139,359 

acres; travel on designated 

roads only 

OHV travel classified as 

Closed on 25,976 acres 

and Limited on 139,359 

acres; travel on designated 

roads only 

OHV travel classified as 

Closed on 38,598 acres 

and Limited on 126,737 

acres; travel on designated 

roads only 
CHAPTER 1 

Purpose

and Need
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 1

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1 

1.0 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1. Introduction and Historical Background 

At first glance, Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (the Monument) presents itself as a 

strikingly harsh, rugged environment, a landscape of expansive vistas, high rocky mesas, and 

deep, dry arroyos. Upon closer inspection, the Monument reveals a cultural and historical 

landscape that offers magnificent, yet fragile, testimony to the people who once lived upon the 

land; people who established homes, shared meals, raised families, and gathered around 

campfires to tell stories. The landscape still holds the invaluable remnants of their lives; a vast 

array of irreplaceable objects that connect the people who visit these lands today with the 

people who lived here 1000 years ago. 

People have lived and labored to survive among the area’s canyons and mesas for thousands 

of years, from the earliest known hunters crossing the area 10,000 years ago; to the Ancestral 

Puebloan farmers; to the Ute, Navajo, and European settlers whose descendants still call this 

area home. Farming in the area blossomed from between A.D. 450 and A.D. 1300, when the 

area was occupied by Ancestral Pueblo people. Year-round villages were established, evolving 

from pit house dwellings to small pueblos and then large multi-story dwellings. The Monument 

has more than 6,000 recorded sites, reflecting all facets of everyday life, including field houses, 

check dams, reservoirs, kivas, cliff dwellings, shrines, sacred springs, agricultural fields, 

petroglyphs, and sweat lodges. Some areas within the Monument have more than 100 

archeological sites per square mile. The total number of sites is estimated to be 20,000 to 

30,000. The Monument offers an unparalleled opportunity to observe, study, and experience 

how cultures lived and adapted over time in the American Southwest. 

Due to the area’s internationally significant cultural resources, the Monument was established 

as the Anasazi Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in 1985. In 1999, Interior 

Secretary Bruce Babbitt recommended to President Clinton that the area be designated as a 

National Monument. 

Under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S. Code [USC] 431), 

the President can establish as National Monuments "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric 

structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands 

owned or controlled by the Government of the United States.” 

On June 9, 2000, the Monument was established by Presidential Proclamation Number 7317 

(the Proclamation [Appendix A]), which states: 

Containing the highest known density of archaeological sites in the Nation...natural 

resources and spectacular landforms...rugged and dissected geology...and wildlife 

species...I do proclaim for the purpose of protecting the objects identified above...Canyons 

of the Ancients National Monument. 

The Monument is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency under the 

United States Department of the Interior (USDOI). The BLM manages the Monument pursuant 

to its basic authorities, the primary one being the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA). The management of the Monument is subject to the overriding purpose of 

protecting the objects described in the Proclamation. 

While the distinction is not made throughout this document, “the Monument”, consists of lands 

within the original Monument boundary including inholdings that have since been acquired. The 

entire planning area includes not only the Monument but acquired edgeholdings and the 

Anasazi Heritage Center. The Monument includes approximately 165,000 acres of BLM-
Chapter 1 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2 

administered land, approximately 18,600 acres of private land, and approximately 400 acres of 

Federal land managed by the National Park Service, as Hovenweep National Monument. 

The Monument contains significant archaeological objects, as well as geological and biological 

objects, and was established to preserve these objects on a landscape scale. The scientific 

value of the objects is enhanced when their relationship is examined in a broad comparative 

context rather than individually. For example, evidence of human occupation and use is found 

throughout the Monument. Understanding how people survived, how they impacted their 

surroundings and how they interacted socially and economically is dependent on the analysis 

and preservation of evidence beyond single dwellings and sites. Therefore, protection of the 

objects at this landscape level is critical. 

Historic uses of the Monument include recreation, hunting, livestock grazing, and energy 

development. The Monument is home to a wide variety of wildlife species (Appendix H), 

including unique herpetological resources. Crucial habitat for the Mesa Verde nightsnake, longnosed leopard lizard, and twin-spotted spiny lizard can be found within the Monument in the 

area north of Yellow Jacket Canyon. Peregrine falcons have been observed in the area, as 

have golden eagles, American kestrels, red-tailed hawks, and northern harriers. Game birds 

like Gamble's quail and mourning dove are found throughout the Monument both in dry, upland 

habitats, and in lush riparian habitat along the canyon bottoms. 

The planning process now underway will determine how to protect objects of scientific and 

historic interest identified in the Proclamation (i.e., archaeological, geological, biological, etc.), 

as well as how to best serve the various needs of multiple user groups. Until the plan is 

completed, the following documents provide management guidance: San Juan/San Miguel 

RMP (BLM 1985) with its amendments; the Anasazi ACEC Plan Management Guideline (BLM 

1986a); and the Monument Proclamation, BLM Director's Interim Management Policy for Bureau 

of Land Management Monuments and National Conservation Areas (BLM 2001a), BLM 

Colorado State Director's Guidance for Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM 

2001b), the Secretary of the Interior's Memorandum for Management of the Canyons of the 

Ancients National Monument (USDOI 2000), and the Interim Management Guidance for Oil and 

Gas Leasing and Development of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM 

2001c). The interim guidance directs BLM to maintain existing policies, designations, and 

allocations, except where changes are necessary to comply with the Proclamation. 

1.2. Overview of the Plan 

The FLPMA requires the development and maintenance, and, as appropriate, the revision of 

RMPs, or land use plans, for public lands. The NEPA of 1969, as amended, requires Federal 

agencies to prepare an EIS for major Federal actions that could significantly affect the 

environment. The BLM Interim Management for all National Monuments (BLM 2001a) requires 

completion of land use plan evaluations and stand-alone RMPs for all National Monuments. In 

fulfillment of these requirements, this DRMP/DEIS documents the comprehensive analysis of 

alternatives and environmental impacts for the planning and management of public lands and 

resources administered by the BLM at the Monument. The purpose, or goal, in developing this 

land use plan is to ensure that public lands and mineral estate administered by the BLM at the 

Monument are managed in accordance with applicable laws, as well as with the principles of 

multiple use and sustained yield. The Monument, although under the administrative care and 

management of BLM staff, belongs to the American people; thus, it is the overriding goal of the 

BLM to actively seek out, engage, and include the public, and all other interested parties, in this 

planning process–a process that could shape how visitors perceive, experience, use, and enjoy 

this National Monument. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 1

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3 

This DRMP/DEIS documents the comprehensive analysis of planning alternatives for the 

management of public lands and resources administered by the BLM at the Monument. It 

provides analysis of potential management direction for important resource values and resource 

uses within the Monument. 

The Monument is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, approximately 

45 miles west of Durango, 10 miles west of Cortez, and 12 miles west of Mesa Verde National 

Park (Mesa Verde) in Dolores and Montezuma Counties. The 164,000-acre Monument 

contains the highest known density of archaeological sites in the United States. It offers rich, 

well-preserved remnants of native culture, as well as spectacular landforms, a wide variety of 

wildlife species (Appendix H), and unique recreation opportunities. Figures 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 

show the location, land ownership status, and topography of the Monument, respectively. 

The Monument was established in 2000 by Presidential Proclamation Number 7317 pursuant to 

Section 2 of the Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S. Code [USC] 431). The 

full text of the Proclamation is presented in Appendix A. Prior to the Proclamation, the BLM 

managed the area as an ACEC under guidance established in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP 

ROD (BLM 1985). The Proclamation requires that the Secretary of the Interior prepare a 

transportation plan that addresses actions, including road closures and travel restrictions, 

necessary to protect archaeological objects of the Monument. In addition, the FLPMA requires 

periodic updates to guide management of public lands within the BLM’s jurisdiction. 

This DRMP/DEIS will provide updated management direction for the Monument, which is 

needed because social, environmental, and administrative conditions have changed since the 

San Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD (BLM 1985) was developed. There are a number of new 

issues, higher levels of controversy around existing issues, and new public land uses and 

concerns that were not addressed in the 1985 San Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD (BLM 1985). 

Such issues include, but are not limited to, rangeland health, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, 

access and transportation issues, mountain bike use, and new restrictions on mineral 

development. These factors cause competing pressures on land use management; therefore, 

they warrant a consistent, coordinated planning approach. Creation of a DRMP/DEIS for the 

Monument will also permit the BLM to incorporate the required Colorado Standards for Public 

Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (Public Land Health Standards) 

(BLM 1997) and travel management designations into the land management program for the 

Monument. 

The FLPMA provides the authority for the BLM to formulate land use plans and requires that a 

DRMP/DEIS be developed to guide management decisions. FLPMA states that BLM land 

management will be guided by the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. In addition, 

Section 302(a) requires that where a tract of land has been dedicated to a specific use 

according to law, such as the Presidential Proclamation that established the Monument, the 

tract shall be managed in accordance with the provisions of the FLPMA. The primary purpose 

of this DRMP/DEIS is to ensure that the BLM manages the Monument in accordance with the 

FLPMA, as well as with all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 

When a proposed Federal action could significantly affect the environment, the NEPA requires 

the preparation of an EIS. The Draft EIS component of this document addresses such impacts. 

The “proposed action” under NEPA is considered the implementation of any of the possible five 

alternatives described in Chapter 2. Planning or NEPA decisions pertaining to the Monument 

apply to Federally administered lands only. 
Sweetwater Carbon

San Juan

Weld

Moffat

Uintah

Emery

Albany

Mesa Grand

Baca

Park

Routt

Lincoln

Garfield

Las Animas

Yuma

Uinta

Garfield

Platte

Lincoln

Larimer

Pueblo

Utah

Gunnison

Wayne

Bent

Laramie

Duchesne

Saguache

Elbert

Grand

Logan

Rio Blanco

Eagle

Kiowa

Kane

Goshen

El Paso

Sioux

Summit

Fremont

Montrose

Morrill

Rich

Garden

Otero

Delta

Washington

Carbon

Sublette

Kit Carson

La Plata

Jackson

Prowers

Fremont

Cache

Sheridan

Adams

Montezuma

Huerfano

Pitkin

Cheyenne

Morgan

Costilla

Sanpete

San Juan

Conejos

Natrona

Cherry

Colfax

Sevier

Archuleta

Union

Wasatch

Apache

Dolores

Navajo Rio Arriba

Coconino

Kimball

Chaffee

Mineral

Keith

Hinsdale

Taos

Cheyenne

San Miguel Custer

Box Butte

Grant

Banner

Douglas

Crowley

Teller

Converse

Boulder

Phillips

Cimarron

Bear Lake

Ouray

Dawes

Franklin

Arthur

Chase

Summit

Alamosa

Lake

Rio Grande

Dundy

Deuel

Weber

Scotts Bluff

Juab

Sedgwick Perkins

Daggett

Jefferson Arapahoe

Morgan

Wallace

Greeley

Hamilton

Sherman

Cheyenne

Morton

Salt Lake

Stanton

San Juan

Davis

Texas

Clear Creek

Gilpin

Niobrara Bannock

Box Elder

Denver

Oneida

Caribou

Wyoming

Utah

K

ansas

New Mexico

Figure 1-1 General Location Map

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

September 2007
Lowry 

Pueblo

Sand 

Canyon 

Pueblo

Painted 

Hand 

Pueblo

Sand 

Canyon 

Trailhead

Anasazi 

Heritage 

Center

Cutthroat 

Castle 

Trailhead

CORTEZ

6 6

7

4 5

3 2 5 4 3

6

2 2

7

6

1

2 2

7

1 5 3

7

4

4 3 6

2

7

5

7

6

6

6

5 2 1 4 4

6

2

3 5

1

1

5

2

1

4 2

3

2

3 6

3 1 2 1 5

6

3 4 2

6

7

2

1

4

5

7

6

7

7 9

6 4

6

7

9

7 9

3

5

7

8

9

7

1

7

8

2

8

2

9

1

9

5

8

9

7

8

1

9

4

1

8

8

3 6

2

8

8

1

3

9

6

6

9

8

3

8

6

8

4

2

9

6

5

5

3

9

5

1

1 2

8

3

9

4

4

6

4

1

5

3

9

8

1

8

1

8 7

7

2

2

8

3 1

7

7

2

4

3

2

9

5

4

9

3

7

8

5

9

7

5

1

1

5

4

9

9

8

9

2

8

4

3

1

8 9

2

8

9

7

7

2 5

1

4

6

5

7

7

3

2

6

3

7

6

3

4 4

8 9

1

3 2 1 2

1

1

5

6

4

6 5 4 3 3 6 5 6

7

1 2 6

36

9 7 8 9

6

3

3

18

31

19

9

30

24

7 8

25

19

30

3

7

3

11

24

8

35

9

18

7 9

25

36

7

30

31

31

13

19

25

9

36

31

19

11

8

31

11

18

11

32

35

18

36

33 31

24

11

11

11

11

19

11

11

30

11

34

19

11

11

30

11 11

25

11

11

12

11

11

11

11

11

19

11

11

11

30

13

13

23

26

11

13

11

24

36

8

31

35

20

32

11

26

30

14

14 13

19

32

19

34

12

30

12

33

13

36

29

35

24

36

21

28

18

23

21

20

30

24

31

20

25

14

31

31

18

19

25

34

16

14

35

31

19

13

36

36

30

26

15

35

27 27

32

19

12

28

22

23

33

33

20

34

19

18

23

25

34

12

19

27

29

36

18 16

10

29

14

15

27

20

33

31

24

18

30

10

26

18

21

29

18

19

32

12

12

24

14

12

20

13 17

21

15

26

13

30

12

24

33

32

32

34

10

30

19

27

25

33

35

10

16

23

18

12

10

14

16

23

13

10

31

29

12

25

31

10

25

17

35 31

15

29

14

34

36

24

14

35 33

28

32

17

29

22

21

32

27

14

25

12

26

22

17

28

33

35

34

30

26

26

20

16

10

34 32

13

25

24

19

20

19

16

22

23

27

25

17

18

12

20

21

16

27

20

21

22

23

24

35

14

28

22

27

35

16

24

25

23 19 20

17

17

17

27

22

14

17

35

21

32

36

22

15

23

29

12

29

26

20

22

29

29

33

34

21

32

28

12

20

32

17

33

13 15

33 34

36

16

24

25

29

35

33

25

20

29

20

21

10

13

23

27

34

17

16

35

30

22

25

29

35

30

27

35

32

21

35

25

14

22

34

20

31

34

12

15

10

16

27

22

35

23

20

12

30

33 31

16

18

21

20

32

13

10

15

26

17

13

21

27

10

31

12

34

16

12

15

25

30

24

28

29

15

34

24

31

14

24

22

27

15

26

28

28

28

26

31

16

27

34

23

16

34

35

21 23

34

22

21

34

22

17

10

28

13

15

27

36

17

16

14

28

31

22

26

36 31

23

14

20

26

29

21

21

33

26

20

29

24

13

10

33

10

24

26

26

16

28

30

13

32

1

20

33

36

28

29

35

15

23

27

18

32

22

15

21

24

22

21

29

15

28 25

12

22

34

22

31

26

17

27

28

14

14

26

29

28

15

27

36

10

27

14

30

28

30

34

12

17

23

25

18

22

30

27

12

25

29 26 29

24

22

24

14

23

32

10

28

23

27

29

27

22

24

14

26

16

26

26

19

36

33

25

23

18

14

27

18

35

30

28

17

21

15

10

25

31

33

20

33

35

36

17

22

23

26

16

28

28

23

15

30

16

17

23

10

13

32

24

35

19

23

36

32

13

14

35

15

30

34

24

36

20

14

34

23

30

22

28

32

26

21

26

25

36

19

33

17

33

33

21

15

23

36

36

21

18

31

10

19

10

26

23

12

35

32

19

13

33

36

28

32

34

35

10

36

21

24

13

23

19

14

10

15

36

18

26

19

12

31

10

25

31

35 32

36

34

30

24

36

18

26

35

19

20

7

18

18

35

25

25 25

23

19

30

11

29

18

12

13

22

31

36

27

30

24

31

24

15

19

23

18

26

25

19

13

11 10 12

30

31

12

10 12

10

24

11

5

11

8

10 10 12

34

12

22

18

27

15

13

8

10

34

27

11 11

34

27

11

22

15

10

22

10

10

8

15

5

10 12 12 10 12

12

17 16 15

6

14

1 1

13

5

17

2 2 4

5

16

3 3 4

4

15

20

18

6 5 3 3

2

32

2 1

14

6 4

29

29

13

8

5

18

20

32

17

17

13 18

20

14 17

12

29

16 15

32

14

14

13

15

5

17

13

1 6 5 4 3 2

18 17

16

16 15 13

17

17

14

18

20

13

29

14

1

17 16 15

32

T37N,16W

T39N,R18W

T39N,R19W

T38N,R18W

T37N,R19W T37N,R18W

T35N,R18W

T37N,R17W

T35N,R16W

T38N,R19W

T39N,R17W T39N,R16W

T38N,R17W

T35N,R19W

T38N,R16W

T36N,R19W

T36N,R16W T36N,R18W

T35N,R17W

T36N,R17W

T40N,R18W

T40N,R17W T40N,R16W T40N,R19W

T35N,R20W

T36N,R20W

T37N,R20W

T38N,R20W

T39N,R20W

T34N,R19W T34N,R18W T34N,R17W T34N,R16W

T39N,R15W

T38N,R15W

T40N,R20W

T37N,R15W

T36N,R15W

T34N,R20W

T40N,R15W

T35N,R15W

T34N,15W

C.R. G

C.R. 10

C.R. CC

C.R. BB

C.R. P

C R. . 15

C.R. Y

C.R. 20

C.R. N

C.R. W

C.R. 1

C R. . 18

C.R. 8

C.R. 16

C R. . 12

C.R. J

C.R. U

C.R. 11

C.R. Z

C.R. H.8

C.R. DD

C.R. 17

C.R. 14

C.R. 6

C R. . 18

C.R. P C.R. P

C.R. Y

C R. . 16

McElmo Creek

Cross Canyon

Yellowjacket

Canyon

Negro

Canyon

Squaw

Canyon

Sandstone

Canyon

Woods

Canyon

Papoose

Canyon

Cahone

Canyon

MCPHEE RESERVOIR

NARRAGUINNEP

Dolores County

Utah

Montezuma County

Colorado

Hovenweep

National

Monument

Hovenweep

National

Monument

San Juan National Forest

01234

Miles

Legend

Monument Boundary

County Roads

Painted Hand Road

Sand Canyon Road

Perennial Streams

Bureau of Land Management

US Forest Service

National Park Service

Tribal Lands

Colorado Division of Wildlife

State Land

Private Ownership

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

conducts land use planning only in the areas 

administered by BLM. BLM has no planning 

authority under the municipal or county planning 

legislation of the State of Colorado.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this 

map for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the 

accuracy, reliability or completeness of the 

information shown. Spatial information may not 

meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This 

information may be updated without notification.

Figure 1-2 Land Ownership

September 2007
Lowry 

Pueblo

Sand 

Canyon 

Pueblo

Painted 

Hand 

Pueblo

Sand 

Canyon 

Trailhead

Anasazi 

Heritage 

Center

Cutthroat 

Castle 

Trailhead

6 6

7

5 4 3 2 5 4 3

6

2 2

7

6

1

2 2

7

1 5 3

7

4

4 3 6

2

7

5

7

6

6

6

5 2 1 4 4

6

2

3 5

1

1

5

2

1

4 2

3

2

3 6

3 1 2 1 5

6

3 4 2

6

7

2

1

4

5

7

6

7

7 9

6 4

6

7

9

7 9

3

5

7

8

9

7

1

7

8

2

8

2

9

1

9

5

8

9

7

8

1

9

4

1

8

8

3 6

2

8

8

1

3

9

6

6

9

8

3

8

6

8

4

2

9

6

5

5

3

9

5

1

1 2

8

3

9

4

4

6

4

1

5

3

9

8

1

8

1

8 7

7

2

2

8

3 1

7

7

2

4

3

2

9

5

4

9

3

7

8

5

9

7

5

1

1

5

4

9

9

8

9

2

8

4

3

1

8 9

2

8

9

7

7

2 5

1

4

6

5

7

7

3

2

6

3

7

6

3

4 4

8 9

1

3 2 1 2

1

1

5

6

4

6 5 4 3 3 6 5 6

7

1 2 6

36

9 7 8 9

6

3

3

18

31

19

9

30

24

7 8

25

19

30

3

7

3

11

24

8

35

9

18

7 9

25

36

7

30

31

31

13

19

25

9

36

31

19

11

8

31

11

18

11

32

35

18

36

33 31

24

11

11

11

11

19

11

11

30

11

34

19

11

11

30

11 11

25

11

11

12

11

11

11

11

11

19

11

11

11

30

13

13

23

26

11

13

11

24

36

8

31

35

20

32

11

26

30

14

14 13

19

32

19

34

12

30

12

33

13

36

29

35

24

36

21

28

18

23

21

20

30

24

31

20

25

14

31

31

18

19

25

34

16

14

35

31

19

13

36

36

30

26

15

35

27 27

32

19

12

28

22

23

33

33

20

34

19

18

23

25

34

12

19

27

29

36

18 16

10

29

14

15

27

20

33

31

24

18

30

10

26

18

21

29

18

19

32

12

12

24

14

12

20

13 17

21

15

26

13

30

12

24

33

32

32

34

10

30

19

27

25

33

35

10

16

23

18

12

10

14

16

23

13

10

31

29

12

25

31

10

25

17

35 31

15

29

14

34

36

24

14

35 33

28

32

17

29

22

21

32

27

14

25

12

26

22

17

28

33

35

34

30

26

26

20

16

10

34 32

13

25

24

19

20

19

16

22

23

27

25

17

18

12

20

21

16

27

20

21

22

23

24

35

14

28

22

27

35

16

24

25

23 19 20

17

17

17

27

22

14

17

35

21

32

36

22

15

23

29

12

29

26

20

22

29

29

33

34

21

32

28

12

20

32

17

33

13 15

33 34

36

16

24

25

29

35

33

25

20

29

20

21

10

13

23

27

34

17

16

35

30

22

25

29

35

30

27

35

32

21

35

25

14

22

34

20

31

34

12

15

10

16

27

22

35

23

20

12

30

33 31

16

18

21

20

32

13

10

15

26

17

13

21

27

10

31

12

34

16

12

15

25

30

24

28

29

15

34

24

31

14

24

22

27

15

26

28

28

28

26

31

16

27

34

23

16

34

35

21 23

34

22

21

34

22

17

10

28

13

15

27

36

17

16

14

28

31

22

26

36 31

23

14

20

26

29

21

21

33

26

20

29

24

13

10

33

10

24

26

26

16

28

30

13

32

1

20

33

36

28

29

35

15

23

27

18

32

22

15

21

24

22

21

29

15

28 25

12

22

34

22

31

26

17

27

28

14

14

26

29

28

15

27

36

10

27

14

30

28

30

34

12

17

23

25

18

22

30

27

12

25

29 26 29

24

22

24

14

23

32

10

28

23

27

29

27

22

24

14

26

16

26

26

19

36

33

25

23

18

14

27

18

35

30

28

17

21

15

10

25

31

33

20

33

35

36

17

22

23

26

16

28

28

23

15

30

16

17

23

10

13

32

24

35

19

23

36

32

13

14

35

15

30

34

24

36

20

14

34

23

30

22

28

32

26

21

26

25

36

19

33

17

33

33

21

15

23

36

36

21

18

31

10

19

10

26

23

12

35

32

19

13

33

36

28

32

34

35

10

36

21

24

13

23

19

14

10

15

36

18

26

19

12

31

10

25

31

35 32

36

34

30

24

36

18

26

35

19

20

7

18

18

35

25

25 25

23

19

30

11

29

18

12

13

22

31

36

27

30

24

31

24

15

19

23

18

26

25

19

13

11 10 12

30

31

12

10 12

10

24

11

5

11

8

10 10 12

34

12

22

18

27

15

13

8

10

34

27

11 11

34

27

11

22

15

10

22

10

10

8

15

5

10 12 12 10 12

12

17 16 15

6

14

1 1

13

5

17

2 2 4

5

16

3 3 4

4

15

20

18

6 5 3 3

2

32

2 1

14

6 4

29

29

13

8

5

18

20

32

17

17

13 18

20

14 17

12

29

16 15

32

14

14

13

15

5

17

13

1 6 5 4 3 2

18 17

16

16 15 13

17

17

14

18

20

13

29

14

1

17 16 15

32

T37N,16W

T39N,R18W T39N,R19W

T38N,R18W

T37N,R19W T37N,R18W

T35N,R18W

T37N,R17W

T35N,R16W

T38N,R19W

T39N,R17W T39N,R16W

T38N,R17W

T35N,R19W

T38N,R16W

T36N,R19W

T36N,R16W T36N,R18W

T35N,R17W

T36N,R17W

T40N,R18W

T40N,R17W T40N,R16W T40N,R19W

T35N,R20W

T36N,R20W

T37N,R20W

T38N,R20W

T39N,R20W

T34N,R19W T34N,R18W T34N,R17W T34N,R16W

T39N,R15W

T38N,R15W

T40N,R20W

T37N,R15W

T36N,R15W

T34N,R20W

T40N,R15W

T35N,R15W

T34N,15W

CORTEZ

C.R. G

C.R. 10

C.R. CC

C.R. BB

C.R. P

C R. . 15

C.R. Y

C.R. 20

C.R. N

C.R. W

C.R. 1

C R. . 18

C.R. 8

C R. . 16

C R. . 12

C.R. J

C.R. U

C.R. 11

C.R. Z

C.R. H.8

C.R. DD

C.R. 17

C.R. 14

C.R. 6

C.R. P

C.R. Y

C.R. P

MCPHEE RESERVOIR

NARRAGUINNEP

McElmo Creek

Cross Canyon

Yellowjacket 

Canyon

Negro Canyon

Squaw Canyon

Sandstone 

 Canyon

Hovenweep 

 Canyon

Rincon Canyon

Woods Canyon

Papoose Canyon

Cahone CanyonDolores County

Utah

Montezuma County

Colorado

Hovenweep

National

Monument

Hovenweep

National

Monument

San Juan National Forest

01234

Miles

Legend

Monument Boundary

County Roads

Painted Hand Road

Sand Canyon Road

Perennial Streams

Topographic Contour (50 meters)

Bureau of Land Management

Private Ownership

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

conducts land use planning only in the areas 

administered by BLM. BLM has no planning 

authority under the municipal or county planning 

legislation of the State of Colorado.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this 

map for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the 

accuracy, reliability or completeness of the 

information shown. Spatial information may not 

meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This 

information may be updated without notification.

Figure 1-3 Topography

September 2007
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 1

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

7 

This DRMP/DEIS has been organized and formatted consistent with applicable National 

Environmental Policy Act and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines. The goal of 

this document is to provide the reader with a clear understanding of the alternatives, the 

environmental resources that may be affected, the potential environmental consequences, and 

the environmental review and evaluation process. The following are the chapter titles for this 

document and brief descriptions of the chapter contents: 

 Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need: This chapter offers a brief history and background of 

the Monument and describes the purpose and need for the action, the scoping process 

and issues, planning criteria, the planning process, related plans and relevant policy, 

and the overall vision of the DRMP/DEIS 

 Chapter 2 - Alternatives: This chapter describes potential management approaches or 

“alternatives” and discusses the alternative development process. It describes five 

alternative land use plans evaluated in detail in this DRMP/DEIS, including the No Action 

Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. 

 Chapter 3 - Affected Environment: This chapter describes the current physical, 

biological, human, and land use environments of the Monument. The description 

provides a baseline against which to compare the impacts of the alternatives. The 

baseline described in this chapter represents environmental and social conditions and 

trends in the Monument at the time this document was being prepared. 

 Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences: This chapter evaluates how, and to what 

extent, baseline conditions would be altered by the alternatives. These changes are 

measured in terms of adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, and 

individual and cumulative impacts. 

 Chapter 5 - References: This chapter provides full citation information for all 

references, published and unpublished, cited in this document, as well as personal 

contacts used in developing this DRMP/DEIS. 

Appendices A through K provide supporting information for the chapters described above. The 

appendices and glossary provided in this document offer more detailed information, which some 

readers may find helpful when reviewing the main text of the document. 

NOTE: Potential decisions and/or other discussions contained in this document may refer 

directly to maps and figures. In fact, many potential decisions themselves are “map based.” 

Therefore, the reader must rely on the text, maps, and figures taken together to fully understand 

the potential decisions described for each alternative. 

1.3. Purpose and Need for the Plan 

The purpose of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument DRMP is to: 

 ensure compliance with Presidential Proclamation 7317 that established the Monument; 

 protect the scientific and historic objects, as well as other resources, identified in the 

Proclamation; 

 establish guidance, objectives, policies and direction for managing the Monument; and 

 address issues relating to management of the Monument as identified through agency, 

interagency, and public scoping efforts. 

This DRMP is prepared in the context of carrying out the requirements of FLPMA and other 

applicable authorities. The DRMP will identify the “vision,” long term management goals, 
Chapter 1 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

8 

intermediate objectives, and specific actions needed to attain the goals established for the 

Monument. 

The DRMP is needed because: 

 a Presidential Proclamation established the National Monument as a discrete 

management unit; 

 the Proclamation required protection of the objects of the Monument while managing 

resources based on the FLPMA principles of multiple use and sustained yield; and 

 the San Juan/San Miguel Resource Management Plan (1985) does not adequately 

address current issues and concerns and desired future conditions. 

The DEIS provides analysis to support the development of the DRMP and provides a 

foundation for project-specific analyses that will support future land use decisions on the 

Monument. The DEIS evaluates existing management plans including but not limited to the 

fire management plan, cultural resource management plans, recreation management plans 

and emphasis area management plans, and their relationship to current planning issues on 

the Monument. 

To achieve these goals, the BLM must: 

 identify desired outcomes, as well as allowable uses and actions that restore and 

maintain the health of the land; preserve cultural and natural objects; reduce threats to 

public health, safety, and property; and provide for environmentally responsible 

activities; 

 prepare a transportation plan that addresses actions, including road closures and travel 

restrictions, necessary to protect the objects of the Monument; 

 evaluate the need for Special Designation Areas or other management determinations, 

as applicable, such as for stream segments eligible for designation as Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (WSRs), and areas to be managed for wilderness character; 

 establish conservation measures for all species listed as threatened, endangered, 

proposed, candidate, or BLM sensitive. Conservation measures are designed to prevent 

the need for listing of additional species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 

1973, and to improve the condition of all special status species and their habitats to a 

point where their special status recognition is no longer warranted. (Refer to the August 

30, 2000, Interagency Memorandum of Agreement for Programmatic ESA, Section 7 

Consultation and BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management [BLM 

2001d]); 

 apply BLM Public Land Health Standards (BLM Manual 4180) (BLM 2001e) to 

recommendations and information from land health assessments to develop direction 

that enhances or restores physical function and biological health and achieves Public 

Land Health Standards at the watershed scale; 

 recognize valid existing rights, including oil and gas leases, mineral leases, mining 

claims, and lands and realty actions; and 

 integrate the management of the Monument with adjacent land use plans and the San 

Juan/San Miguel RMP by applying management techniques that are successful in other 

portions of these areas. 

These goals and objectives are based on the direction provided by numerous laws, mandates, 

policies, and plans, including: 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 1

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

9 

 the NEPA; 

 the FLPMA; 

 the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 USC 315); 

 BLM Planning Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1600); 

 the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended; 

 the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended; 

 the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990; 

 the Archaeological Preservation Act (ARPA) of 1979; 

 the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing and Reform Act of 1987; 

 the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other 

environmental laws; 

 the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (Public Law [PL] 93-629); 

 the Final EIS: Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in the 13 Western States (BLM 

1991b); 

 BLM Instruction Memorandum 2001-022: Planning Guidance for National Monuments 

and National Conservation Areas (BLM 2001f); 

 Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 CFR 4180); 

 BLM Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1, updated January 5, 2001 (BLM 2001g) 

and March 11, 2005 (BLM 2005a); 

 BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, (BLM 1988a); 

 BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management (BLM 2001d); and 

 BLM Manual 4180, Rangeland Health Standards (BLM 2001e). 

1.4. Planning Area 

The Planning Area for this DRMP/DEIS consists of the entire area delineated by the boundaries 

of the Monument, which encompasses approximately 165,000 acres of public land managed by 

the BLM; approximately 18,000 acres of private land (Figure 1-2), and approximately 400 acres 

of Federal land managed by the National Park Service, as Hovenweep National Monument. 

The Monument is generally bounded on the east and north by Colorado Highway 491; on the 

south by Montezuma County Road G, McElmo Creek, and the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation; 

and on the west by the Utah/Colorado state line. 

The Monument lies within the Colorado Plateau Ecological Province. The Monument exhibits 

the varied topography, geology, soil, and flora and fauna components typical of this Province, 

including desert scrub/salt desert, riparian, pinyon-juniper woodlands, mountain shrub, and big 

sagebrush plant communities. Elevations within the Monument range from approximately 4,900 

feet to approximately 7,500 feet above sea level. 

1.5. Scoping Process and Issues 

The NEPA requires that Federal agencies hold an open and early process for determining the 

scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS to identify the significant issues that could be 
Chapter 1 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

10 

associated with the proposed action. The term “scope” is defined as the range of actions, 

alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an EIS. 

The BLM initiated formal scoping for this DRMP/DEIS on April 24, 2002, when it published a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a DRMP/DEIS in the Federal Register. The NOI initiated the 

public scoping process and served to notify the public of the BLM’s intent to develop a 

DRMP/DEIS for the Monument. Scoping process objectives are intended to: 

 identify potentially interested parties; 

 identify public and agency concerns; 

 define the range of issues that will be examined in the DRMP/DEIS; 

 ensure that relevant issues are identified early and drive the process; and 

 establish a public record. 

The BLM provided an extended public scoping period between April 2002 and November 2003 

to allow ample opportunity for public comment and involvement in the initial stages of planning. 

The public scoping process included a series of planning newsletters, media releases, and 

information flyers in the Monument’s planning process and on the associated public involvement 

opportunities. Three public scoping workshops were held in the vicinity of the Monument. 

These workshops provided an opportunity for the public to receive information about the 

resources and land uses in the Monument, as well as on the BLM’s planning process. The 

workshops also provided an opportunity for the public to speak directly with BLM staff, to ask 

questions, and to provide input on the BLM’s planning effort. Table 1-1 summarizes the public 

workshop locations and dates. The entire scoping process and results are detailed in the 

Scoping Report (BLM 2004a). 

Table 1-1 Public Workshop Summary 

Location Place Date Attendance 

Cortez, CO Koko’s Conference Center October 21, 2003 49 

Durango, CO Durango Community 

Recreation Center October 22, 2003 15 

Denver, CO Holiday Inn Denver West October 29, 2003 10 

In addition to these scoping efforts, the BLM established the Monument Advisory Committee to 

facilitate a collaborative planning process for the Monument. The BLM has also been involved 

in a considerable amount of consultation and coordination with other Federal, State, and local 

agencies, and Native American tribes. 

1.5.1. Major Issues Addressed 

Major planning issues were identified and defined through an analysis of current land 

use/management in the Monument; the results of BLM internal scoping; as well as public, 

agency, tribal, and the Committee’s scoping comments. The scoping comments also guided the 

BLM in determining the appropriate depth of analysis for each issue, as well as in determining 

which issues were outside of the scope of the DRMP/DEIS. As discussed in Chapter 2, the 

issues identified during the scoping process were taken into consideration during alternative 

formulation. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 1

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

11 

Table 1-2 summarizes issues raised by local interested parties and agency staff during the 

scoping process. Seven issues accounted for almost 77 percent of the scoping comments 

received from local communities (i.e., Durango, Dolores, Cortez, and Mancos) and agencies. 

These issues were taken into consideration during the formulation of the DRMP/DEIS 

alternatives, as well as during the evaluation of those alternatives. 

Table 1-2 Planning Issues Raised by Public and Agency Staff During Scoping (Percent of 

Comments) 

Cultural and Paleontological Issues (15.9%) 

Protection and preservation of cultural and paleontological resources for current and future scientific 

research and development opportunities 

Access to cultural resource sites 

Looting 

General Recreation (14.1%) 

Permitted and restricted types of recreation and their allocated ‘zones’ or locations 

Related roads and transportation issues, such as OHV access and limitations 

Transportation Network (12.7%) 

Road closures and access 

Road maintenance and improvements 

Rangeland Management/Grazing (10.0%) 

Management for healthy plant communities to promote ecosystem health 

Administration of grazing allotments 

Evaluation of impacts of grazing and adjustment of practices, in terms of current standards and 

guidelines 

Mineral Resources (9.4%) 

Limitations on oil and gas exploration and development 

Mitigation of impacts from existing and new mineral development 

Mineral exploration and development alternatives 

Visitor Use (7.4%) 

Visitor education opportunities 

Facility development and improvements 

Commercial tours 

Soil, Water, and Air (7.1%) 

Protection/preservation of soil, water, and air quality 

Mitigation for air pollution 

1.6. Planning Criteria 

Planning criteria guide and direct this DRMP/DEIS and determine how the planning team 

approaches the development of alternatives and, ultimately, the selection of the Preferred 
Chapter 1 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

12 

Alternative. Planning criteria ensure that the DRMP/DEIS complies with the Monument 

Proclamation, that it is tailored to the identified issues, that unnecessary data collection and 

analysis is avoided, and that the focus remains on the decisions to be made. Planning criteria: 

 provide an early basis for determining inventory and data collection needs; 

 enable the Monument Manager and staff to develop a preliminary planning base map 

delineating geographic analysis units; 

 stimulate the revision of existing planning criteria and the development of additional 

criteria through public participation; and 

 provide parameters for the decision and alternatives that will be considered in the 

DRMP/DEIS, taking into account laws, regulations, and policies. 

The planning criteria identified for the DRMP/DEIS are as follows: 

 The DRMP/DEIS will establish guidance for the management of the resources and 

values in the Monument. The Final RMP/Final EIS will supersede the existing 1985 San 

Juan/San Miguel RMP and will be integrated, to the extent possible, with provisions of 

existing management plans and policies for adjacent lands (e.g., the Montezuma 

Comprehensive Plan). 

 The DRMP/DEIS will be completed in compliance with the FLPMA, the NEPA, the ESA, 

as well as with all other applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, and BLM policies. 

 The Monument planning team worked collaboratively with the State of Colorado, 

Montezuma and Dolores Counties, Native American tribal governments, cooperating 

agencies, municipal governments, other Federal agencies, the Monument Advisory 

Council, and all other interested groups, agencies, and individuals. 

 Decisions in the DRMP/DEIS, as well as in the Final RMP/Final EIS, will be compatible 

with existing plans and policies of adjacent local, State, and Federal agencies and 

Native American tribal governments, to the extent that they are in conformance with 

Federal laws and regulations. 

 The planning process will involve Native American tribal governments and will provide 

strategies for protecting recognized traditional uses. 

 The term “No Surface Occupancy” (NSO) applies only to oil and gas leasing and 

permitting, whereas the term “No Ground Disturbance” (NGD) applies to all other 

activities. Similarly, the term “Controlled Surface Use” (CSU) applies only to oil and gas 

leasing and permitting; whereas the term “Site-Specific Relocation” (SSR) applies to all 

other activities. Timing limitations (TLs) apply to all activities. Lease notices (LNs) apply 

only to oil and gas leasing and permitting; however, similar requirements would be 

applied during permit or application approval for other activities. 

 All existing stipulations in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP Amendment ROD for oil and 

gas (BLM 1991a) will be carried forward into the Proposed Plan. 

 The DRMP/DEIS will incorporate the Colorado BLM Recreation Guidelines to meet 

Public Land Health Standards (BLM 2000). It will set forth a framework for managing 

recreational activities to provide for the enjoyment and safety of the visiting public, 

consistent with the Proclamation. 

 The lifestyles and recreational pursuits of area residents will be considered in the 

DRMP/DEIS. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 1

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

13 

 All private lands or private interests located within, or immediately adjacent to, the 

Monument boundary and acquired by the BLM will be managed consistently with the 

Final RMP/Final EIS, subject to any constraints associated with the acquisition. 

 The DRMP/DEIS will not address Monument boundary adjustments or proposals to 

change the Proclamation. 

 The DRMP/DEIS will recognize valid existing rights within the Monument and will review 

how valid existing rights are verified. The DRMP/DEIS will also outline the process the 

BLM will use to address applications or notices on existing claims or other land use 

authorizations filed after completion of the Final RMP/Final EIS Record of Decision 

(ROD). 

 The DRMP/DEIS will emphasize the scientific and historic resources of the Monument. 

It will also identify opportunities and priorities for research and education related to the 

resources for which the Monument was created. In addition, it will describe an approach 

for incorporating research into management actions. 

 The management of livestock grazing is governed by existing laws and regulations. The 

DRMP/DEIS will incorporate Colorado Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines 

for Livestock Grazing. The DRMP/DEIS will provide a strategy for ensuring appropriate 

livestock grazing practices are followed within the Monument. The DRMP/DEIS will also 

allocate available livestock grazing AUMs through the ROD for the associated Final EIS. 

1.6.1. Proclamation Requirements 

The DRMP/DEIS will meet the requirement of the Proclamation (Appendix A) to protect the 

objects of archaeological, historical, geological, and biological value within the Monument. All 

explicit land use planning and management statements included in the Proclamation will be 

addressed. These include: 

 Direction that the Monument appropriate and withdraw all Federal lands within the 

Monument from, “...all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, or other disposition under 

the public land laws including, but not limited to, withdrawal from location, entry, and 

patent under the mining laws, and from disposition under all laws relating to mineral 

leasing, other than by exchange that furthers the protective purposes of the Monument 

and except for oil and gas leasing.” 

 Direction that the Monument, “...shall remain open to oil and gas leasing and 

development; provided, the Secretary of the Interior shall manage the development, 

subject to valid existing rights, so as not to create any new impacts that interfere with the 

proper care and management of the objects protected by this proclamation; and 

provided further, the Secretary may issue new leases only for the purpose of promoting 

conservation of oil and gas resources in any common reservoir now being produced 

under existing leases, or to protect against drainage.” 

 Direction that the Monument, “For the purposes of protecting the objects of the 

Monument, prohibit all off-road motorized and mechanized vehicle use except for 

emergency or authorized administrative purposes”. 

 Direction that the Monument, “...shall prepare a transportation plan that addresses the 

actions, including road closures or travel restrictions, necessary to protect the objects 

identified in this proclamation.” 

 Direction that the Monument will not, “...enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State 

of Colorado with respect to fish and wildlife management”. 
Chapter 1 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

14 

1.7. Planning Process 

In general, the BLM follows a nine-step land use planning process, as outlined below. Steps 1 

through 7 have been completed for the current process. The results of these steps have been 

incorporated throughout this DRMP/DEIS, and are as follows: 

 Step 1 – Planning Issues Identified: Issues and concerns are identified through a 

scoping process that includes the public, Native American tribes, other Federal 

agencies, and State and local governments. 

 Step 2 – Planning Criteria Development: Planning criteria are created to ensure that 

decisions are made to address the issues pertinent to the planning effort. Planning 

criteria are derived from a variety of sources, including applicable laws and regulations, 

existing management plans, coordination with other agencies’ programs, and the results 

of public and agency scoping. As planning proceeds, planning criteria may be updated 

or changed. 

 Step 3 – Data and Information Collection: Based on planning criteria, data and 

information for the resources in the Monument are collected. 

 Step 4 – Analyze the Management Situation: The collected data and information are 

assembled into the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) document (BLM 

2005b). 

 Step 5 – Alternatives Formulation: A range of reasonable management alternatives 

that address issues identified during scoping are developed. 

 Step 6 – Alternatives Assessment: The environmental effects of each alternative are 

estimated and analyzed. 

 Step 7 – Preferred Alternative Selection: The alternative that best resolves planning 

issues is identified as the Preferred Alternative. 

 Step 8 – Resource Management Plan Selection: A DRMP/DEIS is issued and made 

available to the public for a review period of 90 calendar days. This document 

represents this step in the process. During the public review period, the BLM will hold 

additional public meetings to further explain the DRMP/DEIS, address public questions, 

and accept comments in writing. After comments to the draft document have been 

received and analyzed, the DRMP/DEIS will be revised and modified, as necessary, and 

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS will be published and made available for public review for 

30 calendar days. A ROD will be signed to approve the Final Resource Management 

Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. 

 Step 9 – Implementation and Monitoring: Upon approval of the ROD, land use 

decisions outlined in the approved Final Resource Management Plan would be effective 

immediately and would require no additional planning or NEPA analysis. 

Consistent with BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, the BLM will monitor plan 

implementation and effectiveness, and will report annually, or as the BLM determines is 

appropriate, on: 

 the management actions undertaken; 

 the management actions remaining to be undertaken; and 

 the effectiveness of those actions toward meeting goals and objectives. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 1

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

15 

Monitoring strategies would be developed that identify indicators of change, acceptable 

thresholds, methodologies, protocols, and timeframes that would be used to evaluate and 

determine whether desired outcomes are being achieved. 

The Final RMP will be periodically evaluated, at least every five years as documented in an 

evaluation schedule. Special or unscheduled evaluations may also be required to review 

unexpected management actions or significant changes that have the potential to trigger an 

amendment or revision. 

1.7.1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 

The BLM has three principal levels of land use planning decisions: 1) the RMP level; 2) the 

activity level; and 3) the site-specific level. This DRMP/DEIS focuses on establishing broad 

resource objectives and direction while, at the same time, providing some activity-level guidance 

and site-specific decisions. It builds on the history of natural resource management in the 

vicinity of the Monument. 

Table 1-3 highlights the major plans and policies that have led up to how the Monument is 

presently managed. These plans are incorporated into this DRMP/DEIS by reference, but are 

not included herein. In addition, some of these plans, as well as other related plans, are 

currently being updated. All of the new and revised plans will be included in the Administrative 

Record (AR) for this project and made available upon request. New or updated plans may 

include: 

 the ACEC Management Plan (existing, enlarged, and proposed ACECs); 

 the Fire Management Plan; 

 the SRMA Management Plans; and 

 the Noxious Weed Management Plan. 

Table 1-3 Existing and Associated BLM Management Plans and Policies 

Document Year 

San Juan/San Miguel Planning Area RMP (revision in progress) 1985 

Anasazi Culture Multiple Use ACEC Management Plan 1986 

Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway Amended Corridor 

Management Plan 

1998 

BLM Standards for Public Land Health in Colorado 1997 

Fire Management Plan for the San Juan Field Office and San Juan National 

Forest 

2004 

Monticello Field Office RMP (revision in progress) 1991 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Law Enforcement Plan In draft 

Additional major plans, policies, and programs that apply to BLM land use planning relevant to 

this DRMP/DEIS are described below. 
Chapter 1 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

16 

BLM Wilderness Recommendations

As a requirement under Section 603 of the FLPMA, wilderness studies were completed for all 

BLM lands in the Monument, and recommendations have been formally submitted to Congress 

by the President. Therefore, these decisions cannot be changed except by Congressional 

action. In the Monument, approximately 25,000 acres are being managed as three separate 

Wilderness Study Areas until final determination as to their wilderness status is determined by 

Congress through legislative action. 

National Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Strategy

On January 19, 2001, the BLM released a National Management Strategy for Motorized OffHighway Vehicle Use (OHV) on Public Lands (BLM 2001h). This strategy is aimed at 

recognizing the interests of motorized OHV users while, at the same time, protecting 

environmentally sensitive areas on public lands. It also seeks to focus the BLM's scarce 

funding and staffing resources for motorized OHV management at the local field office level. In 

addition, the Proclamation that established the Monument prohibited all motorized and 

mechanized vehicle use off road, except for emergency or authorized administrative purposes. 

(NOTE: For the purpose of this DRMP/DEIS, a “road” is defined as an open way for the 

passage of vehicles, persons, or animals on land, regardless of the type of travel; and “off-road” 

is defined as cross-country travel between designated roads. All off-road travel by motorized 

and/or mechanized vehicles is prohibited in the Monument.) 

National Mountain Bike Strategy

On November 12, 2002, the BLM released a National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan 

(BLM 2002a). This plan offers a comprehensive approach to addressing issues regarding 

mountain bicycling and other mechanical transport activities on public lands. This Action Plan 

focuses on guidance and actions for BLM field office managers and staff, special interest 

groups, and the public. It provides innovative and proactive approaches to protecting soil, water 

and wildlife habitat; threatened or endangered plant and animal species; native vegetation; 

heritage resources; and other resources while, at the same time, providing for high-quality, 

environmentally responsible recreational opportunities. Implementation of this DRMP/DEIS 

would be an ongoing, adaptive approach and would require the continued cooperation and 

participation of the public. 

Wind Energy Development Program

The BLM is responsible for the development of wind energy resources on BLM-administered 

lands. This interim policy was developed, in part, in response to the national energy policy 

recommendations that the Departments of the Interior, Energy, Agriculture, and Defense work 

together to increase renewable energy production (NEPDG 2001). To further support wind 

energy development on public lands and to minimize potential environmental and sociocultural 

impacts, the BLM is seeking to build on the existing interim policy to establish a Wind Energy 

Development Program. 

Native American Consultation, in Accordance With Executive Orders 12866, 13084, et 

seq. 

Executive Order 12866 enhances planning and coordination efforts with respect to both new 

and existing regulations, and makes the process more accessible and open to the public. 

Executive Order 13084 establishes requirements for meaningful consultation and collaboration 

with Native American tribal governments in the development of regulatory practices on Federal 

matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 1

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

17 

CFR Title 43, Section 1610, and BLM Manual and Handbook 1601 on Land Use Planning

CFR Title 43, Section 1610 states that guidance for preparation and amendment of 

DRMPs/DEISs may be provided by the Director of the BLM and the Colorado State Director, as 

needed, to help District and Area Managers and staff prepare a specific plan. 

BLM Manual and Handbook H-1601-1 (BLM 2005a) provide guidance to the BLM on the 

requirements of the FLPMA, the BLM’s Planning Regulations (43 CFR 1600), and the NEPA. 

Nothing in the BLM Manual or in the BLM handbook supersedes the legal and regulatory 

mandates in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The BLM Manual and Handbook 1601 

provide guidance for preparing new RMPs (draft and final), plan revisions, plan amendments, 

other equivalent plans (e.g., plans adopted from other agencies), and subsequent 

implementation-level plans. Procedures and requirements are set forth to ensure that BLM 

plans meet regulatory and statutory requirements. To the extent possible, this guidance 

integrates BLM land use planning requirements with the NEPA. 

1.7.2. Consultation and Coordination 

BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 (BLM 2005a) encourages the BLM to use a 

“Collaborative Planning Process” whereby interested parties, often with widely varied interests, 

can work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public lands. This section 

describes specific actions undertaken to consult and coordinate with government agencies, 

special interest groups, Native American tribes, and the public in the development of this 

DRMP/DEIS. Additional information on public involvement and scoping is addressed in 

Section 1.5. 

Monument Advisory Committee Consultation and Coordination

On February 4, 2003, the Monument Advisory Committee was established to gather and 

analyze information; hear public testimony; advise the BLM on priorities, goals, and objectives; 

and provide recommendations for implementation of ecosystem approaches to management. 

The Committee consists of 11 members who were selected based on their knowledge and their 

special expertise in specific areas of interest. The Committee will continue to meet regularly 

throughout the DRMP/DEIS planning process. The Committee members and actions are 

detailed in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Scoping Report (BLM 2004a). 

Intergovernmental and Interagency Consultation and Coordination

Development of the DRMP/DEIS will allow the BLM the opportunity to review existing 

agreements and consider cooperative agreements with Federal, State, and local agencies to 

improve management in the Monument. In addition, several government agencies have been 

involved in the development of the DRMP/DEIS. These agencies include: 

 the National Park Service (NPS) (Hovenweep National Monument); 

 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); 

 the United States Forest Service (USFS) (San Juan National Forest); 

 the BLM (Monticello Field Office); 

 Montezuma County; 

 Dolores County; 

 the Colorado Historical Society; and 

 the Colorado Division Of Wildlife (CDOW). 
Chapter 1 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

18 

Native American Tribal Consultation and Coordination

Twenty-five Native American tribes have cultural affiliation either with archaeological and 

historical sites in the Monument or with the Monument's natural landscape. The BLM must 

honor cultural and traditional Native American beliefs. Multiple uses such as recreation, science 

and research, livestock grazing, oil and gas development need to be managed in balance with 

these beliefs. 

The BLM first initiated consultation with Native American tribes in 1993. Consultation 

specifically related to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) 

was conducted intermittently until 1999. At this time, the Monument and the Anasazi Heritage 

Center (AHC) formally initiated consultation with 25 tribes. The consultation effort had two 

goals. The first goal was to identify groups that, under NAGPRA, claim cultural affiliation with 

the human remains and associated funerary objects in the collections housed at the AHC. The 

second goal was to identify Native American groups that have traditional association with the 

landscape now known as Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. 

A cultural affiliation study for the Monument was completed in December 2002 (Gilpin et al. 

2002). The study determined that 25 tribes have traditional association with the Monument. In 

the affiliation study, the tribes commented on the management of cultural resources and 

treatment of human remains in the Monument. In addition, they made recommendations 

concerning their involvement in the development of the Monument DRMP/DEIS. These 

recommendations include: the BLM providing the tribes with updates during the planning 

process; the BLM hosting meetings with the tribes to collect scoping comments; and the BLM 

conducting a field trip of the Monument and of archaeological collections at the AHC in 

cooperation with the tribes. 

The BLM will actively continue consultations with the Native American tribes culturally affiliated 

with the Monument. These efforts will include updates via newsletters, meetings, one-on-one 

contact with tribal members, and updates at Mesa Verde’s biannual NAGPRA meetings. 

Consultation and Coordination with Other Stakeholders

Official cooperating agencies include the Colorado Historical Society and the USFWS. 

Additional stakeholders include: 

 the Anasazi Historical Society; 

 the Canyonlands Natural History Association; 

 Colorado Backcountry Byways; 

 Colorado College; 

 the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists; 

 the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and Division of Wildlife; 

 the Colorado Environmental Coalition; 

 the Colorado Natural Heritage Program; 

 the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation; 

 Colorado Preservation, Inc.; 

 the Colorado State Historical Fund; 

 Colorado State Trails; 

 The Conservation Fund; 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 1

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

19 

 the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center; 

 the Four Corners Trail Club; 

 Friends of Canyons of the Ancients; 

 Fort Lewis College; 

 Great Old Broads for Wilderness; 

 hosted workers; 

 interns; 

 the Kelly Place; 

 the Kokopelli Bike Club; 

 the McElmo Canyon Research Institute; 

 Mesa Verde Backcountry Horsemen; 

 the National Trust for Historic Preservation; 

 the National Landscape Conservation System Coalition; 

 the San Juan Citizen’s Alliance; 

 the San Juan Mountains Association; 

 Save America’s Treasures; 

 the Southwest Conservation Corps; 

 The Trust for Public Lands; 

 The Watercourse, Montana State University; 

 the University of Colorado; 

 volunteers; 

 the Wilderness Land Trust; 

 The Wilderness Society; 

 the USFS; 

 the NPS; and 

 The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, The Uintah-Ouray Ute Tribe, The Southern Ute Tribe, The 

Navajo Nation, The Hopi Tribe, The Pueblo of Acoma, The Pueblo of Cochiti, The 

Pueblo of Isleta, The Pueblo of San Felipe, The Pueblo of Santa Ana, The Pueblo of 

Santo Domingo, The Pueblo of Jemez, The Pueblo of Laguna, The Pueblo of Sandia, 

The Pueblo of Zia, The Pueblo of Zuni, The Pueblo of Nambe, The Pueblo of San Juan, 

The Pueblo of Picuris, The Pueblo of Pojoaque, The Pueblo of San Ildefonso, The 

Pueblo of Santa Clara, The Pueblo of Taos, The Pueblo of Tesuque, and Jicarilla 

Apache. 

1.8. Related Plans 

Other State, local, and tribal land use plans are relevant to this planning effort and were 

considered in the development of this DRMP/DEIS. These include: 

 the Montezuma County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, January 1997; 
Chapter 1 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

20 

 the Forest Management Plan, Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation, 2002-2016; and 

 the Hovenweep National Monument Land Use Plan, in process. 

1.9. Policy 

A broad range of Federal policies, decisions, and laws guide development of the DRMP/DEIS. 

Key laws with bearing on the planning decisions are discussed below. 

1.9.1. Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) 

FLPMA establishes the land management authority of the BLM and provides guidance for how 

public lands are to be managed by the BLM. The BLM manages public lands on the basis 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. The DRMP/DEIS will not terminate any valid ROWs or customary operation, 

maintenance, repair, or replacement activities in existing ROWs on BLM lands. 

1.9.2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

NEPA established a national policy to maintain conditions under which people and nature can 

exist in productive harmony while, at the same time, fulfilling the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations of Americans. It established the CEQ 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. 

1.9.3. Clean Air Act 

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 relied 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). 

1.9.4. Clean Water Act (CWA) 

The Clean Water Act (CWA), or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, is the principal law 

governing pollution of the nation’s surface waters (33 USC 1251). Originally enacted in 1948, it 

was revised, by subsequent amendments, to spell out ambitious programs for water quality 

improvements; programs that are still being implemented by industries and municipalities. The 

Clean Water Act consists of two major parts. The first provision authorized Federal financial 

assistance for municipal sewage treatment plant construction. The second provision, which is 

regulatory, established a national policy to maintain conditions under which people and nature 

can exist in productive harmony while, at the same time, fulfilling social, economic, and other 

requirements. 

1.9.5. Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Management activities on private and public lands are subject to the ESA, as amended. It 

directs project proponents or government agencies, as appropriate, to consult with the USFWS 

and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 1

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

21 

Fisheries) to address the effects of management activities on threatened and endangered 

species and designated critical habitat. This consultation leads to the issuance of a Biological 

Opinion (BO), and may result in the issuance of a Section 10(a) permit (for non-Federal actions) 

or a Section 7 permit (for Federal actions) by the USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries. The BLM is 

consulting with the USFWS regarding any actions that may, under this DRMP/DEIS affect ESA 

listed species. To this end, a Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared for the actions 

proposed through this DRMP/DEIS. 

1.9.6. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

The NHPA is the primary Federal law providing for the protection and preservation of cultural 

resources. The NHPA established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the 

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

(SHPO). 

1.9.7. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is the domestic law that implements the United States’ 

commitment to four international conventions (with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for the 

protection of a shared migratory bird resource. Under this law, all migratory birds and their parts 

(including eggs, nests, and feathers) are fully protected. Each of the conventions protects 

select species of birds that are common to multiple countries (i.e., they occur in more than one 

country at some point during their annual life cycle). The law is implemented by the USFWS. 

The BLM would be required to manage the bird populations on BLM-administered public lands 

in the Monument consistent with the requirements of the MBTA. 

1.9.8. The Brunot Treaty 

The Brunot Treaty, ratified by Congress in 1874, withdrew over 5,000 square miles in the 

mountains of southwestern Colorado from the 1868 Ute Reservation. The Brunot cession area 

includes 3,857 acres (including 216 acres of private land) in the southeastern corner of the 

Monument. The agreement, entered into between the United States (as represented by Felix 

Brunot) and the Ute Indians in Colorado, was passed into law (18 Stat., 36) by the House of 

Representatives and the Senate of the U.S. Congress on April 29, 1974 (after Congress 

decided in 1871 that the U.S. would no longer make treaties with Native American tribes; yet 

continued to interact with Native American tribes in much the same manner through executive 

orders and agreements enacted as statutes). Under the “reserved rights doctrine,” hunting 

rights on reservation lands relinquished by the Utes were retained; that is, the tribes retained 

such rights as part of their status as prior and continuing sovereigns. Article II of the Brunot 

Agreement specified that “the United States shall permit the Ute Indians to hunt upon said lands 

so long as the game lasts and the Indians are at peace with the white people.” This is 

considered a valid existing right that, under the terms of the Proclamation that established the 

Monument, must be honored. 

These hunting rights currently apply only to the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, acknowledged 

when the tribe sued the State of Colorado for their historical hunting rights in 1978. The rights 

were granted to the tribe under a consent decree that gives enrolled members of the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe the right to hunt deer and elk in the Brunot area for subsistence, religious, or 

ceremonial purposes. The consent decree specifies that tribal members may hunt deer and elk 

without a state license year-round, providing that they obtain a tribal hunting permit. Other 

game animals may be hunted without a license and without bag limits, but only during hunting 

seasons established by the CDOW. In exercising their Brunot hunting rights, the Ute Mountain 

Utes must adhere to regulations established by the Monument designed to protect other 

resources, such as the resources listed in the Monument’s transportation plan. 
Chapter 1 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

22 

1.10. Overall Vision 

The overall management vision for the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, derived 

from public scoping, interagency dialogue, and the BLM’s interdisciplinary (ID) team, is to 

“maintain and improve cultural, natural, and open space values on a landscape scale through 

partnerships and collaboration, for the enjoyment and use of a growing and diverse population 

of current and future generations.” 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

23 

2.0 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES 

The BLM manages public lands and resource values according to the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield. Given these principles and the inherent conflicting nature of resource 

conservation and resource development, alternative development in this DRMP/DEIS occurs 

within the limits of planning criteria that address the needs of present and future generations 

while, at the same time, adhering to the Proclamation requirement that Monument objects be 

protected. This approach resulted in a reasonable range of alternatives that vary by their 

emphasis on allowable uses and management actions affecting conservation and development. 

Chapter 2 describes five alternatives evaluated in detail in this DRMP/DEIS and how they were 

developed. Each alternative provides a different emphasis for managing Monument lands and 

resources, and each Action Alternative represents a complete and reasonable land use plan 

that meets the purpose and need described in Chapter 1. 

One of the goals of the DRMP/DEIS process is to ensure a consistent, coordinated approach to 

managing lands within the Monument, in accordance with the Proclamation and all other 

regulatory guidance and standards. To accomplish this, management goals and objectives are 

described for each resource, resource use, and special designation area. Major themes and 

management actions for the most emphasized issues within the five alternatives are presented 

in the following sections. All management actions that comprise the alternatives are listed in 

detail in Table 2-1 and are described and depicted on Maps 1 through 14. 

In contrast to Alternative I, the “No Action Alternative”, Alternatives II through V are referred to 

as the “Action Alternatives.” Alternative V is the Preferred Alternative. Some management 

actions would be the same under all of the alternatives; thus, they are listed as “common to all” 

actions in Table 2-1. 

2.1. Alternative Development, Including the Preferred Alternative 

The development of the alternatives in this DRMP/DEIS included a public scoping process that 

allowed interested members of the public, Native American tribes, special interest groups, and 

resource and land use agencies, to comment on the appropriate scope of issues to consider in 

the planning process for the Monument. The formal scoping period began April 24, 2002. The 

BLM provided an extended public scoping period between April 2002 and November 2003 to 

allow ample opportunity for public comment and involvement in the initial stages of planning. 

During this time, BLM staff reviewed the issues identified during initial scoping and collected 

pertinent resource information for the Monument. This resource information is summarized in 

the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) (BLM 2005b). 

Scoping issues described in Chapter 1, along with all appropriate laws, guidance, and 

standards, were used to establish management goals and objectives. A reasonable range of 

management actions (alternatives) were created to address these goals and objectives while, at 

the same time, allowing managers to meet the Proclamation mandate to “protect the objects of 

the Monument.” In developing and refining alternatives, the BLM sought to accomplish three 

things: 1) to create a reasonable range of implementable alternatives, in accordance with NEPA 

and FLPMA guidance; 2) to ensure that all of the alternatives would be consistent with the 

Proclamation; and 3) to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. 

Once preliminary environmental consequences were analyzed for Alternatives I through IV, a 

fifth alternative, the Preferred Alternative, was developed and analyzed. The development of 

the Preferred Alternative was based on direction from the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

(BLM 2005a) which states, “If the combination of potential planning decisions are drawn from 
Chapter 2 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

24 

different alternatives, then those potential planning decisions should be compiled into a new 

alternative (identified as the Preferred Alternative) and the impacts analyzed accordingly.” 

2.1.1. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed 

Some issues raised during the scoping process were considered, but not carried forward for 

further analysis. As discussed throughout the Canyons of the Ancients Scoping Report (BLM 

2004a), these issues were generally resolved by their appropriate classification into one or more 

of the following classifications: 

 those that would be resolved through policy or administrative actions; 

 those already required by law; 

 those that were already being addressed, or would be addressed independently of the 

current planning process; and 

 those determined to be beyond the scope of the current planning process. 

There was general interest in developing two primary issues into alternatives: no new oil and 

gas leasing and no new livestock grazing. These alternatives garnered a great deal of interest 

during the scoping process and are discussed in detail below. 

No New Oil and Gas Leasing

The Proclamation that established the Monument (Appendix A) explicitly addresses and directs 

management of oil and gas leasing. 

Because most of the Federal lands have already been leased for oil and gas, which includes 

carbon dioxide (CO2), and development is already occurring, the Monument shall remain open 

to oil and gas leasing and development; provided, the Secretary of the Interior shall manage the 

development, subject to valid existing rights, so as not to create any new impacts that interfere 

with the proper care and management of the objects protected by this proclamation; and 

provided further, the Secretary may issue new leases only for the purpose of promoting 

conservation of oil and gas resources in any common reservoir now being produced under 

existing leases, or to protect against drainage. 

Thus, closing the Monument to new oil and gas leasing as a method to resolve conflicts with 

other resource uses was an issue discussed during project scoping and considered during 

alternative development. While the Proclamation specifically states that the Monument shall 

remain open to oil and gas leasing, a settlement agreement related to the Mail Trail Seismic 

Project halted leasing until the Monument Plan was complete (SJCA v. Gale Norton 2002). This 

deferment is analyzed in the No Action Alternative. Given that only a relatively small area of the 

Monument is currently not leased for oil and gas, as well as the explicit language concerning 

leasing in the Proclamation, it was concluded that permanently closing the Monument to new 

leases was outside the scope of the planning process. In addition, by law, the BLM must, at a 

minimum, lease for drainage purposes. 

No Livestock Grazing

It was concluded that closing the Monument to all livestock grazing would not meet the purpose 

and need of this DRMP/DEIS, which must be conducted in compliance with the NEPA, the 

Taylor Grazing Act, and the FLPMA; therefore, this alternative was not carried forward into 

analysis. 

Under the NEPA, agencies must study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to 

recommended courses of management action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts 

over use of available resources. No issues or conflicts have been identified during this process 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

25 

that would require the complete elimination of livestock grazing across the Monument for their 

resolution. Conflicts between livestock grazing and other resources were addressed in the 

alternatives, with adjustments made with regard to stocking levels, seasons-of-use, grazing 

management activities, and forage allocation levels. 

Likewise, the FLPMA requires that public lands be managed on a “multiple-use and sustainedyield basis” (FLPMA Sec. 302[a] and Sec. 102[7]), and includes livestock grazing as a principal 

or major use of public lands. While multiple use does not require that all lands be used for 

livestock grazing, complete removal of livestock grazing on the entire Monument would not meet 

the principle of multiple use and sustained yield. 

2.2. General Description of Alternatives 

The alternatives analyzed in this DRMP/DEIS are numbered I through V. Alternative I is the No 

Action Alternative, and under this Alternative there would be no change from current 

management. Alternatives II through IV represent a range in management goals and 

objectives. In general, Alternative II emphasizes the protection of cultural resource values 

(including Native American tribal values), by protecting cultural resource communities, sites, and 

isolated finds. This alternative also emphasizes natural resource protection and enhancement. 

Alternative III emphasizes the protection of cultural resource communities and sites, along with 

natural resource values while, at the same time, providing for resource use and development. 

Alternative IV emphasizes cultural resource community and site protection, along with natural 

resource values while, at the same time, encouraging resource use and development. 

Alternative V is the Preferred Alternative and was developed using a combination of 

management actions from Alternatives I through IV. 

This section summarizes the five alternatives analyzed in detail as part of this DRMP/DEIS 

process. These alternatives were developed to analyze management goals and objectives 

within a reasonable range of management actions, and to assist decision makers and the public 

in understanding the potential consequences and benefits of alternative scenarios. 

Considerations in the formulation of the alternatives include the following: 

 The alternatives are intended to represent a reasonable range of alternatives with an 

associated array of management actions. 

 No alternatives were analyzed that would clearly conflict with existing laws or 

regulations. 

 Fluid Mineral leasing is considered consistent with the Proclamation and the FLPMA. 

 Wild and Scenic River (WSR) eligibility and suitability analyses are included as part of 

this document (see Appendix B). Management of stream segments found to be both 

eligible and suitable for WSR designation is consistent with such a designation, 

regardless of the alternative. 

 Requirements for access management analysis are being met through the transportation 

assessment portion of this DRMP/DEIS. 

 For the purpose of this DRMP/DEIS, a “road” is defined as an open way for the passage 

of vehicles, persons, or animals on land, regardless of the type of travel; and “off-road” is 

defined as cross-country travel between designated roads. All off-road travel by 

motorized and/or mechanized vehicles is prohibited in the Monument. 

Not all management actions described under each alternative would specifically be permitted by 

adoption of that alternative through the planning process. For example, although some oil and 

gas development would be allowed under most of the alternatives, actual development would 
Chapter 2 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

26 

occur only after an area has been leased, and proposed well locations, road and pipeline 

alignments, and other facility plans have gone through the permitting process and review, 

including site-specific NEPA analysis. Furthermore, while the assumptions associated with the 

alternatives represent reasonable projections of what could occur, it is impossible to predict with 

certainty the precise outcome of any of the alternatives due to the large number of variables 

involved. Actual development may differ substantially from the scenarios presented. 

Under all of the alternatives, any action or development must be consistent with applicable 

Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Nothing presented in the following impact 

analysis of the alternatives should be construed as exempting activities from applicable legal or 

regulatory requirements. 

The following sections generally describe the alternatives in terms of resources and resource 

uses that were found to be most important to the BLM, cooperating agencies, other public land 

agencies, special interest groups, Native American tribes, and the public. These important 

resource issues include: the protection of cultural resources on a landscape scale, the 

management of rangeland resources to achieve Public Land Health Standards, the proactive 

management of oil and gas exploration and development, and the development of a 

recreation/transportation system that would protect Monument objects while, at the same time, 

meet public needs. Additional information regarding specific alternative management actions, 

including the goals and objectives that they are tied to, are detailed in Table 2-1. Table 2-2 

provides additional details on the number of potential well pads and acreage available for 

leasing in the Monument. Table 2-3 provides updated information on active AUMs, by 

alternative. 

Protection of Cultural Resources and Oil and Gas Development

A common thread throughout the action alternatives is the protection of cultural resources, 

regardless of whether they include communities, sites, and isolated finds (as described in 

Alternative II) or whether they only include communities and sites (as described in Alternatives 

III through V). To protect these and other objects of the Monument, as well as their 

interconnectedness, development of all lease areas in the Monument would be carried out using 

the BMP strategy entitled “Geographic Area Development Plan” (GADP), as described in BLM 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-152 (BLM 2003a). 

The Monument was established to preserve the existing character of the cultural and physical 

landscape to the maximum extent possible. This strategy requires operators to submit 

proposed development plans within a lease area. A GADP is the result of this comprehensive 

development plan for a proposed or defined oil and gas field(s), or a limited geographic area 

within a field that meets both the environmental management needs of the BLM, and the 

economic needs of the company. To design resource information collection strategies, 

preplanning for a GADP involves between the operator and the BLM. 

Once resource information collection is completed, the specific archaeological inventory 

information collected for the area would be used as the basis for delineating prehistoric 

communities (see complete definition below) that are defined by the time period of occupation 

and use of an area during that time period. Proposed oil and gas development locations would 

be evaluated to determine whether placement of developments involving no direct impacts to 

communities, sites, and isolated finds is possible, based upon the distribution and density of 

prehistoric communities. Finally, areas or locations in which no oil and gas development would 

be allowed, as well as areas or locations where development may occur without direct impacts 

to communities, sites, and isolated artifacts, would be identified. This would be documented 

and included in the GADP. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

27 

The GADP, as well as all associated resource-specific information that is collected, becomes a 

reference document that serves as the basis for submission of individual “applications for 

permits to drill” (APDs) or multiple APD package submissions. The use of “Multiple APD 

Packages”, which include a “Master Drilling Plan”, a Geographic Area NEPA Environmental 

Assessment (EA), and a “Standard Operating Practice (SOP) Agreement”, by operators are 

required to address cultural (and natural) resource management on a landscape scale. Section 

106 compliance with the NHPA would be completed for individual APDs or Multiple APD 

Packages, and would involve field inspections of all proposed facilities by a BLM-permitted 

archaeologist. Oil and gas leasing is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 

compliance with the NHPA. Prior to lease sales, a Class I inventory (literature review) would be 

conducted for proposed lease parcels to evaluate the known cultural resources. The Class III 

inventory (complete ground survey) would occur at the GADP stage, and would be used to 

guide development planning. Class III inventory (100 percent inventory of project area), 

evaluation, and mitigation of cultural resources would be completed at the APD stage. 

Methods and Requirements 

Leaseholders/operators within the Monument would be required to submit development plans 

along with 1:24,000 topographic maps indicating well pads, roads, pipelines, and other 

developments, to the Monument Manager by the 1st of September each year. Additionally, 

yearly updates must be submitted to the BLM by the 1st of September each year, if necessary. 

A geographical area would be identified for a Class III archaeological inventory that is based on 

evaluation of the Plan of Development (POD) by the Monument Archaeologist and other 

resource specialists. The area for inventory would be specific to each POD. It would 

encompass all proposed developments, topography, natural features, and other resource values 

(including visual management), and may include areas adjacent to the POD area. 

Regardless of previous inventory status, new Class III archaeological inventories would be 

conducted in the Monument. This would be done to realize the efficiency and accuracy afforded 

by this method in relocating previously recorded sites. Chronological information would be 

derived from in-field analyses of surface artifact assemblages. The leaseholder/operator would 

hire an archaeological consulting firm, under permit to the BLM, to conduct the archaeological 

inventory and reporting. 

Once the field survey and site records are complete, the contractor would meet with the 

Monument Archaeologist to review findings, identify and delineate “prehistoric communities” and 

areas where development would be excluded or permitted, and to document the methods and 

rationale, prior to writing the final inventory report. Native American tribes having established 

cultural affiliations or traditional and/or religious associations with the Monument would be 

afforded an opportunity to review these reports to identify traditional cultural properties and to 

provide additional input. 

When multiple APD packages or individual APDs are submitted, the operator will hire an 

archaeological consulting firm under permit to the BLM to complete the site-specific 

archaeological documentation for Section 106 compliance under the National Historic 

Preservation Act as amended. 

In general, the following are decision parameters tied to this process for existing fluid mineral 

leases: 

1. Where physical cultural remains are dense, continuous, and chronologically related and 

determined to be communities, throughout the survey area (constant-no breaks)-No APDs will 

be approved. 
Chapter 2 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

28 

2. If areas are identified where distinct breaks between communities occur (density drops off) 

in an area large enough to locate developments without direct impacts-APDs may be approved 

in these areas. Site protection will be accomplished through monitoring, fencing construction 

limits, and “Cultural Resources Protection Conditions of Approval.” 

3. Should areas be identified with no cultural remains, development would be permitted as 

determined through interdisciplinary review (other resources). 

To take into account the effects of new fluid mineral leasing on cultural resources on a 

landscape scale as well as protect the objects of the Monument as specified in the 

Proclamation, all lease offerings in the Monument will be issued with an NSO stipulation. The 

NSO stipulation prohibits long-term use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral 

exploration, or development to protect identified resource values from permanent structures or 

other long-term ground-disturbing activities. 

(NOTE: For management planning purposes discussed throughout this document, a prehistoric 

community will refer to the collective physical remains or expressions of a cultural group’s 

occupation and use of a geographical area during an established chronological period of time 

where residents had face-to-face contact with each other on a regular basis. The scale of the 

community is defined to include permanent and temporary habitation sites and associated 

architecture, such as storage, towers, pit structures, work areas, cultivation areas, specialized 

architecture, water sources, water storage and manipulation structures, as well as the 

composite or aggregate of sites and isolated finds [settlement and utilization of the land] through 

time. A prehistoric landscape is a composite of all physical remains and/or expressions of 

human occupation through time in an expanse of scenery that can be seen in a single view.) 

Recreation Management 

The BLM designates Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) to manage unique 

recreation opportunities within the Monument. These areas present exceptional opportunities 

for primitive recreation and for cultural resource interpretation, which provide important benefits 

to local communities and other users of public lands. Therefore, it is important to specifically 

manage these areas with the goal and objective of preserving the distinctive character and 

setting of the Monument. In accordance with the BLM Land Use Handbook, Section II, the BLM 

must identify and designate SRMAs, including their recreation “niches,” recreation management 

objectives, character setting conditions, and management strategy. The SRMAs proposed in 

this DRMP/DEIS would be managed to protect the natural setting that supports outstanding 

opportunities for primitive recreation as well as for two specific types of cultural resource 

recreation experiences: unique cultural SRMAs that provide frontcountry (developed) visitor 

experiences, and unique backcountry SRMAs where Monument visitors can experience cultural 

and natural resources through self-discovery (an outdoor museum type of experience). Within 

the SRMAs, there are recreation management zones (RMZs). The purpose of RMZs is to 

designate areas for specific recreation activities. 

The final step in developing recreation guidance in this DRMP/DEIS is to outline implementing 

actions (future plans for on-the-ground management), that are designed to achieve 

management objectives and to set prescriptions. Implementing actions are designed to 

integrate all recreation program complexities and appropriately balance them to achieve 

approved objectives and prescriptions. 

The complete detailed analysis of the recreation resource component of this plan can be found 

in Appendix C. The information provided below represents a summary of the full analysis. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

29 

2.2.1. Alternative I 

Alternative I represents the “No Action Alternative” required by the NEPA process. The 

alternative constitutes “no action” in the sense that it represents “no change from current 

management,” but not in the sense that it represents “no change from current conditions.” As 

described in Chapter 1, current management actions are assembled from the San Juan/San 

Miguel RMP (BLM 1985) with its amendments; the Anasazi ACEC Plan Management Guideline 

(BLM 1986a); and the Monument Proclamation, BLM Director's Interim Management Policy for 

Bureau of Land Management Monuments and National Conservation Areas (BLM 2001a), BLM 

Colorado State Director's Guidance for Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM 

2001b), the Secretary of the Interior's Management of the Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument (USDOI 2000), and the Interim Management Guidance for Oil and Gas Leasing and 

Development of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM 2001c). Under this 

alternative, cultural resource sites would continue to be developed for visitation and for 

interpretation. 

Under this alternative, there would be no new issuance of oil and gas leases (although existing 

leases would not be affected). While the Proclamation specifically states that the Monument 

shall remain open to oil and gas leasing, a settlement agreement related to the Mail Trail 

Seismic Project halted leasing until the Monument Plan was complete (SJCA v. Gale Norton 

2002). This deferment is analyzed in the No Action Alternative. However, by law, the BLM 

must, at a minimum, lease for drainage purposes. Rangeland resources (see Map 3) would be 

based upon a calculation of 8,492 AUMs, with 1,692 suspended AUMs. Although this does not 

necessarily represent what is actually on the ground, the No Action Alternative for the 

recreation/transportation system (see Maps 4 and 5) is based on the last official decision made 

in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD (BLM 1985), consisting of seven recreation and 

transportation facilities and 149 miles of roads. Approximately 25,976 acres would be managed 

as closed, and 139,359 acres would be managed as limited to OHV travel. This alternative 

does not include the development of a comprehensive transportation plan, which the 

Proclamation mandates. 

2.2.2. Alternative II 

This alternative maximizes cultural resource protection by avoiding impacts to cultural resource 

communities, sites, and isolated finds. This management strategy maintains large blocks of 

undisturbed land that provide information on not only individual sites and artifacts but also on 

their interconnectedness (i.e., how they relate to each other). Alternative II would develop the 

outdoor museum concept for self-discovery of cultural and natural resources. This outdoor 

museum concept would provide a backcountry experience to visiting publics. In addition, 13 

cultural sites would be developed and visitation would be facilitated through the use of 

developed roads and interpretive signs. The development of these cultural resource sites would 

enhance the visitor experience. Under this alternative, standing wall features would be 

thoroughly documented, and then they would be allowed to deteriorate naturally, under erosive 

forces. A Cultural Resources Advisory Panel would be given the task to develop research goals 

and methods for these resources in the Monument. 

To protect against drainage, it is estimated that up to 880 acres would be available for new fluid 

mineral leases. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between livestock 

grazing and recreational activities, and to protect cultural resources by closing five livestock 

grazing allotments (124 AUMs). Under Alternative II, rangeland allocation would be calculated 

at 6,437 active, with 3,706 suspended AUMs. Management would achieve Public Land Health 

Standards (see Appendix D) by emphasizing a reduction of authorized use, by adjusting the 
Chapter 2 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

30 

duration and extent of spring livestock grazing, and by implementing rest-rotation grazing 

schedules. 

Alternative II would promote an undeveloped recreation strategy, with minimal facilities and 

infrastructure developed to support recreation and transportation use. The focus of use would 

be incidental visitors and local residents. A minimal number of access roads would be 

maintained and most existing user-created roads would be closed and reclaimed. The 

recreation/transportation system would include 139 miles of motorized, non-motorized, and 

mechanized roads. Approximately 38,598 acres would be managed as closed, and 126,737 

acres would be managed as limited to OHV travel where travel is restricted to roads. 

2.2.3. Alternative III 

This alternative emphasizes the protection of cultural resource communities and sites and 

natural resource values while, at the same time, providing for resource use and development. 

This management strategy would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land, although not as 

large as Alternative II, and would provide for the retrieval of information on not only individual 

sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness (i.e., how they relate to each other). 

Alternative III would develop the outdoor museum concept of self-discovery of cultural and 

natural resources. In addition, 13 to 25 sites would be developed and visitation would be 

facilitated through the use of developed roads and interpretive signs. Under this alternative, 

standing wall features would be thoroughly documented, and then they would be allowed to 

deteriorate, under natural erosive forces. The BLM would develop research goals and methods 

for cultural resources that would undergo peer review by cultural resource experts. 

Under this alternative, approximately 3,021 acres would be available for new oil and gas leases; 

however, these would be limited to areas within the McElmo Dome Unit boundary. Rangeland 

resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between livestock grazing and recreational 

activities, and to protect cultural resources by closing five livestock grazing allotments. 

Calculated stocking allocation would be approximately 8,368 AUMs, with 1,655 suspended 

AUMs. Management would achieve Public Land Health Standards by implementing the 

reduction of authorized use, by adjusting the duration and extent of spring livestock grazing, and 

by implementing rest-rotation grazing schedules. 

Under Alternative III RMZs and SRMAs would be identified and managed. A destination 

recreation strategy would be promoted, with some facilities and infrastructure developed to 

support recreation and transportation use for regional visitors. Some existing user-created 

roads would be closed and reclaimed. The recreation/transportation system would include 189 

miles of motorized, non-motorized, and mechanized roads. Approximately 25,976 acres would 

be managed as closed, and 139,359 acres would be managed as limited to OHV travel where 

travel is restricted to roads. 

2.2.4. Alternative IV 

Alternative IV emphasizes the protection of cultural resource communities and sites and natural 

resource values while, at the same time, encouraging resource use and development. This 

management strategy would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land, although not as large as 

Alternative II, and would provide for the retrieval of information on not only individual sites and 

artifacts, but also their interconnectedness (i.e., how they relate to each other). Alternative IV 

would develop the outdoor museum concept of self-discovery of cultural and natural resources. 

In addition, 13 to 25 sites would be developed where visitation would be facilitated through the 

use of developed roads and interpretive signs. Stabilization would be the preferred preservation 

method for standing walls. Monument staff would develop and determine research goals and 

methods for cultural resources. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

31 

Under this alternative, approximately 24,462 acres would be available for new oil and gas 

leases. Rangeland allocation would be calculated at 8,492 active AUMS, with 1,692 suspended 

AUMs. Management would meet Public Land Health Standards by adjusting the duration and 

extent of spring livestock grazing and by implementing rest-rotation schedules. 

RMZs and SRMAs would be identified and managed under this alternative. A destination 

recreation strategy would be promoted. Development of destination points and facilities would 

be emphasized for the use of national and international visitors. Most existing BLM roads would 

be maintained, with no user-created roads closed or reclaimed. The recreation/transportation 

system would include 213 miles of motorized, non-motorized, and mechanized roads. 

Approximately 25,976 acres would be managed as closed, and 139,359 acres would be 

managed as limited to OHV travel where travel is restricted to roads. 

2.2.5. Alternative V 

Alternative V is the Preferred Alternative and was developed using a combination of 

management actions from Alternatives I through IV. This alternative emphasizes the protection 

of cultural resource communities and sites, and provides for the protection and enhancement of 

natural resources. This management strategy would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land, 

although not as large as Alternative II, and would provide for the retrieval of information on not 

only individual sites and artifacts, but also their interconnectedness (i.e., how they relate to each 

other). Alternative V would develop the outdoor museum concept of self-discovery of cultural 

and natural resources. In addition, 13 to 25 cultural sites would be developed for public use. 

This includes publicizing these locations while, at the same time, implementing minimal 

stabilization and interpretive signage, infrastructure, and visitor services. Visitors would be 

encouraged to discover all other sites within the Monument on their own. Under this alternative, 

standing wall features would be thoroughly documented, and then they would be allowed to 

deteriorate naturally, under erosive forces. A Cultural Resources Advisory Panel would be 

given the task of developing research goals and methods for these resources in the Monument. 

To protect against drainage, it is estimated that up to 880 acres would be made available for oil 

and gas leases. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between livestock 

grazing and recreational activities, and to protect cultural resources by closing five livestock 

grazing allotments (124 AUMs). Under Alternative V, rangeland allocation would be calculated 

at 6,437 active AUMs, with 3,706 suspended AUMs. Management would meet Public Land 

Health Standards (see Appendix D) by emphasizing a reduction of authorized use, by adjusting 

the duration and extent of spring livestock grazing, and by implementing rest-rotation grazing 

schedules. 

Alternative V would promote an undeveloped recreation strategy, with minimal facilities and 

infrastructure developed to support recreation and transportation use. The different SRMAs 

would focus on a variety of marketing niches and would provide for a blend of users, including 

local residents, as well as incidental, regional, national, and international visitors. A mixture of 

access roads would be maintained, including 169 miles of motorized, non-motorized, and 

mechanized roads. Many existing user-created roads would be closed and reclaimed. 

Approximately 38,598 acres would be managed as closed, and 126,737 acres would be 

managed as limited to OHV travel where travel is restricted to roads. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

32 

Table 2-1 Management Actions for Alternatives I Through V 

AIR QUALITY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Protect air quality within and outside the Monument. OBJECTIVES: 1. Ensure that the air quality within the Monument meets State and Federal air quality standards and regulations. 

2. Protect visibility at scenic and important vistas located within the Monument. 3. Cooperate with the State of Colorado, the National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) regarding air quality issues at nearby Federal 

Class I (Clean Air Act) areas (Mesa Verde National Park and Weminuche Wilderness). 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. 

Obtain State of Colorado permits for emissions for all prescribed burns. Cooperate with the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force regarding emission-reducing measures for management actions to help meet regional air quality standards. Require all new or replacement internal combustion engines associated with fluid mineral development to have emissions 

controls for NO2, as recommended by the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force process, or as required by the State of Colorado. 

Construct no more than four fluid minerals well pads and associated access roads concurrently in any given square mile, with each well no closer than 0.5 mile to another well, to minimize air pollutant concentrations and to ensure compliance with State

air quality standards. 

Report activities on nonMonument lands that are causing, or are expected to cause, water quality deterioration, soil degradation, or other damage – whether directly or indirectly – to the responsible management official. Adopt emissions controls for new and replacement wellhead engines, as well as for new large compressor stations. 

Implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs [Appendix E]) and measures to reduce small particulate pollution (PM10 and PM2.5) resulting from management actions (e.g., dust abatement on existing and new road construction). Ensure that management activities comply with all requirements of the State of Colorado regarding the protection of scenic and important vistas. In addition, design and implement management actions to avoid impacts to scenic vistas within the Monument. 

Comply with State and Federal air quality standards. 

Protect air quality in adjacent Class I areas commensurate with potential impacts identified through regional air quality modeling. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL A: Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources in order to ensure long-term public benefits (i.e., from 

research, education, and preservation of cultural heritage [FLPMA Sections 103(C), 201 (A), 202 (C); NHPA Sections 106 and 110;

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, Section 14(a); and the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Section 2)]). 

OBJECTIVES: 1. Allocate all cultural resources currently recorded, or projected to occur on the basis of existing data synthesis, to uses according to their nature and relative 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

33 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

preservation value (BLM Manual Section 8110.42). Cultural Use Allocations include: a. Scientific Use; 

b. Conservation for Future Use; c. Traditional Use; 

d. Public Use (Developed and Undeveloped); e. Experimental Use; and 

f. Discharged from Management. 

2. Inventory, document, and evaluate cultural resources in order to facilitate proper management, protection, and research. 

3. Cooperate with Hovenweep National Monument on protection and management of cultural resources. 

GOAL B: Ensure that the objects of the Monument are protected at the landscape level, and that all multiple-use resource 

management and authorizations for land and resource uses are conducted in compliance with Sections 106 and Section 110 of the NHPA, as amended. 

OBJECTIVES: 1. Manage and protect cultural resources on a landscape level. 2. Manage multiple uses to ensure the protection of cultural resources, in compliance with Section 106 of NHPA. 3. Manage cultural resources for protection, preservation, and realization of BLM cultural use allocations (Section 110 of NHPA). 

4. Preserve the existing character of the cultural and physical landscape to the maximum extent possible. 

5. Encourage, foster, and conduct scientific research on cultural resources in the Monument. 6. Manage all Monument/Anasazi Heritage Center (AHC) collections in compliance with 36 CFR Part 79; U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) 

Departmental Manual, Part 411; and USDOI Museum Property Handbook, 411 DM, Vols. I-II. 

7. Strive toward responsive and sensitive stewardship and management of cultural heritage values associated with cultural resources and landscapes. 

GOAL C: Uphold Native American trust responsibilities and accommodate traditional uses in the Monument. OBJECTIVES: Develop a policy in consultation with Native American tribes that specifies how the Monument will provide products for traditional cultural use. GOAL D: Maintain the acoustic aspect of the traditional cultural landscape.OBJECTIVES: Manage all sources of noise in a manner that would not change the characteristics of the traditional landscape. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. A compilation and analysis of all available cultural resource data and literature was completed by December 15, 2000, to provide an informed basis for understanding cultural resources within the 

Allocate all cultural resources to Uses A-D (Public Use D [Developed] and Public Use D [Undeveloped]) and E. Note: For the 

purposes of this DRMP/DEIS, the following distinction is made for Public Use D: sites allocated to Public Use D will be identified as: 1) “Public Use (Developed)” sites that the public is directed to that are promoted and hardened (see listing below); 

and 2) “Public Use D (Undeveloped)” sites that the public is not directed to that are not promoted or hardened, but which may be visited in the backcountry context. Both Public Use D (Developed) and Public Use D (Undeveloped) are considered components of the “outdoor museum” concept. No sites would be allocated to Use F (Discharged from Management). None of these uses would be mutually exclusive. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

34 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Monument and to provide immediate protection for cultural resources at risk. Evaluate site significance using the criteria and methods of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for site management. In addition, other methods would be used, including regional contexts; availability of similar resources; and potential for sociocultural use, current scientific use, management use, conservation for future use, potential scientific use, data needs, public use, and no use (discharged); as well as needs for in place preservation through time. Identify sites, site areas, and/or site groups for uses specified in the guidelines prescribed in 8110.2 (BLM Manual) by means of Cultural Resource Management Plans (CRMPs). 

Allocate the following sites to Public Use D (Developed):  Lowry Pueblo 

(5MT1566); 

 Sand Canyon Pueblo 

(5MT765); 

 Painted Hand Pueblo 

(5MT502); 

 Castlerock Pueblo 

(5MT1825); 

 House With Standing 

Curved Wall (5MT132); 

 Tucked Away Two Story 

House (5MT133); 

 Wall Curves With 

Bedrock House (5MT134); 

 Sunny Alcove 

(5MT135); 

 Double Cliff House 

(5MT185); 

 Corncob House 

(5MT186); 

 Saddlehorn Hamlet 

(5MT262); 

 Escalante Pueblo 

(5MT2149); and 

 Dominguez Pueblo 

(5MT2148) 

Same as Alternative II. The Interpretation Plan would identify types of sites that would meet 

education goals. Up to 12 additional specific sites would be evaluated by the Monument Archaeologist, based on criteria outlined in Appendix F. 

Develop new sites and areas for controlled visitation with various levels of interpretation. Develop CRMPs that outline specific management objectives for each site or 

Add or drop sites from Public Use D (Developed) allocation, in response to changing conditions or as additional data and information are obtained. Allocation of sites to Public Use D (Developed) does not guarantee that these sites would be developed. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

35 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

area. Nominate appropriate sites and areas to the NRHP as surveys are completed. Prepare CRMPs for each site or group of sites. Identify 240 sites as needing stabilization or repair. 

Document and allow standing walls to deteriorate. 

Document and allow standing walls to deteriorate. 

Stabilize and preserve standing walls. 

Document and allow standing walls to deteriorate. Stabilization would be allowed at the discretion of the Monument Manager. 

 Use the process and criterion detailed in Appendix F in evaluating the suitability of designating and developing future sites for 

Public Use D (Developed) that are determined suitable for development and that are proposed for development. Prepare Cultural Resource Management Plans for sites allocated to Public Use D (Developed). 

 Evaluate applications for all Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) requesting visitation to sites allocated to Public Use D 

(Developed and Undeveloped), as appropriate. Give priority to SRP applications to sites for educational and tribal visits. 

 Require all organized groups with SRPs to provide 

experienced and knowledgeable supervision for groups, and require them to educate participants about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry site visitor etiquette, and stewardship (see Education and Interpretation alternatives). Train permittees in site monitoring techniques and require them to complete monitoring inspections for each visit and to 

submit written results to the BLM. 

Require permits for educational visits to sites, as well as permits to visit sites ancillary to other permitted uses; encourage permittees to provide experienced and knowledgeable supervision for groups. Encourage permittees to provide education about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry site visitor etiquette, and stewardship. Train permittees in site monitoring techniques and encourage them to complete monitoring inspections for each visit and to submit their written results to the BLM. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

Implement Block Class III surveys of cultural resource emphasis areas (as defined in 

Conduct a Class III cultural resource inventory to comply with Section 110 of the NHPA and Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, as funding is available: Group 1 – Areas receiving high public use and/or those that lack intensive inventory to current standards: 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

36 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

the San Juan/San Miguel RMP, December 1984) on a priority basis. Assign priorities on an annual basis. Evaluate sites only if they fall within a current project area. Establish program to comprehensively evaluate eligibility determinations through Section 106 and 110 processes. 

 Lowry area; 

 Woods Mesa; 

 Cannonball Mesa; 

 McLean Basin; 

 Pedro Point area; 

 Hamilton Mesa and Slopes; 

 Cross Canyon; 

 Ruin Canyon; 

 Risley/Moccasin Canyon area; and 

 Hovenweep Canyon (Sand Canyon Archaeological District [NRHP]). 

Group 2 – Areas that lack intensive survey coverage and/or those that need records clarification/updating:  San Jose State Hovenweep Survey, resurvey; 

 Cow Canyon and Cow Mesa; 

 Rincon Canyon; 

 Cahone Canyon; 

 Middle/Upper Cross Canyon; 

 Squaw/Spook Point; and 

 Sandstone Canyon; 

Group 3 – Areas with little previous inventory:  Bowdish Canyon/Bluewater Basin; 

 Mockingbird Mesa slopes and secondary drainages; and 

 Squaw/Papoose Canyons. 

Note: Inventory priorities may change in response to changing conditions; uses and input from researchers, educators, and tribes; or other new information. This may result in the identification of additional areas. Inventory and site documentation

would conform to the standards in the BLM 8100 Manual; the BLM Colorado Handbook of Guidelines and Procedures for Identification, Evaluation, and Mitigation of Cultural Resources; the Colorado Historical Society Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Colorado OAHP) Standards; and the Monument specific inventory requirements specified in Goal B, Objective 1. 

Design and use additional field recording protocols in response to research goals and designs, special management, or other needs as identified in the future. Work with people conducting archaeological inventories in the Monument to promote awareness of, and sensitivity to, cultural heritage concerns of Native Americans and others. Ensure that people conducting inventories utilize relevant literature, local chronological indicators, and references. 

Use current policies and procedures to collect, 

Ensure that all inventories conducted in the Monument comply with: 1) the BLM 8100 Manual; 2) the BLM, Colorado State 

Office Handbook of Guidelines and Procedures for Identification, Evaluation, and Mitigation of Cultural Resources; 3) the 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

37 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

document, and maintain data, records, and maps; issue appropriate inventory and excavation permits. Manage the data and collected material in order to enhance public awareness of resources through interpretation by AHC. Evaluate sites only if they fall within a current project area. No established program to evaluate eligibility exists. Base site boundaries primarily on surface indications. For some sites, testing may be needed; make decisions regarding the need for testing on a case-by-case basis. Evaluate site significance using the methods and criteria of the NRHP for site management. In addition, other methods would be used. These include, but are not limited to, regional contexts, potential for sociocultural use, current scientific use, management use, conservation for future use, potential scientific use, data needs, and public use, as well as the need for in-place preservation through time. 

Colorado OAHP Cultural Resource Survey Manual, Volumes 1-2; and 4) the following additional specific requirements:  Maintain site and survey data to ensure completeness and accuracy, including both hard copy and Geographic Information 

System (GIS) database. 

 Conduct all archaeological inventories in the Monument at the Class III level (conduct intensive field survey, not to simply 

summarizing previous inventory work, but to determine the need for additional Class III inventories). 

 Use Monument archaeological records, in addition to Colorado OAHP records, for conducting all Class I inventories. 

 Conduct inventories using BLM archaeologists and/or archaeologists authorized under a current BLM Cultural Resource 

Use Permit. 

 Base definition of site boundaries primarily on surface indications. For some sites, evaluative testing may be warranted to 

determine site extent and subsurface potential. Make decisions about the need for evaluative testing on a case-by-case 

basis. 

 Use Colorado OAHP records to determine the current NRHP eligibility status for known historic properties. 

 Complete in-field artifact documentation and analysis during cultural resource inventories to determine the chronological 

and cultural placement of sites and to document an accurate representation of artifact types and materials on the site record. 

Exceptions to this policy may be made by the Monument Manager in situations where there is a threat of loss or destruction, a rare type of artifact, or research objectives that require artifact collections. 

 Determine additional criteria for in-field analysis and/or collections during testing or data recovery projects on a case-bycase basis in the research design/data recovery plan for specific projects. 

 Consider other factors, in addition to NRHP eligibility criteria, when developing management and protection requirements 

regarding cultural resources during projects or activities. Such factors may include BLM use allocations; traditional use values held by Native American tribes, other groups, and individuals; and/or regional research contexts. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

38 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Require monitoring during the implementation of ground-disturbing projects, even in areas having received intensive survey where no sites were located (due to the potential for buried subsurface cultural deposits with no surface indications within the 

Monument). Grant exceptions, as determined by the Monument Manager. Require post-project monitoring, as determined by the Monument Manager. 

Design or modify multiple-use projects and/or activities when possible to avoid significant cultural resources to result in “no

historic properties affected” or “no adverse effect” determinations. 

Require a Class III Inventory (100 percent on-the-ground survey) for all proposed ground-disturbing projects. Continue cultural resources inventorying and evaluation as part of project-level planning. Buffer identified cultural sites from any ground-disturbing activity, based on specific local conditions and type/extent of 

proposed surface disturbance. Identify and implement appropriate actions or treatments to mitigate adverse effect(s) to cultural resources from unavoidable impacts of an action, as defined by an “adverse effect” determination. Proceed with mitigation actions only when consultations

and requirements under Section 106 are completed. 

Stipulate testing and monitoring requirements for projects based on the prevalence and extent of subsurface cultural deposits in Class III surveyed areas. Monitor all depositional, deluvial, alluvial, and colluvial areas. 

Implement natural resource management treatments that contribute to the long-term preservation of cultural resources when possible in addition to cultural resources preservation treatments (e.g., the removal of vegetation build-up and/or fuels from sites that are considered sensitive and vulnerable to the effects of wildfire, such as rock art sites, cliff dwellings, sites with standing 

architecture, and historic sites containing flammable materials). 

Conduct no subsurface probing or testing on sites encountered during project activities, unless the site is in danger of being impacted. 

Conduct subsurface probing (3 square meters under a “non-disturbing” permit) to determine site eligibility for discovered 

cultural resources and to reduce the number of sites that need data. In addition to NRHP eligibility determinations, it may beused as a potential mitigation tool. 

Give special management emphasis to cultural resources on BLM lands within a 1-mile radius of Hovenweep National Monument (Goodman Point, Cutthroat Castle, Hackberry, and Holly Groups), while multiple-use continues. Require additional reclamation on surface disturbing operations, as 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

39 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

determined by the Monument Manager. 

Require standard cultural resources protection Condition of Approvals (COAs) on all projects, in addition to project-specific protection stipulations. These would address:  the requirements and procedures for notification of the discovery of unidentified cultural resources during project activities;

 the requirements and procedures for notification of the discovery of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or 

objects of cultural patrimony; and 

 the responsibility of project proponent to inform employees, contractors, and subcontractors of legal protections under 

Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), such as confidentiality of site location information. 

Encourage cooperative efforts between BLM and NPS staff, including: 

 law enforcement patrols and vandalism incident investigations; 

 interpretation and education projects; 

 visitor services; 

 research; and 

 access and Rights-of-Way (ROWs). 

Consider proposed NPS developments on lands adjacent to BLM lands, with an emphasis on the enhancement and protection of BLM cultural resources. 

Coordinate with the NPS on a regular basis in order to address any problems or opportunities that arise regarding the management of Hovenweep and adjacent public lands. 

Encourage opportunities to work cooperatively with the NPS on cultural resource inventory, site evaluation, and site preservation projects. Ensure that Native American tribes having religious, cultural, and/or historical connections to the Monument are involved in the 

earliest stages of activity or project planning. Initiate consultation with such tribes for Section 106 compliance with an annual 

letter of notification regarding upcoming projects and activities, such as with grazing permit renewals, road maintenance, noxious weed or other vegetation treatments, fuels management, and/or research and preservation activities in the Monument for which planning or NEPA analysis would be required for implementation. 

Coordinate with the State, Native American tribes, and other governmental entities (under existing agreements and any new arrangements deemed necessary) in order to disseminate and exchange information and to cooperate in management actions, consistent with applicable legal authorities and other directives (BLM Interim Management for all National Monuments). Coordinate with Native American tribal interests, and Conduct follow-up consultations on projects and/or activities identified by Native American tribes for which they desire further 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

40 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

information or consultation, and/or for which they desire to identify places of importance for consideration. Consultations 

would be conducted through correspondence, telephone, meetings, and/or field visits, as appropriate. 

consult and coordinate closely with affected tribes in developing the comprehensive Management Plan and management plans for the cultural and natural resources of the area. Ensure that activities do not negatively impact tribal uses and/or access to places of traditional cultural or religious importance. Conduct face-to-face meetings with all interested tribes, in a group setting, in Montezuma County, as well as meet one-on-one with tribal representatives in tribal offices. 

Pursue the development of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with interested Native American tribes to streamline, focus, and facilitate consultations, information exchange, participation, and incorporation of tribal interests into research, interpretation, and resource management actions. Implement a phased program of preservation assessments for sites allocated to Public Use D (Developed) that consider sources of site deterioration and that address the use of appropriate potential preservation treatments. The initial method and minimum level of site preservation would be site documentation to BLM and OAHP standards. This includes plotting, mapping, photography, and recording written observations. Record all sites located by surveys in the Monument to these standards. 

Some sites were identified in the ACEC Plan. These sites have been receiving special management. 

Archival preservation methods would include detailed recording, photography, scaled maps and drawings, Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation, archival research, oral histories, and laser scanning. Physical preservation methods would include stabilization, backfilling, conservation, fencing, construction of protective 

structures or barriers, fuels reduction, erosion control, and monitoring. Certain methods may also require testing/excavation/collection of dating specimens or artifacts as part of treatment. 

Base decisions about the appropriate preservation treatment method on the evaluation and determination of the cause(s) of the deterioration and consideration for site use allocation. Physical preservation intervention would be in response to deterioration resulting from human activity (e.g., a site that was excavated in the past but not backfilled, or a site that has been vandalized). Address site deterioration resulting from natural forces through archival preservation methods. Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the Monument Manager. 

More than 240 sites have been identified and prioritized as needing some form of stabilization and/or masonry repair. Require additional fieldwork, as necessary, to prescribe specific needs and methods. 

Document and allow standing walls to deteriorate, except in sites developed for public use where a mix of physical 

Stabilize and preserve standing walls. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

41 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

preservation and archival documentation would be used in response to human-caused impacts. Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the Monument Manager. 

 Consider closure of sites to visits by the public and/or groups a viable management tool. Develop CRMPs to outline specific management objectives for each site or area. 

An increased level of documentation may be warranted at some cultural resources, based upon factors such as public use, research potential, architectural integrity, and cultural significance, or as part of the preparation of preservation plans. 

Additional documentation may consist of detailed, scaled plan-view maps, scaled plan-view and elevation drawings, large format photography, archival research, oral histories, and monitoring documentation. 

Complete preservation plans for sites allocated to Public Use D (Developed), and sites and archaeological districts listed on the NRHP (see Objective 1a). Write preservation plans for National Register Archaeological Districts to address the collective 

preservation needs of the contributing sites in the district. 

Require backfilling for any ground-disturbing permit issued for testing/data recovery in the Monument. 

Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Develop and protect suitable cultural resource properties for public enjoyment through such practices as interpretive signing, stabilization, and so forth. Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Emphasize cultural resource values in Cross, Cahone, and Squaw/Papoose Canyons. Manage cultural resources for protection, preservation, investigation, and public use (i.e., development and interpretation), where appropriate. Emphasize management and develop cultural management plans on the following cultural sites/areas: Cahone Canyon, Cannonball Ruin, Cow Mesa, Cross Canyon, East Rock Canyon, Escalante-Dominguez Ruins, 

Work with partners, volunteer groups, stakeholders, and other interested individuals to accomplish site preservation activities. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

42 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Hamilton Mesa, Lightning Tree Tower Group, Lowry Pueblo, McLean Basin Towers, Mockingbird Mesa, Painted Hand Petroglyphs, Painted Hand Ruin, Sand Canyon, and Squaw/Papoose Canyon. Emphasis Area H: Public Land Disposal. - Provide cultural resource inventories and clearances so disposal of tracts can occur. Manage cultural resources under present laws and regulations, pending disposal. Emphasis Area L: ACECs.- Manage prehistoric or historic values, where appropriate. Manage the AHC as a focal point for cultural resources in the area. Provide intensive protection of cultural resources from vandals and pothunters through increased surveillance and law enforcement. Intensify public education for interpretation and recognition of the 

Develop a monitoring plan for cultural resources that considers factors such as use allocation status, NRHP status, public use patterns, vandalism occurrences, vulnerability (i.e., standing architecture, rock art), and cultural sensitivity. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

43 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

sensitivity of the resource. Provide for intensive inventory and evaluation of the cultural resources in order to more effectively provide protection. Require a cultural monitor on all surfacedisturbing activities in order to protect subsurface resources, as necessary. Emphasize cultural management at the following areas: Cahone Canyon, Cannonball Ruin, Cow Mesa, Cross Canyon, East Rock Canyon, EscalanteDominguez Ruins, Hamilton Mesa, Lightning Tree Tower, Lowry Pueblo, McLean Basin Towers, Mockingbird Mesa, Painted Hand Petroglyphs, Painted Hand Ruin, Sand Canyon, and Squaw/Papoose Canyons. Develop an ACEC Management Plan with specific guidelines for management of the area. 

Continue partnership with the Cultural Site Stewardship Program. Conduct monitoring at specified frequencies of sites identified in the monitoring plan. Assist in the annual on-site steward training and ongoing enrichment training for program 

stewards. Identify sites that are to receive regular patrols and documentation by the BLM law enforcement rangers. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

44 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Monitor specific sites for deterioration in order to plan for future site stabilization efforts. Inspect, periodically, all major sites to document damage and anticipate future stabilization needs. 

Compile monitoring data into an annual summary and use the summary to update monitoring plans on a yearly basis. Organize and conduct ongoing education programs for the public, school groups, vocational archaeology groups, project proponents, permittees, contractors, and others about cultural resource visitor ethics; encourage their help in reporting incidents 

of vandalism in the Monument. 

Manage cultural resource patrols as a component of other resource protection activities. In order to provide surveillance and public safety, two full-time permanent BLM law enforcement rangers would be needed, with seasonal support. Close coordination with other local law enforcement personnel would be necessary. Explore opportunities for contracting law enforcement with the county sheriffs. Complement patrol activity through public education and awareness programs, in cooperation with the AHC. Use periodic aircraft flights, as well as ground and vehicle patrols, in order to reduce or prevent pot hunting. 

Establish cultural resource vandalism, trespass, and human remains discovery reporting and investigation procedures and protocols between the Dolores Public Lands Office, AHC/Monument staff, BLM law enforcement rangers, and local law enforcement agencies. Ensure that BLM archaeology and law enforcement personnel maintain current training in investigation and case preparation, per the requirements of ARPA. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

45 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Inspect, periodically, all major sites in order to document damage and anticipate future stabilization needs. Proceed with all scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations, consistent with current policies and practices, except that surface disturbance must be minimal with an emphasis on the use of existing archaeological collections and records. 

Establish an advisory panel to develop research goals and requirements. Rely on the advisory panel to evaluate investigator-initiated research proposals. 

Seek out and consider input from knowledgeable outside researchers during the process of developing research goals and requirements. Rely on an ad-hoc peer review committee of knowledgeable researchers to evaluate investigator-initiated research proposals. 

Rely on Monument staff to evaluate investigator-initiated research proposals. 

Same as Alternative III. 

Allow traditional and experimental research by qualified institutions and individuals. 

Avoid a-priori rejection of particular research methods when evaluating research proposals. Consider the benefits of the information that may be realized through such approaches, as well as the potential gains in future resource management that may

result. 

The AHC would serve as the headquarters and the primary visitor contact station for the Monument. Encourage scientific research on cultural resources in the Monument that utilizes an interdisciplinary approach, achieves multiple management objectives when possible, and has the potential to contribute significant new knowledge. Encourage non-disturbing research methods, including re-analysis and synthesis of existing data and artifact collections. 

Compile information on sites with extensive vandalism, or damage from other sources, and provide to researchers to encourage its consideration for future research. Encourage research projects that recover information (excavation) of such sites, when 

appropriate, to realize the remaining information potential, especially when physical in-place preservation or conservation may

not be feasible over the long term. 

Require the use of methods that minimize the impact on the resource (i.e., sampling) while maximizing the recovery of information for research that alters the in-situ archaeological record. Promote involvement of Native American tribes and other descendant communities by researchers in designing research to ensure that their input and concerns are considered and incorporated into the design and conduct of such projects. 

Manage the data and collected material in order to enhance public awareness of resources through interpretation by Anasazi Heritage Center. 

Share research results with the general public and with professionals through lectures, site tours, and a wide variety of publications. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

46 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Consider regional scientific research goals and data needs in the design of management-related cultural resource studies. Seek information and input from individuals and groups holding heritage values and having cultural connections to the Monument to learn and manage in consideration of these values. Strive to accomplish management without compromising 

confidentiality of information. 

Allow and, if requested, facilitate visits by Native Americans, and/or other individuals or groups holding heritage values, to places of cultural importance or sacred sites in the Monument without notification requirements, as long as use is consistent with 

Monument purposes and protection of resources, and access is consistent with the Monument Transportation Plan. 

Establish a protocol for conducting consultations with affiliated Native American tribes on inadvertent discoveries of human remains. Consider the importance of setting and context in designing management approaches to preserving the heritage values of particular sites and areas. The AHC would be the repository for all new collections from the Monument and would continue to accept transfers from other 

institutions, as possible. 

Establish a broad-based scientific advisory panel to assist Monument staff in developing research goals and requirements and in

reviewing and evaluating research proposals, to ensure that high-quality scientific and scholarly research is conducted in the Monument. 

Establish protocols in consultation with Native American tribes who have used the Monument area for gathering materials for cultural and religious purposes. 

Discourage permanent and/or long-term audio disturbances not listed in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (e.g., the prevention of rim-cutting, regulation of access placement, stringent reclamation, and the use of muffled generators). The 1985 San Juan/San Miguel RMP, the 1986 Anasazi ACEC, and the BLM Interim Management Plan for all National Monuments limit motor vehicle use to designated roads. This limits potential noise from these sources. 

Manage maximum permissible noise levels to meet compliance with State of Colorado standards (State of Colorado Revised Statue [CRS]: Title 25 Health/Environmental Control: Article 12 Colorado Noise Statute - CRS§ 25-10-103). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

47 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL A: Preserve and protect cultural and natural resources and public and private property while, at the same time, allowing fire to play a natural role in fire-dependent ecosystems.OBJECTIVES: Provide a basis for an appropriate management response for each reported wildland fire within the Monument by developing a Fire Management Plan (FMP) that 

integrates with the San Juan Public Lands 2003 FMP (SJPL FMP) and the Montezuma County and Dolores County Community Fire Plans. The FMP would be based on Fire Management Zones (FMZs), associated restrictions on fire management activities, and appropriate post-fire management. Fire management tactics 

and strategies would: maximize firefighter and public safety; minimize suppression costs, resource loss, and damage; and use prescribed fire in order to realize resource benefits, such as improving landscape diversity in the Monument's vegetation mosaic. 

GOAL B: Apply fuels and vegetation management treatments in order to reduce the likelihood of resource damage due to wildfire, to 

improve firefighter and public safety, and to achieve vegetation resource management objectives.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Reduce hazardous fuels in and around sensitive cultural resources, critical infrastructure, and designated wildland-urban interface (WUI) boundary areas. 

2. Utilize prescribed fire treatment methods in order to improve vegetation conditions in fire-adapted ecosystems. 

GOAL C: Use a collaborative approach in order to achieve fuels and fire management goals and objectives.OBJECTIVES: 1. Continue to develop and improve the Monument’s fire program in partnership with relevant governments, agencies, and private landowners. 

2. Integrate fire management strategies with the SJPL FMP and the Montezuma County and Dolores County Community Fire Plans. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. 

Designate the entire Monument as Fire Management Zone B (areas where natural fire is not desired under current conditions and suppression is emphasized). The FMZ definition would be analogous to the Fire Management Polygon B, as defined in the San Juan Public Lands 2003 Fire Management Plan. 

The SJPL FMP defines Fire Management Polygons A, B, C, and D based on desirability and feasibility of fire management strategies. (No Category D polygons exist within the Monument.) 

Classify no areas as FMZ A (areas where fire is not desired at all), FMZ C (areas where natural fire is desired with possible 

social, political, or ecological constraints), or FMZ D (areas where natural fire is desired and there are few to no constraints to its 

use). 

The Fire Management Polygons outline specific fireplanning objectives, including resource management objectives and resource and suppression constraints, and list resource contacts. 

Conduct research to determine the historic ranges of variability (HRVs) in historic fire regimes, woodland structure, and 

adjacent vegetation types in the Monument, as funding becomes available. Use these data to develop ecologically sound, desired future conditions for all vegetation management decisions through adaptive management planning processes. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

48 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Allow no fire in the riparian zone along Lower Yellow Jacket Canyon in Fire Management Polygon A-1 (SJPL FMP). Check yearly for hazardous fuel build-up near oil and gas facilities in Fire Management Polygon C-5 (SJPL FMP). Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management. - Provide a level of protection from wildfire that would result in least total cost and that would generally enhance range management values. Use prescribed fire when possible to enhance forage production. Continue and expand (where appropriate) the limited fire suppression plan in order to enhance vegetation conditions for livestock grazing. Emphasis Area H: Public Land Disposal. - Provide for a limited level of fire management. Suppress wildfires that may be threatening adjacent private, State, or Federal property. 

Consider the following resources for wildfire hazard assessment and hazardous fuel reduction treatment: 

 B-1 – AHC; 

 B-2 – Hovenweep National Monument Protective Zone; 

 B-3 – all existing Public Use D (Developed and Undeveloped) cultural resource sites (such sites would be added to FMZ B 

when they are formally opened to the public); 

 B-4 – all cultural resource sites and districts listed on the NRHP, including those listed in the future (only those sites and/or 

districts listed on the NRHP that the Monument currently directs the public to are included on Map 1); 

 B-5 – all existing and future major oil and gas facilities, including Mockingbird Mesa, Moqui, Hovenweep, and Sand 

Canyon carbon dioxide (CO2) facilities; 

 B-6 – cultural resources with pictographs, petroglyphs, and standing walls (due to the sensitivity and large number of these 

types of sites, they are not located on Map 1); 

 B-7 – all existing and future WUI or Wildfire Hazard Areas, as defined in the Montezuma County and Dolores County 

Community Fire Plans (these areas are updated annually in these plans and so are not included in Map 1); 

 B-8 – Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Communication Site; and 

 B-9 – Shell Oil Company Communication Site. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

49 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Utilize fire management techniques that maintain longterm recreation quality objectives. Suppress wildfires, but allow prescribed burns if they will help staff meet or exceed recreation objectives. Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Provide level of protection on all fires that would protect the cultural resource values. Limit fire size to 1,000 acres in Fire Management Polygon C-5, unless the fire intensity and mosaic would cause minimal erosion. Require reseeding (FMP). Require Cultural Resource Monitor (CRM) for handlines in Fire Management Polygons A-1, C-5, B-21, B-12, and B-6 (FMP). Allow no heavy equipment in Fire Management Polygon A-1 (FMP). Survey all fires with potential for growth for cultural sites and oil and gas locations in Fire Management Polygon C-5. Make firefighters aware of hazards common to most oil 

The following restrictions would apply to all fire suppression activities in FMZs B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B5, and B-6:  Require a minimum of 

one permitted and fireline-qualified archaeologist, or agency archaeologist, for all handlines during extended attacks. 

 Prohibit the use of 

ground-disturbing, mechanized equipment, unless fire is threatening 

The following restrictions would apply to all fire suppression activities in FMZs B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6:  Require a minimum of one permitted and fireline-qualified archaeologist, or agency 

archaeologist, for all handlines during extended attacks. 

 Require a permitted and fireline-qualified archaeologist, or agency archaeologist, to 

monitor the use of all mechanized equipment. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

50 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

and gas facilities, such as aboveground pipelines and aerial power lines. Protect known sensitive properties. Allow no mechanized equipment, unless fire is threatening life or property, and then only with CRM. Use full suppression tactics within 1 mile of oil/gas facilities where continuous heavy fuel is a factor, and within 1/4 mile with discontinuous sparse fuels (SJPL FMP). 

life or property, and if used, require a minimum of one permitted and fireline-qualified archaeologist, or agency archaeologist, to monitor the use of such equipment. 

Conduct suppression activities in order to protect and generally avoid cultural sites, keeping firefighter safety paramount at all times. 

Provide cultural resource education to local area firefighters at the beginning of each fire season, with the goal of minimizing 

impacts potentially resulting from fire suppression activities. 

Apply restrictions limiting motorized and mechanized vehicle travel to designated roads for all fire activities. Exceptions to

these restrictions would include emergency situations (e.g., threats to life or property) and/or authorized administrative purposes 

(e.g., fuels or vegetation management treatments). 

Allow mechanized equipment on the ground. Require, however, an archaeologist to be present in order to ensure that impacts are minimized and cultural sites are avoided whenever possible. Allow no mechanized equipment around the petroglyph in Fire Management Polygon B-12 (SJPL FMP). Allow no mechanized equipment in Fire Management Polygon B-6, 

Suppress fire along all aerial power transmission lines in all FMZs. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

51 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

unless fire is a threat to life or property, and then require a CRM with all heavy equipment (SJPL FMP). In C category areas, use natural roads and barriers, where practical (SJPL FMP). Allow, in general, no aerial fire retardant drops in streams and waterways (SJPL FMP). 

Allow no aerial fire retardant drops in perennial streams (i.e., McElmo Creek, Trail Canyon, Yellow Jacket Canyon, Dawson 

Draw, Cross Canyon, and Cahone Canyon), nor in areas B-3, B-4, and B-6, unless fire is threatening life or property. 

Emphasize using minimum impact tactics whenever possible, as called for in the national firefighting standards. Emphasize limited impacts, even if fires in A and B category require more aggressive suppression tactics (SJPL FMP). 

Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) Guidelines, in accordance with recognized USDOI-BLM Standards, for all 

fire suppression activities. 

Emphasis Area L: ACECs.- Use fire management techniques that maintain ACEC values. Allow no wildfire suppression, unless needed to protect ACEC values. 

Consult with a designated fire resource advisor familiar with Wilderness Study Area (WSA) management for wilderness characteristics on all fires within Recreation Management Zone (RMZ) 4 (Squaw-Cross Canyon). 

Consult with a designated fire resource advisor familiar with WSA management for wilderness characteristics on all extended attack fires within RMZ 4 (Squaw-Cross Canyon). 

Use the parameters listed below as guidelines to assist the field manager in deciding if a fire should be managed for resource benefit. Deviations from the parameters would require line officer approval. Another example would be where fires in Category B 

Use the criteria listed below for decisions regarding prescribed fire ignition decisions. Require Monument Manager approval for 

situations that do not comply. Revise quantitative threshold criteria values with the acquisition of Monument-specific data. 

 annual precipitation departure (i.e., Palmer drought index [PDI]) not over 25 percent of average; 

 1,000-hour fuels not less than 16 percent; 

 live fuel moistures (LFM) in oak not less than 150 percent; 

 LFM in pinyon-juniper from 125 percent to 150 percent; 

 commitment of initial attack resources not over 50 percent; 

 pinyon-juniper energy release component (ERC) less than 40; and 

 oak ERC less than 60. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

52 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

polygons would be allowed to burn when factors warrant it, such as beneficial topography and low risk, and distance from structures (SJPL FMP). Category A Polygons: Fire Exclusion. Category B Polygons:  annual precipitation 

departure not over 25 percent of average; 

 1,000-hour fuels not less 

than 16 percent; 

 LFM in oak not less than 

150 percent; and 

 commitments of initial 

attack resources not over 50 percent. 

Category C Polygons:  annual precipitation 

departure not over 25 percent of average; 

 1,000 hour fuels not less 

than 12 percent; 

 LFM in oak not less than 

126 percent; 

 commitment of initial 

attack resources; not over 75 percent; and 

 ERCs not over 50 percent 

from average departure. 

 Evaluate all burned areas to determine whether or not fire rehabilitation is required. This evaluation would include the 

following considerations:  would life or private property be threatened if rehabilitation practices are not implemented; 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

53 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

 would the vegetation that would reestablish naturally be unacceptable (e.g., exotic annual grasses or noxious weeds) or not 

meet vegetation resource management goals and objectives; 

 would adequate desirable vegetation recover sufficiently to stabilize soil and prevent on- or offsite soil erosion problems; 

and 

 would immediate or long-term damage (e.g., erosion) to cultural resources occur? 

Prepare an Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Plan (EFRP) for all escaped wildland fires, if one or more of the above criteria are not 

met. This plan would be in accordance with the Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Handbook and the Monument RMP ROD. Address all critical resources, including cultural, air, water, vegetation, and soil in EFRPs, and specifically identify how these 

resources would be addressed in area rehabilitation. 

 Conduct a Class III cultural resource inventory following 

wildland fires, if such an inventory has not been previously completed in the area, dependent on available funding as well as a determination by the Monument Manager that the potential cultural resources in the area justify such an inventory. 

Determine if a Class I, II, or III cultural resource inventory should be conducted following wildland fires. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

 Report significant cultural resource finds to the Monument Archaeologist when potentially impacted by fire management 

activities as soon as practical. Dispatch an archaeologist to fires that exceed a few acres, have the potential to grow, and/or 

when there is significant fire activity, such as multiple ignitions. 

 Follow current direction for Wildland Fire Implementation Plans (initial attack fires) and Wildland Fire Situation Analysis for 

extended attack fires. Comply with all fire policies identified in Federal regulations on wilderness, threatened and endangered 

species, and cultural/historical preservation, as well as with all Federal and State regulations for air and water quality, where 

appropriate. 

Clear brush and vegetation away from rock art panels in Fire Management Polygon A-1 (FMP). Allow resource-benefit fires only where risk to cultural resources is minimal. 

Allow all forms of fuels or vegetation management treatments (i.e., mechanical, biological, chemical, and prescribed fire) in the 

Monument where they promote vegetation and cultural resource management goals and objectives. Authorize no mechanical fuels or vegetation management treatment in RMZ 5. Determine a treatment’s location, size, and specific layout and project design features, as well as any measures needed to protect 

sensitive resources, through the environmental review process. Consider prescribed fire as a treatment option for ecosystems that are identified as fire-dependent or fire-adaptive. Assess fuel 

loads in the treatment area for expected fire behavior. Mitigate for heavy concentrations (hazardous fuels) prior to prescribed 

ignition. In these circumstances, prescribed fire would be used, and would attempt to simulate natural fire intensity and timing. 

Develop specific objectives for all prescribed fire prior to its use. Conduct and coordinate all fire activities with appropriate fire 

management personnel and adjacent landowners. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

54 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Apply insecticides in order to protect high-value, following specific environmental analysis. Evaluate fuels treatments, both natural and planned, in Fire Management Polygons A-1, C-5, B-21, B-26, B-28, B-29, B-12, and B-6, each year following the fire season in order to ensure that resource management objectives and constraints have been met, and/or to determine if those objectives and constraints need to be modified (SJPL FMP). Allow no fire within 150 feet of the petroglyph in Fire Management Polygon B-12 (SJPL FMP). 

Authorize no prescribed fire in mature pinyon-juniper woodlands or in biological crust communities. 

Authorize prescribed fire in mature pinyon-juniper woodlands and/or in biological crust communities, if determined to not cause irreparable harm. 

Allow resource benefit fires only where risk to cultural resources is minimal. 

Allow no prescribed fire within 150 feet of FMZ B areas B-2, 

B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6. 

Determine the allowed proximity of prescribed fire to FMZ B areas B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6 through the environmental review process, giving specific consideration to the protection of cultural resources and public and private property within these polygons. 

Permit no chaining and/or other methods that cause substantial surface disturbance. 

Prohibit chaining. 

 Authorize no mechanical fuels management or vegetation 

management treatment methods, including manual pulling and 

the use of hand tools (e.g., chainsaws, machetes, and pruners), within 50 feet of cultural resources or public and private property within FMZ areas B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6. 

Determine the allowed proximity of mechanical fuels management or vegetation management treatment methods, including manual pulling and the use of hand tools (e.g., chainsaws, machetes, and pruners), to cultural resources and public and private property within FMZ areas B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6 through the environmental review process, giving specific consideration to their protection. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

55 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

 Require post-treatment monitoring in all areas where any fuels 

management or vegetation management treatment is implemented. Establish monitoring plots and use plant species frequency, density, and distribution data collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments toward achieving 

management objectives and to provide general baseline data regarding general vegetation dynamics in the Monument. 

Conduct post-treatment monitoring, as necessary, where any fuels management or vegetation management treatment is implemented. Establish monitoring plots and use plant species frequency, density, and distribution data collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments toward achieving management objectives and to provide general baseline data regarding general vegetation dynamics in the Monument. 

 Approve, within 1 year following signing of the ROD, a list of 

areas requiring fuels management and vegetation management treatments, as determined by the Monument Manager. Prioritize this list based on such criteria as pending threats to 

life and property, protecting threatened Monument objects (e.g., cultural resources), opportunities to promote vegetation management goals and objectives, and consideration of areas where fire suppression has disrupted natural fire regimes, and areas where similar efforts are being pursued by adjacent 

landowners. Update this list annually to address changing threats, conditions, and opportunities. 

Approve a list of areas requiring fuels management and vegetation management treatments, as determined by the Monument Manager. Prioritize this list based on such criteria as pending threats to life and property, protecting threatened Monument objects (e.g., cultural resources), opportunities to promote vegetation management goals and objectives, and consideration of areas where fire suppression has disrupted natural fire regimes, and areas where similar efforts are being pursued by adjacent landowners. Update this list as needed to address changing threats, conditions, and opportunities. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

 Conduct a Class III cultural 

resource inventory prior to all prescribed fires, if such an inventory has not been previously completed in the area, based on whether or not the potential cultural 

Conduct a Class II cultural resource inventory prior to all prescribed fires, if such an inventory has not been previously completed in the area, based on whether or not the potential cultural 

Conduct a Class I, II, or III cultural resource inventory prior to all prescribed fires, as determined by the Monument Manager. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

56 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

resources in the area justify such an inventory, as determined by the Monument Manager. 

resources in the area justify such an inventory, as determined by the Monument Manager. 

The BLM and the USFS would work in cooperation with authorization holders in order to reduce hazardous fuels that pose a threat to privately owned surface structures or improvements on public lands. In addition, the BLM would take appropriate suppression action on all wildland fires that pose a threat to these facilities or structures. However, the BLM and the USFS would not be held liable for damages to these facilities and/or structures as a result of wildland fire when suppression actions are being attempted. 

Review existing agreements between the BLM, local fire agencies, and the Montezuma County and Dolores County Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans to determine whether or not they continue to meet the needs of the growing number of small parcel 

landowners within, and adjacent to, the Monument. Coordinate all fire activities (i.e., suppression, fuels management and vegetation management treatment) with adjacent private landowners, the Navajo Nation, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and public land management agencies to meet fuels and fire management goals and objectives. Develop a MOU outlining agency and private landowner responsibilities, opportunities to share resources, and an organizational 

structure for suppression activities, as required. Update this operating plan annually. 

GEOLOGY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL A: Manage multiple-use activities in order to preserve and protect geologic objects protected under the Proclamation. OBJECTIVES: 1. Manage uses in order to prevent damage to sensitive geologic and geomorphologic features. 2. Facilitate appropriate geologic research in order to improve understanding of geological resources and processes. GOAL B: Manage multiple-use activities in order to protect visitors from geologic hazards. OBJECTIVES: Manage uses in order to minimize activities in geological high-hazard areas. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

57 

GEOLOGY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. 

Restrict visitor activities in areas where damage is possible to sensitive geologic features, including outstanding examples of

rock formations, faults, ripple marks, cross-bedding, lithified mudcracks, angular unconformities, or geomorphologic features. 

Consider scientific research goals and data needs in the design of management-related geological studies. Encourage researchers to share non-sensitive information with the public through lectures, site tours, etc. Promote formal publication of research. Encourage interdisciplinary projects that have the potential to produce significant new ecological and/or other scientific information, in addition to geological results. Give priority to archeological resources in cases where geological and archaeological resources occur together, but notify a qualified (BLM or permitted) geologist as soon as possible. Identify high-hazard areas (e.g., flash floods, landslides, rockfalls, and expansive and collapsible soils) and restrict visitor activities for public safety (e.g., allow no camping in flood channels, debris basins, or rockfall areas). Require a geologic hazard survey prior to construction projects (e.g., camping areas, trailheads, communication structures, and

oil and gas facilities). 

Restrict visitor activities in areas where damage is possible to sensitive geologic features, including outstanding examples of

rock formations, faults, ripple marks, cross-bedding, lithified mudcracks, angular unconformities, or geomorphologic features. 

Consider scientific research goals and data needs in the design of management-related geological studies. Encourage researchers to share non-sensitive information with the public through lectures, site tours, etc. Promote formal publication of research. Encourage interdisciplinary projects with the potential to produce significant new ecological or other scientific information, in addition to geological results. In cases where geological and archaeological resources occur together, give priority to the archaeological resources, but notify a qualified (BLM or permitted) geologist as soon as possible. Identify high-hazard areas (e.g., flash floods, landslides, rockfalls, and expansive and collapsible soils) and restrict visitor activities for public safety (e.g., no camping in flood channels, debris basins, or rockfall areas). 

Require a geologic hazard survey prior to construction projects (e.g., camping areas, trailheads, communication structures, and

oil and gas facilities). 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Preserve and protect scientifically important paleontological resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses

by present and future generations.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Identify areas and geological units containing paleontological resources and evaluate the potential of such areas to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

58 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

2. Develop management recommendations (including mitigation measures in specific locations) to promote scientific research and other uses of fossils. 

3. Protect and preserve important paleontological localities from natural and human-caused impacts. 4. Monitor areas where important paleontological localities have been identified. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Complete the ongoing compilation and analysis of all available paleontological resource data and literature to provide an informed basis for understanding 

paleontological resources within and/or near the Monument and to provide immediate protection for paleontological resources at risk. Use current policies and procedures to collect, document, and maintain data, records, and maps and to issue appropriate surface collection and excavation permits. 

2. Restrict paleontological collecting to scientific purposes and allow only with the use of valid BLM Paleontological Resources Use Permits. Prohibit 

recreational (non-permitted) collecting of any fossils, regardless of type (vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils). 

Evaluate localities only if they fall within a current project area. No established program for such evaluation exists. 

Implement a phased program to evaluate the scientific importance of previously recorded localities that have not yet been evaluated. Prioritize localities for evaluation based on the following criteria:  vertebrate fossils (includes tracks, gastroliths, etc.); and 

 scientifically important invertebrate and plant fossils (as determined on a case-by-case basis). Establish scientifically-based standards for paleontological research in the Monument. Until such time as a permanent repository for the Monument paleontological collection is identified, the AHC will serve as a temporary repository. For research that alters the in-situ fossils, require use of methods that minimize impact consistent with obtaining needed information. Give priority to archeological resources in cases where paleontological and archaeological resources are found together, but notify a qualified (BLM or permitted) paleontologist as soon as possible. Require paleontological clearances and/or mitigation prior to surface disturbance in Condition 1 and some Condition 2 areas. 

Avoid or recover significant resources through the authorization process. 

Schedule regular monitoring of known surficial localities of vertebrate or other scientifically important fossils. 

SOIL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Manage soil resources in order to sustain multiple-uses and preserve and/or enhance existing ecological integrity and 

function. 

OBJECTIVES: 1. Manage in order to ensure that the Land Health Standard for upland soils is met, or that significant progress is being made toward meeting this standard. 

2. Manage uses in order to prevent damage to soil resources by protecting them from surface disturbance and by maintaining vegetation cover on slopes greater 

than 30 percent, as well as in other areas with high erosion potential. 

3. Manage soils resource in order to support other resource management objectives. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Amendment: Decision Record and Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Standards for Public Land Health and 

Guideline for Livestock Grazing Management in Colorado, March 1997. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

59 

SOIL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

2. Report to the responsible management official all activities on non-Monument lands that are causing, or are expected to cause, soil degradation, water quality 

deterioration, and/or other damage to Monument lands, whether directly or indirectly. 

3. Stipulate site-specific erosion control measures in Coordinated Resource Management Plans, unless emergency situations exist. 4. Emphasis Areas A, C, H, and L: Livestock Management, Recreation Resources, Public Land Disposal, and ACECs. Maintain soil productivity and minimize 

human-caused soil erosion. 

 Require implementation of soil resource BMPs (see Appendix E) as conditions of approval (COAs) to all new leases and 

permits. Implement applicable BMPs that protect of soil resources in all management actions and maintenance activities. 

 Establish a no-ground-disturbance/no-site-occupancy (NGD/NSO) restriction for areas with slopes greater than 30 percent 

and/or for soils with high erosion potential. 

 Apply special management practices to areas with biological soil crust communities, as outlined for Vegetation and Rangeland 

Resources management. 

Manage soils in order to maintain productivity and minimize erosion. 

Maintain a zero-level accelerated erosion standard (accelerated erosion is soil loss caused by human land use decisions rather 

than by natural or geologic erosion occurring independently of human activities). Allow no rangeland use to contribute to reducing the protective attributes of vegetation below a Site Conservation Threshold 

(point beyond which vegetation is unable to hold the soil in place). 

Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Maintain soil productivity, minimize human-caused soil erosion, and stabilize and rehabilitate areas with severe human-caused soil erosion. 

Approve a list of areas for stabilization and rehabilitation, required as a result of severe human-caused soil erosion, and begin 

restoration, as determined by the Monument Manager. 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) GOAL: Manage habitat for native fish and wildlife species in order to optimize biological diversity. OBJECTIVES: 1. Contribute to the maintenance or recovery of Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species; State listed species; and BLM sensitive 

species. 

2. Contribute to the recovery of the Mexican spotted owl. 3. Protect nesting and winter concentration areas for bald and golden eagles. 

4. Protect active nest sites for raptors other than Mexican spotted owls, and for bald and golden eagles. 5. Contribute to the recovery of the SWWF. 

6. Manage, conserve, and enhance habitat for neotropical migrant birds. 7. Manage, conserve, and enhance habitat for sensitive reptile species. 8. Protect breeding habitat for amphibians. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

60 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 9. Reintroduce bighorn sheep. 10. Restore sagebrush grasslands in order to support populations of Gunnison sage-grouse on their historic range. 11. Maintain and restore stable populations of BLM sensitive fish species. 12. Improve tributaries that would contribute to restoring threatened and endangered fish populations within the San Juan River. 13. Improve forage and cover conditions for mule deer. 

14. Manage and control wildlife species that have, or may have, detrimental impacts to other resources or land uses. 15. Maintain and/or enhance habitats capable of sustaining existing or increasing wildlife and fish populations. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Maintain and/or improve riparian wildlife habitat through interdisciplinary design of range improvement projects and diversity of native vegetation types. 

Allow habitat improvements. Give special consideration to aquatic and riparian resources at the activity planning stage to ensure the maintenance and/or improvement of these resources. 

2. Use BMPs (see Appendix E) and other management techniques designed to minimize degradation of aquatic and riparian habitats. 3. Require that bridges, culverts, and other installations be designed to maintain adequate passage by aquatic life, including fishes. 

4. Require that management actions and/or projects within floodplains, wetlands, and/or aquatic/riparian habitats include measures designed to preserve, protect, 

and, if necessary, restore their natural functions. 

5. Monitor and maintain/improve crucial winter range (including winter concentration areas and severe winter range) for elk and deer, focusing initially on the 

“I” and “M” category grazing allotments. Monitoring the vegetation resource may indicate the need for mule deer and elk reductions (and, or domestic 

livestock) in localized areas to maintain use within the carrying capacity. 

6. Incorporate forage and cover requirements into Habitat Management Plans (HMPs) specific to primary use areas for deer and elk. 

7. Retain adequate cover and vegetation structural diversity in order to provide for game and non-game species habitat requirements. Implement habitat 

improvement projects, where necessary, in order to stabilize and/or improve unsatisfactory or declining habitat conditions. Evaluate and make 

recommendations on wildlife reintroductions and fish stocking proposals to the CDOW. Maintain all existing wildlife habitat improvement facilities. Focus 

this effort on guzzlers, exclosures, and vegetation treatments. 

8. Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. – Protect and maintain wildlife habitat. Complete wildlife habitat improvements in order to enhance wildlife 

viewing in association with cultural values, where feasible. 

Prohibit activities that would result in direct harm to individuals and/or to populations of threatened or endangered or BLM sensitive species, or that would jeopardize their continued existence through reductions in habitat quality and extent. This provision does not apply 

Same as No Action Alternative. Follow additional precautions specific protective actions described by alternatives below, 

would be followed to protect special status subspecies (e.g., Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species; State listed species; and BLM sensitive species) in accordance with Instruction Memorandum No. 09-140. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

61 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) to scientific research or other activities specifically permitted or approved in writing by the USFWS, the CDOW, and/or the Monument Manager. Emphasis Area H: Public Land Disposal. - Provide for threatened and endangered species inventories and clearances prior to public land disposal. Emphasis Area L: ACECs. - Manage important or critical habitat for threatened and endangered, sensitive, or species of special importance in order to maintain a viable population level of each species. Invest wildlife funds for structural habitat improvements and vegetation restoration projects in order to improve the following highpriority riparian habitats: Cross, Cow, Cahone, Hovenweep, and Bridge Canyons. 

Drop ACEC designation. The Presidential designation as a National Monument supersedes the administrative designation as an 

ACEC. 

Apply seasonal restrictions, where needed, in order to mitigate the impacts of human activities on important seasonal wildlife habitat. Prohibit activities in threatened or endangered 

Establish a Protected Activity Center (PAC) within 0.5 mile of any documented (active or inactive) Mexican spotted owl nest. 

Require a nesting survey for two consecutive breeding seasons using the protocol approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to approving any permissible activity within a PAC (including tree removal, fuel reduction, vegetation treatments, and so forth). Consult with the USFWS to establish design standards for management actions, such as tree removal, fuel reduction, or vegetation treatments, if such activities are deemed critical to another resource value within the 

PAC. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

62 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) species habitat that would jeopardize the continued existence of the species.  Establish a timing limitation (TL) restriction within a 0.5-mile buffer of a documented occupied or historic Mexican spotted owl 

nest to prohibit ground-disturbing activities (excluding research, monitoring, and routine livestock management) and/or excessive noise disturbance from March 15 to September 1. 

 Limit permitted or ground-disturbing activities within Mexican spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PAC) or within 0.5 mile

of the PAC to mesa tops and rims to reduce impacts to canyon floors. 

Establish a TL restriction for activities within 0.5 mile of active bald eagle or golden eagle nests during the period from March 1 

through July 15. 

Establish a TL restriction for activities within 0.5 mile of a known bald eagle winter roost or winter concentration area from November 16 through April 15. 

Provide protective oil and gas leasing restrictions for bald and golden eagle nests, roosts, and winter eagle concentration areas. Establish an NGD/NSO restriction for within 0.5 mile of a known bald eagle or golden eagle nest site, or a bald eagle winter 

roost site, whether active or historic. Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction. 

 Prohibit vegetation treatments (i.e., tree removal, fuel reduction, and vegetation treatments) during the raptor breeding season 

(March 1 through July 15), unless a nesting survey reveals no active nest(s) in the tree(s) to be removed or burned and within a 0.25-mile buffer. Prohibit any ground-disturbing activity or other potential major source of noise disturbance during the raptor nesting season without prior survey for active nests within 0.25 mile. Postpone the activity until nesting is completed or relocate more than0.25 mile from an active nest. 

 Establish baseline data for suitable habitat areas, map the areas, and establish conservation management (described below) for

occupied and unoccupied habitat patches for the southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF). 

 Implement recovery actions as described in the August 2002 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Final Recovery Plan, or the most 

recent version of the recovery plan. 

 Fence suitable SWWF habitat to exclude livestock grazing.  Avoid vegetation removal or treatment, when practicable, including fuel reduction, from April 15 to July 15 to protect nesting

by migratory birds. 

 Establish an NGD/NSO 

restriction prohibiting ground-disturbing activities within the habitat and within a 0.25-mile buffer of SWWF habitat patches, as defined in the Final Recovery Plan. 

Establish a TL restriction for any mapped areas of suitable habitat and within a 0.25-mile buffer, as defined in the Final Recovery Plan, including during the breeding season (April 15 through July 15). 

Conduct SWWF surveys using the approved USFWS protocol prior to any grounddisturbing activity or other source of major noise disturbance within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat. Postpone 

Implement Final Recovery Plan guidelines for the SWWF. Prohibit grounddisturbing activities within SWWF habitat and within a 0.25-mile buffer of SWWF habitat patches or establish a 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

63 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction for oil and gas activities in these areas. 

This TL would include livestock grazing. Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction for oil and gas activities in these areas. 

activities until after nesting is complete if nesting flycatchers are found. Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction for oil and gas activities in these areas. 

TL restriction for any mapped areas of suitable habitat and within a 0.25-mile buffer, including during the breeding season (April 15 through July 15). Conduct SWWF surveys using the approved USFWS protocol prior to any grounddisturbing activity or other source of major noise disturbance within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat. Postpone activities until after nesting is complete if nesting flycatchers are found. 

Develop HMPs for implementation, including monitoring plans. Develop HMPs for sensitive reptiles and their habitat over the term of the plan, depending upon need, availability of funding, and manpower. Give priority to development of HMPs for threatened and endangered species. 

Write an HMP for sensitive lizard species known to occur, or having the potential to occur, in the Monument. Include mapping of sensitive or occupied habitat areas in such plans. Apply timing and ground-disturbing restrictions on activities proposed in reptile management areas. 

Write an HMP for sensitive lizard species on Hamilton and Cannonball Mesas. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Prioritize the management of 

cheatgrass and other noxious weeds through phased weed control in all grassland, semidesert shrubland, and sagebrush areas known to support, or with a high potential to support, sensitive reptile species. Reestablish native grasses and forbs following control of 

Prioritize the management of cheatgrass and/or other noxious weeds in areas of occupied or high-potential habitat for these sensitive lizards. Reestablish native grasses and forbs in sagebrush stands in weed management sites. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

64 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

cheatgrass and/or other noxious weeds. 

 Maintain and/or improve habitat through interdisciplinary design of range improvement projects and diversity of native 

vegetation types. Give special consideration to pinyon-juniper woodland, native grassland, and semi-desert shrub habitats at the 

activity planning stage to ensure maintenance or improvement of these resources. 

 Establish an NGD/NSO 

restriction to prohibit grounddisturbing activities within 150 feet of potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat. Establish a TL (with a 300-feet buffer) for potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season (April 1 through July 31). Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction for oil and gas activities in these areas. 

Establish a TL to prohibit ground-disturbing activities within 150 feet of potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season (April 1 through July 31). Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction for oil and gas activities in these areas. 

Provide no specific protection for amphibian breeding habitat from grounddisturbing activities. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Write an MOU with the 

CDOW to reintroduce bighorn sheep into Cross Canyon and Yellow Jacket Canyon. Work cooperatively with the CDOW to prevent conflicts between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. 

Write an MOU with the CDOW to reintroduce bighorn sheep into Yellow Jacket Canyon. Work cooperatively with the CDOW to prevent conflicts between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. 

Provide for no bighorn sheep reintroduction within the Monument. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Write an MOU with the CDOW to facilitate future reintroduction of Gunnison sage-grouse. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

65 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred)  Implement actions as described in the Rangewide Conservation Plan, the Colorado BLM statewide strategy, and the National 

grouse strategy for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

 Treat over-mature or overly 

dense sagebrush-steppe habitat to provide for a diversity of age classes and for a better shrub-grass mosaic. Plant desirable native grasses and forbs. 

Treat over-mature or overly dense sagebrush-steppe habitat to provide for a diversity of age classes and for a better shrubgrass mosaic. Allow native grasses and forbs to establish without management. 

Same as Alternative II. 

Maintain and/or improve riparian habitat to good or excellent ecological conditions, utilizing acceptable grazing systems and fencing where needed. 

Apply management actions to aquatic and riparian habitats to comply with vegetation and water resource management 

objectives listed elsewhere for Alternative II. 

Evaluate reintroductions of native fishes and make recommendations to the CDOW. 

Work with the CDOW to restore roundtail chubs to Yellow Jacket Canyon. 

 Avoid water-depleting activities in tributaries to the San Juan River. Conduct Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS for 

unavoidable water depletions. 

Manage habitats for sustainable deer and elk population goals, as established in consultation with the CDOW, by providing sufficient forage, cover, and water on their seasonal habitat. 

Same as Alternative I. Consider habitat management for deer within the context of the overall biodiversity goals and objectives

for the Monument. 

 Cooperate with the CDOW to identify specific areas where 

enhancement measures are needed to maintain desired 

populations of deer. Measures may include, among others:  prescribed fires; 

 changes in grazing season/intensity; 

 implementation of weed control; 

 revegetation of severely degraded areas to increase 

quantity and quality of forage in specific allocations; and 

 reduction in the amount of dead wood in areas chained in 

Manage the habitat for deer forage and cover only to the extent needed to maintain minimum viable populations. Cooperate with the CDOW and willing private landowners, when determined to be necessary, in identifying critical habitat types and 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

66 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

the past to facilitate animal movement. areas needed for viable 

populations. 

Modify existing agreements with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regarding animal damage control, specifically targeting individual predators rather than predator populations. Conduct animal damage control only when:  the animal control 

measure targets the specific offending animal(s); and 

 the Monument Manager 

determines that human health and safety associated with the control is not an issue. 

Modify existing agreements with APHIS to prohibit the use of culling and shooting of individual predators, or the destruction of dens to control predators, except when an individual animal poses a safety risk to humans or on a case-by-case basis for individual requests. Apply this agreement throughout the Monument. 

Designate specific areas in which existing agreements with APHIS would be modified to prohibit the use of culling, shooting, or the destruction of dens to control predators, except when an individual animal poses a safety risk to humans. Include occupied or highquality habitat for threatened or endangered species, other habitat crucial to sensitive species and biodiversity, and areas managed for recreation or other visitor use in designated areas. 

Same as Alternative I - No Action. 

Same as Alternative II. 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

GOAL A: Sustain a biologically diverse landscape that supports a variety of habitats and native plant and animal species.OBJECTIVES: 1. Protect and/or enhance upland vegetation communities in order to ensure that the Land Health Standard for healthy, productive plant and animal 

communities is met, or that significant progress is being made toward achieving it. 

2. Reclaim and rehabilitate disturbed areas affected by wildland fire and other surface-disturbing activities (e.g., well pad sites, pipeline roads, and closed 

roads) in order to protect soil, water, and vegetation resources. 

3. Protect and/or enhance aquatic, wetland, and riparian areas in order to ensure that the Land Health Standard for riparian systems is met, or that significant 

progress is being made toward achieving it. 

4. Cooperate with other agencies and landowners in the prevention, control, or eradication of invasive pests that threaten the health of the ecosystem. 

GOAL B: Control existing noxious weed populations and prevent new infestations.OBJECTIVES: 1. Inventory and map existing noxious weed populations. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

67 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

2. Develop and implement an integrated weed management program, in cooperation with adjacent landowners (i.e., counties, private landowners, Hovenweep 

National Monument, the Navajo Nation, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe), which includes mechanical, biological, and chemical control techniques, and 

which emphasizes prevention, inventory, detection and monitoring, and project actions. 

3. Prevent the establishment of new infestations of noxious weeds and the spread of existing populations. 

4. Cooperate with neighboring land management agencies and private landowners in order to prevent, control, and eradicate noxious weed populations. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Amendment: Decision Record and FONSI and EA for Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management in Colorado, 

March 1997: Standard 3 – Plant and Animal Communities. 

2. Amendment: Decision Record and FONSI and EA for Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management in Colorado, 

March 1997: Standard 2– Riparian Systems. 

3. Intensive livestock management plans developed through allotment management plans or other activity plans would be comparable with riparian system 

management goals. 

4. Consider vegetation treatments on a case-by-case basis with weighted consideration of cultural resource values. 

 Encourage range, fuels and fire, and vegetation management activities that include the protection and/or enhancement of the 

health and productivity of native and other desirable plant and animal communities. 

 Prioritize areas for restoration 

and reclamation where management changes alone would not improve resource conditions. Implement and monitor new restoration projects every other year until prioritized areas are completed. 

Mitigate by restoration and reclamation for disturbance on a project-level basis. Prioritize areas 

for restoration and reclamation where management changes alone would not improve resource conditions. Implement and monitor new restoration projects, as needed. 

Actively manage past pinyon-juniper chaining areas to improve their ecological condition. Prioritize the areas for improvement

first, and then apply the following actions:  manage noxious weeds; 

 manage the dead wood component as a desirable element of future stands; and 

 seed with desirable native grasses and forbs. 

Use reclamation methods and materials that mimic natural disturbance and recovery patterns where small-scale disturbance occurs as a result of a land management activity (e.g., well pad construction). Require a reclamation plan and reclamation budget for all proposed vegetation management treatment projects (i.e., mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments, and prescribed fire). Require standardized reclamation practices and BMPs (see Appendix E) as COAs for all new leases and permits and surface 

disturbance areas. 

Carry out reclamation in accordance with the reclamation requirements contained in the Monument Plan. Design future seeding and reclamation projects utilizing a mixture of well-adapted plant species in order to optimize soil stabilization, habitat, and forage values. Emphasize native species on 

Require a livestock exclusion period of at least two years 

Require a livestock exclusion period of at least two growing seasons following prescribed fire, natural fire, or seeding. The 

Require a livestock exclusion period of at least two years 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

68 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

following vegetation management treatments (i.e., mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments, and prescribed fire), natural fire, seeding, or other reclamation treatments. The length of time may be greater, based on a site evaluation designed to determine when the desired plant species could be grazed again. 

length of time may be greater, based on a site evaluation designed to determine when the desired plant species could be grazed again. 

following natural fire or seeding. The length of time may be greater, based on a site evaluation designed to determine when the desired plant species could be grazed again. Evaluate livestock exclusion after prescribed fire on a case-by-case basis. 

projects that are extensive and/or that impact a variety of soil types in order to enhance reclamation and reestablish widespread seed sources of desirable native species, thereby accelerating natural rangeland improvement in nearby depleted range sites. 

Use native plant species, of local genetic stock if commercially available, for all reclamation seeding and/or planting actions. Require certified weed-free seed. 

Use native plant species, of local genetic stock if commercially available, for all reclamation seeding and/or planting actions. Use nonnative species in limited situations, where considered necessary to protect resources and/or to stabilize soils in a timely fashion. In situations where non-native species are required, short-lived perennial or annual species may be used. Require certified weed-free seed. 

Use non-native species, in limited situations where considered necessary to protect resources and/or to stabilize soils in a timely fashion. 

Same as Alternative III. 

Evaluate all proposed projects in order to ensure compliance with BLM policies on riparian habitat management. 

Encourage range, fuels and fire, and vegetation management activities that would protect and/or enhance riparian/aquatic resource conditions. 

Same as Alternatives II – IV. Evaluate, in addition, all proposed projects to ensure compliance with BLM policies on riparian habitat management. 

Allow no projects without designed for enhancement or improvement of riparian and 

Manage riparian areas to achieve Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), or if not at PFC, to enhance condition rating. 

Same as Alternatives II – IV. Allow, in addition, no projects not designed for 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

69 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

alluvial sites within 100 feet of active channel edges without appropriate mitigation. 

enhancement or improvement of riparian and alluvial sites within 100 feet of active channel edges without appropriate mitigation. 

Review road crossings of intermittent or perennial streams on a case-by-case basis. 

Same as Alternatives II – IV. Review, in addition, road crossings of intermittent or perennial streams on a caseby-case basis. 

Use fencing to exclude livestock from some narrow canyon bottom sites in order to stop excessive utilization and/or to promote recovery of poor condition sites. 

Conduct PFC assessments for all riparian and wetland areas and springs, as determined necessary. 

Use fencing to exclude livestock from some narrow canyon bottom sites stop excessive utilization and/or to promote recovery of poor condition sites. 

Implement specific projects, such as cross-fencing of riparian areas, development of water sources outside of riparian areas, and use of seedlings in order to facilitate management and to promote recovery and maintenance of riparian/alluvial habitat. Design spring developments in order to maintain water flow in riparian channels while, at the same time, providing livestock water outside the channel and spring source area, if possible. Fence springs (and possible associated sites) in livestock use areas, if cultural sites are 

Implement exclusions, including fencing and/or grazing management systems (regular rest and/or deferment), on riparian/wetland areas or springs that would result in achieving or making significant progress toward PFC and/or that would protect cultural resources located at or near these areas. 

Same as Alternatives II – IV. Implement, in addition, specific projects, such as cross-fencing of riparian areas, development of water sources outside of riparian areas, and use of seedlings to facilitate management and promote recovery and maintenance of riparian/alluvial habitat. Design spring developments to maintain water flow in riparian channels while, at the same time, providing livestock water outside the channel and spring source area, if possible. Fence springs (and possible associated sites) in livestock 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

70 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

present. Place stock tanks away from cultural sites and features. 

use areas, if cultural sites are present. Place stock tanks away from cultural sites and features. 

 Develop an inventory and integrated pest management plan.  Apply pesticides to protect native trees/vegetation from 

insects, such as bark beetles and/or defoliators in administrative sites (e.g., trailheads, interpretation sites, and campgrounds). 

Apply pesticides to protect native trees/vegetation from insects, such as bark beetles and/or defoliators in all areas outside RMZ 4. These treatments would not exceed 1,000 acres per year. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

Continue existing noxious weed control activities. Introduce no exotic species, unless doing so is essential in order to control noxious weeds or other undesirable species. 

Implement a systematic weed inventory and mapping program for all noxious weeds listed by the State of Colorado, and both Montezuma and/or Dolores Counties within three years of signing of the ROD. 

Inventory and map all noxious weeds listed by the State of Colorado, and both Montezuma and/or Dolores Counties, as encountered in conjunction with other management activities and/or monitoring programs. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Inventory and prioritize areas 

for noxious weed treatment (e.g., roads, riparian areas, stock ponds, and areas of ground disturbance) within three years of signing of the ROD. Monitor at least 20 percent of treatment areas annually. 

Inventory and prioritize areas for noxious weed treatment (e.g., roads, riparian areas, stock ponds and areas of ground disturbance) and treatment within three years of signing of the ROD. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Develop a prioritized 

detection and eradication plan for all State of Colorado List A noxious weed species, in accordance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. 

Eradicate Colorado List A noxious weed species, as they are located during other management activities, in accordance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

71 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

 Control State of Colorado List B noxious weed species, in accordance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, using a 

management priority ranking index based on such factors as invasiveness, individual species life form, species distribution, sensitivity of habitat being invaded, and area accessibility. 

 Manage State of Colorado List C noxious weed species on a case-by-case basis, in consultation and cooperation with other local

and regional land management organizations. 

 Incorporate an integrated method approach into every weed control management strategy. Include mechanical, biological, and 

chemical methods, as appropriate for each species, life form, distribution pattern, and management goal. Use chemical control after considering the effectiveness of all potential control methods and/or in combination with other control methods. Maintain a noxious weed management database to record monitoring results and the effectiveness of integrated treatments. 

 Target noxious weed management activities in areas where similar efforts are being pursued by adjacent landowners.  Require pre-construction noxious weed inventories prior to all ground-disturbing activities and post-reclamation weed 

monitoring. 

 Require treatment of noxious weeds within the proposed ground-disturbing project area if noxious weeds are present, prior to 

construction activities. 

 Apply all weed prevention BMPs (see Appendix E) to ground-disturbing activities.  Road maintenance crews, permit and leaseholders, and the BLM Weed Coordinator should collaborate to establish roadside 

maintenance schedules that control seed produced by noxious weeds. 

 Manage cheatgrass (downy brome) in long-nosed leopard 

lizard habitat using an appropriate control plan to prevent negative impacts to the lizard. 

Manage cheatgrass in occupied long-nosed leopard lizard habitat. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

 Conduct monitoring and treat 

all weed infestations for a minimum of three years, or until eradicated, for all wildland fire disturbances over 0.5 acre. 

Conduct monitoring and treat all weed infestations for a minimum of one year, or until eradicated, for all wildland fire disturbances over 0.5 acre. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Prohibit the use of feed for 

pack or saddle stock. 

Prohibit the use of feed for pack or saddle stock in RMZs 1 and 2. Allow only certified weed-free feed outside of these zones. 

Allow only certified weed-free feed for pack and saddle stock. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

72 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT PLANT COMMUNITIES 

GOAL A: Manage listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant species in order to comply with provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), including preventing the need for listing of proposed and candidate species.

OBJECTIVES: Inventory potential habitat for Federally listed and candidate plant species. GOAL B: Manage the condition of special status plants and significant plant communities, and their habitats, to a point where special 

status recognition is no longer warranted.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Inventory potential habitat for special status plants and significant plant and biological crust communities. 2. Monitor known populations of special status plants and significant plant and biological crust communities. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None.  Establish a Lease Notice that would alert lessees when potential habitat for a threatened, endangered, candidate, and/or other

special status plant or animal species may be impacted. 

 Conduct surveys for the 

Sleeping Ute milkvetch in all potential habitat. 

Conduct surveys for the Sleeping Ute milkvetch in all potential habitats, in conjunction with other inventory/surveys for proposed development and/or activities. 

 Evaluate and, as necessary, relocate or realign roads if monitoring indicates damage or disturbance to special status plant 

species, and/or to significant plant and biological crust communities. 

 Monitor BLM sensitive plant 

species populations. Where disturbance to individuals or habitat is documented, remove the source of the disturbance to a location that avoids continued damage. 

Monitor BLM sensitive plant species populations. Where disturbance to individuals or habitat is documented, implement mitigation to reduce the damage. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Develop a monitoring plan 

for significant plant and biological crust communities. Monitor the condition and extent of these communities where disturbance is likely to occur annually. 

Monitor the condition and extent of significant plant and/or biological crust communities, in conjunction with other inventory/surveys for proposed development or activities. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Develop an inventory plan for 

sensitive plant species and significant plant and 

Develop an inventory plan for sensitive plant species and significant plant and 

Inventory sensitive plant species and significant plant and biological crust 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

73 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

biological crust communities within two years of signing of the ROD. 

biological crust communities within five years of signing of the ROD. 

communities in conjunction with project activities. 

 Avoid locating facilities (e.g., oil and gas, recreation, and 

livestock improvements) in occupied and/or potential habitat for significant plant and biological crust communities. 

Apply standards to avoid or minimize locating facilities in occupied and/or potential habitat for significant plant and biological crust communities. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

 Establish an NGD/NSO restriction for occupied and/or potential habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special

status plant species. 

 Close and restore social roads where biological crust communities occur in high-use recreation areas.  Locate new roads away from 

biological crust communities, with minimum 100-foot buffers. 

Locate new roads away from biological crust communities, with minimum 50-foot buffers. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Manage all activities in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances the Monument’s scenic resources (scenic resources 

include, but are not limited to, the extraordinary topography, geology, biology, and cultural history).

OBJECTIVES: 1. Designate Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes throughout the Monument, based on an inventory of visual resources and management 

considerations for other uses. 

2. Manage activities within the Monument according to VRM Class objectives. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Manage all Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) as VRM Class I, until such time that Congress makes a determination as to their permanent status. 

2. Assign all units of Hovenweep National Monument within the boundary of the Monument as VRM Class II, along with a 0.5-mile buffer. 3. Assign the McElmo Resource Natural Area (RNA) as VRM Class I. 4. Assign The Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway as VRM Class II, along with a 0.5-mile buffer. 

 Consider the importance of visual values in all proposed actions and minimize the impacts the project may have on these values. 

Use the visual resource contrast rating system as a guide in analyzing potential visual impacts of the proposal while, at the same 

time, performing an environmental analysis for projects. Design projects to mitigate impacts and conform to the assigned VRM Class objective. 

Manage cultural resource emphasis areas with canyons 

VRM Classes (by acre) include: 

VRM Classes (by acre) include: 

VRM Classes (by acre) include: 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

74 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

listed in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP according to Class II Visual Management standards. Discourage permanent or long-term visual intrusions in other canyon areas throughout the ACEC (e.g., prevention of rim-cutting, regulation of access placement, stringent reclamation, and use of muffled generators, and so forth). Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Preserve scenic values, enhance viewing opportunities, and increase variety, where appropriate. Establish site-specific visual quality objectives and design guidelines for landscape development projects during activity planning. 

 Class I: 38,598 

 Class II: 126,643 

 Class III: 94 

 Class IV: 0 

 Class V: 0 

Include the following:  McElmo Research 

Natural Area (RNA), plus expansion, Cannonball Mesa, and Sand Canyon units, as Class I. 

 WSA, plus Citizen’s 

Proposed Areas for expansion, as Class I. 

 Class I: 25,976 

 Class II: 34,754 

 Class III: 104,605 

 Class IV: 0 

 Class V: 0 

Include the following:  McElmo RNA Class I, 

with 0.5-mile buffer, as Class II. 

 Class I: 25,976 

 Class II: 27,535 

 Class III: 94,327 

 Class IV: 17,497 

 Class V: 0 

Include the following:  McElmo RNA Class I, 

with 0.5-mile buffer, as Class II. 

 Seek to prevent light pollution within the Monument. Propose no actions within the Monument that will contribute to light 

pollution. Work closely with the surrounding communities to minimize light pollution. 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Ensure that an appropriate quality and quantity of water resources are available in order to support the proper functioning of

ecological processes, consistent with applicable standards (e.g., water quality).

OBJECTIVES: 1. Protect and restore water resources from physical disturbances and adverse impacts associated with land management activities. 

2. Ensure continued availability of water in order to adequately manage resources and multiple-uses. Multiple-uses include both consumptive uses of water, 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

75 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

such as livestock, wildlife watering, recreation, and fire suppression, as well as non-consumptive uses, such as flow in streams sufficient to support riparian 

and fisheries values. 

3. Protect water quantity within and downstream from the Monument. 4. Protect water quality within and downstream from the Monument. 5. Identify and quantify hydrologic processes and relationships, and monitor changes in both water quality and quantity in order to ensure proper management 

of resources, as well as the multiple-uses that depend on them. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: Maintain and/or improve water quality, in accordance with State and Federal laws and approved standards, including consultation with State agencies on proposed projects that may significantly affect water quality. Report activities on nonMonument lands that are causing, or are expected to cause, water quality deterioration, soil degradation, and/or other damage to Monument lands–whether directly or indirectly–to the responsible management official. 

Report activities on public and private land outside the Monument boundary that are causing, or are expected to cause, water 

quality deterioration, soil degradation, and/or other damage to Monument lands–whether directly or indirectly–to the responsible 

management official to work out cooperative solutions. 

 Include terms and conditions that protect groundwater source areas for all springs, seeps, and wells on all land use authorizations 

requiring NEPA. 

 Prohibit ground-disturbing activities that could impair outstanding remarkable values (ORVs) responsible for stream segments 

being found suitable for Wild and Scenic River (WSR) designation. 

 Work in partnership with landowners to protect, improve, and/or enhance the quality of water located in watersheds shared 

between them and the Monument. 

 Develop and implement a long-term hydrologic data collection program that includes, at a minimum: 

 flow measurements on perennial streams; 

 precipitation gauge(s) at locations sufficient to accurately characterize rainfall levels in the Monument; and 

 regular flow measurements at select springs. 

Implement additional monitoring protocols in areas where land use activities could potentially affect (e.g., dewater a spring) hydrologic resources. 

Reconstruct previously constructed stream crossings that are inadequate in order to prevent washouts. Review road crossings of 

Require implementation of BMPs (see Appendix E), as determined appropriate, to protect aquatic resources from grounddisturbing activities. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

76 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

intermittent or perennial streams on a case-by-case basis. Meet the following standards:  Construct all crossings 

perpendicular to the streambed, in a straight stretch of the bed. 

 Construct temporary 

crossings to withstand a 10-year flood event by using culverts, rock bottom, or a “no fill”-style crossing. 

 Construct permanent 

crossings to withstand a 50-year flood event. 

Require construction of check dams, in order to hold erosion and slow stream velocity, as mitigation. 

Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Secure sufficient water rights to provide for recreation management needs. 

Secure water rights to support all water uses in the Monument. 

Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management.- Secure water rights sufficient to provide for livestock management needs. 

Secure water rights to ensure the proper management of both natural resources (e.g., fish and wildlife and aquatic and riparian

vegetation) and multiple-uses (e.g., livestock grazing and recreation). 

 Work cooperatively with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and Colorado Water Conservation Board (through the 

MOU of September 14, 2005, or subsequent agreements) to ensure that water resources and instream flows necessary for the 

proper care and management of Monument resources are available. Areas of cooperation, to date, have included Yellow Jacket 

Creek. Evaluate other streams. 

 Permit new water 

developments only for the 

Permit new water developments for traditional 

Encourage development of new water sources to support 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

77 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

following purposes: to better distribute livestock, when deemed to have an overall beneficial effect on Monument resources; to restore or manage native species or populations; to support visitor facilities (e.g., toilets and parking areas), when consistent with the characteristics of the corresponding RMZ; and/or to mitigate impacts to cultural resources (e.g., relocating an existing water development away from an archaeological site). Conduct such developments only when a NEPA analysis determines that this tool is the best means of achieving the above objectives, and only when the water development would not dewater springs or streams. 

water uses within the Monument. Encourage livestock water developments to improve forage use and range carrying capacity. Encourage wildlife water developments to meet terrestrial wildlife population objectives. Redevelop livestock and wildlife water developments to reduce impacts to cultural resources. Restrict recreation water developments to high-use locations, such as trailheads and visitor centers. Allow limited dewatering of water sources if such development assists in meeting livestock, wildlife, and recreation objectives. 

expanded resource development and economic development. Permit new water developments for traditional water uses within the Monument. Encourage livestock water developments to improve forage use and range carrying capacity. Encourage wildlife water developments to meet terrestrial wildlife population objectives. Redevelop livestock and wildlife water developments to reduce impacts to cultural resources. Give priority for use of limited water supplies to resource development purposes over waterdependent natural resource values in areas of intense resource development. 

 Continue management of 

existing water infrastructure, including ditches, diversions, and dams. Continue to operate existing facilities under their historic authorizations. Work cooperatively with facility owners to reduce facility impacts on riparian and wildlife habitat. Allow increased diversions through existing facilities only where a NEPA analysis 

Continue management of existing water infrastructure, including ditches, diversions, and dams. Continue to operate existing facilities under their historic authorizations. Allow increased diversions through existing facilities, with appropriate authorizations. 

Continue management of existing water infrastructure, including ditches, diversions, and dams. Continue to operate existing facilities under their historic authorizations. Allow increased diversions through existing facilities, with appropriate authorizations. Allow conversion of water facilities from traditional uses (e.g., irrigation and livestock) to industrial and commercial 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

78 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

demonstrates an overall benefit to Monument resources. 

uses. 

 Work closely with the 

Colorado Water Conservation Board to establish instream flow rights for all types of streams in the Monument, including seasonal reaches that support riparian and wildlife values. Make any new land use authorizations conditional, to ensure that sufficient flows remain to support water-dependent values on any unprotected reaches. 

Work with the Colorado Water Conservation Board to establish instream flow rights only for perennial streams within the Monument. Make any new land use authorizations conditional, to ensure that sufficient flows remain to support waterdependent values for other reaches. 

Work with the Colorado Water Conservation Board to establish instream flow rights only for perennial streams within the Monument. Make available for appropriation any water not protected by instream flow rights for industrial, commercial, or traditional uses. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Discourage groundwater 

development as a method for meeting water supply needs. Perform a full analysis on the impact of any proposed groundwater development on surrounding seeps, springs, and streams. 

Allow groundwater development in areas of inadequate surface water supplies for the purposes of meeting livestock and wildlife watering needs. Perform a full analysis on the impact of any proposed groundwater development on surrounding seeps, springs, and streams to determine the lowest impact locations for development. 

Encourage groundwater development for the purposes of meeting water supply needs for energy and minerals development projects. Perform a full analysis on the impact of any proposed groundwater development on surrounding seeps, springs, and streams to determine the lowest impact locations for development. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Increase water flows by 

removing noxious weeds in and around seeps, springs, and streams when projects are performed at water sources. 

Increase water flows by incorporating seeps, springs, and streams, where appropriate, into a list of high-priority areas for noxious weed control. Develop a specific list of these priority weed control 

Increase water flows by incorporating seeps, springs, and streams, where appropriate, into a list of high-priority areas for noxious weed control. Treat as time and funding is available. 

Same as Alternative III. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

79 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

areas and begin treatment within three years of signing of the ROD. 

Riparian Systems. - Protect 2,415 acres of riparian systems. Evaluate all proposed projects in order to ensure compliance with BLM policies on riparian habitat management. Implement projects designed to improve riparian and alluvial floodplain habitat. Consider construction of rock check dams, gully plugs, and similar structures in order to slow water flow, trap silt, and reduce channel erosion. Design seeding of adjacent alluvial sites in order to reduce erosion, filter watershed runoff, improve forage production, and increase flora and fauna species diversity. Allow no projects that are not designed for the enhancement or improvement of riparian and alluvial sites within 100 feet of active channel edges without appropriate mitigation. Implement specific projects, such as cross-fencing of 

Establish a NGD/NSO restriction to protect 5,312 acres of riparian systems. Review ground disturbing projects that are planned to benefit the health of riparian systems (i.e., exclosure fences, etc.) on a case-by-case basis, as authorized by the Monument Manager. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to the widest boundary when combining canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains. These areas include springs, as well as a combination of canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains associated with perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to springs with well-developed riparian vegetation (i.e., Blue Water, H-O, and Confluence Springs) as well, along with a 300-foot buffer, to protect adjoining wetlands. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to the remaining springs, along with a 100-foot buffer, to protect adjoining wetlands. Permit designated road crossings in canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains. However, it must be demonstrated that a road crossing would not contribute to a stream segment either not achieving, or not making progress toward achieving, PFC. 

Establish NGD/NSO restriction to protect 3,217 acres of riparian systems. Emphasize management activities that benefit acres of riparian and floodplain values. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to the widest boundary when combining riparian areas and floodplains. These areas include springs, as well as a combination of riparian areas and floodplains associated with perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to springs with well-developed riparian vegetation (i.e., Blue Water, H-O, and Confluence Springs) as well, along with a 300-foot buffer, to protect adjoining wetlands. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to the remaining springs, along with a 100-foot buffer, to protect adjoining wetlands. Permit designated road crossings in riparian areas and floodplains. However, it must be demonstrated that a road crossing would not contribute to a stream 

Same as Alternative II and III. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

80 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

riparian areas, development of water sources outside of riparian areas, and the use of seedings, in order to facilitate management and promote recovery and maintenance of riparian/alluvial habitat. Design spring developments in order to maintain water flow in riparian channels, while, at the same time, providing livestock water outside of the channel and spring source area, if possible. 

segment either not achieving, or not making progress toward achieving, PFC. 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL A: Increase public education and appreciation of the objects identified in the Proclamation by creating opportunities for visitors and other users to learn about the Monument landscape and about its multiple-uses, as well as about the needs for protection 

and stewardship. GOAL B: Ensure long-term public benefits from research, education, and cultural heritage while, at the same time, balancing other uses and considering the effects on the local economy.

OBJECTIVES: Develop and implement a comprehensive Interpretation and Education Plan for the Monument. Make available significant resources and areas for interpretation and education, including those identified within the Proclamation (e.g., the entire cultural landscape, the geology of McElmo Dome, the various species of 

wildlife, and the unique herpetological resources). 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None.  Develop a comprehensive Interpretation and Education Plan for the Monument within three years of signing the ROD, in 

partnership with Native American tribes, agencies, local governments, organizations, and the public. Address sites allocated as 

“Public Use D” (Developed) in this plan. 

Organize public involvement programs. 

Organize and conduct ongoing education programs for the public, school groups, vocational archaeology groups, project proponents, permittees, contractors, and others about cultural resource visitor ethics; and encourage their help in reporting incidents of vandalism in the Monument. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

81 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Initiate actions to interpret Monument resources and values and provide environmental education to visitors on important topics (e.g., visitor safety and resource protection). 

Education and interpretation objectives are addressed by management actions throughout other resource sections. (See the 

Cultural Resource section tasks tied to education and interpretation pertaining to cultural resources, including the “outdoor museum” concept, sites allocated for public use [Developed and Undeveloped], and research, and education programs. For education and interpretation pertaining to heritage tourism and visitor use see Appendix F). 

 Encourage archaeological research that achieves multiple management objectives in addition to contributing significant new 

knowledge; and require researchers to share information with the public through lectures, site tours, etc. 

 Maintain and manage the McElmo RNA as a herpetological research area, a resource for educational institutions, and an outdoor 

classroom. 

Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Develop and protect suitable cultural resource properties for public enjoyment through such practices as interpretive signing, stabilization, and so forth. Maintain developed recreation sites at Lowry for interpretation information opportunities. 

Evaluate applications for all Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) to visit sites allocated to Public Use D (Developed and 

Undeveloped) based on the table below. Give priority to SRP applicants for education and tribal visits. The primary purpose of 

this table is to address backcountry organized activities. 

Organized Group Public Use D (Developed) Public Use D (Undeveloped) 

Commercial groups > 15 in size Require SRP. Not allowed. Commercial groups < 15 in size Require SRP. Allowed, if applicant is a partner 

(Assistance Agreement required). 

Require SRP. Otherwise allow at 

Manager’s discretion, provided 

criteria are met*. 

Private group, No payments, >15 Allow without SRP. Allow with SRP, and at the 

discretion of the Monument 

Manager. 

Private group, No payments, <15 Allow without SRP. Allow without SRP, however 

encourage notification and 

coordination with the BLM. 

Organizations with educational purpose 

related to public lands mgmt. (schools) 

Allow without SRP. Allow with SRP, and at the 

discretion of the Monument 

Manager. 

*Criteria: Require groups planning archaeological-oriented visits to obtain a SRP and to show that the trip leader has 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

82 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

adequate training in archaeological interpretation, cultural resource law, site etiquette, and cultural heritage 

sensitivity. 

Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Manage cultural resources for protection, preservation, investigation, and public use (i.e., development and interpretation), where appropriate. Manage the AHC as a focal point for the cultural program for public lands. 

Allocate all cultural resources to Uses A-D (Public Use D [Developed] and Public Use D [Undeveloped]). Note: For the 

purposes of the DRMP/DEIS, the following distinction is made for Public Use D: sites allocated to Public Use D will be identified as: 1) “Public Use (Developed)” sites that the public is directed to, that are promoted and hardened (see listing below); 

and 2) “Public Use D (Undeveloped)” sites that the public is not directed to, and are not promoted or hardened, but may be visited in the backcountry context. Consider both Public Use D (Developed) and Public Use D (Undeveloped) as components of the “outdoor museum” concept. 

Identify in the Interpretation Plan the types of sites that will meet education goals. Specific sites will be evaluated by theMonument Archaeologist, based on criteria outlined in Appendix F. 

 Require all permittees to provide experienced and 

knowledgeable supervision for groups, and require them to educate participants about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry site visitor etiquette, and stewardship. 

Permits for educational visits to sites, as well as permits to visit sites ancillary to other permitted uses, would encourage permittee to provide experienced and knowledgeable supervision for groups. Encourage permittees to provide education about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry site visitor etiquette, and stewardship. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

Develop new sites and areas for controlled visitation at various levels of interpretation. 

Encourage cooperative efforts between BLM and NPS staff, including: 

 interpretation and education projects; 

 visitor services; 

 research; and 

 heritage tourism. 

Install interpretive signing at Lowry. Provide appropriate signs at Monument 

Minimize the presence of on-the-ground interpretive media in most cases. Use low-profile visible media to orient visitors and to provide for resource protection. Focus on highly visible media at the staging areas (e.g., parking areas, trailheads, and visitor center). Provide visible interpretive media designed to draw attention to interpreted resources, where appropriate. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

83 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

boundaries and post other relevant information, as needed. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Develop and maintain the least amount of facilities and infrastructure necessary to provide for public safety and to assist in 

meeting resource management objectives.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Coordinate the development and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure, when appropriate, with adjacent landowners (i.e., Hovenweep National 

Monument, the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, the Navajo Nation, the Utah BLM Monticello Field Office, and private landowners). 

2. Ensure that all major BLM facilities are located outside the Monument to protect Monument resources and provide economic opportunities in the local 

communities. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Allow local communities to provide for facility-dependent settings and opportunities. The AHC would serve as the headquarters and primary visitor contact 

station for the Monument. 

2. Maintain and/or rehabilitate, as appropriate, developed BLM camping facilities consistent with Monument purposes. 

3. Permit maintenance of existing facilities, subject to compliance with current policies and practices, provided that Monument resources are protected. 

4. Consider applications for new facilities, if they would serve to protect and/or enhance Monument resources. 

5. Livestock, Watershed, and Wildlife Developments: Maintenance of existing projects would occur in the same general manner and degree as they have been 

in the past. 

6. Livestock, Watershed, and Wildlife Developments: Implement non-structural alternatives whenever possible, in lieu of structural projects. 

7. Coordinate new facility developments and existing facility improvements with the AHC to optimally meet the needs and desires of that sector of the 

recreating public interested in such facilities. Initial developments would probably involve Sand/East Rock Canyons and Painted Hand Ruin, and would 

include signs, register boxes, trails, and parking. 

8. Livestock, Watershed, and Wildlife Developments: Construct new projects only where detailed NEPA assessment demonstrates that they would not have an 

adverse impact on Monument resources protected by the Proclamation. 

 Work with Hovenweep National Monument to determine the feasibility of developing a western visitor contact station, using the 

existing NPS visitor center in Utah. 

 Develop visitor contact stations, as determined necessary, outside the boundary of the Monument, and outside Hovenweep 

National Monument, to mitigate resource impacts and to ensure public safety at high-use areas. 

 Implement facility and infrastructure BMPs, as determined appropriate.  Work with landowners to determine the need for fencing and/or signage along private/public land boundaries.  Develop a cost-sharing program with private landowners, within and adjacent to the Monument, to install and maintain fencing 

and/or signage along private/public land boundaries. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

84 

SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Allow for the harvesting of forestry products (i.e., fuelwood, posts, and Christmas trees), management of woodland stands, 

and collection of other resources, while, at the same time, protecting the objects (i.e., cultural, biological, and geological resources) 

identified in the Proclamation.

OBJECTIVES: Manage the harvesting of forestry products and all woodland stands in order to help sustain a biologically diverse landscape that supports a variety of habitats and native plant and animal species. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. 

Authorize no forest product removal. 

Allow personal fuelwood harvesting, post cutting, and Christmas tree cutting by permit only within designated forestry product areas. Use only dead-and-down wood for fuelwood harvesting. Authorize no commercial fuelwood cutting. 

Allow personal fuelwood harvesting, post cutting, and Christmas tree cutting by permit in all areas, except in WSAs and the McElmo RNA. Use both dead-anddown wood and live trees for fuelwood harvesting. Authorize, by permit, commercial fuelwood cutting in these areas. 

Permit no personal forest product removal. Authorize, by permit, commercial fuelwood cutting. Use both dead-and-down wood and live trees for fuelwood harvesting. Require a Class III cultural resource inventory in areas permitted for fuelwood harvesting. 

Permit no commercial forest product sales. Identify vegetative use areas for private fuelwood and vegetative use permits. Limit these areas to previously chained areas in order to remove dead-and-down wood to reduce fuel load and fire hazards. Vegetative uses are an integral part of traditional tribal subsistence activities. Continue to monitor existing dispersed fuelwood sale areas, and assess any concentration or increase in activity the same as for a new wood sales area. Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Manage lands suitable for timber and woodland production in order to enhance recreational opportunities and to maintain healthy stand conditions. 

 Designate as “open” all cutting areas following the completion 

of a Class III cultural resource inventory, and a determination by the Monument Manager that the use (i.e., fuelwood harvesting, post cutting, or Christmas tree cutting) would not create any new impacts that would interfere with the proper care and/or management of the objects (i.e., cultural, biological, and geological resources). Designate additional areas to meet the overall vegetation management objectives, but only within areas that are already disturbed and/or areas that are within 300 feet of a designated road. Designate, under a permit system, all cutting areas, and provide maps to ensure compliance. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

85 

SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Allow removal of forest products only when compatible with cultural, wildlife, and/or recreation values, or when done to improve safety. Emphasis Area H: Public Land Disposal. - Allow timber to be harvested and forest products to be used. Emphasis Area L: ACECs. - Manage lands suitable for timber and woodland production in order to enhance ACEC values and to maintain healthy stands. Access into public use wood sale areas may be restricted. 

 Restrictions discussed in the transportation section of this document would apply to forestry 

product areas (i.e., motorized and mechanized vehicle travel is limited to designated road; no cross-country travel is authorized). However, because permits control forestry product collection activities and are issued to further overall management objectives, the BLM could authorize access on administrative roads. Delineate these areas/provisions in the permit prior to its issuance. 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL A: Use land tenure adjustments in order to protect objects identified in the Proclamation, to improve management, and to reduce administration costs. OBJECTIVES: 1. Identify private land within and/or adjacent to the Monument boundary for possible acquisition from willing sellers, if the acquisition would contribute to 

achieving cultural and/or natural resource goals and objectives. 

2. Work with landowners in order to resolve encroachment issues. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

86 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL B: Develop ROW grants in order to accommodate facilities supporting multiple-use activities while, at the same time, 

protecting objects identified in the Proclamation.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Manage commercial filming in order to assist in achieving resource protection goals and objectives. 2. Manage competitive and special events in order to assist in achieving resource protection goals and objectives. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: Limit, generally, ROWs for development of resources to a 16-foot running surface.  Manage all properties acquired at the time of the Final RMP/Final EIS ROD signing and in the future in accordance with the rest 

of the Monument. 

Pursue acquisition of private in-holdings within the ACEC boundary by means of exchange. Consider the various criteria for land ownership adjustments in land reports and in environmental assessments prepared for specific adjustment proposals. Evaluate major factors, including: threatened and endangered and sensitive species habitat; wetland and riparian areas; fisheries; nesting and breeding habitat for critical wildlife; key big game habitats (seasonal); developed recreation sites and recreation access sites; municipal watersheds; energy sites and areas with the potential for minerals; sites that are eligible for inclusion on the NRHP; legal land 

Work with willing sellers to acquire private in-holdings and edge-holdings by means of acquisition, exchange of BLM lands targeted for disposal outside of the Monument, donation, or conservation easement to be held by non-BLM entities. Acquire both surface and subsurface rights to avoid the creation of split estates, of private parcels that meet one or more of the following criteria:  adjoin, or are contained 

within, the Monument boundary; 

 protect cultural and/or 

natural resources; 

 enhance recreation 

experiences and benefits; 

 provide additional access 

to public land; 

 contain no, or few, 

improvements (i.e., houses, buildings, or facilities), unless they 

Work with willing sellers to acquire private in-holdings and edge-holdings by means of acquisition, exchange of other BLM lands targeted for disposal outside of the Monument, donation, or conservation easement. Acquire private parcels that meet one or more of the following criteria:  adjoin, or are contained within, the Monument boundary; 

 protect cultural and/or natural resources; 

 enhance recreation experiences and benefits; 

 provide additional access to public land; 

 contain no, or few, improvements (i.e., houses, buildings, or facilities), unless they can be 

utilized to further Monument management; or 

 require little or no reclamation. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

87 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

surveys, wilderness, and areas being studied for designation as wilderness; and other statutorily authorized sites. Consider land or easement acquisitions and land exchanges that would enhance the values of the Monument. 

can be used to further Monument management, or require little or no reclamation 

 Authorize only one access road to private parcels, unless public safety or local ordinances warrant additional roads. The ROW

width would be commensurate with the development needs of the individual private parcel. Work with private landowners to coordinate development of access roads across public lands to prevent proliferation of roads. 

 Develop a boundary management plan to prioritize areas for survey and boundary marking. Include areas needing immediate 

trespass resolution, and areas where trespass is resulting in resource impacts in the criteria used to prioritize these areas. Include 

in the plan a schedule and budget for completing this work. 

 Pursue cost-share agreements with willing private landowners, within and adjacent to the Monument, to survey and mark the 

Monument boundary. 

 Work with private landowners to resolve encroachment issues. Resolve historic encroachment issues on an individual basis, 

including by establishing ROWs, by issuing permits, and by treating as trespass. Manage all new encroachments, since the establishment of the Monument, through law enforcement requiring removal and rehabilitation. 

 Prohibit commercial filming, except for educational purposes relevant to the objectives of the Monument, as determined by the 

Monument Manager. 

 Prohibit nonrecreational competitive and special events, except for educational purposes relevant to the objectives of the 

Monument, as determined by the Monument Manager. Allow private special events, at the discretion of the Monument 

Manager. 

Use land tenure adjustments to ensure the accessibility of public lands in areas where access is needed and cannot otherwise be obtained. 

Within one year of signing of the ROD, develop and prioritize a list of easements needed to facilitate administrative access to public lands. Develop easements in partnership with affected landowners. 

Develop and prioritize a list of easements needed to facilitate both administrative and public access to public lands. Develop easements in partnership with affected landowners. Acquire easements for both administrative and public access to public lands. 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

88 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Acquire easements for both administrative and public access to public lands. Subject new ROWs to all surface use restrictions (including NGD/NSO, TL, and protective considerations for cultural 

resources). 

Permit no new ROWs in RMZ 4 (Squaw and Cross Canyons), except for access to private land. 

Permit new ROWs in RMZ 4 (Squaw and Cross Canyons) only to access private land or in cases of extreme need, and where other alternatives are not available. 

Same as Alternative II. 

Process no new ROWs or ancillary facilities, except for ROWs pursuant to existing policies and practices and/or those necessary for access to private or state in-holdings. Allow major utility corridors, with protective stipulations in order to prevent or limit impacts to resource management. Allow other land actions when there is a clear and significant public need, when they would result in minimal adverse impacts, and/or when they would benefit other resource management. 

Prohibit major utility ROW corridors. 

Allow major utility ROW corridors only within or adjacent to the existing ROW for the 230-kilovolt (kV) aerial power line presently traversing the southwest corner of the Monument. 

Allow major utility corridors only with protective stipulations to prevent or limit impacts to resource management. Allow other land actions when there is a clear and significant public need, when they would result in minimal adverse impacts, or when they would benefit other resource management. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Prohibit the construction of 

new renewable energy projects (e.g., wind and solar). 

Prepare a Monument-wide feasibility study prior to the construction of any new renewable energy projects (e.g., wind and solar) to determine the most appropriate location(s) for them. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Prohibit the construction of 

new communication sites. 

Prepare a Monument-wide feasibility study prior to the construction of any new communication 

sites to determine the most appropriate location(s) for them. 

Use existing ROWs for oil and gas development for new operations as much as possible in order to avoid impacts that interfere with the proper care of Monument resources. Reclaim ROWs not needed for other resource needs. 

Apply the following considerations to the management of all ROWs: C-1: Use existing ROWs when constructing new facilities (including, but not limited to, communication sites and renewable energy projects), when possible. C-2: Align ROWs for new linear facilities (including, but not limited to, pipelines, utility lines, and designated roads) adjacent to 

existing or newly designated roads, when possible. C-3: Bury all new and reconstructed utility lines and pipelines, unless:  visual resource objectives can be met without burying; 

 geologic conditions make burying infeasible; 

 burying would potentially impact cultural resources; and/or 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

89 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

 burying would produce more extensive long-term surface disturbance. 

C-4: All reconstructed and future powerlines must meet non-electrocution standards for raptors. Take corrective measures, if problems with existing powerlines occur. C-5: Construct all powerlines using non-reflective wire. Construct steel towers using matte finish galvanized steel or nonreflective surfaces. Construct no powerlines along visual highpoints (e.g., ridgelines), unless no other location exists. C-6: Allow no strobe lights at any communication site if other acceptable methods are available to meet aircraft safety 

requirements. 

C-7: Prepare communication site plans for all existing sites before any changes in use occur. Allow no new sites. 

C-7: Prepare communication site plans for all existing or new sites, as determined necessary. Require communication service providers to share infrastructure (e.g., towers) and facilities. 

C-7: Prepare communication site plans for all existing or new sites, as determined necessary. Encourage communication service providers to share existing facilities and infrastructure (e.g., towers) using existing ROWs, to limit the proliferation of communication sites. 

Same as Alternative III. 

Make available, in general, public land for utility and transportation corridor development. Encourage applicants to locate new facilities within existing corridors to the greatest extent possible. Permit deviations from existing corridors based on consideration of the types of, and needs for, the proposed facilities; conflicts with other resource values and uses, including potential values and uses; and the availability of alternative roads and/or mitigation measures. 

C-8: Require all new ROW facilities to meet visual resource objectives. 

Avoid blasting or cutting of canyon rims whenever a reasonable ROW routing alternative is available in the construction of access roads 

C-9: Prohibit blasting or cutting of canyon rims in the construction of access roads or other ROWs. 

C-9: Avoid blasting or cutting of canyon rims whenever a reasonable ROW routing alternative is available in the construction of access roads 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

90 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

or other ROWs. or other ROWs. Where temporary access is needed, (e.g., construction access, access to drill an exploratory or wildcat well), keep road development to an absolute minimum standard sufficient to meet the purpose. The ROW grant would contain stipulations providing for additional upgrading, as well as for reclamation and rehabilitation. 

C-10: Where temporary access is needed (e.g., construction access, or access to drill exploratory or wildcat wells), keep road 

development to an absolute minimum standard sufficient to meet the purpose. The ROW grant would contain stipulations providing for additional upgrading, as well as for reclamation and rehabilitation. 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Ensure proper care and management of the objects protected under the Proclamation prior to authorizing continued 

exploration, development, production, and/or reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, and CO2) in the Monument.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Determine if any of the 34,221 acres of unleased mineral estate in the Monument should be leased in order to promote conservation of oil and gas resources 

in any common reservoir now being produced under existing leases, or to protect against drainage. 

2. Identify stipulations for new leases in order to ensure that impacts are not created that interfere with the proper care and management of the objects protected 

by the Proclamation. 

3. Identify stipulations and BMPs for exploration, development, production, and reclamation in order to ensure that impacts are not created that interfere with 

the proper care and management of the objects protected by the Proclamation. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorization for activities on existing mineral leases would be governed by valid existing rights. 2. Implement standard lease terms (individual leases). 3. Allow no leasing in Cahone Canyon, Cross Canyon, and Squaw/Papoose Canyon WSAs. 4. Permit off-lease seismic activities only for the purpose of defining the limits of common reservoirs now being produced. With the exception of oil and gas leasing, withdraw Federal lands and interests in lands within the Monument from 

Any existing lease that terminates for failure to pay on or before the anniversary date the full amount of rental may be reinstated under the regulations found in 43 CFR 3108, using the new lease stipulations (see below). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

91 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under public land laws, including, among others, the mineral leasing and mining laws. Issue new leases only for the purpose of promoting the conservation of oil and gas resources in any common reservoir now being produced under existing leases, or to protect against drainage. “Therefore, the parties further acknowledge and agree that decisions pertaining to future oil and gas leasing within the Monument shall be deferred by the BLM until completion of the RMP EIS. The parties further acknowledge and agree that, as needed to make RMP leasing decisions, and subject to the best information then available, the RMP EIS shall present the known bounds of common reservoirs that produced under existing leases on the date of the Proclamation, and shall analyze alternative measures to protect against drainage” (2002 Stipulated Settlement Agreement, San Juan Citizens Alliance, et al. 

Issue new fluid mineral leases in areas presently not under lease or in areas currently leased but that expire, for all Federally owned minerals only for the purpose of protecting against drainage, as defined and required in accordance with 43 CFR 3162.2-2 to 3162.2-15. Due to the majority of existing leases (i.e., 307 or 92 percent) being located within units held by production, the potential for existing leases to expire is low. Any new lease issued under this alternative would include the new lease stipulations outlined below. Based on the analysis presented in the Reasonable, Foreseeable Development (RFD), 880 acres of new fluid mineral leasing is estimated as necessary to protect against drainage over the next 20 years in areas currently not under lease. This estimate was derived using the 

Issue new fluid mineral leases for all Federally owned minerals within the McElmo Dome Unit boundary. Issuance of any new fluid mineral lease would be for the purpose of promoting the conservation of oil and gas resources in any common reservoir now being produced under existing leases, and/or to protect against drainage as defined and required under 43 CFR 3162.2-2 to 3162.2-15. Under this alternative, the McElmo Dome Unit represents the administratively defined lateral extent of a common reservoir now being produced. All land within this boundary would be available for leasing, except for those areas unavailable to leasing (WSAs). Because the Leadville and Paradox Formations extend outside the McElmo Dome Unit boundary, new information 

Issue new fluid mineral leases for all Federally owned minerals. Issuance of any new fluid mineral lease would be for the purpose of promoting the conservation of oil and gas resources in any common reservoir now being produced under existing leases, and/or to protect against drainage as defined and required under 43 CFR 3162.2-2 to 3162.2-15. Based on the geologic definition of “common reservoir” presented in the RFD, the entire Leadville Formation underlying the Monument is a “common reservoir.” As a result, all land would be available for leasing with no additional proof required from a prospective operator that a “common reservoir” exists. The Honaker Trail Formation is another potential source of fluid mineral supply. This alternative assumes that new fluid mineral leases are issued 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

92 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

v. Gale Norton, et al.). following assumptions: 

 that there would be 20 

new oil and gas wildcat or exploratory wells over the next 20 years; 

 that 11 (57 percent) of 

the 20 new oil and gas wells would experience drainage over the next 20 years; 

 that each of these 11 

wells would require a new fluid mineral lease of 80 acres to protect against drainage; and 

 that the average spacing 

for each of the 11 wells would be 160 acres. 

The area that could be released (assuming they expire) to protect against drainage is 143,224 acres.a However, as 

noted, 92 percent of existing leases are located within units held by production. As a result, the potential for these leases to expire is low. Therefore, the single estimate of 880 acres of new fluid mineral leasing occurring to protect against drainage is more probable under this alternative. All newly acquired lands that are obtained without mineral 

may be obtained on the extent of fluid mineral reservoirs. Land outside of the administratively defined lateral extent of the common reservoir (i.e., McElmo Dome Unit) would be available for leasing if the prospective operator provides conclusive, scientific evidence (i.e., geologic and reservoir engineering data) that the area is also part of a common reservoir being produced under existing leases, or that it is necessary to protect against drainage. This evidence could apply to either the Leadville or Paradox Formation, both of which are currently producing within the Monument. The Honaker Trail Formation is another potential source of fluid mineral supply. This alternative assumes that new fluid mineral leases are issued for all geologic formations (i.e., Leadville, Paradox, and Honaker), not just one. 

for all geologic formations (i.e., Leadville, Paradox, and Honaker), not just one. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

93 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

leases would become part of the 880 acres considered for drainage only. 

 Of the 24,462 acres of 

Federal minerals available for leasing, it is estimated that only 880 acres would be leased to protect against drainage. Any new lease issued under this alternative would include the new lease stipulations. 

3,021 acresb of Federal 

minerals would be available for leasing in the McElmo Dome Unit under this alternative, while 2,557 acres of Federal minerals would be unavailable (WSAs). Any new lease issued under this alternative would include the new lease stipulations. 

24,462 acresc of Federal 

minerals would be available for leasing under this alternative, while 9,762 acres of Federal minerals would be unavailable for leasing (WSAs). Any new lease issued under this alternative would include the new lease stipulations. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Require development of all new leases to incorporate a Geographic Area Development Plan (GADP). Stipulations from the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (1991) are as follows: NSO Stipulations. - (Stip. Code: SJ-1) NSO stipulations appended to leases issued within them for the protection of scenic, natural, and cultural values and according to the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (1985); (Stip. Code SJ-2) NSO stipulations appended to leases issued for the 

 Carry forward all 

existing stipulations, with the following modifications or with new stipulations applicable to new leases only: 

Provide NSO stipulations for:  cultural resources, 

including communities, sites, and isolated finds; 

 areas with slopes greater 

than 30 percent and/or soil with high erosion potential; 

 southwestern willow 

flycatcher habitat (0.25-mile buffer), as defined in the Final Recovery 

Carry forward all existing stipulations, with the following modifications or with new stipulations applicable to new leases only: Provide NSO stipulations for:  cultural resources, 

including communities and sites; 

 areas with slopes greater 

than 30 percent and/or soil with high erosion potential; 

 occupied and potential 

habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant 

Carry forward all existing stipulations, with the following modifications or with new stipulations applicable to new leases only: Provide NSO stipulations for:  areas with slopes greater 

than 30 percent and/or soil with high erosion potential; 

 occupied and potential 

habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant species; 

 riparian/wetland habitat 

(3,217 acres); and 

Carry forward all existing stipulations, with the following modifications or with new stipulations applicable to new leases only: Provide NSO stipulations for:  cultural resources, 

including communities and sites; 

 areas with slopes greater 

than 30 percent and/or soil with high erosion potential; 

 occupied and potential 

habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

94 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

protection of archaeological values according to the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (1985); and (Stip. Code: SJ-4) Bridge Canyon (McElmo) RNA: Protection of habitat for rare species of flora and fauna. Provide Timing Limitations stipulations for big game species (including mule deer, American elk, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep) (Stip. Code: CO-9). Note: Crucial winter habitat includes severe big game winter range and/or other definable winter ranges, as mapped by the CDOW. Provide TL stipulations for 

Big Game Crucial Winter Habitat – from December 1 to April 30. Exception for big game crucial winter habitat: Under mild conditions, the last 60 

Plan; 

 potholes, seasonal pools, 

stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat (with 150 foot buffer); 

 occupied and potential 

habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant species; 

 riparian/wetland habitat 

(5,312 acres); and 

 areas with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Provide Timing Limitations stipulations for:  Mexican spotted owl nest 

sites (documented occupied or historic) - from March 15 to September 1; 

 active bald eagle or 

golden eagle nests - from March 1 to July 15;

 known bald eagle winter 

roost or winter concentration areas - from November 16 to April 15; and

 potholes, seasonal pools, 

stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to 

species; 

 riparian/wetland habitat 

(5,312 acres); 

 Cannonball and Sand 

Canyon Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs); and 

 areas with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Provide Timing Limitations stipulations for: 

 Mexican spotted owl nest 

sites (documented occupied or historic) - from March 15 to September 1;

 active bald eagle or 

golden eagle nests - from March 1 to July 15;

 known bald eagle winter 

roost or winter concentration areas - from November 16 to April 15; 

 SWWF habitat (0.25-

mile buffer), as defined in the Final Recovery Plan – from April 15 to 

 areas with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Site Specific Relocation (SSR)/Controlled Surface Use (CSU). -  Cannonball and Sand 

Canyon PCAs. 

Provide Timing Limitations stipulations for:  Mexican spotted owl nest 

sites (documented occupied or historic) - from March 15 to September 1;

 active bald eagle or 

golden eagle nests - from March 1 to July 15; and

 known bald eagle winter 

roost or winter concentration areas - from November 16 to April 15.

species; 

 riparian/wetland habitat 

(5,312 acres); 

 Cannonball and Sand 

Canyon PCAs; and 

 areas with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Provide Timing Limitations stipulations for:  Mexican spotted owl nest 

sites (documented occupied or historic) - from March 15 to September 1;

 active bald eagle or 

golden eagle nests - from 

March 1 to July 15; and.

 known bald eagle winter 

roost or winter concentration areas - from November 16 to April 15.
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

95 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

days of the seasonal limitation period may be suspended. Severity of the winter would be determined on the basis of snow depth, snow crusting, daily mean temperatures, and whether or not animals were concentrated on the crucial winter range during the winter months. This limitation may not apply to work requiring a Sundry Notice pending environmental analysis of any operational or production aspects. Controlled Surface Use (CSU) Stipulations. - (Stip. Code: CO-27) Approve an engineering/reclamation plan, as approved by the Monument Manager, prior to surface disturbance on slopes of, or greater than, 40 percent. Such plans must demonstrate how:  site productivity will be 

restored; 

 surface runoff will be 

adequately controlled; 

 offsite areas will be 

protected from accelerated erosion, such as rilling, gullying, 

support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season - from April 1 through July 31 (with 300 foot buffer). 

Provide Lease Notices that:  alert lessees that no 

APDs will be granted where physical cultural remains are dense, continuous, and/or chronologically related and/or determined to be communities, throughout the survey area (constant-no breaks); 

 alert lessees to 

NGD/NSO for southwestern willow flycatcher habitat (0.25-mile buffer), as defined in the Final Recovery Plan; 

 alert lessees to TL for 

potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to 

July 15; and 

 potholes, seasonal pools, 

stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season - From April 1 through July 31 (with 150 foot buffer). 

Provide Lease Notices that:  alert lessees that no 

APDs will be granted where physical cultural remains are dense, continuous, and/or chronologically related and/or determined to be communities, throughout the survey area (constant-no breaks); 

 alert lessees of TL for 

potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of 

surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season, which is from April 1 through July 31 (with 150 foot buffer); and 

 alert lessees to potential 

Provide Lease Notices that:  alert lessees that no 

APDs will be granted where physical cultural remains are dense, continuous, and/or chronologically related and/or determined to be communities, throughout the survey area (constant-no breaks); and 

 alert lessees to potential 

habitat for a threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant or animal species. 

Provide Lease Notices that:  alert lessees that no 

APDs will be granted where physical cultural remains are dense, continuous, and/or chronologically related and/or determined to be communities, throughout the survey area (constant-no breaks); and alert lessees to potential habitat for a threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant or animal species. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

96 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

piping, and mass wasting; 

 surface-disturbing 

activities will not be conducted during extended wet periods; and 

 construction will not be 

allowed when soil is frozen. 

(Stip. Code: CO-28) Restrict activities associated with oil and gas exploration and development, including roads, transmission lines, storage facilities, to an area beyond the riparian vegetation zone for the protection of perennial water impoundments and streams, and/or riparian/wetland vegetation zones. Exceptions: This stipulation may be excepted subject to an on-site impact analysis with consideration given to degree of slope, soil, importance to the amount and type of wildlife and fish use, water quality, and other related resource values This stipulation would not be applied where the Monument 

support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season, which is from April 1 through July 31 (with 300 foot buffer); and 

 alert lessees to potential 

habitat for a threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant or animal species.

habitat for a threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant or animal species. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

97 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Manager determines that relocation of up to 200 meters can be applied to protect the riparian system during well sighting.  Consider all new lease offerings as undertakings, under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

To manage and protect the nationally significant cultural landscape encompassed by the Monument, subject all new lease offerings (lands open to development) within the Monument to existing and new stipulations to protect cultural, natural, scenic

resources, and objects of the Monument that are protected under the Proclamation. Use current, existing archaeological information to determine if specific stipulations in addition to NSO are needed for the protection of cultural resources within an area proposed for leasing. Allow stipulations beyond the standard lease form for oil 

and gas development in a NSO form for areas where significant surface values warrant complete avoidance. 

 Allow no direct impacts to 

cultural resource communities, sites, or isolated finds resulting from any managed activity. Allow activities, as determined through interdisciplinary review (other resources), subject to all surface restrictions and stipulations, in areas where cultural resource communities, sites, and/or isolated finds would not be impacted. Accomplish site protection through monitoring, fencing construction limits, and sitespecific cultural resources protection BMPs (as COAs 

Allow no direct impacts to cultural resource communities or sites resulting from any managed activity. Allow activities, as determined through interdisciplinary review (other resources), subject to all surface restrictions and stipulations, in areas where cultural resource communities or sites will not be impacted. Accomplish site protection through monitoring, fencing construction limits, and site-specific cultural resources protection BMPs (as COAs for fluid mineral leases). 

Same as Alternatives III and IV. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

98 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

for fluid mineral leases). 

Apply COAs to operational approvals (Applications for Permits to Drill and Sundry Notices), as determined necessary by the Monument Manager, in order to protect other resources and values within the terms, conditions, and stipulations of the lease contract. A list of the most common COAs is found in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP. 

Apply COAs to operational approvals (Applications for Permits to Drill and Sundry Notices), as determined necessary by the Monument Manager, to protect other resources and values within the terms, conditions, and stipulations of the lease contract. A number of BMPs may be applied as COAs (see Appendix E). 

Use the current APD review process, including a 30-day public review of the proposed decision identified in an EA or EIS. 

Require the implementation of fluid minerals and energy resource BMPs. 

Require permits for all seismic operations. 

Complete an EA or EIS, as necessary, prior to approving a seismic operation. 

Complete an EA or EIS, as necessary, prior to approving a seismic operation, unless the operation, is determined to be a “casual use” as defined in 43 CFR 3150.0-5(b). 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

Permit off-lease seismic activities only for the purpose of defining the limits of 

Allow off-lease seismic activities only for the purpose of defining the limits of common reservoirs now being produced. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

99 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

common reservoirs now being produced.  Require an inventory of all helicopter landing zones, staging areas, parking areas for vibroseis buggies, and/or other associated 

surface disturbance for cultural resources. 

 Prohibit vehicle traffic along receiver lines. Require that a permitted or agency archaeologist monitor all phases of seismic operations in order to protect sites from damage via access and collection in sensitive areas. 

Require that a minimum of one permitted or agency archaeologist monitor all phases of geophysical operations. 

Require that a permitted or agency archaeologist monitor all phases of geophysical operations, as determined necessary on a case-by-case basis. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

 Require that all source lines, receiver lines (if vehicles are driven on the receiver lines), or other temporary access roads be 

reclaimed to protect cultural resources. Conduct reclamation of these roads using methods appropriate to the area, including, but not limited to, the use of natural barriers, such as boulders or dead-and-down wood; and ripping, reseeding, and/or signing. 

 Limit geophysical operations using vibroseis to a distance of at 

least 500 feet from any cultural resource site (including rock art). 

Limit geophysical operations using vibroseis to a distance from any cultural resource site (including rock art), as determined appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

 Include, for cultural resource inventory for geophysical explorations not using vibroseis, a minimum of a 100-foot radius around 

each shot point; a minimum of a 300-foot radius around each shot point located near a rim or rock/cliff face; a 100-foot-wide 

swath (i.e., 50 feet on either side of centerline) on all source lines/points and receiver lines (if vehicles are to be driven down the 

receiver lines), and access roads; and a 500-foot-wide swath on all source lines/points that are located on or near a rim or 

rock/cliff face or for geophysical operations using vibroseis. 

Include inventories and mitigative measures in all geophysical permits in order to avoid new impacts that interfere with the proper care and management of the objects protected by the Proclamation. 

Limit geophysical operations to only BLM-authorized roads. 

Permit geophysical operations on BLMauthorized roads, or userdeveloped roads, as authorized on a case-by-case basis. 

Allow geophysical operations travel throughout the Monument, as authorized on a case-by-case basis. 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

100 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

 Require that geophysical operations avoid all biological soil 

crust communities. 

Require that geophysical operations minimize disturbance of known biological crust communities. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

 Require that all vehicles 

associated with geophysical operations cross only on BLM-authorized roads if water is visible in the channel at washes, alluvial valleys, and perennial water features, and/or where riparian vegetation is present. 

Require that all vehicles associated with geophysical operations cross only on BLM-authorized roads at perennial water features, and/or where riparian vegetation is present. 

Require that all vehicles associated with geophysical operations cross only at locations authorized following field-based exemption if water is visible in the channel at washes, alluvial valleys, and perennial water features, and/or where riparian vegetation is present. 

Same as Alternative II. 

Limit seismic operationrelated work by bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment to maintenance and/or repair of existing roads and trails. 

Prohibit seismic operationrelated work by bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment. 

Limit seismic operationrelated work by bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment to maintenance and/or repair of legally designated roads. 

Allow use of seismic operation-related work by bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment, as necessary to mitigate impacts to objects identified in the Proclamation. 

Same as Alternative II. 

Keep geophysical operations that use explosives at least 500 feet from standing walls; allow a maximum of 20-40 pound charges in order to minimize impacts from concussion and vibration. 

Prohibit the use of explosives in geophysical operations. 

Limit geophysical operations using explosives to at least 500 feet from cultural resource sites (including rock art) and to a maximum of 20-40 pound charges to avoid or minimize impacts. 

Limit geophysical operations using explosives to a distance from cultural resource sites (including rock art) determined to be appropriate to avoid impacts or minimize impacts, based on depth and size of charge for shot hole testing. 

Same as Alternative III. 

aTotal acres of unleased Federal minerals in the Monument. bTotal acres of unleased Federal minerals within the portion of the McElmo Dome Unit inside the Monument. This calculation subtracts the 2,557 acres of 

unleased Federal minerals within existing WSAs that are located in the portion of the McElmo Dome Unit inside the Monument. 

cTotal acres of unleased Federal minerals within existing WSAs that are located in the portion of the McElmo Done Unit inside the Monument. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

101 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

SOLID MINERALS 

GOAL: Honor valid existing rights for solid minerals while, at the same time, mitigating any impacts from new leases to the proper 

care and management of objects protected under the Proclamation.

OBJECTIVES: Enforce mineral resource withdrawal as specifically stated in the Proclamation. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. With the exception of oil and gas leasing, withdraw all Federal lands and interests in lands within the Monument from all forms of entry, location, selection, 

sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public land laws, including, among others, the mineral leasing and mining laws. 

2. As to hardrock minerals, locate no new mining claims and undertake no new prospecting or exploration activities designed to identify new locatable 

minerals or to establish the discovery of valuable mineral deposits. Approve no operating plans for mining operations, unless the Department of the Interior 

has made a final determination regarding the validity of the mining claims and mill sites covered by the plan. 

3. With the exception of oil and gas leases, issue no new Federal mineral leases within the Monument. Authorization for activities on existing mineral leases 

would be governed by valid existing rights. 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL A: Manage livestock grazing in order to be consistent with Public Land Health Standards and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management in Colorado; maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, multiple-use relationships, and productive forage 

resources. 

OBJECTIVES: 1. Develop a rangeland monitoring strategy and plan in order to assess rangeland health conditions on a regular basis and a process to implement necessary 

management revisions based on monitoring results. 

2. Manage livestock grazing in order to achieve Land Health Standards for upland and riparian/wetland plant communities by adjusting use levels, timing, and 

intensity, and implementing rangeland improvement projects. 

3. Manage livestock grazing in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of rangeland ecosystems and to promote the resistance and resilience of rangeland 

plants and soil to the effects of recurring drought. 

4. Manage livestock grazing in order to meet vegetation, recreation, fish and wildlife, water quality, and cultural resource objectives and to protect sensitive or 

high-quality resources from negative impacts of grazing and associated ground-disturbing activities. 

GOAL B: Develop and encourage public and stakeholder understanding of livestock grazing management within the Monument.OBJECTIVES: Improve communication and understanding of range standards and expectations between BLM, grazing permittees, and the general public. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue to authorize enforcement actions against trespassers and/or other violators. 2. Comply with Instruction Memorandum CO-2002-29: Interim Historic Preservation Guidelines and Procedures for Evaluating the Effect of Rangeland 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

102 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Management Activities on Historic Properties (BLM 2002). Analyze existing conditions and identify additional fieldwork during preparation of NEPA documentation for issuance of permits. 

Permit 6,437 active AUMs (calculated capacity, based on inventory information including the Rangeland Health Assessment, PFC from riparian area assessments, rangeland trend, vegetation production studies, and water quality data). 

Permit 8,368 active AUMs. Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative II. 

Administer twenty-three (23) allotments. Remove five allotments from availability: the East and West Sand Canyon, Rock Creek, Goodman Gulch, and Trail Canyon allotments. 

Administer twenty-eight (28) allotments. 

Same as Alternatives II and III. 

Allow no grazing on the small number of capable acres outside current allotment boundaries. Continue to graze the small 

number of capable acres outside current allotment boundaries. 

Current stocking (adjustments taken since implementing the AUMs in the San Juan/San Miguel Plan) include 8,492 active AUMs. There are currently 28 grazing allotments, covering 159,676 acres, within the ACEC. Fifteen of these allotments, with 141,000 acres, have been identified for intensive management in the DRMP/DEIS. Three allotments, containing 2,247 acres, are presently unallotted. Grazing preference for the 28 allotments presently amounts to 10,305 AUMs. While most livestock use adjustments will occur in the “I” allotments, use adjustments are permitted for allotments in “C” and “M” categories. Continue to govern grazing activities through applicable laws and regulations other than the Proclamation. 

Suspend active preference of 3,706 AUMs. Identify these suspended active preference AUMs in all affected grazing permits. 

Suspend active use of 1,655 AUMs. Identify these suspended active preference AUMs in all affected grazing permits. 

Suspend active use of 1,692 AUMs. Identify these suspended active preference AUMs in all affected grazing permits. 

Same as Alternative II. 

Limit grazing use during any portion of the critical period to no more than 30 percent of 

Limit, as a guideline, allowable utilization levels to no more than 30 percent of upland shrub and riparian woody species (current 

year’s growth). Monitor woody species to ensure multiple age classes are represented, ensuring recruitment of young shrubs. Limit grazing use during any portion of the critical period to no more than 30 percent of the active preference. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

103 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

the active preference and to no more than 50 percent utilization of key forage species’ current season growth. Require livestock operators to haul water to livestock in order to lessen impacts to riparian zones in specific problem areas. 

Establish minimum stubble height standards for herbaceous vegetation of 4 inches in spring-use pastures and 6 inches in fall-use 

and winter-use pastures, to be measured when livestock are removed, in riparian systems where perennial herbaceous vegetation 

(grasses and forbs) is important for achieving PFC and Land Health Standards. 

Rangeland management requires improving conditions on all sites to meet Rangeland Health Standards. 

Limit, as a guideline, allowable utilization level to no more than 35 percent of the current year’s production of desired cool-season and warm-season perennial grass species. 

Limit, as a guideline, allowable utilization level to no more than 50 percent of the current year’s production of desired cool-season and warm-season perennial grass species, where Rangeland Health Standards are being met. Implement, as a guideline, an allowable utilization level of 35 percent on a by-pasture basis where the Rangeland Health Standards for upland soil and healthy and productive plant and animal communities are not being met and progress is not being made toward meeting these standards. 

Limit, as a guideline, allowable utilization levels to no more than 50 percent of the current year’s production of desired perennial coolseason and warm-season grass species. 

Same as Alternative III. 

Typical range improvements and the general procedures to be followed in implementing them are described in Appendix D. The extent, location, and timing of such actions would be based on the allotment-specific management objectives 

Typical range improvement BMPs are described in Appendix E. Additional considerations for planning decisions are listed in Appendix F. These address those improvements appropriate for implementation in WSAs; those improvements specific to the 

physical protection of cultural resources; and those improvements to be applied to reduce conflicts between livestock grazing and recreation use. The extent, location, and timing of such actions would be based on the allotment-specific management objectives adopted through the grazing permit process, interdisciplinary development and review of proposed actions, contributions from operators 

and others, and BLM funding capability. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

104 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

adopted through the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) process, interdisciplinary development and review of proposed actions, contributions from operators and others, and BLM funding capability. Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Manage livestock under reduced intensity in order to utilize available forage and maintain plant vigor while, at the same time, not degrading recreation values. Do not attempt to maintain or improve forage composition and production through range vegetation treatments with the exception of prescribed fire, where appropriate. Use “rustic” range improvements near developed recreation areas. Manage livestock grazing for compatibility with recreation use. Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Reduce or control, when necessary, livestock grazing in order to protect cultural resources. Emphasis Area L: ACECs. - Manage livestock under low 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

105 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

to moderate intensity in order to use available forage and to maintain plant vigor while, at the same time, not degrading any present ACEC values. Leave unallotted tracts available for further consideration for authorized grazing, as provided in the BLM grazing regulations (43 CFR 4110 and 43 CFR 4130). However, certain tracts not currently authorized for grazing use would remain unallotted. 

Pursue establishing common reserve allotments, as they become available, to allow for periodic rest and deferment in other allotments. Make one of the following determinations in the event a grazing permit is relinquished or cancelled: 1. Reissue a term grazing permit; 2. Close, either temporarily or permanently, the allotment to grazing, where any of the following exists and is attributed to 

livestock grazing: 

 damage to cultural resources; 

 fragile soil/biological crusts essential for soil and water resource protection; 

 low forage production (less than 200 pounds/acre); 

 inadequate facilities to manage livestock grazing (i.e., fencing, water, or availability); and/or 

 degraded riparian and/or upland conditions; or 

3. Create, temporarily or permanently, a reserve forage allotment. Permits for reserve forage allotments would not be held by 

specific grazing operators. Require grazing to meet the goals described for the area in the RMP and, if applicable, in an 

AMP. Grant temporary, non-renewable use to Federal permit holders when there is a demonstrated need to rest a permittee’s allotment. “Need” for rest would include, but not be limited to, the following reasons: to improve resource condition of other allotments prior to prescribed fire or necessary fence construction; and during/after rehabilitation projects, such as wildland fire, prescribed fire, drought, flood, insect damage, and/or disease. 

Conduct cultural resource inventory of livestock concentration areas, and assess livestock impacts for all unevaluated, eligible, or listed sites and mitigate impacts during the 10-year term of the permit. 

Conduct cultural resource inventories of livestock concentration areas; evaluate all previously unevaluated sites; assess livestock 

impacts for all unevaluated, eligible, or listed sites in livestock concentration areas; determine mitigation measures to address 

identified impacts; and mitigate those impacts during the term of the grazing permit. 

 Fence streams and riparian areas where reduced livestock numbers or season of use adjustments do not result in achieving PFC 

and Land Health Standards. 

 Work cooperatively with the CDOW to meet range conditions and forage needs for both wildlife and livestock, making livestock 

and/or wildlife adjustments, as needed. 

Establish a monitoring program that would determine whether or not the 

Involve permittees and interested members of the public in the ongoing monitoring program. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

106 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

goals and objectives of the RMP are being achieved by the management systems.  Allow no livestock 

supplemental feeding or temporary range improvement structures. 

Consider allowing livestock supplemental feeding and/or temporary range improvement structures on a case-by-case basis, where risk of damage to other resource values is low. 

Allow no livestock supplemental feeding. Consider allowing temporary range improvement structures on a case-by-case basis, where risk of damage to other resource values is low. 

 Implement protective measures, such as winter grazing only (December and January), while soil is frozen where biological crust

communities are identified. 

 Make adjustments annually in 

the form of rest for an entire growing season, in reduced livestock numbers, or in change in season of use if utilization or stubble height guidelines are not met based on livestock grazing. 

Make adjustments annually in the form of reduced livestock numbers or in change in season of use if utilization or stubble height guidelines are not met based on livestock grazing. 

Same as Alternative II. 

Authorize grazing during the critical spring growth period (from March 1 to May 31) within a grazing unit for no more than one year in any three-year period. Accomplish this by implementing a rotational grazing system or by taking total non-use for two out of three years. 

Authorize grazing during the critical spring growth period (from March 1 to May 31) within a grazing unit for no more than two years in any three-year period. Accomplish this by implementing a rotational grazing system or by taking total non-use every third spring. 

Permit no spring use by domestic livestock in all allotments on native ranges during the critical period of early growth, unless a grazing system is implemented that provides critical period rest once every three years, or a spring use pasture is developed to absorb grazing use in meeting the rest requirements. (See Table 1 in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP/ROD for specific periods by allotment.) 

Allow no spring use where Land Health Standards are not being met. 

Implement more stringent spring deferment (two out of three years) or allow no spring use where Land Health Standards are not being met. 

Implement more stringent spring deferment or allow no spring use where Land Health Standards are not being met, or where major progress is not being made and current livestock management is 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

107 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

determined to be a substantial contributing factor. 

Base range improvements, such as fences, stock ponds, springs, and vegetation treatments (including burning, and their extent, location, and timing), on specific management objectives in AMPs. Implement all livestock use adjustments through documented mutual agreement or by decision. Revise existing AMPs, as necessary, and develop new AMPs, as necessary. Develop types of grazing systems to be implemented in cooperation with the livestock operator, based on consideration of the following factors: allotment-specific management actions (see Appendix D); resource characteristics, including vegetation potential and water availability; general management actions; operator’s needs; and implementation costs. Suggested Stock Rates – Management Actions  Allotment category “M” 

management status: 

Review existing grazing permits on a regular schedule and revise, as necessary, to address current conditions and operator needs 

in the context of achieving Land Health Standards and other resource management objectives. Make adjustments to grazing permits based on utilization monitoring. Use revisions to grazing permits as the management vehicle to accomplish specific utilization goals, stocking rates, season of 

use, and proposed range improvements. Develop new grazing permits, as required, addressing the same management issues and objectives. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

108 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

- Existing preference 

– Base future adjustments on monitor data. 

 Allotment category “I” 

management status: - Estimate – Use 

existing preference unless amount varies by +20 percent of inventory data (allowable by livestock kind). If amount exceeds +20 percent, then use inventory data. Determine actual adjustments through monitoring data. 

 Allotment category “C” 

management status: - Estimate – Same as 

category “I,” except consider change where feasible to 100 percent 

Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management. - Manage suitable vegetation types for increased, sustained livestock production. Improve, as one goal, range condition and productivity on native rangeland. Use improved management systems, such as rest-rotation and deferred-rotation, if appropriate. Invest in range 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

109 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

improvements necessary to implement management systems. Develop AMPs where needed. Emphasize increasing forage, red meat, and animal fiber production, and improving forage composition and watershed conditions, contingent on meeting Public Land Health Standards. Initiate intensive Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management. - Manage suitable vegetation types for increased, sustained livestock production. One goal is to improve range condition and productivity on native rangeland. Use improved management systems such as rest-rotation and deferred-rotation, if appropriate. Invest in range improvements necessary to implement management systems. Develop AMPs where needed. Emphasis is on increasing forage, red meat, and animal fiber production, and improving forage 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

110 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

composition and watershed conditions, contingent on meeting Public Land Health Standards. Intensive livestock management within the McElmo RNA as soon as fence construction is completed. 

Remove livestock grazing from the McElmo RNA when fence construction is complete. 

Limit livestock grazing in the McElmo RNA to the period from November 15 to March 15. 

Impose no restrictions on grazing in the McElmo RNA. 

Limit livestock grazing in the McElmo RNA to the period from November 15 to March 15, as soon as fence construction is completed. 

 Build on current monitoring program by developing a simple proactive permittee and public monitoring approach to enhance 

understanding of grazing management regulations and guidance, monitoring methods, and current monitoring results. 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Manage and enable access to the Monument for recreational activities while, at the same time, protecting cultural and natural 

resources, ensuring compatibility with other existing and permitted uses, and considering effects on adjacent landowners and the local 

community.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Produce Recreation Management Objectives for specific recreation opportunities, consisting of activities, experiences, and benefits. 

2. Sustain Recreation Setting Prescriptions setting character essential/required in order to produce targeted recreation opportunities and to facilitate the 

attainment of experiences and benefits. 

3. Use Providers’ Implementing Actions to conduct, yet constrain, all management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative support actions, as necessary in 

order to produce targeted recreation opportunities, facilitate outcome attainment, and sustain prescribed recreation setting character. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: Achieve recreation objectives through the management of the following Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and Extensive Recreation Management 

Areas (ERMAs), consisting of the following Recreation Management Zones (RMZs): 1. Pueblo Sites SRMA, including Painted Hand Pueblo RMZ, Lowry Pueblo RMZ, and Sand Canyon Pueblo RMZ; 2. Sand Canyon/Rock Creek SRMA, including Sand Canyon RMZ, and Rock Creek RMZ; 

3. Mockingbird Mesa-Rincon SRMA, including Mockingbird Mesa RMZ, and Rincon RMZ; 4. Squaw-Cross Canyons SRMA, including Squaw-Cross Canyons RMZ; 5. Goodman Point SRMA, including Goodman Point RMZ; and 6. AHC SRMA, including AHC RMZ. 

Recreation Management Area Configuration, Management Objectives, and Setting Prescriptions 

Maintain developed recreation sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand 

PUEBLO SITES SRMA: Configuration. - Include 240 acres in three 

PUEBLO SITES SRMA: Configuration. - Include 12,478 acres in 

PUEBLO SITES SRMA: Configuration. - Include 41,115 acres in three 

PUEBLO SITES SRMA: Configuration. - Include 240 acres in three 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

111 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Canyon for interpretation information opportunities, picnicking, sightseeing, photography, etc. Maintain a broad range of recreation settings and activities while, at the same time, preventing or reducing resource degradation caused by recreation use, and providing for visitor health and safety. Continue to evaluate recreation opportunities on a case-by-case basis, as a part of project level planning. Provide for a blend of settings and opportunities that tend toward the resourcedependent end of the BLM’s Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) system. Allow local communities to provide for facility-dependent settings and opportunities. 

tracts with Painted Hand, Lowry, and Sand Canyon Pueblos. Management Objectives: Activities might include: day 

hiking, and viewing archaeological ruins. Experiences might include:

learning about the Monument, and contemplating people’s relationship with the land. Benefits might include: a 

greater respect for cultural heritage, and a greater desire for the protection of archaeological structures and sites. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Mid-Rural Country 

Social. -Mid-Front Country 

Administrative. -Mid-Front 

three tracts with Painted Hand, Lowry, and Sand Canyon Pueblos, and approximately eight adjoining sections. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

day hiking, and exploring native cultures. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional experiences that might include enjoying exploring alone. Benefits might include: an 

enlarged sense of wonder, improved physical fitness and health maintenance, stress reduction and mental restoration, a greater sensitivity to outdoor and cultural aesthetics, a greater respect for cultural heritage, a greater desire for the protection of archaeological structures/sites and reduced incidents of looting and vandalism of prehistoric sites. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural 

Country Social. -Back-Front Country 

tracts with Painted Hand, Lowry, and Sand Canyon Pueblos, eight adjoining sections, and public lands surrounding Hovenweep National Monument. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

cultural resource studies, backpacking, sketching, and painting. Experiences might include:

learning about prehistoric lifestyles, enjoying teaching others about natural and cultural history, and enjoying exploring alone. Benefits might include: an 

enlarged sense of wonder, an improved capacity for outdoor physical activity, a more holistic sense of wellness, a greater respect for cultural heritage, an increased capacity for artistic expression, an increased sense of stewardship and a desire for the protection of cultural resources, reduced incidents of looting and vandalism of prehistoric site; and increased local tourism revenue. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

Social. -Back-Rural Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

tracts with Painted Hand, Lowry, and Sand Canyon Pueblos. Management Objectives: Activities might include: day 

hiking, and viewing archaeological ruins. Experiences might include:

learning about the Monument, and contemplating people’s relationship with the land. Benefits might include: a 

greater respect for cultural heritage, and a greater desire for the protection of archaeological structures and sites. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

Social. -Mid-Front Country 

Administrative. -Mid-Front 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

112 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Country Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

Country Country 

Periodically inspect the condition of the recreation lands and sites in order to determine the levels of resource damage occurring. Emphasize semi-primitive recreation opportunities in Cross, Cahone, and Squaw/Papoose Canyons. Review recreation area management plans periodically in order to determine if revisions are necessary due to changing conditions. Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management. - Manage for dispersed recreation as the primary recreation activity. Permit year-long, non-motorized recreation activities throughout the area. Establish site-specific visual quality objectives and design guidelines for landscape development projects during activity planning. 

SAND CANYON-ROCK CREEK SRMA: Configuration. –

7,877 acres, including most of Sand, Rock, and East Rock Creek Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

hiking. Experiences might include:

outdoor exercise, solitary exploration; enjoying solitude, isolation, and independence, and enjoying access to Monument amenities. Benefits might include: improved fitness and health, improved mental well-being, a greater respect for cultural heritage, and an increased sense of stewardship and a greater desire for the protection of cultural resources. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

SAND CANYON-ROCK CREEK SRMA: Configuration. – 6,303 acres, including the south half of Sand, Rock, and East Rock Creek Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

hiking, horseback riding, biking, and viewing cultural sites. Experiences might include:

outdoor exercise, relishing group affiliations and connections, escaping human-made machinery and noise, and enjoying access to close-to-home amenities. Benefits might include:

improved fitness and health, improved mental wellbeing, a closer relationship with the natural world, a greater respect for cultural heritage, and an increased sense of stewardship and a greater desire for the protection of cultural resources. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front 

SAND CANYON-ROCK CREEK SRMA: Configuration. – 5,847 acres, including the south half of Sand, Rock, and East Rock Creek Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

hiking, and studying prehistoric human habitation. Experiences might include:

learning about prehistoric lifestyles, relishing group affiliations and connections, escaping human-made machinery and noise, enjoying teaching others about natural and cultural history, and reduced vandalism of prehistoric sites. Benefits might include: same 

as Alternative II, with additional benefits that might include: increased local tourism revenue. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

SAND CANYON-ROCK CREEK SRMA: Configuration. – 7,541 acres, including most of Sand, Rock, and East Rock Creek Canyons. Remove Big Point from this SRMA and include it in the Mockingbird/Rincon SRMA Management Objectives: Activities might include:

hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and viewing cultural sites. Experiences might include:

outdoor exercise, relishing group affiliation and connections, escaping humanmade machinery and noise, and enjoying access to closeto-home amenities. Benefits might include:

improved fitness and health, improved mental well-being, a closer relationship with the natural world, a greater respect for cultural heritage, and an increased sense of stewardship and a greater desire for the protection of cultural resources. Setting Prescription Physical. -Back-Rural Country 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

113 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

Country Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

Emphasis Area B: Wildlife. - Manage for dispersed recreation as the primary recreation activity. Permit year-long, non-motorized recreation activities throughout the area, except restrict recreation use in order to resolve people/wildlife conflicts, (favoring wildlife in such cases). Establish sitespecific visual quality objectives and design guidelines for landscape development projects during activity planning. Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Manage for a variety of recreation opportunities, consistent with classifications determined in ROS inventories. Provide necessary visitor management services and facilities required to meet recreation program goals. Emphasis Area E: Mineral Resources. - Establish site-specific visual 

MOCKINGBIRD MESARINCON SRMA: Configuration. - 109,872 acres, including the heart and southwest corner of the Monument. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

driving, horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking, and viewing archaeological ruins. Experiences might include:

enjoying solitude, isolation, and independence; enjoying contemplation; outdoor exercise; and solitary exploration. Benefits might include:

improved mental well-being, an enlarged sense of wonder, a greater respect for cultural heritage, and improved physical fitness and health maintenance. 

MOCKINGBIRD MESARINCON SRMA: Configuration. - 104,511 acres, including the heart and southwest corner of the Monument. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

same as Alternative II. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional experiences that might include a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle. Benefits might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional benefits that might include: a closer relationship with nature, a greater respect for cultural heritage, a greater desire for the protection of archaeological and historic sites, and a more outdoororiented lifestyle. 

MOCKINGBIRD MESARINCON SRMA: Configuration. - 99,842 acres, including the heart and the southwest corner of the Monument. Management Objectives: Activities might include: same 

as Alternative II. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional experiences that might include: learning about the Monument, contemplating people’s relationship with the land, and having others nearby who could help if needed. Benefits might include: same 

as Alternative II, with additional benefits that might include: increased experiential understanding of people’s relationship to/dependence on the land, a more outdoororiented lifestyle, an increased 

MOCKINGBIRD MESARINCON SRMA: Configuration. - 109,637 acres, including the heart and southwestern corner of the Monument. Include Big Point in the Mockingbird Mesa-Rincon SRMA. Move the portion of this SRMA included in the Citizen’s proposal for Wilderness into the Squaw/Cross Canyon SRMA. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

driving, horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking, and viewing archaeological ruins. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional experiences that might include a more outdoororiented lifestyle. Benefits might include:

improved mental well-being, an enlarged sense of wonder, a greater respect for cultural heritage, and improved physical fitness and health maintenance. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

114 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

quality objectives and design guidelines for landscape development projects during activity planning. 

Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

Social. -Back-Rural Country 

Administrative. -Back-Rural 

Country

Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural 

Country Social. -Back-Rural Country 

Administrative. -Back-Rural 

Country

sense of stewardship and a greater desire for the protection of cultural resources, reduced incidents of looting and vandalism of prehistoric sites, and increased local tourism revenue. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

Social. -Back-Rural Country 

Administrative. -Back-Rural 

Country 

Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

Social. - Back-Rural Country 

Administrative. - Back-Rural 

Country

Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Make areas available for day use activities, where feasible. Construct public convenience developments, such as restrooms, observation areas, and/or interpretative trails. Provide input into development and operation of Anasazi Heritage Center. Develop public or visitor management plans for areas. Establish site-specific visual quality objectives and design guidelines for interpretation and visitor management during activity planning. Develop recreation activity management plans for Lowry cultural sites. 

CROSS-SQUAW CANYONS SRMA: Configuration. - 37,030 acres, including Cross, Cahone, Cow, and Squaw –Papoose Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

backpacking, camping, and exploring. Experiences might include:

outdoor exercise; enjoying contemplation, enjoying solitude, isolation, and independence; learning about the Monument, and enjoying exploring alone. 

CROSS-SQUAW CANYONS SRMA: Configuration. - 31,730 acres, including Cross, Cahone, Cow, and Squaw – Papoose Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

same as Alternative II. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II. Benefits might include:

same as Alternative II. 

CROSS-SQUAW CANYONS SRMA: Configuration. - 8,218 acres, including Cross, Cahone, Cow, and Squaw –Papoose Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

same as Alternative II. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II. Benefits might include: same 

as Alternative II. 

CROSS-SQUAW CANYONS SRMA: Configuration. - 37,604 acres, including Cross, Cahone, Cow, and Squaw –Papoose Canyons. Move the portion of the Mockingbird SRMA included in the Citizen’s proposal for Wilderness into the Squaw/Cross Canyon SRMA. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

backpacking, camping, and exploring. Experiences might include:

outdoor exercise; enjoying contemplation; enjoying solitude, isolation, and independence; learning about the Monument; and enjoying exploring alone. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

115 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Emphasis Area L: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). - Manage recreational opportunities according to ACEC guidelines. Establish site-specific visual quality objectives and design guidelines for landscape development projects during activity planning. Close Cross, Cahone, and Squaw/Papoose Canyons to OHVs. Provide semiprimitive non-motorized recreation opportunities. Manage the McElmo Research Natural Area for its special research value. 

Benefits might include:

improved physical fitness, improved mental well-being, a closer relationship with the natural world, an enlarged sense of wonder, a greater desire for the protection of archaeological structures and sites, and confirmation and/or development of self-value. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country

Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front 

Country Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country

Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

Benefits might include:

improved physical fitness, improved mental well-being, a closer relationship with the natural world, an enlarged sense of wonder, and a greater desire for the protection of archaeological structures and sites. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country

GOODMAN POINT SRMA: Configuration. - 10,219 acres, including public lands in Goodman, Trail and Alkali Canyons and associated uplands. Management Objectives: ERMA objectives do not target activities, experiences, or benefits. Instead, they address the following: User Conflicts: By 2010, manage conflicts among active recreation participants and experiential learners (based on 

GOODMAN POINT SRMA: Configuration. - 10,219 acres, including public lands in Goodman, Trail and Alkali Canyons and associated uplands. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

viewing/studying/working with archaeological ruins, hiking, and exploring. Experiences might include:

learning about prehistoric lifestyles, more highly motivated students/improved 

GOODMAN POINT SRMA: Configuration. - 10,219 acres, including public lands in Goodman, Trail and Alkali Canyons and associated uplands. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

backpacking, camping, and exploring. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional experiences that might include: an enlarged sense of wonder, reduced incidents of vandalism of 

GOODMAN POINT SRMA: Configuration. - 10,219 acres, including public lands in Goodman, Trail and Alkali Canyons and associated uplands. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

viewing/studying/working with archaeological ruins, hiking, and exploring. Experiences might include:

learning about prehistoric lifestyles, more highly motivated students/improved scholarship, reduced exposure 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

116 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

incident reports filed with the BLM), with the goal of fewer than one per month, accomplished through proactive heritage tourism, visitor ethics outreach messages on-site, at AHC, and through local chamber offices. Resource Protection: By 2010, heighten visitor understanding and visitor behavior to maintain the intrinsic character of on-site cultural resources at which on-site cultural resource research and/or educational tourism are being run to prevent the loss of any significant cultural resources. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country

scholarship, reduced exposure to at-risk youth, enjoying teaching others about natural and cultural history, reduced vandalism of prehistoric sites, greater community involvement in recreation and other land use decisions, and enjoying greater access to close-tohome recreation. Benefits might include: an 

enlarged sense of wonder, improved capacity for outdoor physical activity, a more holistic sense of wellness, a greater respect for cultural heritage, increased capacity for artistic expression, an increased sense of stewardship and a greater desire for the protection of cultural resources, reduced incidents of looting and vandalism of prehistoric sites, and increased local tourism revenue. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front 

Country Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

prehistoric sites, a heightened sense of community satisfaction, a greater household awareness of and appreciation for cultural heritage, improved local economic stability, enjoying having greater access to closeto-home recreation. Benefits might include: same 

as Alternative II. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

to at-risk youth, enjoying teaching others about natural and cultural history, reduced incidents of vandalism of prehistoric sites, greater community involvement in recreation and other land use decisions, enjoying having greater access to close-tohome recreation. Benefits might include: an 

enlarged sense of wonder, improved capacity for outdoor physical activity, a more holistic sense of wellness, greater respect for cultural heritage, increased capacity for artistic expression, an increased sense of stewardship and protection of cultural resources, reduced incidents of looting and vandalism of prehistoric sites, and increased local tourism revenue. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country

ANASAZI HERITAGE CENTER SRMA: Configuration. - 

ANASAZI HERITAGE CENTER SRMA: Configuration. - 

ANASAZI HERITAGE CENTER SRMA: Configuration. - 

ANASAZI HERITAGE CENTER SRMA: Configuration. - 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

117 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

94 acres, including the Anasazi Heritage Center and associated property. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

viewing interpretive exhibits, learning about ancient cultures, hiking, and viewing archaeological ruins. Experiences might include:

learning about the Monument, contemplating people’s relationship with the land, and doing something new and different. Benefits might include: a 

greater respect for cultural heritage, greater access to hands-on learning, improved environmental ethics, and an increased sense of stewardship of cultural resources. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Front-Rural 

Country Social. -Front-Rural Country 

Administrative. -Front-Rural 

Country

94 acres, including the Anasazi Heritage Center and associated property. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional activities that might include: learning about ancient cultures and lifestyles, and learning about recreation opportunities in the Monument. Experiences might include:

contemplating people’s relationship with the land, learning how to respect other users and land uses, and learning new places to go. Benefits might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional benefits that might include: improved ability to relate to local cultures, more highly motivated students, enhanced ability for visitors to find what they want, and improved local economic stability. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Front-Rural 

Country Social. -Front-Rural 

Country Administrative. -Front94 acres, including the Anasazi Heritage Center and associated property. Management Objectives: Activities might include: same as Alternative II, with additional activities that might include: learning about recreation opportunities in the Monument. Experiences might include: learning about the value and methods of preservation, and curation of heritage tourism resources. Benefits might include: same as Alternative II. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Front-Rural Country Social. -Front-Rural Country Administrative. -Front-Rural Country 94 acres, including the Anasazi Heritage Center and associated property. Management Objectives: Activities might include: same as Alternative II, with additional activities that might include: learning about ancient cultures and lifestyles, and learning about recreation opportunities in the Monument. Experiences might include contemplating people’s relationship with the land, learning how to respect other users and land uses, and learning new places to go with a group. Benefits might include: same as Alternative II, with additional benefits that might include: improved ability to relate to local cultures, more highly motivated students, enhanced ability for visitors to find what they want, and improved local economic stability. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Front-Rural Country Social. -Front-Rural Country Administrative. -Front-Rural Country 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

118 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Rural Country

Management and Implementation Actions 

Continue dispersed recreational camping, consistent with current policies and practices and with the Proclamation. Retain existing limitations and closures. Exercise management discretion, where necessary, through emergency closures or other actions in order to protect Monument resources. 

Promote an undeveloped management strategy. Manage mostly for custodial purposes, including user conflicts, visitor safety, and resource protection. Focus on incidental visitors and/or local residents. Minimize infrastructure and visitor facilities. 

Promote a destination management strategy. Focus on establishing destinations for regional visitors, actively marketing to communities in the Four Corners area. Provide specific public access points and appropriate support facilities. Employ a greater reliance on collaboration with counties. 

Promote a destination management strategy. Focus on establishing destinations for national and international, as well as local and regional, visitors. Provide specific public access points and appropriate support with more infrastructure and visitor facilities. Employ a greater reliance on collaboration with counties, local tourism industries, and the NPS. 

Promote an undeveloped management strategy (same as Alternative II) for Sand Canyon/Rock Creek, Mockingbird Mesa, Goodman Point, and Squaw/Cross Canyon SRMAs. Promote a destination management strategy (same as Alternative III) for Painted Hand Pueblo and Sand Canyon Pueblo RMZs. Promote a destination management strategy (same as Alternative IV) for the AHC and Lowry Pueblo RMZs. 

 157,124 acres managed as 

backcountry and 8,211 acres managed as front country settings. 

146,460 acres managed as backcountry and 18,875 acres managed as front country settings 

118,279 acres managed as backcountry and 47,056 acres managed as front country settings 

157,460 acres managed as backcountry and 7,875 acres managed as front country settings 

 Prohibit recreational shooting 

(target shooting), geocaching, or climbing (rock climbing, repelling, and/or bouldering) anywhere in the Monument. Prohibit camping and campfires in all SRMAs. 

Prohibit recreational shooting (target shooting), geocaching, or climbing (rock climbing, repelling, and/or bouldering) anywhere in the Monument. Prohibit camping and campfires in the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon-Rock Creek, and AHC SRMAs, but allow such activities in 

Prohibit recreational shooting (target shooting), geocaching, or climbing (rock climbing, repelling, and/or bouldering) anywhere in the Monument. Prohibit camping and Campfires in Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon-Rock Creek, and AHC SRMAs, except in 

designated sites with fire pits, 

Recreational shooting (target shooting) and geocaching would be prohibited anywhere in the Monument. Climbing (rock climbing, repelling, and/or bouldering) would be allowed in designated areas only. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

119 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

the Mockingbird MesaRincon, Squaw-Cross Canyon, and Goodman Point SRMAs. 

grates, or firepans. Allow camping and campfires in the Mockingbird MesaRincon, Squaw-Cross Canyons, and Goodman Point SRMAs. 

Prohibit camping and campfires in the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon-Rock Creek, and AHC SRMAs, but allow such activities in the Mockingbird Mesa-Rincon, Squaw-Cross Canyon, and Goodman Point SRMAs. Maintain developed recreation sites and interpretation information opportunities in the Pueblo Sites SRMA. Consider mechanized travel (bicycles) a conditional use, with continued monitoring, in the Sand Canyon/Rock Creek SRMA. If damage begins to occur to the objects of the Monument as a result of mechanized travel, this use would no longer be allowed. 

As identified in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP, some OHV designations will occur. Close public land within areas identified as closed to motorized vehicle use yearround to all forms of motorized vehicle use. Allow exceptions in WSAs based on applying BLM’s Interim Management Policy (BLM Revised, July 12, 1983). Provide increased semiprimitive, motorized 

Designate no additional trails, routes will be designated except where necessary in order to reroute for the protection of the objects of the Monument. Construct no new parking areas; better delineate existing parking areas with barriers to prevent further expansion. 

Additional routes may be designated outside of WSAs. Establish parking areas to accommodate up to 10 vehicles at the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon/Rock Creek SRMAs, and for trails leading to NPS units within the Monument. 

Additional routes may be designated. Establish parking areas to accommodate up to 20 vehicles the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon/Rock Creek SRMAs, and for trails leading to NPS units within the Monument. 

Additional routes may be designated outside of WSAs. Establish parking areas to accommodate up to 20 vehicles at the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon/Rock Creek SRMAs, and for trails leading to NPS units within the Monument. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

120 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

opportunities with some primitive, semi-primitive, non-motorized, and roaded natural settings and management objectives. Implement an off-road vehicle management program, as per that described in accordance with the San Juan/San Miguel RMP/EIS ROD.  Establish an entrance fee for 

Pueblo Sites and Sand Canyon/Rock Creek SRMAs, and continue the entrance fee for the AHC SRMA. 

Continue the entrance fee for the AHC SRMA. 

Issue no new commercial permits; grant no expansions of existing permits. 

Issue no special recreation use permits. Continue current existing special uses, but allow no renewal, extension, or transfer. 

Continue existing special recreation use permits; extend, renew, transfer and/or adjust on a case-bycase basis, at the discretion of the Monument Manager. 

Allow special recreation use permits on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the Monument Manager. 

Continue existing special recreation use permits, and allow extension, renewal or transferal, and/or adjustment, on a case-by-case basis. Allow up to 10 special use permits, at the discretion of the Monument Manager. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

121 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Define a travel management network (i.e., system of areas and roads), with supporting facilities (e.g., parking areas), that 

provides reasonable access to the public, private landowners, and authorized users (e.g., fluid mineral operators and livestock grazing permittees) while, at the same time, protecting the objects identified in the Proclamation. (NOTE: For the purpose of this DRMP/DEIS, a “road” is defined as an open way for the passage of vehicles, persons, or animals on land, regardless of the type of travel; and “off-road” is defined as cross-country travel between designated roads. All off-road travel by motorized and/or mechanized 

vehicles is prohibited in the Monument.) 

OBJECTIVES: 1. Designate administrative roads, by type of use (e.g., street-legal motorized vehicle and off-highway vehicle [OHV]) for authorized users only. These are 

roads that lead to private land or developments that have an administrative purpose where the BLM or permitted user/private landowner must have access for regular maintenance or operation. These authorized developments include such things as power lines, weather stations, oil and gas facilities, spring 

developments, corrals, and water troughs. All types of use include street legal motorized vehicle, OHV, dirt bike, foot, horse, and bicycle. 

2. Designate existing and new roads to different types (e.g., street-legal motorized vehicle and OHV) of motorized and non-motorized public access, following 

the travel management network methodology in Appendix G. In summary, this methodology closes existing roads that do not access a destination (e.g., 

scenic overlook, camping site, or archaeological site allocated for public use) and/or that pose a threat to Monument resources. All types of use include street-legal motorized vehicle, OHV, dirt bike, foot, horse, and bicycle. 

3. Designate travel management areas in order to protect Monument objects and to prohibit all off-road motorized and mechanized vehicle use, except for 

emergency or authorized administrative purposes, as required under the Proclamation. 

4. Identify the types and locations of facilities necessary in order to support the functions of the transportation management network. 

5. Identify maintenance activities required to protect road surfacing in order to protect the objects of the Monument. 6. Identify criteria that would assist in deciding if additional roads should be added or removed from the transportation management network in the future. 

7. Work in partnership with the CDOW to determine limitations (e.g., season of use and density level), if any, on new road construction in order to protect big 

game winter range and migration corridors within the Monument. 

8. Identify guidelines and/or limitations to properly maintain, manage, and/or monitor the travel management network. 9. Work in partnership with affected interests in order to manage overflights toward achieving and maintaining both visitor experiences and benefits within 

RMZs. 

10. Manage access to oil and gas leases issued prior to passage of the FLPMA in existing WSAs, to ensure that the BLM non-impairment standard is not violated. 

11. Identify maintenance activities needed to protect road surfacing, to protect the objects of the Monument. 

12. Work in partnership with affected interest groups to manage roads to protect resources and maintain visitor experiences and benefits. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None.  Permit access to private in- and edge-holdings through the transportation plan.  Consult with the CDOW to determine what, if any, limitations (e.g., season of use and density level) are necessary to protect elk 

and mule deer habitats prior to authorizing new roads within elk and mule deer winter range, and elk migration corridors, as defined by the CDOW. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

122 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

 Work cooperatively with aircraft operators, adjacent land management agencies, and Native American tribes (i.e., Hovenweep 

National Monument, the Utah BLM Monticello Field Office, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Navajo Nation), and the Federal Aviation Administration to direct overflights to appropriate RMZs. 

 The following questions would assist the Monument Manager in adding or removing additional roads from the transportation 

management network in the future. If all answers are “no,” the road would be closed. If any answer is “yes,” consideration for 

keeping the road open should be made.  Is the road officially recognized as a county road by both the BLM and the county it is located within? 

 Does the road lead to developments that have an administrative purpose, where the BLM or a permitted user (not including 

private land access) must have access for regular maintenance or operation? 

 Is the road a primary or secondary unpaved road? 

 If so, does the road have a destination? 

 If so, does it contribute to the management objectives and framework and setting prescriptions of the RMZ it is located 

within? 

 If so, does the road avoid impacts to Monument objects and/or other resources? 

Comprehensive transportation plan established 

Roads are summarized as follows:  Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse = 7 miles; 

 Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 3 miles 

 Public Foot = 2 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse = 0 

miles 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 0 

miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle = 6 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 0 miles 

Roads designated open to different types of motorized and non-motorized public access are shown on Map 5. Roads are summarized as follows:  Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse = 79 miles 

 Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 0 miles 

 Public Foot = 9 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse = 0 

miles 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 0 

miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle = 0 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 0 miles 

Roads designated open to different types of motorized and non-motorized public access are shown on Map 5. Roads are summarized as follows:  Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse = 64 miles 

 Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 11 miles 

 Public Foot = 11 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse = 21 

miles 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 

1 mile 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle = 9 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 9 miles 

Roads designated open to different types of motorized and non-motorized public access are shown on Map 5. Roads are summarized as follows:  Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse = 31 miles 

 Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 7 miles 

 Public Foot = 4 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse = 12 

miles 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 0 

miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle = 19 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 19 miles 

Roads designated open to different types of motorized and non-motorized public access are shown on Map 5. Roads are summarized as follows:  Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse = 59 miles 

 Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 0 miles 

 Public Foot = 3 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse = 1 

miles 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 0 

miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle = 235 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 8 miles 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

123 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Public Open to All Travel Means = 131 miles 

Public Open to All Travel Means = 50 miles 

Public Open to All Travel Means = 60 miles 

Public Open to All Travel Means = 102 miles 

Public Open to All Travel Means = 74 miles 

Total roads (public access + Administrative, not new mineral roads) = 149 miles 

Total roads (public access + Administrative, not new mineral roads ) = 138 miles 

Total roads (public access + Administrative, not new mineral roads) = 186 miles 

Total roads (public access + Administrative, not new mineral roads) = 194 miles 

Total roads (public access + Administrative, not new mineral roads) = 168 miles 

Seven facilities required to support the transportation management network are identified on Map 5. 

Seven facilities required to support the transportation management network are identified on Map 5. 

Thirteen facilities required to support the transportation management network are identified on Map 5. 

Twenty facilities required to support the transportation management network are identified on Map 5. 

Eleven facilities required to support the transportation management network are identified on Map 5. 

In general, improvements should be minimal and designed solely to correct those conditions that are unsafe or hazardous. Permit activities that maintain, as opposed to enhance, existing roads. Keep grading and surfacing to a minimum, as needed for user safety. Allow existing unimproved vehicle trails that are not necessary for currently authorized users to deteriorate and reclaim naturally. Rehabilitate trails, as necessary. Keep access roads on public land near the Hovenweep Ruin primitive in order to provide cultural resources protection from heavy 

Maintain open roads within the disturbed travel surface area as of the date the ROD was signed; allow no widening, passing lanes, or other travel surface upgrades. Authorize maintenance to protect (e.g., prevent erosion and sediment loading in drainages) Monument resources outside the disturbed travel surface following sitespecific environmental analysis. Maintain administrative roads to the minimum level necessary to keep them open for limited use by highclearance vehicles. Administrative roads that only go to BLM range monitoring and study areas would not be maintained; however, periodic vehicular access to these sites would be allowed for required range monitoring uses. 

Same as Alternative II, except that travel surface upgrades would be authorized to ensure public safety and/or to protect Monument resources. 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

124 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

uncontrolled visitation. Close the area to crosscountry, off-road travel by motorized vehicles and mechanized vehicles, including mountain bikes, in order to reduce inadvertent damage to cultural resources, except for authorized administrative and emergency purposes. Restrict public access, by vehicles, on road ROWs in order to prevent impacts to cultural resource sites from vandalism. Allow public access via foot or horse. 

Allow foot travel and horseback riding only on designated roads in Recreation Management Zones 2 (Sand Canyon/Rock Creek). Authorize cross-country travel by horseback and foot, outside Zone 2. Prohibit new roads in RMZ 4 (Squaw/Cross Canyon), and within the McElmo RNA. 

Limit horseback riding to designated roads in RMZ 2 (Sand Canyon/Rock Creek). Authorize cross-country travel by horseback and foot, outside Zone 2. Develop no new roads, except those limited to foottraffic and those necessary to protect Monument resources, in RMZ 4 (Squaw/Cross Canyon), and within the McElmo RNA. Allow cross-country foot traffic and horseback riding. 

Develop no new roads, except those limited to foot traffic and those necessary to protect Monument resources, in RMZ 4 (Squaw/Cross Canyon), and within the McElmo RNA. Allow cross-country foot traffic and horseback riding. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Designate 38,598 acres as 

“closed” to OHV travel. Designate 126,737 acres as “limited” to OHV travel. Designate 0 acres as “open” to OHV travel. 

Designate 25,976 acres as “closed” to OHV travel. Designate 139,359 acres as “limited” to OHV travel. Designate 0 acres as “open” to OHV travel. 

Designate 25,976 acres as “closed” to OHV travel. Designate 139,359 acres as “limited” to OHV travel. Designate 0 acres as “open” to OHV travel. 

Same as Alternative II. 

Allow motorized and mechanical vehicular use only on designated roads. 

Prohibit cross-country motorized and mechanized (e.g., mountain bike) travel. Limit motorized and mechanized vehicle use to designated roads. Allow no cross-country travel for game retrieval. Prohibit OHVs in Sand and East Rock Canyons and Mockingbird Mesa. Sand and East Rock Canyons include the area within RMZs 1 and 2, and the area within Mockingbird Mesa includes the topographic extent of this feature. 

Motorized and mechanical vehicular use would be allowed only on designated roads or routes. 

Determine public use designations, if appropriate or if open or closed, as part of the development process when there are new 

proposed administrative roads. Outline closure method and maintenance in the plans for operation if administrative roads are 

closed to public use. 

Reclaim roads not needed for other operations. Gate oil and gas roads not needed for other authorized 

Consider any road not shown on Map 5 closed upon signing of the ROD, subject to valid existing rights. Reclaim closed roads within 10 years 

Same as Alternative II, except assign no specific time period to the BLM for either developing a strategy for, or actually restoring, closed roads. 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

125 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

uses in order to protect Monument resources. Close upgraded or new access roads into cultural resource emphasis areas to public vehicular traffic via gating or other means in order to protect sites. Sample visitor use using various methods, including road and trail counters and visitor registers. 

of signing of the ROD. Develop a strategy for restoring closed roads within the first year of signing of the ROD. Prioritize roads for restoration based on actual and/or probable impacts to resources, and on levels of use. Prioritize closed roads located in historical, high-use areas (e.g., RMZs 1 [Pueblo Sites] and 2 [Sand Canyon/Rock Creek]) or restoration first. Require that each closed road be considered individually, and select the best, least intrusive method for restoration, based on the geography, topography, soil, hydrology, and vegetation in the area. Other guidelines that would be incorporated in this strategy include:  not repairing washed out 

roads; 

 using natural barriers, 

such as boulders; 

 using dead-and-down 

wood to obscure road entryways; 

 using fencing, when 

necessary, to prohibit access; 

 ripping up the road bed 

and reseeding with vegetation natural to the area; and 

 providing visitor 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

126 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

education and information (e.g., maps and signing) on road closures. 

For administrative roads, strictly limit access and grant only for legitimate and specific purposes. Authorized users could include oil and gas permittees, grazing permittees, researchers, State or Federal agencies, Native Americans accessing recognized traditional cultural properties, and others carrying out authorized activities under a permit or other authorization. Evaluate roads for closure, following public notification and opportunity to comment, if the administrative purpose of a road ceases. Work with any individual operating within the Monument under existing permits or authorizations to document where access must continue to allow operations of a current permit of authorization if other than that shown on Map 5. Provide administrative access, other than that shown on Map 5, to livestock grazing permittees to meet the terms and conditions of the permits. Some administrative access 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

127 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

does not follow a visible road, but requires cross-country travel. As a result, this administrative access is not identified on Map 5, but would be authorized, as needed, and with proper clearances. 

 Develop a strategy for 

complying with the transportation management system within one year of signing of the ROD. Guidelines for this strategy could include: 1. keeping all types of use 

(e.g., street-legal motorized vehicle, bicycle, and OHV) on designated roads by hiring additional staff (e.g., law enforcement personnel and backcountry rangers) to patrol by foot, horse, and vehicle; 

2. developing and 

distributing maps and installing signs to assist in educating the public about roads that are open and closed; 

3. specifying in existing law 

enforcement MOUs with agencies (i.e., Hovenweep National Monument, the USFS), and those currently under development with the Sheriffs departments in 

Same as Alternative II, except assign no specific time period to the BLM for developing a strategy for, or actually restoring, closed routes. 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

128 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Montezuma and Dolores Counties, the need to jointly enforce the Monument’s travel management system; 

4. work in partnership with 

affected interest groups to help gain compliance and protect resources; and 

5. incorporate Four E’s 

Strategy – education, engineering, enforcement, and evaluation. 

Jeep trails and unimproved roads may be closed to public vehicle traffic in cultural resource emphasis areas in order to prevent vandalism. Provide for oil, gas and CO2

activities, and related ROWs for access, power, and transportation in order to explore, develop, produce, and transport these leasable commodities in a manner consistent with ACEC guidelines. Acquire access for administrative/public use, where funding permits, for cultural resource management, in the following locations:  Sand/East Rock 

Canyons; 

 Hamilton Mesa; 

 Yellow Jacket Canyon; 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

129 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

 Cahone Canyon; 

 Woods Canyon; and 

 Negro Canyon. 

Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management. - Provide administrative access to public land in order to enhance management of the range resource. Provide maintenance of roads in the BLM transportation plan to minimum standards for user safety. Acquire access to the following grazing allotments: 8011, 8013, 8018, and 8019. Emphasis Area B: Wildlife.- Provide administrative access to public land for managing wildlife habitat. Provide very little, or no, maintenance to roads. Close and reclaim any abandoned and/or poorly designed roads. Acquire public access, where needed, to allow wildlife-related recreation (including hunting and fishing in underutilized areas). Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Provide administrative access to public land in order to 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

130 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

enhance the management of cultural resources. Provide public access to some of the cultural areas where public use will be managed. Provide maintenance of roads to a level of minimum standards for user safety. Close roads, when necessary, to limit access in order to protect cultural values.  Limit public access to 

Mockingbird Mesa and Sand and East Rock Canyons to foot or horse only and limit vehicle access to authorized vehicles only. 

 Acquire easement into 

Sand Canyon area. 

 Acquire administrative 

access into Cannonball Mesa and Yellow Jacket Canyon. 

Emphasis Area L: ACECs.- Provide administrative and public access, where needed, for ACEC management. Provide maintenance on only those roads needed for management purposes. Limit public access in Mockingbird Mesa and Sand and East Rock Canyons to foot or horse only and restrict vehicle access to authorized 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

131 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

vehicles only. Acquire administrative access into Sand and Yellow Jacket Canyons and Cannonball Mesa. Keep established roads and trails open to use as presently authorized. Initiate emergency closures prior to completion of the management plan only if significant resource damage is documented. Establish final decisions on designated roads for vehicular travel, including mountain bikes, through the management plan. Develop no new roads or trails, pending completion of the management plan. Employ existing roads for new operations, as much as possible, in order to avoid impacts that interfere with proper care of Monument resources. Utilize roads using existing access roads or trails before allowing new construction. Direct roads for planned public use away from visible sites. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

132 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Maintain and develop trails and other means of public access, where necessary, in order to enhance recreation opportunities and allow public use. Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Provide public access to the public lands in order to enhance the recreation values. Provide a moderate level of maintenance on primary roads in order to promote user safety. Provide minimal levels of maintenance on secondary roads. Emphasis Area E: Mineral 

Resources. Provide or maintain public access in order to minimize impacts to mineral development. Work with mineral developers in order to ensure roads are maintained for public safety. 

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Provide consistent protection and management of important cultural sites. OBJECTIVES: Manage to maintain and/or enhance the special resource values within the Monument Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (The Monument). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

133 

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. The public land west of Cortez (approximately 156,000 acres) is designated as an ACEC - the Anasazi Cultural Multiple-use Area ACEC. Private lands within the ACEC would not be affected by the proposed designation. 

Drop the ACEC designation, except where applicable to RNAs (see RNA alternatives). 

165,335 acres ACEC 7,826 acres ACEC 427 acres ACEC Same as Alternative II. Provide high-quality habitat for livestock and wildlife and also provide opportunities for recreation pursuits while, at the same time, emphasizing the cultural and mineral values. 

Same as Alternative I, No Action, with the primary emphasis on cultural resource values. Provide high quality habitat for 

livestock and wildlife and also provide opportunities for recreation pursuits while, at the same time, emphasizing the cultural values. 

Undertake closer monitoring of the surface-disturbing activities; request additional employees and money in order to more intensively manage this significant area. 

Same as Alternative I, No Action, with the primary emphasis on cultural resource values. 

SCENIC AND HISTORIC BYWAY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Cooperate with management partners in order to implement corridor management plans for the Trail of the Ancients Scenic 

and Historic Byway.

OBJECTIVES: Preserve resource values while, at the same time, implementing site-specific actions in the Corridor Management Plan. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None.  Implement all site-specific actions in the Corridor Management Plan for interpretation at the Anasazi Heritage Center and at the 

Lowry Pueblo. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

134 

RESEARCH NATURAL AREA (RNA) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Provide a natural and undisturbed setting for scientific research and public education within the McElmo RNA.OBJECTIVES: 1. Maintain and manage the McElmo RNA (427 acres) as a herpetological research area, a resource for educational institutions, and an outdoor classroom. 

2. Enhance McElmo RNA surface disturbance protections. 3. Enhance research and outdoor educational opportunities within McElmo RNA. 4. Reduce livestock grazing pressure within the RNA. 5. Protect Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs) proposed by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) from negative impacts of ground-disturbing activities. 

6. Evaluate the potential expansion of the RNA boundary. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Maintain Bridge Canyon NSO stipulation. 2. Continue to manage the existing RNA as an Instant Study Area (ISA). An ISA is managed as a WSA, but does not meet acreage requirement. 

3. Maintain the ACEC designation for RNAs. 

Acquire through exchange, if possible, adjacent private land in W1/2NE1/2, Sec. 27, T. 35N., R. 20W., and include this land within the RNA. 

Expand the RNA boundary (Map 8). Acquire adjacent private land from willing sellers and incorporate it into the RNA. 

Acquire through exchange, if possible, adjacent private land in W1/2NE1/2, Sec. 27, T. 35N., R. 20W., and include this land within the RNA. 

Same as Alternative II. 

 Close the two-track access 

road. 

Improve existing 2-track road to a natural surface (dirt) road to the north end of the RNA along the mesa above Bridge Canyon for administrative purposes only. 

Improve existing 2-track road to a natural surface (dirt) road to the north end of the RNA along the mesa above Bridge Canyon and open to the public. 

Same as Alternative III. 

 Prohibit all seismic operation.  Limit surface-disturbing authorizations and activities within McElmo RNA to only those uses that support research and education 

(e.g., trails, parking areas, signs, toilets, and shelters). 

 Develop no established 

Recreation Activity Management plan. 

Prepare a Recreation Activity Management Plan within 5 years of plan completion, in order to:  establish delineated 

native surface parking area; 

 permit primitive 

facilities; and 

Prepare a Recreation Activity Management Plan within 5 years of plan completion, in order to:  establish developed 

parking area with improved surface; 

 permit improved 

facilities (picnic sites and 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

135 

RESEARCH NATURAL AREA (RNA) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

 establish a primitive trail 

(up to 1 mile). 

restroom); and 

 establish a hard surface 

interpretive trail (up to 1 mile). 

RNA is currently fenced, but grazing is allowed. After the immediate above action statement is accomplished, for logical management, include those BLM lands below the canyon rim (E1/2NE1/2, Sec. 27, T. 35N., R. 20W.) in the RNA. Construct boundary and/or gap fences in order to provide management control. 

Close the RNA to livestock grazing. 

Limit livestock grazing use (from November 15 to March 15). 

Same as Alternative I. Same as Alternative III. 

 Designate as RNAs the 

Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs proposed by CNHP. 

Establish an NGD/NSO restriction for the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs. 

Establish a SSR/CSU stipulation for the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs. 

Designate as RNAs the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs proposed by the CNHP. Establish an NGD/NSO restriction for the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs. 

427 acres managed as an RNA 

7,826 acres managed as an RNA 

427 acres managed as an RNA Same as Alternative II. 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Preserve free-flowing rivers with special values in their natural condition.OBJECTIVES: Manage rivers found suitable for WSR designation in order to protect their Outstandingly Remarkable Values and Classification, as identified in the suitability determination in the final RMP. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

136 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Complete eligibility and tentative classification study. 

Manage all river segments determined to be eligible for WSR designation as WSRs. 

Consider no river segments suitable for WSR designation; therefore consider no eligible segments as WSRs. 

0 miles managed as WSR. 25.3 miles managed as WSR. 0 miles managed as WSR. 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Determine management guidance for WSAs, should Congress release them from WSA status.OBJECTIVES: 1. Maintain the non-impairment standard for WSAs, in accordance with the FLPMA, in order to prevent undue and unnecessary degradation of wilderness 

characteristics. 

2. Protect and preserve wilderness characteristics where appropriate (i.e., their “naturalness,” their outstanding opportunities for solitude, and their potential for 

primitive and unconfined recreation) where they occur in identified areas outside of WSAs (see Map 8). 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. WSAs will be patrolled periodically in order to detect and prevent unauthorized actions that could impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as 

wilderness. 

2. Continue to manage the existing RNA as a WSA. 

Continue to apply the nonimpairment standards under the FLPMA to WSAs within the Monument. Apply existing non-impairment standards and practices to activities in order to protect WSA values and to assess proposed actions that may affect wilderness values. (See H-8550-1, Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Land Under Wilderness Review.) Continue to manage WSAs in compliance with BLM’s 

Manage the citizen’s proposed expansion of WSAs (5,223 acres) along with existing WSAs, for wilderness characteristics. If Congress releases WSAs from their designation, management of wilderness characteristics would be the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Continue to manage existing WSAs, excluding the citizens proposed expansion, for wilderness characteristics. If Congress releases WSAs from their designation, wilderness characteristics would continue to be emphasized while, at the same time, allowing minimum development, for research purposes only. 

Continue to manage existing WSAs, excluding the citizens proposed expansion, for wilderness characteristics. If Congress releases WSAs from their designation, wilderness characteristics would continue to be emphasized while, at the same time, allowing minimum development, for purposes of recreation interpretation, research, rangeland management structures, fuels and fire management, and vegetation 

Same as Alternative II. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

137 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Interim Management Policy (BLM Revised July 12, 1983), until they are reviewed and acted upon by Congress. Continue interim management of the WSAs in order to provide opportunities for hiking, backpacking, camping, horseback riding, photography, rock-climbing, and so forth, in primitive and unconfined settings. 

manipulation for wildlife habitat. 

25,549 acres managed as WSA. 

25,549 acres managed as WSA; An additional 5,223 acres managed for wilderness character. 

25,549 acres managed as WSA. 

25,549 acres managed as WSA. 

25,549 acres managed as WSA; An additional 5,223 acres managed for wilderness character. 

 Provide range improvements appropriate for implementation in WSAs, as appropriate under WSA management guidelines.  Remove water-related developments (non-domestic) and fencing when they are no longer required for management purposes.  Designate no travel roads in areas with wilderness characteristics.  Construct no new fencing or 

water-related developments (non-domestic) in WSAs (and citizen’s proposed expansion area). 

Construction of new fencing or water-related development (non-domestic) in WSAs (and citizen’s proposed expansion area) would rarely be permitted, and then only when necessary to further enhance wilderness values, such as improved ecological conditions. 

 Establish an NGD/NSO to protect areas with wilderness characteristics from ground-disturbing activities. 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

GOAL: Provide for public safety and enforcement of all Federal laws and regulations related to the use, management, and development of Monument lands and resources.OBJECTIVES: 1. Address law enforcement strategies recommended in existing Monument Law Enforcement Plan including: 2. hazardous waste public safety; 3. drug and controlled substance; and 4. unauthorized use and development of Monument lands, resources, and objects. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

138 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

5. Provide appropriate law enforcement training for specific Monument resources and objects. 6. Maintain coordination with other agencies and jurisdictions for fire control, emergency response, and search and rescue functions. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue cooperative efforts between the BLM and the NPS Stabilization Unit at Mesa Verde and BLM patrol rangers and NPS rangers. 2. Follow State laws.  Develop and implement a protocol to identify, respond to, and remove hazardous materials within one year following signing 

of the ROD. 

 Investigate, aggressively, suspected illegal dumping to determine liability and cost recovery.  Integrate considerations in Appendix F when updating the Monument Law Enforcement Plan, as appropriate.  Ensure that all law enforcement staff attends the Archaeological and Paleontological Resource Protection Training Program. 

Use cooperating agreements with local law enforcement agencies. Establish liaison with local law enforcement for 

paleontological and cultural resource law enforcement and assist local law enforcement personnel in obtaining training in paleontological and cultural resource law enforcement. 

 Coordinate with other Federal and State agencies to provide training and updates for all law enforcement personnel who 

respond to the Monument in applicable management policies and enforcement needs (i.e., recreation, wildlife, trespass, range, travel management system, WSAs, natural resource use permits, Special Use permits, and fluid minerals development). 

 Cooperate with local law enforcement with regard to: 

 high-profile patrols during period with high to extreme fire conditions; 

 prevention and investigation of human-caused fires; and 

 investigation of all wildland fires of a suspicious nature. 

 Cooperate with County teams with regard to : 

 assisting county search and rescue teams and emergency medical services; 

 participating in county search and rescue training meetings; and 

 enforcing cultural resource laws, regulations, and policies. 

 Conduct investigations of vandalism within cultural resource sites jointly with Monument Law Enforcement and Cultural 

Resource staff, and others, as needed. 

Increase patrol efforts in cultural resource areas. 

Issue activity permits in compliance with stated Lands and Realty goals and objectives. Include permit areas in regularly 

scheduled patrols. 

In order to provide surveillance and public safety in cultural resource areas, two full time permanent BLM law enforcement rangers are needed, with seasonal support. Implement other preservation and protection measures, as needed. 

Coordinate with law enforcement personnel and AHC desk staff to create a protocol for visitor and private landowner reporting of looting, vandalism, trespass, or other resource management violations. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

139 

Table 2-2 Surface Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Currently Unleased Federal and 

Split-Mineral Estate Over 20-Year Planning Period 

Alternative I

No Action 

Alternative 

II 

Alternative 

III 

Alternative 

IV 

Alternative V

Preferred 

Total Area Effectively Available 

for New Oil and Gas Surface 

Facilities1

0 ac 880 ac 3,021 ac 24,462 ac 880 ac 

Estimated Total New Oil and 

Gas Wells (Unsuccessful) in 20 

Years2

0 1 (0) 3 (1) 21 (9) 1 (0) 

Estimated Total New CO2 Wells 

in 20 Years 0 1 5 38 1 

20-year Long-term Disturbance 

from Pads and Associated 

Facilities 3

0 ac 6 ac 38 ac 192 ac 6 ac 

20-year Long-term Disturbance 

from New Access Roads 0 ac 6.6 ac 

(1 mi) 

13.9 ac 

(3 mi) 

109 ac 

(19 mi) 

6.6 ac 

(1 mi) 

20-year Long-term Disturbance 

(percent of total public lands on 

Monument) 

0 ac 12.2 ac 

(<0.01%) 

51.8 ac 

(0.03%) 

292.4 ac 

(0.18%) 

12.2 ac 

(<0.01%) 

20-year Temporary 

Disturbance4 0 ac 0 ac 5.4 ac 46 ac 0 ac 

1 Area of Federal and split-mineral estate currently not leased that would be made available for leasing under action 

alternatives. For oil and gas leases under Alternative III, this area is estimated as the minimum necessary to prevent 

drainage only. For Alternative III, this area is limited to currently unleased areas within the McElmo Dome Unit. 

2 Number in parentheses represents estimated unsuccessful wells (dry holes) as a subset of the total. These are used to 

calculate temporary disturbance areas. 

3 Includes areas of pad, pipeline, and associated treatment facilities. 

4 Includes areas of pad and access roads for unsuccessful wells that are reclaimed after drilling that do not go into 

production. 
Chapter 2 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

140 

Table 2-3 Current Permitted and Calculated Allocation AUMs, by Allotment 

Allotment Current 

Permitted AUMs 

Average Actual Use 

AUMs 

Calculated Allocation 

AUMsa

Adam Lewy 120 118 52 

Alkali 53 52 49 

Aztec Canyon 37 78c 37 

Blue Littlewater 23 23 11 

Burro Point, Community 1,083 350 865 

Burro Point, Individual 11 Not available 8 

Cahone Mesa 829 777 829 

Cannonball 133 114 97 

Cross Canyon 1,183 937 1,169 

East McElmo Creek 293 330 210 

Flodine Park 211 349 211 

Goodman Gulch 21 Not available 21 

Goodman Point 150 Not available 133 

Hamilton Mesab 600 346 674 

Hovenweep Canyonb 227 143 256 

Lower Aztec Canyon 12 Not available 1 

Lower McElmo 644 634 644 

McLean 21 Not available 12 

Papoose Canyonb 33 17 50 

Rock Creek 43 15 28 

Sand Canyon East and 

West 48 Not available 48 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 2 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

141 

Table 2-3 Current Permitted and Calculated Allocation AUMs, by Allotment 

Allotment Current 

Permitted AUMs 

Average Actual Use 

AUMs 

Calculated Allocation 

AUMsa

Sandstone 2,206 1,528 662 

Squaw Canyon 160 Not available 150 

Trail Canyon 12 Not available 9 

Ute Mountain 9 9 6 

Yellow Jacket 243 300c 243 

Yellow Jacket Canyon 87 77 68 

TOTAL 8,332 6,543 

a Based on 2001 Rangeland Health Evaluation and Ecological Site Inventory (BLM 2001i) 

b

These allotments are currently permitted below their calculated allocation. However, these allotments do 

not meet Public Land Health Standards. Once health standards are met, or livestock grazing is determined 

to not be a factor in public land health, AUMs will be increased to the calculated allocation c

These permits were recently adjusted because grazing was determined to be a significant factor in not 

meeting the Public Land Health Standards. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

32 

Table 2-1 Management Actions for Alternatives I Through V 

AIR QUALITY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL: Protect air quality within and outside the Monument. OBJECTIVES: 1. Ensure that the air quality within the Monument meets State and Federal air quality standards and regulations. 

2. Protect visibility at scenic and important vistas located within the Monument. 3. Cooperate with the State of Colorado, the National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) regarding air quality is

Class I (Clean Air Act) areas (Mesa Verde National Park and Weminuche Wilderness). 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. 

Obtain State of Colorado permits for emissions for all prescribed burns. Cooperate with the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force regarding emission-reducing measures for mmeet regional air quality standards. Require all new or replacement internal combustion engines associated with fluid mineral developmen

controls for NO2, as recommended by the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force process, or as required 

Construct no more than four fluid minerals well pads and associated access roads concurrently in any geach well no closer than 0.5 mile to another well, to minimize air pollutant concentrations and to ensur

air quality standards. 

Report activities on nonMonument lands that are causing, or are expected to cause, water quality deterioration, soil degradation, or other damage – whether directly or indirectly – to the responsible management official. Adopt emissions controls for new and replacement wellhead engines, as well as for new large compres

Implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs [Appendix E]) and measures to reduce sma(PM10 and PM2.5) resulting from management actions (e.g., dust abatement on existing and new road cEnsure that management activities comply with all requirements of the State of Colorado regarding the important vistas. In addition, design and implement management actions to avoid impacts to scenic viMonument. 

Comply with State and Federal air quality standards. 

Protect air quality in adjacent Class I areas commensurate with potential impacts identified through regmodeling. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL A: Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources in order to ensure long-term public benef

research, education, and preservation of cultural heritage [FLPMA Sections 103(C), 201 (A), 202 (C); NHPA Se

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, Section 14(a); and the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Section 2)

OBJECTIVES: 1. Allocate all cultural resources currently recorded, or projected to occur on the basis of existing data synthesis, to uses according to 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

33 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

preservation value (BLM Manual Section 8110.42). Cultural Use Allocations include: a. Scientific Use; 

b. Conservation for Future Use; c. Traditional Use; 

d. Public Use (Developed and Undeveloped); e. Experimental Use; and 

f. Discharged from Management. 

2. Inventory, document, and evaluate cultural resources in order to facilitate proper management, protection, and research. 

3. Cooperate with Hovenweep National Monument on protection and management of cultural resources. 

GOAL B: Ensure that the objects of the Monument are protected at the landscape level, and that all multiple-us

management and authorizations for land and resource uses are conducted in compliance with Sections 106 and SNHPA, as amended. 

OBJECTIVES: 1. Manage and protect cultural resources on a landscape level. 2. Manage multiple uses to ensure the protection of cultural resources, in compliance with Section 106 of NHPA. 3. Manage cultural resources for protection, preservation, and realization of BLM cultural use allocations (Section 110 of NHPA). 

4. Preserve the existing character of the cultural and physical landscape to the maximum extent possible. 

5. Encourage, foster, and conduct scientific research on cultural resources in the Monument. 6. Manage all Monument/Anasazi Heritage Center (AHC) collections in compliance with 36 CFR Part 79; U.S. Department of the Int

Departmental Manual, Part 411; and USDOI Museum Property Handbook, 411 DM, Vols. I-II. 

7. Strive toward responsive and sensitive stewardship and management of cultural heritage values associated with cultural resources a

GOAL C: Uphold Native American trust responsibilities and accommodate traditional uses in the Monument. OBJECTIVES: Develop a policy in consultation with Native American tribes that specifies how the Monument will provide products for traditional culGOAL D: Maintain the acoustic aspect of the traditional cultural landscape.OBJECTIVES: Manage all sources of noise in a manner that would not change the characteristics of the traditional landscape. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. A compilation and analysis of all available cultural resource data and literature was completed by December 15, 2000, to provide an informed basis for understanding cultural resources within the 

Allocate all cultural resources to Uses A-D (Public Use D [Developed] and Public Use D [Undevelope

purposes of this DRMP/DEIS, the following distinction is made for Public Use D: sites allocated to Puidentified as: 1) “Public Use (Developed)” sites that the public is directed to that are promoted and har

and 2) “Public Use D (Undeveloped)” sites that the public is not directed to that are not promoted or hbe visited in the backcountry context. Both Public Use D (Developed) and Public Use D (Undevelopecomponents of the “outdoor museum” concept. No sites would be allocated to Use F (Discharged from these uses would be mutually exclusive. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

34 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Monument and to provide immediate protection for cultural resources at risk. Evaluate site significance using the criteria and methods of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for site management. In addition, other methods would be used, including regional contexts; availability of similar resources; and potential for sociocultural use, current scientific use, management use, conservation for future use, potential scientific use, data needs, public use, and no use (discharged); as well as needs for in place preservation through time. Identify sites, site areas, and/or site groups for uses specified in the guidelines prescribed in 8110.2 (BLM Manual) by means of Cultural Resource Management Plans (CRMPs). 

Allocate the following sites to Public Use D (Developed):  Lowry Pueblo 

(5MT1566); 

 Sand Canyon Pueblo 

(5MT765); 

 Painted Hand Pueblo 

(5MT502); 

 Castlerock Pueblo 

(5MT1825); 

 House With Standing 

Curved Wall (5MT132); 

 Tucked Away Two Story 

House (5MT133); 

 Wall Curves With 

Bedrock House (5MT134); 

 Sunny Alcove 

(5MT135); 

 Double Cliff House 

(5MT185); 

 Corncob House 

(5MT186); 

 Saddlehorn Hamlet 

(5MT262); 

 Escalante Pueblo 

(5MT2149); and 

 Dominguez Pueblo 

(5MT2148) 

Same as Alternative II. The Interpretation Plan would identify types 

education goals. Up to 12 additional specific sites would be evaluateArchaeologist, based on criteria outlined in Appendix F. 

Develop new sites and areas for controlled visitation with various levels of interpretation. Develop CRMPs that outline specific management objectives for each site or 

Add or drop sites from Public Use D (Developed) allocation, in response to changing conditions or as information are obtained. Allocation of sites to Public Use D (Developed) does not guarantee that thedeveloped. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

35 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

area. Nominate appropriate sites and areas to the NRHP as surveys are completed. Prepare CRMPs for each site or group of sites. Identify 240 sites as needing stabilization or repair. 

Document and allow standing walls to deteriorate. 

Document and allow standing walls to deteriorate. 

Stabilize and preserve standing walls. 

DocwalStaballothe 

 Use the process and criterion detailed in Appendix F in evaluating the suitability of designating and de

Public Use D (Developed) that are determined suitable for development and that are proposed for devePrepare Cultural Resource Management Plans for sites allocated to Public Use D (Developed). 

 Evaluate applications for all Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) requesting visitation to sites allocated 

(Developed and Undeveloped), as appropriate. Give priority to SRP applications to sites for education

 Require all organized groups with SRPs to provide 

experienced and knowledgeable supervision for groups, and require them to educate participants about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry site visitor etiquette, and stewardship (see Education and Interpretation alternatives). Train permittees in site monitoring techniques and require them to complete monitoring inspections for each visit and to 

submit written results to the BLM. 

Require permits for educational visits to sites, as well as permits to visit sites ancillary to other permitted uses; encourage permittees to provide experienced and knowledgeable supervision for groups. Encourage permittees to provide education about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry site visitor etiquette, and stewardship. Train permittees in site monitoring techniques and encourage them to complete monitoring inspections for each visit and to submit their written results to the BLM. 

SamIII. 

Implement Block Class III surveys of cultural resource emphasis areas (as defined in 

Conduct a Class III cultural resource inventory to comply with Section 110 of the NHPA and Section Resources Protection Act, as funding is available: Group 1 – Areas receiving high public use and/or those that lack intensive inventory to current standar
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

36 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

the San Juan/San Miguel RMP, December 1984) on a priority basis. Assign priorities on an annual basis. Evaluate sites only if they fall within a current project area. Establish program to comprehensively evaluate eligibility determinations through Section 106 and 110 processes. 

 Lowry area; 

 Woods Mesa; 

 Cannonball Mesa; 

 McLean Basin; 

 Pedro Point area; 

 Hamilton Mesa and Slopes; 

 Cross Canyon; 

 Ruin Canyon; 

 Risley/Moccasin Canyon area; and 

 Hovenweep Canyon (Sand Canyon Archaeological District [NRHP]). 

Group 2 – Areas that lack intensive survey coverage and/or those that need records clarification/updati San Jose State Hovenweep Survey, resurvey; 

 Cow Canyon and Cow Mesa; 

 Rincon Canyon; 

 Cahone Canyon; 

 Middle/Upper Cross Canyon; 

 Squaw/Spook Point; and 

 Sandstone Canyon; 

Group 3 – Areas with little previous inventory:  Bowdish Canyon/Bluewater Basin; 

 Mockingbird Mesa slopes and secondary drainages; and 

 Squaw/Papoose Canyons. 

Note: Inventory priorities may change in response to changing conditions; uses and input from researctribes; or other new information. This may result in the identification of additional areas. Inventory an

would conform to the standards in the BLM 8100 Manual; the BLM Colorado Handbook of GuidelineIdentification, Evaluation, and Mitigation of Cultural Resources; the Colorado Historical Society OfficHistoric Preservation (Colorado OAHP) Standards; and the Monument specific inventory requirementObjective 1. 

Design and use additional field recording protocols in response to research goals and designs, special mneeds as identified in the future. Work with people conducting archaeological inventories in the Monument to promote awareness of, aheritage concerns of Native Americans and others. Ensure that people conducting inventories utilize relevant literature, local chronological indicators, and 

Use current policies and procedures to collect, 

Ensure that all inventories conducted in the Monument comply with: 1) the BLM 8100 Manual; 2) the 

Office Handbook of Guidelines and Procedures for Identification, Evaluation, and Mitigation of Cultu
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

37 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

document, and maintain data, records, and maps; issue appropriate inventory and excavation permits. Manage the data and collected material in order to enhance public awareness of resources through interpretation by AHC. Evaluate sites only if they fall within a current project area. No established program to evaluate eligibility exists. Base site boundaries primarily on surface indications. For some sites, testing may be needed; make decisions regarding the need for testing on a case-by-case basis. Evaluate site significance using the methods and criteria of the NRHP for site management. In addition, other methods would be used. These include, but are not limited to, regional contexts, potential for sociocultural use, current scientific use, management use, conservation for future use, potential scientific use, data needs, and public use, as well as the need for in-place preservation through time. 

Colorado OAHP Cultural Resource Survey Manual, Volumes 1-2; and 4) the following additional spe Maintain site and survey data to ensure completeness and accuracy, including both hard copy and 

System (GIS) database. 

 Conduct all archaeological inventories in the Monument at the Class III level (conduct intensive f

summarizing previous inventory work, but to determine the need for additional Class III inventori

 Use Monument archaeological records, in addition to Colorado OAHP records, for conducting all 

 Conduct inventories using BLM archaeologists and/or archaeologists authorized under a current B

Use Permit. 

 Base definition of site boundaries primarily on surface indications. For some sites, evaluative test

determine site extent and subsurface potential. Make decisions about the need for evaluative testi

basis. 

 Use Colorado OAHP records to determine the current NRHP eligibility status for known historic p

 Complete in-field artifact documentation and analysis during cultural resource inventories to deter

and cultural placement of sites and to document an accurate representation of artifact types and m

Exceptions to this policy may be made by the Monument Manager in situations where there is a tha rare type of artifact, or research objectives that require artifact collections. 

 Determine additional criteria for in-field analysis and/or collections during testing or data recover

case basis in the research design/data recovery plan for specific projects. 

 Consider other factors, in addition to NRHP eligibility criteria, when developing management and 

regarding cultural resources during projects or activities. Such factors may include BLM use allovalues held by Native American tribes, other groups, and individuals; and/or regional research con
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

38 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Require monitoring during the implementation of ground-disturbing projects, even in areas having recwhere no sites were located (due to the potential for buried subsurface cultural deposits with no surfac

Monument). Grant exceptions, as determined by the Monument Manager. Require post-project monitthe Monument Manager. 

Design or modify multiple-use projects and/or activities when possible to avoid significant cultural res

historic properties affected” or “no adverse effect” determinations. 

Require a Class III Inventory (100 percent on-the-ground survey) for all proposed ground-disturbing projects. Continue cultural resources inventorying and evaluation as part of project-level planning. Buffer identified cultural sites from any ground-disturbing activity, based on specific local conditions 

proposed surface disturbance. Identify and implement appropriate actions or treatments to mitigate adverse effect(s) to cultural resouimpacts of an action, as defined by an “adverse effect” determination. Proceed with mitigation actions 

and requirements under Section 106 are completed. 

Stipulate testing and monitoring requirements for projects based on the prevalence and extent of subsurface cultural deposits in Class III surveyed areas. Monitor all depositional, deluvial, alluvial, and colluvial areas. 

Implement natural resource management treatments that contribute to the long-term preservation of cupossible in addition to cultural resources preservation treatments (e.g., the removal of vegetation buildthat are considered sensitive and vulnerable to the effects of wildfire, such as rock art sites, cliff dwell

architecture, and historic sites containing flammable materials). 

Conduct no subsurface probing or testing on sites encountered during project activities, unless the site is in danger of being impacted. 

Conduct subsurface probing (3 square meters under a “non-disturbing” permit) to determine site eligib

cultural resources and to reduce the number of sites that need data. In addition to NRHP eligibility detused as a potential mitigation tool. 

Give special management emphasis to cultural resources on BLM lands within a 1-mile radius of Hovenweep National Monument (Goodman Point, Cutthroat Castle, Hackberry, and Holly Groups), while multiple-use continues. Require additional reclamation on surface disturbing operations, as 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

39 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

determined by the Monument Manager. 

Require standard cultural resources protection Condition of Approvals (COAs) on all projects, in additprotection stipulations. These would address:  the requirements and procedures for notification of the discovery of unidentified cultural resource

 the requirements and procedures for notification of the discovery of human remains, funerary obje

objects of cultural patrimony; and 

 the responsibility of project proponent to inform employees, contractors, and subcontractors of leg

Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), such as confidentiality of site location informat

Encourage cooperative efforts between BLM and NPS staff, including: 

 law enforcement patrols and vandalism incident investigations; 

 interpretation and education projects; 

 visitor services; 

 research; and 

 access and Rights-of-Way (ROWs). 

Consider proposed NPS developments on lands adjacent to BLM lands, with an emphasis on the enhanBLM cultural resources. 

Coordinate with the NPS on a regular basis in order to address any problems or opportunities that arise regarding the management of Hovenweep and adjacent public lands. 

Encourage opportunities to work cooperatively with the NPS on cultural resource inventory, site evalupreservation projects. Ensure that Native American tribes having religious, cultural, and/or historical connections to the Mon

earliest stages of activity or project planning. Initiate consultation with such tribes for Section 106 com

letter of notification regarding upcoming projects and activities, such as with grazing permit renewals, noxious weed or other vegetation treatments, fuels management, and/or research and preservation activwhich planning or NEPA analysis would be required for implementation. 

Coordinate with the State, Native American tribes, and other governmental entities (under existing agreements and any new arrangements deemed necessary) in order to disseminate and exchange information and to cooperate in management actions, consistent with applicable legal authorities and other directives (BLM Interim Management for all National Monuments). Coordinate with Native American tribal interests, and Conduct follow-up consultations on projects and/or activities identified by Native American tribes for 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

40 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

information or consultation, and/or for which they desire to identify places of importance for considera

would be conducted through correspondence, telephone, meetings, and/or field visits, as appropriate. 

consult and coordinate closely with affected tribes in developing the comprehensive Management Plan and management plans for the cultural and natural resources of the area. Ensure that activities do not negatively impact tribal uses and/or access to places of traditional cultural or religious importance. Conduct face-to-face meetings with all interested tribes, in a group setting, in Montezuma County, as well as meet one-on-one with tribal representatives in tribal offices. 

Pursue the development of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with interested Native American triband facilitate consultations, information exchange, participation, and incorporation of tribal interests ininterpretation, and resource management actions. Implement a phased program of preservation assessments for sites allocated to Public Use D (Developof site deterioration and that address the use of appropriate potential preservation treatments. The initial method and minimum level of site preservation would be site documentation to BLM and Oincludes plotting, mapping, photography, and recording written observations. Record all sites located Monument to these standards. 

Some sites were identified in the ACEC Plan. These sites have been receiving special management. 

Archival preservation methods would include detailed recording, photography, scaled maps and drawiBuilding Survey (HABS) documentation, archival research, oral histories, and laser scanning. Physical preservation methods would include stabilization, backfilling, conservation, fencing, construc

structures or barriers, fuels reduction, erosion control, and monitoring. Certain methods may also requtesting/excavation/collection of dating specimens or artifacts as part of treatment. 

Base decisions about the appropriate preservation treatment method on the evaluation and determinatiodeterioration and consideration for site use allocation. Physical preservation intervention would be in response to deterioration resulting from human activity excavated in the past but not backfilled, or a site that has been vandalized). Address site deterioration forces through archival preservation methods. Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the Monum

More than 240 sites have been identified and prioritized as needing some form of stabilization and/or masonry repair. Require additional fieldwork, as necessary, to prescribe specific needs and methods. 

Document and allow standing walls to deteriorate, except in sites developed for public use where a mix of physical 

Stabilize and preserve standing walls. 

SamIII. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

41 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

preservation and archival documentation would be used in response to human-caused impacts. Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the Monument Manager. 

 Consider closure of sites to visits by the public and/or groups a viable management tool. Develop CRMPs to outline specific management objectives for each site or area. 

An increased level of documentation may be warranted at some cultural resources, based upon factors research potential, architectural integrity, and cultural significance, or as part of the preparation of pres

Additional documentation may consist of detailed, scaled plan-view maps, scaled plan-view and elevaformat photography, archival research, oral histories, and monitoring documentation. 

Complete preservation plans for sites allocated to Public Use D (Developed), and sites and archaeologNRHP (see Objective 1a). Write preservation plans for National Register Archaeological Districts to a

preservation needs of the contributing sites in the district. 

Require backfilling for any ground-disturbing permit issued for testing/data recovery in the Monumen

Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Develop and protect suitable cultural resource properties for public enjoyment through such practices as interpretive signing, stabilization, and so forth. Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Emphasize cultural resource values in Cross, Cahone, and Squaw/Papoose Canyons. Manage cultural resources for protection, preservation, investigation, and public use (i.e., development and interpretation), where appropriate. Emphasize management and develop cultural management plans on the following cultural sites/areas: Cahone Canyon, Cannonball Ruin, Cow Mesa, Cross Canyon, East Rock Canyon, Escalante-Dominguez Ruins, 

Work with partners, volunteer groups, stakeholders, and other interested individuals to accomplish site 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

42 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Hamilton Mesa, Lightning Tree Tower Group, Lowry Pueblo, McLean Basin Towers, Mockingbird Mesa, Painted Hand Petroglyphs, Painted Hand Ruin, Sand Canyon, and Squaw/Papoose Canyon. Emphasis Area H: Public Land Disposal. - Provide cultural resource inventories and clearances so disposal of tracts can occur. Manage cultural resources under present laws and regulations, pending disposal. Emphasis Area L: ACECs.- Manage prehistoric or historic values, where appropriate. Manage the AHC as a focal point for cultural resources in the area. Provide intensive protection of cultural resources from vandals and pothunters through increased surveillance and law enforcement. Intensify public education for interpretation and recognition of the 

Develop a monitoring plan for cultural resources that considers factors such as use allocation status, Npatterns, vandalism occurrences, vulnerability (i.e., standing architecture, rock art), and cultural sensiti
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

43 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

sensitivity of the resource. Provide for intensive inventory and evaluation of the cultural resources in order to more effectively provide protection. Require a cultural monitor on all surfacedisturbing activities in order to protect subsurface resources, as necessary. Emphasize cultural management at the following areas: Cahone Canyon, Cannonball Ruin, Cow Mesa, Cross Canyon, East Rock Canyon, EscalanteDominguez Ruins, Hamilton Mesa, Lightning Tree Tower, Lowry Pueblo, McLean Basin Towers, Mockingbird Mesa, Painted Hand Petroglyphs, Painted Hand Ruin, Sand Canyon, and Squaw/Papoose Canyons. Develop an ACEC Management Plan with specific guidelines for management of the area. 

Continue partnership with the Cultural Site Stewardship Program. Conduct monitoring at specified freidentified in the monitoring plan. Assist in the annual on-site steward training and ongoing enrichmen

stewards. Identify sites that are to receive regular patrols and documentation by the BLM law enforcement range
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

44 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Monitor specific sites for deterioration in order to plan for future site stabilization efforts. Inspect, periodically, all major sites to document damage and anticipate future stabilization needs. 

Compile monitoring data into an annual summary and use the summary to update monitoring plans on Organize and conduct ongoing education programs for the public, school groups, vocational archaeoloproponents, permittees, contractors, and others about cultural resource visitor ethics; encourage their h

of vandalism in the Monument. 

Manage cultural resource patrols as a component of other resource protection activities. In order to provide surveillance and public safety, two full-time permanent BLM law enforcement rangers would be needed, with seasonal support. Close coordination with other local law enforcement personnel would be necessary. Explore opportunities for contracting law enforcement with the county sheriffs. Complement patrol activity through public education and awareness programs, in cooperation with the AHC. Use periodic aircraft flights, as well as ground and vehicle patrols, in order to reduce or prevent pot hunting. 

Establish cultural resource vandalism, trespass, and human remains discovery reporting and investigatprotocols between the Dolores Public Lands Office, AHC/Monument staff, BLM law enforcement ranenforcement agencies. Ensure that BLM archaeology and law enforcement personnel maintain currenand case preparation, per the requirements of ARPA. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

45 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Inspect, periodically, all major sites in order to document damage and anticipate future stabilization needs. Proceed with all scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations, consistent with current policies and practices, except that surface disturbance must be minimal with an emphasis on the use of existing archaeological collections and records. 

Establish an advisory panel to develop research goals and requirements. Rely on the advisory panel to evaluate investigator-initiated research proposals. 

Seek out and consider input from knowledgeable outside researchers during the process of developing research goals and requirements. Rely on an ad-hoc peer review committee of knowledgeable researchers to evaluate investigator-initiated research proposals. 

Rely on Monument staff to evaluate investigator-initiated research proposals. 

Sam

Allow traditional and experimental research by qualified institutions and individuals. 

Avoid a-priori rejection of particular research methods when evaluating research proposals. Consider information that may be realized through such approaches, as well as the potential gains in future resou

result. 

The AHC would serve as the headquarters and the primary visitor contact station for the Monument. Encourage scientific research on cultural resources in the Monument that utilizes an interdisciplinary amultiple management objectives when possible, and has the potential to contribute significant new knoEncourage non-disturbing research methods, including re-analysis and synthesis of existing data and a

Compile information on sites with extensive vandalism, or damage from other sources, and provide to its consideration for future research. Encourage research projects that recover information (excavation

appropriate, to realize the remaining information potential, especially when physical in-place preserva

not be feasible over the long term. 

Require the use of methods that minimize the impact on the resource (i.e., sampling) while maximizininformation for research that alters the in-situ archaeological record. Promote involvement of Native American tribes and other descendant communities by researchers in densure that their input and concerns are considered and incorporated into the design and conduct of suc

Manage the data and collected material in order to enhance public awareness of resources through interpretation by Anasazi Heritage Center. 

Share research results with the general public and with professionals through lectures, site tours, and a publications. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

46 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Consider regional scientific research goals and data needs in the design of management-related culturaSeek information and input from individuals and groups holding heritage values and having cultural coMonument to learn and manage in consideration of these values. Strive to accomplish management w

confidentiality of information. 

Allow and, if requested, facilitate visits by Native Americans, and/or other individuals or groups holdiplaces of cultural importance or sacred sites in the Monument without notification requirements, as lon

Monument purposes and protection of resources, and access is consistent with the Monument Transpo

Establish a protocol for conducting consultations with affiliated Native American tribes on inadvertent remains. Consider the importance of setting and context in designing management approaches to preserving the particular sites and areas. The AHC would be the repository for all new collections from the Monument and would continue to a

institutions, as possible. 

Establish a broad-based scientific advisory panel to assist Monument staff in developing research goal

reviewing and evaluating research proposals, to ensure that high-quality scientific and scholarly researMonument. 

Establish protocols in consultation with Native American tribes who have used the Monument area for cultural and religious purposes. 

Discourage permanent and/or long-term audio disturbances not listed in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (e.g., the prevention of rim-cutting, regulation of access placement, stringent reclamation, and the use of muffled generators). The 1985 San Juan/San Miguel RMP, the 1986 Anasazi ACEC, and the BLM Interim Management Plan for all National Monuments limit motor vehicle use to designated roads. This limits potential noise from these sources. 

Manage maximum permissible noise levels to meet compliance with State of Colorado standards (StatStatue [CRS]: Title 25 Health/Environmental Control: Article 12 Colorado Noise Statute - CRS§ 25-1
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

47 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL A: Preserve and protect cultural and natural resources and public and private property while, at the same play a natural role in fire-dependent ecosystems.OBJECTIVES: Provide a basis for an appropriate management response for each reported wildland fire within the Monument by developing a Fire Man

integrates with the San Juan Public Lands 2003 FMP (SJPL FMP) and the Montezuma County and Dolores County Community Fire Plabased on Fire Management Zones (FMZs), associated restrictions on fire management activities, and appropriate post-fire management. 

and strategies would: maximize firefighter and public safety; minimize suppression costs, resource loss, and damage; and use prescribed resource benefits, such as improving landscape diversity in the Monument's vegetation mosaic. 

GOAL B: Apply fuels and vegetation management treatments in order to reduce the likelihood of resource dam

improve firefighter and public safety, and to achieve vegetation resource management objectives.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Reduce hazardous fuels in and around sensitive cultural resources, critical infrastructure, and designated wildland-urban interface (W

2. Utilize prescribed fire treatment methods in order to improve vegetation conditions in fire-adapted ecosystems. 

GOAL C: Use a collaborative approach in order to achieve fuels and fire management goals and objectives.OBJECTIVES: 1. Continue to develop and improve the Monument’s fire program in partnership with relevant governments, agencies, and private lan

2. Integrate fire management strategies with the SJPL FMP and the Montezuma County and Dolores County Community Fire Plans. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. 

Designate the entire Monument as Fire Management Zone B (areas where natural fire is not desired unsuppression is emphasized). The FMZ definition would be analogous to the Fire Management PolygoJuan Public Lands 2003 Fire Management Plan. 

The SJPL FMP defines Fire Management Polygons A, B, C, and D based on desirability and feasibility of fire management strategies. (No Category D polygons exist within the Monument.) 

Classify no areas as FMZ A (areas where fire is not desired at all), FMZ C (areas where natural fire is 

social, political, or ecological constraints), or FMZ D (areas where natural fire is desired and there are 

use). 

The Fire Management Polygons outline specific fireplanning objectives, including resource management objectives and resource and suppression constraints, and list resource contacts. 

Conduct research to determine the historic ranges of variability (HRVs) in historic fire regimes, woodl

adjacent vegetation types in the Monument, as funding becomes available. Use these data to develop edesired future conditions for all vegetation management decisions through adaptive management plann
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

48 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Allow no fire in the riparian zone along Lower Yellow Jacket Canyon in Fire Management Polygon A-1 (SJPL FMP). Check yearly for hazardous fuel build-up near oil and gas facilities in Fire Management Polygon C-5 (SJPL FMP). Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management. - Provide a level of protection from wildfire that would result in least total cost and that would generally enhance range management values. Use prescribed fire when possible to enhance forage production. Continue and expand (where appropriate) the limited fire suppression plan in order to enhance vegetation conditions for livestock grazing. Emphasis Area H: Public Land Disposal. - Provide for a limited level of fire management. Suppress wildfires that may be threatening adjacent private, State, or Federal property. 

Consider the following resources for wildfire hazard assessment and hazardous fuel reduction treatmen

 B-1 – AHC; 

 B-2 – Hovenweep National Monument Protective Zone; 

 B-3 – all existing Public Use D (Developed and Undeveloped) cultural resource sites (such sites w

when they are formally opened to the public); 

 B-4 – all cultural resource sites and districts listed on the NRHP, including those listed in the futu

districts listed on the NRHP that the Monument currently directs the public to are included on Ma

 B-5 – all existing and future major oil and gas facilities, including Mockingbird Mesa, Moqui, Ho

Canyon carbon dioxide (CO2) facilities; 

 B-6 – cultural resources with pictographs, petroglyphs, and standing walls (due to the sensitivity a

types of sites, they are not located on Map 1); 

 B-7 – all existing and future WUI or Wildfire Hazard Areas, as defined in the Montezuma County 

Community Fire Plans (these areas are updated annually in these plans and so are not included in 

 B-8 – Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Communication Site; and 

 B-9 – Shell Oil Company Communication Site. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

49 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Utilize fire management techniques that maintain longterm recreation quality objectives. Suppress wildfires, but allow prescribed burns if they will help staff meet or exceed recreation objectives. Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Provide level of protection on all fires that would protect the cultural resource values. Limit fire size to 1,000 acres in Fire Management Polygon C-5, unless the fire intensity and mosaic would cause minimal erosion. Require reseeding (FMP). Require Cultural Resource Monitor (CRM) for handlines in Fire Management Polygons A-1, C-5, B-21, B-12, and B-6 (FMP). Allow no heavy equipment in Fire Management Polygon A-1 (FMP). Survey all fires with potential for growth for cultural sites and oil and gas locations in Fire Management Polygon C-5. Make firefighters aware of hazards common to most oil 

The following restrictions would apply to all fire suppression activities in FMZs B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B5, and B-6:  Require a minimum of 

one permitted and fireline-qualified archaeologist, or agency archaeologist, for all handlines during extended attacks. 

 Prohibit the use of 

ground-disturbing, mechanized equipment, unless fire is threatening 

The following restrictions would apply to all fire suppression activitieB-4, B-5, and B-6:  Require a minimum of one permitted and fireline-qualified archa

archaeologist, for all handlines during extended attacks. 

 Require a permitted and fireline-qualified archaeologist, or agenc

monitor the use of all mechanized equipment. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

50 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

and gas facilities, such as aboveground pipelines and aerial power lines. Protect known sensitive properties. Allow no mechanized equipment, unless fire is threatening life or property, and then only with CRM. Use full suppression tactics within 1 mile of oil/gas facilities where continuous heavy fuel is a factor, and within 1/4 mile with discontinuous sparse fuels (SJPL FMP). 

life or property, and if used, require a minimum of one permitted and fireline-qualified archaeologist, or agency archaeologist, to monitor the use of such equipment. 

Conduct suppression activities in order to protect and generally avoid cultural sites, keeping firefighter safety paramount at all times. 

Provide cultural resource education to local area firefighters at the beginning of each fire season, with 

impacts potentially resulting from fire suppression activities. 

Apply restrictions limiting motorized and mechanized vehicle travel to designated roads for all fire act

these restrictions would include emergency situations (e.g., threats to life or property) and/or authorize

(e.g., fuels or vegetation management treatments). 

Allow mechanized equipment on the ground. Require, however, an archaeologist to be present in order to ensure that impacts are minimized and cultural sites are avoided whenever possible. Allow no mechanized equipment around the petroglyph in Fire Management Polygon B-12 (SJPL FMP). Allow no mechanized equipment in Fire Management Polygon B-6, 

Suppress fire along all aerial power transmission lines in all FMZs. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

51 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

unless fire is a threat to life or property, and then require a CRM with all heavy equipment (SJPL FMP). In C category areas, use natural roads and barriers, where practical (SJPL FMP). Allow, in general, no aerial fire retardant drops in streams and waterways (SJPL FMP). 

Allow no aerial fire retardant drops in perennial streams (i.e., McElmo Creek, Trail Canyon, Yellow Ja

Draw, Cross Canyon, and Cahone Canyon), nor in areas B-3, B-4, and B-6, unless fire is threatening li

Emphasize using minimum impact tactics whenever possible, as called for in the national firefighting standards. Emphasize limited impacts, even if fires in A and B category require more aggressive suppression tactics (SJPL FMP). 

Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) Guidelines, in accordance with recognized USDOI

fire suppression activities. 

Emphasis Area L: ACECs.- Use fire management techniques that maintain ACEC values. Allow no wildfire suppression, unless needed to protect ACEC values. 

Consult with a designated fire resource advisor familiar with Wilderness Study Area (WSA) management for wilderness characteristics on all fires within Recreation Management Zone (RMZ) 4 (Squaw-Cross Canyon). 

Consult with a designated fire resource advisor familiar with WSA mcharacteristics on all extended attack fires within RMZ 4 (Squaw-Cro

Use the parameters listed below as guidelines to assist the field manager in deciding if a fire should be managed for resource benefit. Deviations from the parameters would require line officer approval. Another example would be where fires in Category B 

Use the criteria listed below for decisions regarding prescribed fire ignition decisions. Require Monum

situations that do not comply. Revise quantitative threshold criteria values with the acquisition of Mon

 annual precipitation departure (i.e., Palmer drought index [PDI]) not over 25 percent of average; 

 1,000-hour fuels not less than 16 percent; 

 live fuel moistures (LFM) in oak not less than 150 percent; 

 LFM in pinyon-juniper from 125 percent to 150 percent; 

 commitment of initial attack resources not over 50 percent; 

 pinyon-juniper energy release component (ERC) less than 40; and 

 oak ERC less than 60. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

52 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

polygons would be allowed to burn when factors warrant it, such as beneficial topography and low risk, and distance from structures (SJPL FMP). Category A Polygons: Fire Exclusion. Category B Polygons:  annual precipitation 

departure not over 25 percent of average; 

 1,000-hour fuels not less 

than 16 percent; 

 LFM in oak not less than 

150 percent; and 

 commitments of initial 

attack resources not over 50 percent. 

Category C Polygons:  annual precipitation 

departure not over 25 percent of average; 

 1,000 hour fuels not less 

than 12 percent; 

 LFM in oak not less than 

126 percent; 

 commitment of initial 

attack resources; not over 75 percent; and 

 ERCs not over 50 percent 

from average departure. 

 Evaluate all burned areas to determine whether or not fire rehabilitation is required. This evaluation w

following considerations:  would life or private property be threatened if rehabilitation practices are not implemented; 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

53 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

 would the vegetation that would reestablish naturally be unacceptable (e.g., exotic annual grasses 

meet vegetation resource management goals and objectives; 

 would adequate desirable vegetation recover sufficiently to stabilize soil and prevent on- or offsite 

and 

 would immediate or long-term damage (e.g., erosion) to cultural resources occur? 

Prepare an Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Plan (EFRP) for all escaped wildland fires, if one or more o

met. This plan would be in accordance with the Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Handbook and the MoAddress all critical resources, including cultural, air, water, vegetation, and soil in EFRPs, and specific

resources would be addressed in area rehabilitation. 

 Conduct a Class III cultural resource inventory following 

wildland fires, if such an inventory has not been previously completed in the area, dependent on available funding as well as a determination by the Monument Manager that the potential cultural resources in the area justify such an inventory. 

Determine if a Class I, II, or III cultural resource inventory should be conducted following wildland fires. 

SamIII. 

 Report significant cultural resource finds to the Monument Archaeologist when potentially impacted b

activities as soon as practical. Dispatch an archaeologist to fires that exceed a few acres, have the pote

when there is significant fire activity, such as multiple ignitions. 

 Follow current direction for Wildland Fire Implementation Plans (initial attack fires) and Wildland Fir

extended attack fires. Comply with all fire policies identified in Federal regulations on wilderness, thr

species, and cultural/historical preservation, as well as with all Federal and State regulations for air an

appropriate. 

Clear brush and vegetation away from rock art panels in Fire Management Polygon A-1 (FMP). Allow resource-benefit fires only where risk to cultural resources is minimal. 

Allow all forms of fuels or vegetation management treatments (i.e., mechanical, biological, chemical, 

Monument where they promote vegetation and cultural resource management goals and objectives. Afuels or vegetation management treatment in RMZ 5. Determine a treatment’s location, size, and specific layout and project design features, as well as any m

sensitive resources, through the environmental review process. Consider prescribed fire as a treatment option for ecosystems that are identified as fire-dependent or fi

loads in the treatment area for expected fire behavior. Mitigate for heavy concentrations (hazardous fu

ignition. In these circumstances, prescribed fire would be used, and would attempt to simulate natural 

Develop specific objectives for all prescribed fire prior to its use. Conduct and coordinate all fire activ

management personnel and adjacent landowners. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

54 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Apply insecticides in order to protect high-value, following specific environmental analysis. Evaluate fuels treatments, both natural and planned, in Fire Management Polygons A-1, C-5, B-21, B-26, B-28, B-29, B-12, and B-6, each year following the fire season in order to ensure that resource management objectives and constraints have been met, and/or to determine if those objectives and constraints need to be modified (SJPL FMP). Allow no fire within 150 feet of the petroglyph in Fire Management Polygon B-12 (SJPL FMP). 

Authorize no prescribed fire in mature pinyon-juniper woodlands or in biological crust communities. 

Authorize prescribed fire in mature pand/or in biological crust communiticause irreparable harm. 

Allow resource benefit fires only where risk to cultural resources is minimal. 

Allow no prescribed fire within 150 feet of FMZ B areas B-2, 

B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6. 

Determine the allowed proximity of areas B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6 threview process, giving specific consof cultural resources and public and these polygons. 

Permit no chaining and/or other methods that cause substantial surface disturbance. 

Prohibit chaining. 

 Authorize no mechanical fuels management or vegetation 

management treatment methods, including manual pulling and 

the use of hand tools (e.g., chainsaws, machetes, and pruners), within 50 feet of cultural resources or public and private property within FMZ areas B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6. 

Determine the allowed proximity of management or vegetation managemincluding manual pulling and the use chainsaws, machetes, and pruners), tpublic and private property within FB-4, B-5, and B-6 through the envirogiving specific consideration to their 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

55 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

 Require post-treatment monitoring in all areas where any fuels 

management or vegetation management treatment is implemented. Establish monitoring plots and use plant species frequency, density, and distribution data collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments toward achieving 

management objectives and to provide general baseline data regarding general vegetation dynamics in the Monument. 

Conduct post-treatment monitoring, fuels management or vegetation manimplemented. Establish monitoring frequency, density, and distribution dthe effectiveness of the treatments tomanagement objectives and to proviregarding general vegetation dynami

 Approve, within 1 year following signing of the ROD, a list of 

areas requiring fuels management and vegetation management treatments, as determined by the Monument Manager. Prioritize this list based on such criteria as pending threats to 

life and property, protecting threatened Monument objects (e.g., cultural resources), opportunities to promote vegetation management goals and objectives, and consideration of areas where fire suppression has disrupted natural fire regimes, and areas where similar efforts are being pursued by adjacent 

landowners. Update this list annually to address changing threats, conditions, and opportunities. 

Approve a list of areas requiring fuels management and vegetation management treatments, as determined by the Monument Manager. Prioritize this list based on such criteria as pending threats to life and property, protecting threatened Monument objects (e.g., cultural resources), opportunities to promote vegetation management goals and objectives, and consideration of areas where fire suppression has disrupted natural fire regimes, and areas where similar efforts are being pursued by adjacent landowners. Update this list as needed to address changing threats, conditions, and opportunities. 

SamIII. 

 Conduct a Class III cultural 

resource inventory prior to all prescribed fires, if such an inventory has not been previously completed in the area, based on whether or not the potential cultural 

Conduct a Class II cultural resource inventory prior to all prescribed fires, if such an inventory has not been previously completed in the area, based on whether or not the potential cultural 

Conduct a Class I, II, or III cultural rall prescribed fires, as determined by 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

56 

FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

resources in the area justify such an inventory, as determined by the Monument Manager. 

resources in the area justify such an inventory, as determined by the Monument Manager. 

The BLM and the USFS would work in cooperation with authorization holders in order to reduce hazardous fuels that pose a threat to privately owned surface structures or improvements on public lands. In addition, the BLM would take appropriate suppression action on all wildland fires that pose a threat to these facilities or structures. However, the BLM and the USFS would not be held liable for damages to these facilities and/or structures as a result of wildland fire when suppression actions are being attempted. 

Review existing agreements between the BLM, local fire agencies, and the Montezuma County and D

Wildfire Protection Plans to determine whether or not they continue to meet the needs of the growing n

landowners within, and adjacent to, the Monument. Coordinate all fire activities (i.e., suppression, fuels management and vegetation management treatmenlandowners, the Navajo Nation, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and public land management agencies to management goals and objectives. Develop a MOU outlining agency and private landowner responsibilities, opportunities to share resour

structure for suppression activities, as required. Update this operating plan annually. 

GEOLOGY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL A: Manage multiple-use activities in order to preserve and protect geologic objects protected under the POBJECTIVES: 1. Manage uses in order to prevent damage to sensitive geologic and geomorphologic features. 2. Facilitate appropriate geologic research in order to improve understanding of geological resources and processes. GOAL B: Manage multiple-use activities in order to protect visitors from geologic hazards. OBJECTIVES: Manage uses in order to minimize activities in geological high-hazard areas. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

57 

GEOLOGY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. 

Restrict visitor activities in areas where damage is possible to sensitive geologic features, including ou

rock formations, faults, ripple marks, cross-bedding, lithified mudcracks, angular unconformities, or g

Consider scientific research goals and data needs in the design of management-related geological studEncourage researchers to share non-sensitive information with the public through lectures, site tours, ePromote formal publication of research. Encourage interdisciplinary projects that have the potential to produce significant new ecological and/information, in addition to geological results. Give priority to archeological resources in cases where geological and archaeological resources occur qualified (BLM or permitted) geologist as soon as possible. Identify high-hazard areas (e.g., flash floods, landslides, rockfalls, and expansive and collapsible soils) activities for public safety (e.g., allow no camping in flood channels, debris basins, or rockfall areas). Require a geologic hazard survey prior to construction projects (e.g., camping areas, trailheads, comm

oil and gas facilities). 

Restrict visitor activities in areas where damage is possible to sensitive geologic features, including ou

rock formations, faults, ripple marks, cross-bedding, lithified mudcracks, angular unconformities, or g

Consider scientific research goals and data needs in the design of management-related geological studEncourage researchers to share non-sensitive information with the public through lectures, site tours, ePromote formal publication of research. Encourage interdisciplinary projects with the potential to produce significant new ecological or other saddition to geological results. In cases where geological and archaeological resources occur together, give priority to the archaeologiqualified (BLM or permitted) geologist as soon as possible. Identify high-hazard areas (e.g., flash floods, landslides, rockfalls, and expansive and collapsible soils) activities for public safety (e.g., no camping in flood channels, debris basins, or rockfall areas). 

Require a geologic hazard survey prior to construction projects (e.g., camping areas, trailheads, comm

oil and gas facilities). 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL: Preserve and protect scientifically important paleontological resources and ensure that they are available 

by present and future generations.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Identify areas and geological units containing paleontological resources and evaluate the potential of such areas to contain vertebrat

occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

58 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

2. Develop management recommendations (including mitigation measures in specific locations) to promote scientific research and oth

3. Protect and preserve important paleontological localities from natural and human-caused impacts. 4. Monitor areas where important paleontological localities have been identified. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Complete the ongoing compilation and analysis of all available paleontological resource data and literature to provide an informed b

paleontological resources within and/or near the Monument and to provide immediate protection for paleontological resources at risand procedures to collect, document, and maintain data, records, and maps and to issue appropriate surface collection and excavatio

2. Restrict paleontological collecting to scientific purposes and allow only with the use of valid BLM Paleontological Resources Use P

recreational (non-permitted) collecting of any fossils, regardless of type (vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils). 

Evaluate localities only if they fall within a current project area. No established program for such evaluation exists. 

Implement a phased program to evaluate the scientific importance of previously recorded localities thaevaluated. Prioritize localities for evaluation based on the following criteria:  vertebrate fossils (includes tracks, gastroliths, etc.); and 

 scientifically important invertebrate and plant fossils (as determined on a case-by-case basis). Establish scientifically-based standards for paleontological research in the Monument. Until such time as a permanent repository for the Monument paleontological collection is identified, thtemporary repository. For research that alters the in-situ fossils, require use of methods that minimize impact consistent with information. Give priority to archeological resources in cases where paleontological and archaeological resources anotify a qualified (BLM or permitted) paleontologist as soon as possible. Require paleontological clearances and/or mitigation prior to surface disturbance in Condition 1 and so

Avoid or recover significant resources through the authorization process. 

Schedule regular monitoring of known surficial localities of vertebrate or other scientifically importan

SOIL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL: Manage soil resources in order to sustain multiple-uses and preserve and/or enhance existing ecological 

function. 

OBJECTIVES: 1. Manage in order to ensure that the Land Health Standard for upland soils is met, or that significant progress is being made toward m

2. Manage uses in order to prevent damage to soil resources by protecting them from surface disturbance and by maintaining vegetatio

than 30 percent, as well as in other areas with high erosion potential. 

3. Manage soils resource in order to support other resource management objectives. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Amendment: Decision Record and Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Standards for P

Guideline for Livestock Grazing Management in Colorado, March 1997. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

59 

SOIL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

2. Report to the responsible management official all activities on non-Monument lands that are causing, or are expected to cause, soil 

deterioration, and/or other damage to Monument lands, whether directly or indirectly. 

3. Stipulate site-specific erosion control measures in Coordinated Resource Management Plans, unless emergency situations exist. 4. Emphasis Areas A, C, H, and L: Livestock Management, Recreation Resources, Public Land Disposal, and ACECs. Maintain soil 

human-caused soil erosion. 

 Require implementation of soil resource BMPs (see Appendix E) as conditions of approval (COAs) to 

permits. Implement applicable BMPs that protect of soil resources in all management actions and mai

 Establish a no-ground-disturbance/no-site-occupancy (NGD/NSO) restriction for areas with slopes gre

and/or for soils with high erosion potential. 

 Apply special management practices to areas with biological soil crust communities, as outlined for V

Resources management. 

Manage soils in order to maintain productivity and minimize erosion. 

Maintain a zero-level accelerated erosion standard (accelerated erosion is soil loss caused by human la

than by natural or geologic erosion occurring independently of human activities). Allow no rangeland use to contribute to reducing the protective attributes of vegetation below a Site C

(point beyond which vegetation is unable to hold the soil in place). 

Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Maintain soil productivity, minimize human-caused soil erosion, and stabilize and rehabilitate areas with severe human-caused soil erosion. 

Approve a list of areas for stabilization and rehabilitation, required as a result of severe human-caused 

restoration, as determined by the Monument Manager. 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV AltGOAL: Manage habitat for native fish and wildlife species in order to optimize biological diversity. OBJECTIVES: 1. Contribute to the maintenance or recovery of Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species; State listed s

species. 

2. Contribute to the recovery of the Mexican spotted owl. 3. Protect nesting and winter concentration areas for bald and golden eagles. 

4. Protect active nest sites for raptors other than Mexican spotted owls, and for bald and golden eagles. 5. Contribute to the recovery of the SWWF. 

6. Manage, conserve, and enhance habitat for neotropical migrant birds. 7. Manage, conserve, and enhance habitat for sensitive reptile species. 8. Protect breeding habitat for amphibians. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

60 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt9. Reintroduce bighorn sheep. 10. Restore sagebrush grasslands in order to support populations of Gunnison sage-grouse on their historic range. 11. Maintain and restore stable populations of BLM sensitive fish species. 12. Improve tributaries that would contribute to restoring threatened and endangered fish populations within the San Juan River. 13. Improve forage and cover conditions for mule deer. 

14. Manage and control wildlife species that have, or may have, detrimental impacts to other resources or land uses. 15. Maintain and/or enhance habitats capable of sustaining existing or increasing wildlife and fish populations. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Maintain and/or improve riparian wildlife habitat through interdisciplinary design of range improvement projects and diversity of n

Allow habitat improvements. Give special consideration to aquatic and riparian resources at the activity planning stage to ensure thimprovement of these resources. 

2. Use BMPs (see Appendix E) and other management techniques designed to minimize degradation of aquatic and riparian habitats. 3. Require that bridges, culverts, and other installations be designed to maintain adequate passage by aquatic life, including fishes. 

4. Require that management actions and/or projects within floodplains, wetlands, and/or aquatic/riparian habitats include measures des

and, if necessary, restore their natural functions. 

5. Monitor and maintain/improve crucial winter range (including winter concentration areas and severe winter range) for elk and deer, 

“I” and “M” category grazing allotments. Monitoring the vegetation resource may indicate the need for mule deer and elk reduction

livestock) in localized areas to maintain use within the carrying capacity. 

6. Incorporate forage and cover requirements into Habitat Management Plans (HMPs) specific to primary use areas for deer and elk. 

7. Retain adequate cover and vegetation structural diversity in order to provide for game and non-game species habitat requirements. 

improvement projects, where necessary, in order to stabilize and/or improve unsatisfactory or declining habitat conditions. Evaluat

recommendations on wildlife reintroductions and fish stocking proposals to the CDOW. Maintain all existing wildlife habitat impro

this effort on guzzlers, exclosures, and vegetation treatments. 

8. Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. – Protect and maintain wildlife habitat. Complete wildlife habitat improvements in order 

viewing in association with cultural values, where feasible. 

Prohibit activities that would result in direct harm to individuals and/or to populations of threatened or endangered or BLM sensitive species, or that would jeopardize their continued existence through reductions in habitat quality and extent. This provision does not apply 

Same as No Action Alternative. Follow additional precautions specific protective actions described by 

would be followed to protect special status subspecies (e.g., Federally listed threatened, endangered, pspecies; State listed species; and BLM sensitive species) in accordance with Instruction Memorandum 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

61 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Altto scientific research or other activities specifically permitted or approved in writing by the USFWS, the CDOW, and/or the Monument Manager. Emphasis Area H: Public Land Disposal. - Provide for threatened and endangered species inventories and clearances prior to public land disposal. Emphasis Area L: ACECs. - Manage important or critical habitat for threatened and endangered, sensitive, or species of special importance in order to maintain a viable population level of each species. Invest wildlife funds for structural habitat improvements and vegetation restoration projects in order to improve the following highpriority riparian habitats: Cross, Cow, Cahone, Hovenweep, and Bridge Canyons. 

Drop ACEC designation. The Presidential designation as a National Monument supersedes the admin

ACEC. 

Apply seasonal restrictions, where needed, in order to mitigate the impacts of human activities on important seasonal wildlife habitat. Prohibit activities in threatened or endangered 

Establish a Protected Activity Center (PAC) within 0.5 mile of any documented (active or inactive) M

Require a nesting survey for two consecutive breeding seasons using the protocol approved by the UniWildlife Service (USFWS) prior to approving any permissible activity within a PAC (including tree revegetation treatments, and so forth). Consult with the USFWS to establish design standards for managtree removal, fuel reduction, or vegetation treatments, if such activities are deemed critical to another r

PAC. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

62 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Altspecies habitat that would jeopardize the continued existence of the species.  Establish a timing limitation (TL) restriction within a 0.5-mile buffer of a documented occupied or his

nest to prohibit ground-disturbing activities (excluding research, monitoring, and routine livestock manexcessive noise disturbance from March 15 to September 1. 

 Limit permitted or ground-disturbing activities within Mexican spotted owl Protected Activity Centers 

of the PAC to mesa tops and rims to reduce impacts to canyon floors. 

Establish a TL restriction for activities within 0.5 mile of active bald eagle or golden eagle nests durin

through July 15. 

Establish a TL restriction for activities within 0.5 mile of a known bald eagle winter roost or winter coNovember 16 through April 15. 

Provide protective oil and gas leasing restrictions for bald and golden eagle nests, roosts, and winter eagle concentration areas. Establish an NGD/NSO restriction for within 0.5 mile of a known bald eagle or golden eagle nest site, 

roost site, whether active or historic. Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction. 

 Prohibit vegetation treatments (i.e., tree removal, fuel reduction, and vegetation treatments) during the 

(March 1 through July 15), unless a nesting survey reveals no active nest(s) in the tree(s) to be remove0.25-mile buffer. Prohibit any ground-disturbing activity or other potential major source of noise disturbance during the without prior survey for active nests within 0.25 mile. Postpone the activity until nesting is completed 0.25 mile from an active nest. 

 Establish baseline data for suitable habitat areas, map the areas, and establish conservation managemen

occupied and unoccupied habitat patches for the southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF). 

 Implement recovery actions as described in the August 2002 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Final R

recent version of the recovery plan. 

 Fence suitable SWWF habitat to exclude livestock grazing.  Avoid vegetation removal or treatment, when practicable, including fuel reduction, from April 15 to Ju

by migratory birds. 

 Establish an NGD/NSO 

restriction prohibiting ground-disturbing activities within the habitat and within a 0.25-mile buffer of SWWF habitat patches, as defined in the Final Recovery Plan. 

Establish a TL restriction for any mapped areas of suitable habitat and within a 0.25-mile buffer, as defined in the Final Recovery Plan, including during the breeding season (April 15 through July 15). 

Conduct SWWF surveys using the approved USFWS protocol prior to any grounddisturbing activity or other source of major noise disturbance within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat. Postpone 

ImpPlan SWdistSW0.25hab
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

63 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction for oil and gas activities in these areas. 

This TL would include livestock grazing. Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction for oil and gas activities in these areas. 

activities until after nesting is complete if nesting flycatchers are found. Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction for oil and gas activities in these areas. 

TL areawithinclsea15)usinprodistsoudistof sacticomflyc

Develop HMPs for implementation, including monitoring plans. Develop HMPs for sensitive reptiles and their habitat over the term of the plan, depending upon need, availability of funding, and manpower. Give priority to development of HMPs for threatened and endangered species. 

Write an HMP for sensitive lizard species known to occur, or having the potential to occur, in the Monument. Include mapping of sensitive or occupied habitat areas in such plans. Apply timing and ground-disturbing restrictions on activities proposed in reptile management areas. 

Write an HMP for sensitive lizard species on Hamilton and Cannonball Mesas. 

Sam

 Prioritize the management of 

cheatgrass and other noxious weeds through phased weed control in all grassland, semidesert shrubland, and sagebrush areas known to support, or with a high potential to support, sensitive reptile species. Reestablish native grasses and forbs following control of 

Prioritize the management of cheatgrass and/or other noxious weeds ihigh-potential habitat for these sensitive lizards. Reestablish native grasses and forbs in sagebrush stands in weed man
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

64 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

cheatgrass and/or other noxious weeds. 

 Maintain and/or improve habitat through interdisciplinary design of range improvement projects and d

vegetation types. Give special consideration to pinyon-juniper woodland, native grassland, and semi-d

activity planning stage to ensure maintenance or improvement of these resources. 

 Establish an NGD/NSO 

restriction to prohibit grounddisturbing activities within 150 feet of potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat. Establish a TL (with a 300-feet buffer) for potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season (April 1 through July 31). Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction for oil and gas activities in these areas. 

Establish a TL to prohibit ground-disturbing activities within 150 feet of potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season (April 1 through July 31). Establish a Lease Notice regarding this restriction for oil and gas activities in these areas. 

Provide no specific protection for amphibian breeding habitat from grounddisturbing activities. 

Sam

 Write an MOU with the 

CDOW to reintroduce bighorn sheep into Cross Canyon and Yellow Jacket Canyon. Work cooperatively with the CDOW to prevent conflicts between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. 

Write an MOU with the CDOW to reintroduce bighorn sheep into Yellow Jacket Canyon. Work cooperatively with the CDOW to prevent conflicts between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. 

Provide for no bighorn sheep reintroduction within the Monument. 

Sam

 Write an MOU with the CDOW to facilitate future reintroduction of Gunnison sage-grouse. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

65 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt Implement actions as described in the Rangewide Conservation Plan, the Colorado BLM statewide str

grouse strategy for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

 Treat over-mature or overly 

dense sagebrush-steppe habitat to provide for a diversity of age classes and for a better shrub-grass mosaic. Plant desirable native grasses and forbs. 

Treat over-mature or overly dense sagebrush-steppe habitat to provide for a diversity of age classes and for a better shrubgrass mosaic. Allow native grasses and forbs to establish without management. 

Sam

Maintain and/or improve riparian habitat to good or excellent ecological conditions, utilizing acceptable grazing systems and fencing where needed. 

Apply management actions to aquatic and riparian habitats to comply with vegetation and water resou

objectives listed elsewhere for Alternative II. 

Evaluate reintroductions of native fishes and make recommendations to the CDOW. 

Work with the CDOW to restore roundtail chubs to Yellow Jacket Canyon. 

 Avoid water-depleting activities in tributaries to the San Juan River. Conduct Section 7 Consultation w

unavoidable water depletions. 

Manage habitats for sustainable deer and elk population goals, as established in consultation with the CDOW, by providing sufficient forage, cover, and water on their seasonal habitat. 

Same as Alternative I. Consider habitat management for deer within the context of the overall biodiver

for the Monument. 

 Cooperate with the CDOW to identify specific areas where 

enhancement measures are needed to maintain desired 

populations of deer. Measures may include, among others:  prescribed fires; 

 changes in grazing season/intensity; 

 implementation of weed control; 

 revegetation of severely degraded areas to increase 

quantity and quality of forage in specific allocations; and 

 reduction in the amount of dead wood in areas chained in 

Manage the habitat for deer forage and cover only to the extent needed to maintain minimum viable populations. Cooperate with the CDOW and willing private landowners, when determined to be necessary, in identifying critical habitat types and 

SamIII. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

66 

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITATS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

the past to facilitate animal movement. areas needed for viable 

populations. 

Modify existing agreements with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regarding animal damage control, specifically targeting individual predators rather than predator populations. Conduct animal damage control only when:  the animal control 

measure targets the specific offending animal(s); and 

 the Monument Manager 

determines that human health and safety associated with the control is not an issue. 

Modify existing agreements with APHIS to prohibit the use of culling and shooting of individual predators, or the destruction of dens to control predators, except when an individual animal poses a safety risk to humans or on a case-by-case basis for individual requests. Apply this agreement throughout the Monument. 

Designate specific areas in which existing agreements with APHIS would be modified to prohibit the use of culling, shooting, or the destruction of dens to control predators, except when an individual animal poses a safety risk to humans. Include occupied or highquality habitat for threatened or endangered species, other habitat crucial to sensitive species and biodiversity, and areas managed for recreation or other visitor use in designated areas. 

Same as Alternative I - No Action. 

Sam

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

GOAL A: Sustain a biologically diverse landscape that supports a variety of habitats and native plant and animaOBJECTIVES: 1. Protect and/or enhance upland vegetation communities in order to ensure that the Land Health Standard for healthy, productive pla

communities is met, or that significant progress is being made toward achieving it. 

2. Reclaim and rehabilitate disturbed areas affected by wildland fire and other surface-disturbing activities (e.g., well pad sites, pipeli

roads) in order to protect soil, water, and vegetation resources. 

3. Protect and/or enhance aquatic, wetland, and riparian areas in order to ensure that the Land Health Standard for riparian systems is 

progress is being made toward achieving it. 

4. Cooperate with other agencies and landowners in the prevention, control, or eradication of invasive pests that threaten the health of 

GOAL B: Control existing noxious weed populations and prevent new infestations.OBJECTIVES: 1. Inventory and map existing noxious weed populations. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

67 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

2. Develop and implement an integrated weed management program, in cooperation with adjacent landowners (i.e., counties, private 

National Monument, the Navajo Nation, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe), which includes mechanical, biological, and chemical co

which emphasizes prevention, inventory, detection and monitoring, and project actions. 

3. Prevent the establishment of new infestations of noxious weeds and the spread of existing populations. 

4. Cooperate with neighboring land management agencies and private landowners in order to prevent, control, and eradicate noxious 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Amendment: Decision Record and FONSI and EA for Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Ma

March 1997: Standard 3 – Plant and Animal Communities. 

2. Amendment: Decision Record and FONSI and EA for Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Ma

March 1997: Standard 2– Riparian Systems. 

3. Intensive livestock management plans developed through allotment management plans or other activity plans would be comparable 

management goals. 

4. Consider vegetation treatments on a case-by-case basis with weighted consideration of cultural resource values. 

 Encourage range, fuels and fire, and vegetation management activities that include the protection and/

health and productivity of native and other desirable plant and animal communities. 

 Prioritize areas for restoration 

and reclamation where management changes alone would not improve resource conditions. Implement and monitor new restoration projects every other year until prioritized areas are completed. 

Mitigate by restoration and reclamation for disturbance on a project-l

for restoration and reclamation where management changes alone woconditions. Implement and monitor new restoration projects, as need

Actively manage past pinyon-juniper chaining areas to improve their ecological condition. Prioritize t

first, and then apply the following actions:  manage noxious weeds; 

 manage the dead wood component as a desirable element of future stands; and 

 seed with desirable native grasses and forbs. 

Use reclamation methods and materials that mimic natural disturbance and recovery patterns where smoccurs as a result of a land management activity (e.g., well pad construction). Require a reclamation plan and reclamation budget for all proposed vegetation management treatment biological, and chemical treatments, and prescribed fire). Require standardized reclamation practices and BMPs (see Appendix E) as COAs for all new leases an

disturbance areas. 

Carry out reclamation in accordance with the reclamation requirements contained in the Monument Plan. Design future seeding and reclamation projects utilizing a mixture of well-adapted plant species in order to optimize soil stabilization, habitat, and forage values. Emphasize native species on 

Require a livestock exclusion period of at least two years 

Require a livestock exclusion period of at least two growing seasons following prescribed fire, natural fire, or seeding. The 

Reqper
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

68 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

following vegetation management treatments (i.e., mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments, and prescribed fire), natural fire, seeding, or other reclamation treatments. The length of time may be greater, based on a site evaluation designed to determine when the desired plant species could be grazed again. 

length of time may be greater, based on a site evaluation designed to determine when the desired plant species could be grazed again. 

follseemay site deteplanagaexcon a 

projects that are extensive and/or that impact a variety of soil types in order to enhance reclamation and reestablish widespread seed sources of desirable native species, thereby accelerating natural rangeland improvement in nearby depleted range sites. 

Use native plant species, of local genetic stock if commercially available, for all reclamation seeding and/or planting actions. Require certified weed-free seed. 

Use native plant species, of local genetic stock if commercially available, for all reclamation seeding and/or planting actions. Use nonnative species in limited situations, where considered necessary to protect resources and/or to stabilize soils in a timely fashion. In situations where non-native species are required, short-lived perennial or annual species may be used. Require certified weed-free seed. 

Use non-native species, in limited situations where considered necessary to protect resources and/or to stabilize soils in a timely fashion. 

Sam

Evaluate all proposed projects in order to ensure compliance with BLM policies on riparian habitat management. 

Encourage range, fuels and fire, and vegetation management activities that would protect and/or enhance riparian/aquatic resource conditions. 

SamEvaprocompolman

Allow no projects without designed for enhancement or improvement of riparian and 

Manage riparian areas to achieve Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), or if not at PFC, to enhance condition rating. 

SamAllproj
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

69 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

alluvial sites within 100 feet of active channel edges without appropriate mitigation. 

enhof rwithchaapp

Review road crossings of intermittent or perennial streams on a case-by-case basis. 

SamRevcroperby-

Use fencing to exclude livestock from some narrow canyon bottom sites in order to stop excessive utilization and/or to promote recovery of poor condition sites. 

Conduct PFC assessments for all riparian and wetland areas and springs, as determined necessary. 

Use livecanexcprocon

Implement specific projects, such as cross-fencing of riparian areas, development of water sources outside of riparian areas, and use of seedlings in order to facilitate management and to promote recovery and maintenance of riparian/alluvial habitat. Design spring developments in order to maintain water flow in riparian channels while, at the same time, providing livestock water outside the channel and spring source area, if possible. Fence springs (and possible associated sites) in livestock use areas, if cultural sites are 

Implement exclusions, including fencing and/or grazing management systems (regular rest and/or deferment), on riparian/wetland areas or springs that would result in achieving or making significant progress toward PFC and/or that would protect cultural resources located at or near these areas. 

SamImpspecroareasouareafacipromairipaDesto mripasamlivechaareaFenasso
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

70 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

present. Place stock tanks away from cultural sites and features. 

use preawafeat

 Develop an inventory and integrated pest management plan.  Apply pesticides to protect native trees/vegetation from 

insects, such as bark beetles and/or defoliators in administrative sites (e.g., trailheads, interpretation sites, and campgrounds). 

Apply pesticides to protect native trees/vegetation from insects, such as bark beetles and/or defoliators in all areas outside RMZ 4. These treatments would not exceed 1,000 acres per year. 

SamIII. 

Continue existing noxious weed control activities. Introduce no exotic species, unless doing so is essential in order to control noxious weeds or other undesirable species. 

Implement a systematic weed inventory and mapping program for all noxious weeds listed by the State of Colorado, and both Montezuma and/or Dolores Counties within three years of signing of the ROD. 

Inventory and map all noxious weeds listed by the State of Colorado, and both Montezuma and/or Dolores Counties, as encountered in conjunction with other management activities and/or monitoring programs. 

Sam

 Inventory and prioritize areas 

for noxious weed treatment (e.g., roads, riparian areas, stock ponds, and areas of ground disturbance) within three years of signing of the ROD. Monitor at least 20 percent of treatment areas annually. 

Inventory and prioritize areas for noxious weed treatment (e.g., roads, riparian areas, stock ponds and areas of ground disturbance) and treatment within three years of signing of the ROD. 

Sam

 Develop a prioritized 

detection and eradication plan for all State of Colorado List A noxious weed species, in accordance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. 

Eradicate Colorado List A noxious weed species, as they are located during other management activities, in accordance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

71 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

 Control State of Colorado List B noxious weed species, in accordance with the Colorado Noxious Wee

management priority ranking index based on such factors as invasiveness, individual species life formsensitivity of habitat being invaded, and area accessibility. 

 Manage State of Colorado List C noxious weed species on a case-by-case basis, in consultation and co

and regional land management organizations. 

 Incorporate an integrated method approach into every weed control management strategy. Include me

chemical methods, as appropriate for each species, life form, distribution pattern, and management goaUse chemical control after considering the effectiveness of all potential control methods and/or in comcontrol methods. Maintain a noxious weed management database to record monitoring results and the effectiveness of in

 Target noxious weed management activities in areas where similar efforts are being pursued by adjace Require pre-construction noxious weed inventories prior to all ground-disturbing activities and post-re

monitoring. 

 Require treatment of noxious weeds within the proposed ground-disturbing project area if noxious wee

construction activities. 

 Apply all weed prevention BMPs (see Appendix E) to ground-disturbing activities.  Road maintenance crews, permit and leaseholders, and the BLM Weed Coordinator should collaborate 

maintenance schedules that control seed produced by noxious weeds. 

 Manage cheatgrass (downy brome) in long-nosed leopard 

lizard habitat using an appropriate control plan to prevent negative impacts to the lizard. 

Manage cheatgrass in occupied long-nosed leopard lizard habitat. 

SamIII. 

 Conduct monitoring and treat 

all weed infestations for a minimum of three years, or until eradicated, for all wildland fire disturbances over 0.5 acre. 

Conduct monitoring and treat all weed infestations for a minimum of one year, or until eradicated, for all wildland fire disturbances over 0.5 acre. 

Sam

 Prohibit the use of feed for 

pack or saddle stock. 

Prohibit the use of feed for pack or saddle stock in RMZs 1 and 2. Allow only certified weed-free feed outside of these zones. 

Allow only certified weed-free feed 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

72 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT PLANT COMMUNITIES 

GOAL A: Manage listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant species in order to comply with 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), including preventing the need for listing of proposed and candidate species.

OBJECTIVES: Inventory potential habitat for Federally listed and candidate plant species. GOAL B: Manage the condition of special status plants and significant plant communities, and their habitats, to 

status recognition is no longer warranted.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Inventory potential habitat for special status plants and significant plant and biological crust communities. 2. Monitor known populations of special status plants and significant plant and biological crust communities. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None.  Establish a Lease Notice that would alert lessees when potential habitat for a threatened, endangered, c

special status plant or animal species may be impacted. 

 Conduct surveys for the 

Sleeping Ute milkvetch in all potential habitat. 

Conduct surveys for the Sleeping Ute milkvetch in all potential habitaother inventory/surveys for proposed development and/or activities. 

 Evaluate and, as necessary, relocate or realign roads if monitoring indicates damage or disturbance to 

species, and/or to significant plant and biological crust communities. 

 Monitor BLM sensitive plant 

species populations. Where disturbance to individuals or habitat is documented, remove the source of the disturbance to a location that avoids continued damage. 

Monitor BLM sensitive plant species populations. Where disturbance to individuals or habitat is documented, implement mitigation to reduce the damage. 

Sam

 Develop a monitoring plan 

for significant plant and biological crust communities. Monitor the condition and extent of these communities where disturbance is likely to occur annually. 

Monitor the condition and extent of significant plant and/or biological crust communities, in conjunction with other inventory/surveys for proposed development or activities. 

Sam

 Develop an inventory plan for 

sensitive plant species and significant plant and 

Develop an inventory plan for sensitive plant species and significant plant and 

Inventory sensitive plant species and significant plant and biological crust 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

73 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

biological crust communities within two years of signing of the ROD. 

biological crust communities within five years of signing of the ROD. 

communities in conjunction with project activities. 

 Avoid locating facilities (e.g., oil and gas, recreation, and 

livestock improvements) in occupied and/or potential habitat for significant plant and biological crust communities. 

Apply standards to avoid or minimize locating facilities in occupied and/or potential habitat for significant plant and biological crust communities. 

SamIII. 

 Establish an NGD/NSO restriction for occupied and/or potential habitat for threatened, endangered, ca

status plant species. 

 Close and restore social roads where biological crust communities occur in high-use recreation areas.  Locate new roads away from 

biological crust communities, with minimum 100-foot buffers. 

Locate new roads away from biological crust communities, with mini

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL: Manage all activities in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances the Monument’s scenic resourc

include, but are not limited to, the extraordinary topography, geology, biology, and cultural history).

OBJECTIVES: 1. Designate Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes throughout the Monument, based on an inventory of visual resources and 

considerations for other uses. 

2. Manage activities within the Monument according to VRM Class objectives. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Manage all Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) as VRM Class I, until such time that Congress makes a determination as to their perm

2. Assign all units of Hovenweep National Monument within the boundary of the Monument as VRM Class II, along with a 0.5-mile 3. Assign the McElmo Resource Natural Area (RNA) as VRM Class I. 4. Assign The Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway as VRM Class II, along with a 0.5-mile buffer. 

 Consider the importance of visual values in all proposed actions and minimize the impacts the project 

Use the visual resource contrast rating system as a guide in analyzing potential visual impacts of the pr

time, performing an environmental analysis for projects. Design projects to mitigate impacts and confClass objective. 

Manage cultural resource emphasis areas with canyons 

VRM Classes (by acre) include: 

VRM Classes (by acre) include: 

VRM Classes (by acre) include: 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

74 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

listed in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP according to Class II Visual Management standards. Discourage permanent or long-term visual intrusions in other canyon areas throughout the ACEC (e.g., prevention of rim-cutting, regulation of access placement, stringent reclamation, and use of muffled generators, and so forth). Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Preserve scenic values, enhance viewing opportunities, and increase variety, where appropriate. Establish site-specific visual quality objectives and design guidelines for landscape development projects during activity planning. 

 Class I: 38,598 

 Class II: 126,643 

 Class III: 94 

 Class IV: 0 

 Class V: 0 

Include the following:  McElmo Research 

Natural Area (RNA), plus expansion, Cannonball Mesa, and Sand Canyon units, as Class I. 

 WSA, plus Citizen’s 

Proposed Areas for expansion, as Class I. 

 Class I: 25,976 

 Class II: 34,754 

 Class III: 104,605 

 Class IV: 0 

 Class V: 0 

Include the following:  McElmo RNA Class I, 

with 0.5-mile buffer, as Class II. 

 Class I: 25,976 

 Class II: 27,535 

 Class III: 94,327 

 Class IV: 17,497 

 Class V: 0 

Include the following:  McElmo RNA Class I, 

with 0.5-mile buffer, as Class II. 

 Seek to prevent light pollution within the Monument. Propose no actions within the Monument that w

pollution. Work closely with the surrounding communities to minimize light pollution. 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL: Ensure that an appropriate quality and quantity of water resources are available in order to support the p

ecological processes, consistent with applicable standards (e.g., water quality).

OBJECTIVES: 1. Protect and restore water resources from physical disturbances and adverse impacts associated with land management activities. 

2. Ensure continued availability of water in order to adequately manage resources and multiple-uses. Multiple-uses include both cons
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

75 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

such as livestock, wildlife watering, recreation, and fire suppression, as well as non-consumptive uses, such as flow in streams suff

and fisheries values. 

3. Protect water quantity within and downstream from the Monument. 4. Protect water quality within and downstream from the Monument. 5. Identify and quantify hydrologic processes and relationships, and monitor changes in both water quality and quantity in order to en

of resources, as well as the multiple-uses that depend on them. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: Maintain and/or improve water quality, in accordance with State and Federal laws and approved standards, including consultation with proposed projects that may significantly affect water quality. Report activities on nonMonument lands that are causing, or are expected to cause, water quality deterioration, soil degradation, and/or other damage to Monument lands–whether directly or indirectly–to the responsible management official. 

Report activities on public and private land outside the Monument boundary that are causing, or are ex

quality deterioration, soil degradation, and/or other damage to Monument lands–whether directly or in

management official to work out cooperative solutions. 

 Include terms and conditions that protect groundwater source areas for all springs, seeps, and wells on 

requiring NEPA. 

 Prohibit ground-disturbing activities that could impair outstanding remarkable values (ORVs) respons

being found suitable for Wild and Scenic River (WSR) designation. 

 Work in partnership with landowners to protect, improve, and/or enhance the quality of water located 

between them and the Monument. 

 Develop and implement a long-term hydrologic data collection program that includes, at a minimum: 

 flow measurements on perennial streams; 

 precipitation gauge(s) at locations sufficient to accurately characterize rainfall levels in the Monum

 regular flow measurements at select springs. 

Implement additional monitoring protocols in areas where land use activities could potentially affect (hydrologic resources. 

Reconstruct previously constructed stream crossings that are inadequate in order to prevent washouts. Review road crossings of 

Require implementation of BMPs (see Appendix E), as determined appropriate, to protect aquatic resodisturbing activities. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

76 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

intermittent or perennial streams on a case-by-case basis. Meet the following standards:  Construct all crossings 

perpendicular to the streambed, in a straight stretch of the bed. 

 Construct temporary 

crossings to withstand a 10-year flood event by using culverts, rock bottom, or a “no fill”-style crossing. 

 Construct permanent 

crossings to withstand a 50-year flood event. 

Require construction of check dams, in order to hold erosion and slow stream velocity, as mitigation. 

Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Secure sufficient water rights to provide for recreation management needs. 

Secure water rights to support all water uses in the Monument. 

Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management.- Secure water rights sufficient to provide for livestock management needs. 

Secure water rights to ensure the proper management of both natural resources (e.g., fish and wildlife a

vegetation) and multiple-uses (e.g., livestock grazing and recreation). 

 Work cooperatively with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and Colorado Water Conserv

MOU of September 14, 2005, or subsequent agreements) to ensure that water resources and instream f

proper care and management of Monument resources are available. Areas of cooperation, to date, hav

Creek. Evaluate other streams. 

 Permit new water 

developments only for the 

Permit new water developments for traditional 

Encourage development of new water sources to support 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

77 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

following purposes: to better distribute livestock, when deemed to have an overall beneficial effect on Monument resources; to restore or manage native species or populations; to support visitor facilities (e.g., toilets and parking areas), when consistent with the characteristics of the corresponding RMZ; and/or to mitigate impacts to cultural resources (e.g., relocating an existing water development away from an archaeological site). Conduct such developments only when a NEPA analysis determines that this tool is the best means of achieving the above objectives, and only when the water development would not dewater springs or streams. 

water uses within the Monument. Encourage livestock water developments to improve forage use and range carrying capacity. Encourage wildlife water developments to meet terrestrial wildlife population objectives. Redevelop livestock and wildlife water developments to reduce impacts to cultural resources. Restrict recreation water developments to high-use locations, such as trailheads and visitor centers. Allow limited dewatering of water sources if such development assists in meeting livestock, wildlife, and recreation objectives. 

expanded resource development and economic development. Permit new water developments for traditional water uses within the Monument. Encourage livestock water developments to improve forage use and range carrying capacity. Encourage wildlife water developments to meet terrestrial wildlife population objectives. Redevelop livestock and wildlife water developments to reduce impacts to cultural resources. Give priority for use of limited water supplies to resource development purposes over waterdependent natural resource values in areas of intense resource development. 

 Continue management of 

existing water infrastructure, including ditches, diversions, and dams. Continue to operate existing facilities under their historic authorizations. Work cooperatively with facility owners to reduce facility impacts on riparian and wildlife habitat. Allow increased diversions through existing facilities only where a NEPA analysis 

Continue management of existing water infrastructure, including ditches, diversions, and dams. Continue to operate existing facilities under their historic authorizations. Allow increased diversions through existing facilities, with appropriate authorizations. 

Continue management of existing water infrastructure, including ditches, diversions, and dams. Continue to operate existing facilities under their historic authorizations. Allow increased diversions through existing facilities, with appropriate authorizations. Allow conversion of water facilities from traditional uses (e.g., irrigation and livestock) to industrial and commercial 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

78 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

demonstrates an overall benefit to Monument resources. 

uses. 

 Work closely with the 

Colorado Water Conservation Board to establish instream flow rights for all types of streams in the Monument, including seasonal reaches that support riparian and wildlife values. Make any new land use authorizations conditional, to ensure that sufficient flows remain to support water-dependent values on any unprotected reaches. 

Work with the Colorado Water Conservation Board to establish instream flow rights only for perennial streams within the Monument. Make any new land use authorizations conditional, to ensure that sufficient flows remain to support waterdependent values for other reaches. 

Work with the Colorado Water Conservation Board to establish instream flow rights only for perennial streams within the Monument. Make available for appropriation any water not protected by instream flow rights for industrial, commercial, or traditional uses. 

Sam

 Discourage groundwater 

development as a method for meeting water supply needs. Perform a full analysis on the impact of any proposed groundwater development on surrounding seeps, springs, and streams. 

Allow groundwater development in areas of inadequate surface water supplies for the purposes of meeting livestock and wildlife watering needs. Perform a full analysis on the impact of any proposed groundwater development on surrounding seeps, springs, and streams to determine the lowest impact locations for development. 

Encourage groundwater development for the purposes of meeting water supply needs for energy and minerals development projects. Perform a full analysis on the impact of any proposed groundwater development on surrounding seeps, springs, and streams to determine the lowest impact locations for development. 

Sam

 Increase water flows by 

removing noxious weeds in and around seeps, springs, and streams when projects are performed at water sources. 

Increase water flows by incorporating seeps, springs, and streams, where appropriate, into a list of high-priority areas for noxious weed control. Develop a specific list of these priority weed control 

Increase water flows by incorporating seeps, springs, and streams, where appropriate, into a list of high-priority areas for noxious weed control. Treat as time and funding is available. 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

79 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

areas and begin treatment within three years of signing of the ROD. 

Riparian Systems. - Protect 2,415 acres of riparian systems. Evaluate all proposed projects in order to ensure compliance with BLM policies on riparian habitat management. Implement projects designed to improve riparian and alluvial floodplain habitat. Consider construction of rock check dams, gully plugs, and similar structures in order to slow water flow, trap silt, and reduce channel erosion. Design seeding of adjacent alluvial sites in order to reduce erosion, filter watershed runoff, improve forage production, and increase flora and fauna species diversity. Allow no projects that are not designed for the enhancement or improvement of riparian and alluvial sites within 100 feet of active channel edges without appropriate mitigation. Implement specific projects, such as cross-fencing of 

Establish a NGD/NSO restriction to protect 5,312 acres of riparian systems. Review ground disturbing projects that are planned to benefit the health of riparian systems (i.e., exclosure fences, etc.) on a case-by-case basis, as authorized by the Monument Manager. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to the widest boundary when combining canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains. These areas include springs, as well as a combination of canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains associated with perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to springs with well-developed riparian vegetation (i.e., Blue Water, H-O, and Confluence Springs) as well, along with a 300-foot buffer, to protect adjoining wetlands. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to the remaining springs, along with a 100-foot buffer, to protect adjoining wetlands. Permit designated road crossings in canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains. However, it must be demonstrated that a road crossing would not contribute to a stream segment either not achieving, or not making progress toward achieving, PFC. 

Establish NGD/NSO restriction to protect 3,217 acres of riparian systems. Emphasize management activities that benefit acres of riparian and floodplain values. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to the widest boundary when combining riparian areas and floodplains. These areas include springs, as well as a combination of riparian areas and floodplains associated with perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to springs with well-developed riparian vegetation (i.e., Blue Water, H-O, and Confluence Springs) as well, along with a 300-foot buffer, to protect adjoining wetlands. Apply the NGD/NSO restriction to the remaining springs, along with a 100-foot buffer, to protect adjoining wetlands. Permit designated road crossings in riparian areas and floodplains. However, it must be demonstrated that a road crossing would not contribute to a stream 

SamIII. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

80 

WATER RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

riparian areas, development of water sources outside of riparian areas, and the use of seedings, in order to facilitate management and promote recovery and maintenance of riparian/alluvial habitat. Design spring developments in order to maintain water flow in riparian channels, while, at the same time, providing livestock water outside of the channel and spring source area, if possible. 

segment either not achieving, or not making progress toward achieving, PFC. 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL A: Increase public education and appreciation of the objects identified in the Proclamation by creating ovisitors and other users to learn about the Monument landscape and about its multiple-uses, as well as about the n

and stewardship. GOAL B: Ensure long-term public benefits from research, education, and cultural heritage while, at the same tiuses and considering the effects on the local economy.

OBJECTIVES: Develop and implement a comprehensive Interpretation and Education Plan for the Monument. Make available significant resources anand education, including those identified within the Proclamation (e.g., the entire cultural landscape, the geology of McElmo Dome, the 

wildlife, and the unique herpetological resources). 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None.  Develop a comprehensive Interpretation and Education Plan for the Monument within three years of si

partnership with Native American tribes, agencies, local governments, organizations, and the public. A

“Public Use D” (Developed) in this plan. 

Organize public involvement programs. 

Organize and conduct ongoing education programs for the public, school groups, vocational archaeoloproponents, permittees, contractors, and others about cultural resource visitor ethics; and encourage thincidents of vandalism in the Monument. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

81 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Initiate actions to interpret Monument resources and values and provide environmental education to visitors on important topics (e.g., visitor safety and resource protection). 

Education and interpretation objectives are addressed by management actions throughout other resourc

Cultural Resource section tasks tied to education and interpretation pertaining to cultural resources, incmuseum” concept, sites allocated for public use [Developed and Undeveloped], and research, and educeducation and interpretation pertaining to heritage tourism and visitor use see Appendix F). 

 Encourage archaeological research that achieves multiple management objectives in addition to contrib

knowledge; and require researchers to share information with the public through lectures, site tours, et

 Maintain and manage the McElmo RNA as a herpetological research area, a resource for educational i

classroom. 

Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Develop and protect suitable cultural resource properties for public enjoyment through such practices as interpretive signing, stabilization, and so forth. Maintain developed recreation sites at Lowry for interpretation information opportunities. 

Evaluate applications for all Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) to visit sites allocated to Public Use D 

Undeveloped) based on the table below. Give priority to SRP applicants for education and tribal visits

this table is to address backcountry organized activities. 

Organized Group Public Use D (Developed) Public Use 

Commercial groups > 15 in size Require SRP. NoCommercial groups < 15 in size Require SRP. Allowed, if a

(Assistance A

Require SRP

Manager’s d

criter

Private group, No payments, >15 Allow without SRP. Allow wit

discretion 

M

Private group, No payments, <15 Allow without SRP. Allow with

encourage 

coordinati

Organizations with educational purpose 

related to public lands mgmt. (schools) 

Allow without SRP. Allow wit

discretion 

M

*Criteria: Require groups planning archaeological-oriented visits to obtain a SRP and to show th
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

82 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

adequate training in archaeological interpretation, cultural resource law, site etiquette, and c

sensitivity. 

Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Manage cultural resources for protection, preservation, investigation, and public use (i.e., development and interpretation), where appropriate. Manage the AHC as a focal point for the cultural program for public lands. 

Allocate all cultural resources to Uses A-D (Public Use D [Developed] and Public Use D [Undevelope

purposes of the DRMP/DEIS, the following distinction is made for Public Use D: sites allocated to Puidentified as: 1) “Public Use (Developed)” sites that the public is directed to, that are promoted and ha

and 2) “Public Use D (Undeveloped)” sites that the public is not directed to, and are not promoted or hvisited in the backcountry context. Consider both Public Use D (Developed) and Public Use D (Undevthe “outdoor museum” concept. 

Identify in the Interpretation Plan the types of sites that will meet education goals. Specific sites will bMonument Archaeologist, based on criteria outlined in Appendix F. 

 Require all permittees to provide experienced and 

knowledgeable supervision for groups, and require them to educate participants about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry site visitor etiquette, and stewardship. 

Permits for educational visits to sites, as well as permits to visit sites ancillary to other permitted uses, would encourage permittee to provide experienced and knowledgeable supervision for groups. Encourage permittees to provide education about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry site visitor etiquette, and stewardship. 

SamIII. 

Develop new sites and areas for controlled visitation at various levels of interpretation. 

Encourage cooperative efforts between BLM and NPS staff, including: 

 interpretation and education projects; 

 visitor services; 

 research; and 

 heritage tourism. 

Install interpretive signing at Lowry. Provide appropriate signs at Monument 

Minimize the presence of on-the-ground interpretive media in most cases. Use low-profile visible medprovide for resource protection. Focus on highly visible media at the staging areas (e.g., parking areascenter). Provide visible interpretive media designed to draw attention to interpreted resources, where a
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

83 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

boundaries and post other relevant information, as needed. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL: Develop and maintain the least amount of facilities and infrastructure necessary to provide for public sa

meeting resource management objectives.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Coordinate the development and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure, when appropriate, with adjacent landowners (i.e., Hov

Monument, the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, the Navajo Nation, the Utah BLM Monticello Field Office, and private landowners

2. Ensure that all major BLM facilities are located outside the Monument to protect Monument resources and provide economic oppo

communities. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Allow local communities to provide for facility-dependent settings and opportunities. The AHC would serve as the headquarters a

station for the Monument. 

2. Maintain and/or rehabilitate, as appropriate, developed BLM camping facilities consistent with Monument purposes. 

3. Permit maintenance of existing facilities, subject to compliance with current policies and practices, provided that Monument resou

4. Consider applications for new facilities, if they would serve to protect and/or enhance Monument resources. 

5. Livestock, Watershed, and Wildlife Developments: Maintenance of existing projects would occur in the same general manner and 

in the past. 

6. Livestock, Watershed, and Wildlife Developments: Implement non-structural alternatives whenever possible, in lieu of structural p

7. Coordinate new facility developments and existing facility improvements with the AHC to optimally meet the needs and desires of 

recreating public interested in such facilities. Initial developments would probably involve Sand/East Rock Canyons and Painted H

include signs, register boxes, trails, and parking. 

8. Livestock, Watershed, and Wildlife Developments: Construct new projects only where detailed NEPA assessment demonstrates th

adverse impact on Monument resources protected by the Proclamation. 

 Work with Hovenweep National Monument to determine the feasibility of developing a western visito

existing NPS visitor center in Utah. 

 Develop visitor contact stations, as determined necessary, outside the boundary of the Monument, and 

National Monument, to mitigate resource impacts and to ensure public safety at high-use areas. 

 Implement facility and infrastructure BMPs, as determined appropriate.  Work with landowners to determine the need for fencing and/or signage along private/public land bou Develop a cost-sharing program with private landowners, within and adjacent to the Monument, to ins

and/or signage along private/public land boundaries. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

84 

SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL: Allow for the harvesting of forestry products (i.e., fuelwood, posts, and Christmas trees), management o

and collection of other resources, while, at the same time, protecting the objects (i.e., cultural, biological, and geo

identified in the Proclamation.

OBJECTIVES: Manage the harvesting of forestry products and all woodland stands in order to help sustain a biologically diverse landscape that supporand native plant and animal species. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. 

Authorize no forest product removal. 

Allow personal fuelwood harvesting, post cutting, and Christmas tree cutting by permit only within designated forestry product areas. Use only dead-and-down wood for fuelwood harvesting. Authorize no commercial fuelwood cutting. 

Allow personal fuelwood harvesting, post cutting, and Christmas tree cutting by permit in all areas, except in WSAs and the McElmo RNA. Use both dead-anddown wood and live trees for fuelwood harvesting. Authorize, by permit, commercial fuelwood cutting in these areas. 

Perproby pfuedealive harvIII cin afue

Permit no commercial forest product sales. Identify vegetative use areas for private fuelwood and vegetative use permits. Limit these areas to previously chained areas in order to remove dead-and-down wood to reduce fuel load and fire hazards. Vegetative uses are an integral part of traditional tribal subsistence activities. Continue to monitor existing dispersed fuelwood sale areas, and assess any concentration or increase in activity the same as for a new wood sales area. Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Manage lands suitable for timber and woodland production in order to enhance recreational opportunities and to maintain healthy stand conditions. 

 Designate as “open” all cutting areas following the completion 

of a Class III cultural resource inventory, and a determination by the Monument Manager that the use (i.e., fuelwood harvesting, post cutting, or Christmas tree cutting) would not create any new impacts that would interfere with the proper care and/or management of the objects (i.e., cultural, biological, and geological resources). Designate additional areas to meet the overall vegetation management objectives, but only within areas that are already disturbed and/or areas that are within 300 feet of a designated road. Designate, under a permit system, all cutting areas, and provide maps to ensure compliance. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

85 

SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Allow removal of forest products only when compatible with cultural, wildlife, and/or recreation values, or when done to improve safety. Emphasis Area H: Public Land Disposal. - Allow timber to be harvested and forest products to be used. Emphasis Area L: ACECs. - Manage lands suitable for timber and woodland production in order to enhance ACEC values and to maintain healthy stands. Access into public use wood sale areas may be restricted. 

 Restrictions discussed in the transportation section of this document w

product areas (i.e., motorized and mechanized vehicle travel is limited cross-country travel is authorized). However, because permits controcollection activities and are issued to further overall management objauthorize access on administrative roads. Delineate these areas/proviits issuance. 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL A: Use land tenure adjustments in order to protect objects identified in the Proclamation, to improve mareduce administration costs. OBJECTIVES: 1. Identify private land within and/or adjacent to the Monument boundary for possible acquisition from willing sellers, if the acquisiti

achieving cultural and/or natural resource goals and objectives. 

2. Work with landowners in order to resolve encroachment issues. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

86 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL B: Develop ROW grants in order to accommodate facilities supporting multiple-use activities while, at t

protecting objects identified in the Proclamation.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Manage commercial filming in order to assist in achieving resource protection goals and objectives. 2. Manage competitive and special events in order to assist in achieving resource protection goals and objectives. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: Limit, generally, ROWs for development of resources to a 16-foot running surface.  Manage all properties acquired at the time of the Final RMP/Final EIS ROD signing and in the future 

of the Monument. 

Pursue acquisition of private in-holdings within the ACEC boundary by means of exchange. Consider the various criteria for land ownership adjustments in land reports and in environmental assessments prepared for specific adjustment proposals. Evaluate major factors, including: threatened and endangered and sensitive species habitat; wetland and riparian areas; fisheries; nesting and breeding habitat for critical wildlife; key big game habitats (seasonal); developed recreation sites and recreation access sites; municipal watersheds; energy sites and areas with the potential for minerals; sites that are eligible for inclusion on the NRHP; legal land 

Work with willing sellers to acquire private in-holdings and edge-holdings by means of acquisition, exchange of BLM lands targeted for disposal outside of the Monument, donation, or conservation easement to be held by non-BLM entities. Acquire both surface and subsurface rights to avoid the creation of split estates, of private parcels that meet one or more of the following criteria:  adjoin, or are contained 

within, the Monument boundary; 

 protect cultural and/or 

natural resources; 

 enhance recreation 

experiences and benefits; 

 provide additional access 

to public land; 

 contain no, or few, 

improvements (i.e., houses, buildings, or facilities), unless they 

Work with willing sellers to acquire private in-holdings and edge-holacquisition, exchange of other BLM lands targeted for disposal outsiddonation, or conservation easement. Acquire private parcels that meet one or more of the following criteri adjoin, or are contained within, the Monument boundary; 

 protect cultural and/or natural resources; 

 enhance recreation experiences and benefits; 

 provide additional access to public land; 

 contain no, or few, improvements (i.e., houses, buildings, or faci

utilized to further Monument management; or 

 require little or no reclamation. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

87 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

surveys, wilderness, and areas being studied for designation as wilderness; and other statutorily authorized sites. Consider land or easement acquisitions and land exchanges that would enhance the values of the Monument. 

can be used to further Monument management, or require little or no reclamation 

 Authorize only one access road to private parcels, unless public safety or local ordinances warrant add

width would be commensurate with the development needs of the individual private parcel. Work witcoordinate development of access roads across public lands to prevent proliferation of roads. 

 Develop a boundary management plan to prioritize areas for survey and boundary marking. Include ar

trespass resolution, and areas where trespass is resulting in resource impacts in the criteria used to prio

in the plan a schedule and budget for completing this work. 

 Pursue cost-share agreements with willing private landowners, within and adjacent to the Monument, t

Monument boundary. 

 Work with private landowners to resolve encroachment issues. Resolve historic encroachment issues 

including by establishing ROWs, by issuing permits, and by treating as trespass. Manage all new encrestablishment of the Monument, through law enforcement requiring removal and rehabilitation. 

 Prohibit commercial filming, except for educational purposes relevant to the objectives of the Monum

Monument Manager. 

 Prohibit nonrecreational competitive and special events, except for educational purposes relevant to th

Monument, as determined by the Monument Manager. Allow private special events, at the discretion 

Manager. 

Use land tenure adjustments to ensure the accessibility of public lands in areas where access is needed and cannot otherwise be obtained. 

Within one year of signing of the ROD, develop and prioritize a list of easements needed to facilitate administrative access to public lands. Develop easements in partnership with affected landowners. 

Develop and prioritize a list of easements needed to facilitate both administrative and public access to public lands. Develop easements in partnership with affected landowners. Acquire easements for both administrative and public access to public lands. 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

88 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Acquire easements for both administrative and public access to public lands. Subject new ROWs to all surface use restrictions (including NGD/NSO, TL, and protective considerat

resources). 

Permit no new ROWs in RMZ 4 (Squaw and Cross Canyons), except for access to private land. 

Permit new ROWs in RMZ 4 (Squaw and Cross Canyons) only to access private land or in cases of extreme need, and where other alternatives are not available. 

Sam

Process no new ROWs or ancillary facilities, except for ROWs pursuant to existing policies and practices and/or those necessary for access to private or state in-holdings. Allow major utility corridors, with protective stipulations in order to prevent or limit impacts to resource management. Allow other land actions when there is a clear and significant public need, when they would result in minimal adverse impacts, and/or when they would benefit other resource management. 

Prohibit major utility ROW corridors. 

Allow major utility ROW corridors only within or adjacent to the existing ROW for the 230-kilovolt (kV) aerial power line presently traversing the southwest corner of the Monument. 

Allow major utility corridors only with protective stipulations to prevent or limit impacts to resource management. Allow other land actions when there is a clear and significant public need, when they would result in minimal adverse impacts, or when they would benefit other resource management. 

Sam

 Prohibit the construction of 

new renewable energy projects (e.g., wind and solar). 

Prepare a Monument-wide feasibility study prior to the construction of any new renewable energy projects (e.g., wind and solar) to determine the most appropriate location(s) for them. 

Sam

 Prohibit the construction of 

new communication sites. 

Prepare a Monument-wide feasibility study prior to the construction o

sites to determine the most appropriate location(s) for them. 

Use existing ROWs for oil and gas development for new operations as much as possible in order to avoid impacts that interfere with the proper care of Monument resources. Reclaim ROWs not needed for other resource needs. 

Apply the following considerations to the management of all ROWs: C-1: Use existing ROWs when constructing new facilities (including, but not limited to, communicatioenergy projects), when possible. C-2: Align ROWs for new linear facilities (including, but not limited to, pipelines, utility lines, and de

existing or newly designated roads, when possible. C-3: Bury all new and reconstructed utility lines and pipelines, unless:  visual resource objectives can be met without burying; 

 geologic conditions make burying infeasible; 

 burying would potentially impact cultural resources; and/or 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

89 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

 burying would produce more extensive long-term surface disturbance. 

C-4: All reconstructed and future powerlines must meet non-electrocution standards for raptors. Take problems with existing powerlines occur. C-5: Construct all powerlines using non-reflective wire. Construct steel towers using matte finish galvreflective surfaces. Construct no powerlines along visual highpoints (e.g., ridgelines), unless no other C-6: Allow no strobe lights at any communication site if other acceptable methods are available to me

requirements. 

C-7: Prepare communication site plans for all existing sites before any changes in use occur. Allow no new sites. 

C-7: Prepare communication site plans for all existing or new sites, as determined necessary. Require communication service providers to share infrastructure (e.g., towers) and facilities. 

C-7: Prepare communication site plans for all existing or new sites, as determined necessary. Encourage communication service providers to share existing facilities and infrastructure (e.g., towers) using existing ROWs, to limit the proliferation of communication sites. 

Sam

Make available, in general, public land for utility and transportation corridor development. Encourage applicants to locate new facilities within existing corridors to the greatest extent possible. Permit deviations from existing corridors based on consideration of the types of, and needs for, the proposed facilities; conflicts with other resource values and uses, including potential values and uses; and the availability of alternative roads and/or mitigation measures. 

C-8: Require all new ROW facilities to meet visual resource objectives. 

Avoid blasting or cutting of canyon rims whenever a reasonable ROW routing alternative is available in the construction of access roads 

C-9: Prohibit blasting or cutting of canyon rims in the construction of access roads or other ROWs. 

C-9: Avoid blasting or cutting of canyon rims whenever a reasonable ROW routing alternative is available in the construction of access roads 

SamIII. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

90 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

or other ROWs. or other ROWs. Where temporary access is needed, (e.g., construction access, access to drill an exploratory or wildcat well), keep road development to an absolute minimum standard sufficient to meet the purpose. The ROW grant would contain stipulations providing for additional upgrading, as well as for reclamation and rehabilitation. 

C-10: Where temporary access is needed (e.g., construction access, or access to drill exploratory or wi

development to an absolute minimum standard sufficient to meet the purpose. The ROW grant would providing for additional upgrading, as well as for reclamation and rehabilitation. 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL: Ensure proper care and management of the objects protected under the Proclamation prior to authorizin

exploration, development, production, and/or reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, and CO2) in th

OBJECTIVES: 1. Determine if any of the 34,221 acres of unleased mineral estate in the Monument should be leased in order to promote conservation 

in any common reservoir now being produced under existing leases, or to protect against drainage. 

2. Identify stipulations for new leases in order to ensure that impacts are not created that interfere with the proper care and manageme

by the Proclamation. 

3. Identify stipulations and BMPs for exploration, development, production, and reclamation in order to ensure that impacts are not cr

the proper care and management of the objects protected by the Proclamation. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorization for activities on existing mineral leases would be governed by valid existing rights. 2. Implement standard lease terms (individual leases). 3. Allow no leasing in Cahone Canyon, Cross Canyon, and Squaw/Papoose Canyon WSAs. 4. Permit off-lease seismic activities only for the purpose of defining the limits of common reservoirs now being produced. With the exception of oil and gas leasing, withdraw Federal lands and interests in lands within the Monument from 

Any existing lease that terminates for failure to pay on or before the anniversary date the full amount ounder the regulations found in 43 CFR 3108, using the new lease stipulations (see below). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

91 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under public land laws, including, among others, the mineral leasing and mining laws. Issue new leases only for the purpose of promoting the conservation of oil and gas resources in any common reservoir now being produced under existing leases, or to protect against drainage. “Therefore, the parties further acknowledge and agree that decisions pertaining to future oil and gas leasing within the Monument shall be deferred by the BLM until completion of the RMP EIS. The parties further acknowledge and agree that, as needed to make RMP leasing decisions, and subject to the best information then available, the RMP EIS shall present the known bounds of common reservoirs that produced under existing leases on the date of the Proclamation, and shall analyze alternative measures to protect against drainage” (2002 Stipulated Settlement Agreement, San Juan Citizens Alliance, et al. 

Issue new fluid mineral leases in areas presently not under lease or in areas currently leased but that expire, for all Federally owned minerals only for the purpose of protecting against drainage, as defined and required in accordance with 43 CFR 3162.2-2 to 3162.2-15. Due to the majority of existing leases (i.e., 307 or 92 percent) being located within units held by production, the potential for existing leases to expire is low. Any new lease issued under this alternative would include the new lease stipulations outlined below. Based on the analysis presented in the Reasonable, Foreseeable Development (RFD), 880 acres of new fluid mineral leasing is estimated as necessary to protect against drainage over the next 20 years in areas currently not under lease. This estimate was derived using the 

Issue new fluid mineral leases for all Federally owned minerals within the McElmo Dome Unit boundary. Issuance of any new fluid mineral lease would be for the purpose of promoting the conservation of oil and gas resources in any common reservoir now being produced under existing leases, and/or to protect against drainage as defined and required under 43 CFR 3162.2-2 to 3162.2-15. Under this alternative, the McElmo Dome Unit represents the administratively defined lateral extent of a common reservoir now being produced. All land within this boundary would be available for leasing, except for those areas unavailable to leasing (WSAs). Because the Leadville and Paradox Formations extend outside the McElmo Dome Unit boundary, new information 

Issue new fluid mineral leases for all Federally owned minerals. Issuance of any new fluid mineral lease would be for the purpose of promoting the conservation of oil and gas resources in any common reservoir now being produced under existing leases, and/or to protect against drainage as defined and required under 43 CFR 3162.2-2 to 3162.2-15. Based on the geologic definition of “common reservoir” presented in the RFD, the entire Leadville Formation underlying the Monument is a “common reservoir.” As a result, all land would be available for leasing with no additional proof required from a prospective operator that a “common reservoir” exists. The Honaker Trail Formation is another potential source of fluid mineral supply. This alternative assumes that new fluid mineral leases are issued 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

92 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

v. Gale Norton, et al.). following assumptions: 

 that there would be 20 

new oil and gas wildcat or exploratory wells over the next 20 years; 

 that 11 (57 percent) of 

the 20 new oil and gas wells would experience drainage over the next 20 years; 

 that each of these 11 

wells would require a new fluid mineral lease of 80 acres to protect against drainage; and 

 that the average spacing 

for each of the 11 wells would be 160 acres. 

The area that could be released (assuming they expire) to protect against drainage is 143,224 acres.a However, as 

noted, 92 percent of existing leases are located within units held by production. As a result, the potential for these leases to expire is low. Therefore, the single estimate of 880 acres of new fluid mineral leasing occurring to protect against drainage is more probable under this alternative. All newly acquired lands that are obtained without mineral 

may be obtained on the extent of fluid mineral reservoirs. Land outside of the administratively defined lateral extent of the common reservoir (i.e., McElmo Dome Unit) would be available for leasing if the prospective operator provides conclusive, scientific evidence (i.e., geologic and reservoir engineering data) that the area is also part of a common reservoir being produced under existing leases, or that it is necessary to protect against drainage. This evidence could apply to either the Leadville or Paradox Formation, both of which are currently producing within the Monument. The Honaker Trail Formation is another potential source of fluid mineral supply. This alternative assumes that new fluid mineral leases are issued for all geologic formations (i.e., Leadville, Paradox, and Honaker), not just one. 

for all geologic formations (i.e., Leadville, Paradox, and Honaker), not just one. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

93 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

leases would become part of the 880 acres considered for drainage only. 

 Of the 24,462 acres of 

Federal minerals available for leasing, it is estimated that only 880 acres would be leased to protect against drainage. Any new lease issued under this alternative would include the new lease stipulations. 

3,021 acresb of Federal 

minerals would be available for leasing in the McElmo Dome Unit under this alternative, while 2,557 acres of Federal minerals would be unavailable (WSAs). Any new lease issued under this alternative would include the new lease stipulations. 

24,462 acresc of Federal 

minerals would be available for leasing under this alternative, while 9,762 acres of Federal minerals would be unavailable for leasing (WSAs). Any new lease issued under this alternative would include the new lease stipulations. 

Sam

 Require development of all new leases to incorporate a Geographic Area Development Plan (GADP). Stipulations from the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (1991) are as follows: NSO Stipulations. - (Stip. Code: SJ-1) NSO stipulations appended to leases issued within them for the protection of scenic, natural, and cultural values and according to the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (1985); (Stip. Code SJ-2) NSO stipulations appended to leases issued for the 

 Carry forward all 

existing stipulations, with the following modifications or with new stipulations applicable to new leases only: 

Provide NSO stipulations for:  cultural resources, 

including communities, sites, and isolated finds; 

 areas with slopes greater 

than 30 percent and/or soil with high erosion potential; 

 southwestern willow 

flycatcher habitat (0.25-mile buffer), as defined in the Final Recovery 

Carry forward all existing stipulations, with the following modifications or with new stipulations applicable to new leases only: Provide NSO stipulations for:  cultural resources, 

including communities and sites; 

 areas with slopes greater 

than 30 percent and/or soil with high erosion potential; 

 occupied and potential 

habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant 

Carry forward all existing stipulations, with the following modifications or with new stipulations applicable to new leases only: Provide NSO stipulations for:  areas with slopes greater 

than 30 percent and/or soil with high erosion potential; 

 occupied and potential 

habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant species; 

 riparian/wetland habitat 

(3,217 acres); and 

Carstipfollwith appProfor 

 

 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

94 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

protection of archaeological values according to the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (1985); and (Stip. Code: SJ-4) Bridge Canyon (McElmo) RNA: Protection of habitat for rare species of flora and fauna. Provide Timing Limitations stipulations for big game species (including mule deer, American elk, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep) (Stip. Code: CO-9). Note: Crucial winter habitat includes severe big game winter range and/or other definable winter ranges, as mapped by the CDOW. Provide TL stipulations for 

Big Game Crucial Winter Habitat – from December 1 to April 30. Exception for big game crucial winter habitat: Under mild conditions, the last 60 

Plan; 

 potholes, seasonal pools, 

stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat (with 150 foot buffer); 

 occupied and potential 

habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant species; 

 riparian/wetland habitat 

(5,312 acres); and 

 areas with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Provide Timing Limitations stipulations for:  Mexican spotted owl nest 

sites (documented occupied or historic) - from March 15 to September 1; 

 active bald eagle or 

golden eagle nests - from March 1 to July 15;

 known bald eagle winter 

roost or winter concentration areas - from November 16 to April 15; and

 potholes, seasonal pools, 

stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to 

species; 

 riparian/wetland habitat 

(5,312 acres); 

 Cannonball and Sand 

Canyon Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs); and 

 areas with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Provide Timing Limitations stipulations for: 

 Mexican spotted owl nest 

sites (documented occupied or historic) - from March 15 to September 1;

 active bald eagle or 

golden eagle nests - from March 1 to July 15;

 known bald eagle winter 

roost or winter concentration areas - from November 16 to April 15; 

 SWWF habitat (0.25-

mile buffer), as defined in the Final Recovery Plan – from April 15 to 

 areas with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Site Specific Relocation (SSR)/Controlled Surface Use (CSU). -  Cannonball and Sand 

Canyon PCAs. 

Provide Timing Limitations stipulations for:  Mexican spotted owl nest 

sites (documented occupied or historic) - from March 15 to September 1;

 active bald eagle or 

golden eagle nests - from March 1 to July 15; and

 known bald eagle winter 

roost or winter concentration areas - from November 16 to April 15.

 

 

 

Prostip 

 

 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

95 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

days of the seasonal limitation period may be suspended. Severity of the winter would be determined on the basis of snow depth, snow crusting, daily mean temperatures, and whether or not animals were concentrated on the crucial winter range during the winter months. This limitation may not apply to work requiring a Sundry Notice pending environmental analysis of any operational or production aspects. Controlled Surface Use (CSU) Stipulations. - (Stip. Code: CO-27) Approve an engineering/reclamation plan, as approved by the Monument Manager, prior to surface disturbance on slopes of, or greater than, 40 percent. Such plans must demonstrate how:  site productivity will be 

restored; 

 surface runoff will be 

adequately controlled; 

 offsite areas will be 

protected from accelerated erosion, such as rilling, gullying, 

support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season - from April 1 through July 31 (with 300 foot buffer). 

Provide Lease Notices that:  alert lessees that no 

APDs will be granted where physical cultural remains are dense, continuous, and/or chronologically related and/or determined to be communities, throughout the survey area (constant-no breaks); 

 alert lessees to 

NGD/NSO for southwestern willow flycatcher habitat (0.25-mile buffer), as defined in the Final Recovery Plan; 

 alert lessees to TL for 

potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to 

July 15; and 

 potholes, seasonal pools, 

stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season - From April 1 through July 31 (with 150 foot buffer). 

Provide Lease Notices that:  alert lessees that no 

APDs will be granted where physical cultural remains are dense, continuous, and/or chronologically related and/or determined to be communities, throughout the survey area (constant-no breaks); 

 alert lessees of TL for 

potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, and/or other areas of 

surface water known to support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season, which is from April 1 through July 31 (with 150 foot buffer); and 

 alert lessees to potential 

Provide Lease Notices that:  alert lessees that no 

APDs will be granted where physical cultural remains are dense, continuous, and/or chronologically related and/or determined to be communities, throughout the survey area (constant-no breaks); and 

 alert lessees to potential 

habitat for a threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant or animal species. 

Pro 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

96 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

piping, and mass wasting; 

 surface-disturbing 

activities will not be conducted during extended wet periods; and 

 construction will not be 

allowed when soil is frozen. 

(Stip. Code: CO-28) Restrict activities associated with oil and gas exploration and development, including roads, transmission lines, storage facilities, to an area beyond the riparian vegetation zone for the protection of perennial water impoundments and streams, and/or riparian/wetland vegetation zones. Exceptions: This stipulation may be excepted subject to an on-site impact analysis with consideration given to degree of slope, soil, importance to the amount and type of wildlife and fish use, water quality, and other related resource values This stipulation would not be applied where the Monument 

support native amphibian breeding habitat during the breeding season, which is from April 1 through July 31 (with 300 foot buffer); and 

 alert lessees to potential 

habitat for a threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant or animal species.

habitat for a threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant or animal species. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

97 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Manager determines that relocation of up to 200 meters can be applied to protect the riparian system during well sighting.  Consider all new lease offerings as undertakings, under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

To manage and protect the nationally significant cultural landscape encompassed by the Monument, suofferings (lands open to development) within the Monument to existing and new stipulations to protec

resources, and objects of the Monument that are protected under the Proclamation. Use current, existing archaeological information to determine if specific stipulations in addition to NSprotection of cultural resources within an area proposed for leasing. Allow stipulations beyond the sta

and gas development in a NSO form for areas where significant surface values warrant complete avoid

 Allow no direct impacts to 

cultural resource communities, sites, or isolated finds resulting from any managed activity. Allow activities, as determined through interdisciplinary review (other resources), subject to all surface restrictions and stipulations, in areas where cultural resource communities, sites, and/or isolated finds would not be impacted. Accomplish site protection through monitoring, fencing construction limits, and sitespecific cultural resources protection BMPs (as COAs 

Allow no direct impacts to cultural resource communities or sites resulting from any managed activity. Allow activities, as determined through interdisciplinary review (other resources), subject to all surface restrictions and stipulations, in areas where cultural resource communities or sites will not be impacted. Accomplish site protection through monitoring, fencing construction limits, and site-specific cultural resources protection BMPs (as COAs for fluid mineral leases). 

SamIV. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

98 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

for fluid mineral leases). 

Apply COAs to operational approvals (Applications for Permits to Drill and Sundry Notices), as determined necessary by the Monument Manager, in order to protect other resources and values within the terms, conditions, and stipulations of the lease contract. A list of the most common COAs is found in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP. 

Apply COAs to operational approvals (Applications for Permits to Drill and Sundry Notices), as determMonument Manager, to protect other resources and values within the terms, conditions, and stipulationnumber of BMPs may be applied as COAs (see Appendix E). 

Use the current APD review process, including a 30-day public review of the proposed decision identified in an EA or EIS. 

Require the implementation of fluid minerals and energy resource BMPs. 

Require permits for all seismic operations. 

Complete an EA or EIS, as necessary, prior to approving a seismic operation. 

Complete an EA or EIS, as necessary, prior to approving a seismic operation, unless the operation, is determined to be a “casual use” as defined in 43 CFR 3150.0-5(b). 

SamIII. 

Permit off-lease seismic activities only for the purpose of defining the limits of 

Allow off-lease seismic activities only for the purpose of defining the limits of common reservoirs now 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

99 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

common reservoirs now being produced.  Require an inventory of all helicopter landing zones, staging areas, parking areas for vibroseis buggies

surface disturbance for cultural resources. 

 Prohibit vehicle traffic along receiver lines. Require that a permitted or agency archaeologist monitor all phases of seismic operations in order to protect sites from damage via access and collection in sensitive areas. 

Require that a minimum of one permitted or agency archaeologist monitor all phases of geophysical operations. 

Require that a permitted or agency archaeologist monitor all phases of geophysical operations, as determined necessary on a case-by-case basis. 

SamIII. 

 Require that all source lines, receiver lines (if vehicles are driven on the receiver lines), or other tempo

reclaimed to protect cultural resources. Conduct reclamation of these roads using methods appropriate to the area, including, but not limited tobarriers, such as boulders or dead-and-down wood; and ripping, reseeding, and/or signing. 

 Limit geophysical operations using vibroseis to a distance of at 

least 500 feet from any cultural resource site (including rock art). 

Limit geophysical operations using vibroseis to a distance from any cultural resource site (including rock art), as determined appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 

SamIII. 

 Include, for cultural resource inventory for geophysical explorations not using vibroseis, a minimum o

each shot point; a minimum of a 300-foot radius around each shot point located near a rim or rock/clif

swath (i.e., 50 feet on either side of centerline) on all source lines/points and receiver lines (if vehicles 

receiver lines), and access roads; and a 500-foot-wide swath on all source lines/points that are located 

rock/cliff face or for geophysical operations using vibroseis. 

Include inventories and mitigative measures in all geophysical permits in order to avoid new impacts that interfere with the proper care and management of the objects protected by the Proclamation. 

Limit geophysical operations to only BLM-authorized roads. 

Permit geophysical operations on BLMauthorized roads, or userdeveloped roads, as authorized on a case-by-case basis. 

Allow geophysical operations travel throughout the Monument, as authorized on a case-by-case basis. 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

100 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

 Require that geophysical operations avoid all biological soil 

crust communities. 

Require that geophysical operations minimize disturbance of known biological crust communities. 

SamIII. 

 Require that all vehicles 

associated with geophysical operations cross only on BLM-authorized roads if water is visible in the channel at washes, alluvial valleys, and perennial water features, and/or where riparian vegetation is present. 

Require that all vehicles associated with geophysical operations cross only on BLM-authorized roads at perennial water features, and/or where riparian vegetation is present. 

Require that all vehicles associated with geophysical operations cross only at locations authorized following field-based exemption if water is visible in the channel at washes, alluvial valleys, and perennial water features, and/or where riparian vegetation is present. 

Sam

Limit seismic operationrelated work by bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment to maintenance and/or repair of existing roads and trails. 

Prohibit seismic operationrelated work by bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment. 

Limit seismic operationrelated work by bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment to maintenance and/or repair of legally designated roads. 

Allow use of seismic operation-related work by bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment, as necessary to mitigate impacts to objects identified in the Proclamation. 

Sam

Keep geophysical operations that use explosives at least 500 feet from standing walls; allow a maximum of 20-40 pound charges in order to minimize impacts from concussion and vibration. 

Prohibit the use of explosives in geophysical operations. 

Limit geophysical operations using explosives to at least 500 feet from cultural resource sites (including rock art) and to a maximum of 20-40 pound charges to avoid or minimize impacts. 

Limit geophysical operations using explosives to a distance from cultural resource sites (including rock art) determined to be appropriate to avoid impacts or minimize impacts, based on depth and size of charge for shot hole testing. 

Sam

aTotal acres of unleased Federal minerals in the Monument. bTotal acres of unleased Federal minerals within the portion of the McElmo Dome Unit inside the Monument. This calculation subtrac

unleased Federal minerals within existing WSAs that are located in the portion of the McElmo Dome Unit inside the Monument. 

cTotal acres of unleased Federal minerals within existing WSAs that are located in the portion of the McElmo Done Unit inside the Mo
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

101 

MINERALS 

FLUID MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

SOLID MINERALS 

GOAL: Honor valid existing rights for solid minerals while, at the same time, mitigating any impacts from new 

care and management of objects protected under the Proclamation.

OBJECTIVES: Enforce mineral resource withdrawal as specifically stated in the Proclamation. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. With the exception of oil and gas leasing, withdraw all Federal lands and interests in lands within the Monument from all forms of 

sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public land laws, including, among others, the mineral leasing and mining laws. 

2. As to hardrock minerals, locate no new mining claims and undertake no new prospecting or exploration activities designed to ident

minerals or to establish the discovery of valuable mineral deposits. Approve no operating plans for mining operations, unless the D

has made a final determination regarding the validity of the mining claims and mill sites covered by the plan. 

3. With the exception of oil and gas leases, issue no new Federal mineral leases within the Monument. Authorization for activities on 

would be governed by valid existing rights. 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL A: Manage livestock grazing in order to be consistent with Public Land Health Standards and Guideline

Grazing Management in Colorado; maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, multiple-use relationships, and 

resources. 

OBJECTIVES: 1. Develop a rangeland monitoring strategy and plan in order to assess rangeland health conditions on a regular basis and a process to 

management revisions based on monitoring results. 

2. Manage livestock grazing in order to achieve Land Health Standards for upland and riparian/wetland plant communities by adjustin

intensity, and implementing rangeland improvement projects. 

3. Manage livestock grazing in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of rangeland ecosystems and to promote the resistance and 

plants and soil to the effects of recurring drought. 

4. Manage livestock grazing in order to meet vegetation, recreation, fish and wildlife, water quality, and cultural resource objectives a

high-quality resources from negative impacts of grazing and associated ground-disturbing activities. 

GOAL B: Develop and encourage public and stakeholder understanding of livestock grazing management withiOBJECTIVES: Improve communication and understanding of range standards and expectations between BLM, grazing permittees, and the general pubMANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue to authorize enforcement actions against trespassers and/or other violators. 2. Comply with Instruction Memorandum CO-2002-29: Interim Historic Preservation Guidelines and Procedures for Evaluating the E
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

102 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

Management Activities on Historic Properties (BLM 2002). Analyze existing conditions and identify additional fieldwork during pdocumentation for issuance of permits. 

Permit 6,437 active AUMs (calculated capacity, based on inventory information including the Rangeland Health Assessment, PFC from riparian area assessments, rangeland trend, vegetation production studies, and water quality data). 

Permit 8,368 active AUMs. Same as Alternative I. Sam

Administer twenty-three (23) allotments. Remove five allotments from availability: the East and West Sand Canyon, Rock Creek, Goodman Gulch, and Trail Canyon allotments. 

Administer twenty-eight (28) allotments. 

SamIII. 

Allow no grazing on the small number of capable acres outside current allotment boundaries. Con

numoutbou

Current stocking (adjustments taken since implementing the AUMs in the San Juan/San Miguel Plan) include 8,492 active AUMs. There are currently 28 grazing allotments, covering 159,676 acres, within the ACEC. Fifteen of these allotments, with 141,000 acres, have been identified for intensive management in the DRMP/DEIS. Three allotments, containing 2,247 acres, are presently unallotted. Grazing preference for the 28 allotments presently amounts to 10,305 AUMs. While most livestock use adjustments will occur in the “I” allotments, use adjustments are permitted for allotments in “C” and “M” categories. Continue to govern grazing activities through applicable laws and regulations other than the Proclamation. 

Suspend active preference of 3,706 AUMs. Identify these suspended active preference AUMs in all affected grazing permits. 

Suspend active use of 1,655 AUMs. Identify these suspended active preference AUMs in all affected grazing permits. 

Suspend active use of 1,692 AUMs. Identify these suspended active preference AUMs in all affected grazing permits. 

Sam

Limit grazing use during any portion of the critical period to no more than 30 percent of 

Limit, as a guideline, allowable utilization levels to no more than 30 percent of upland shrub and ripar

year’s growth). Monitor woody species to ensure multiple age classes are represented, ensuring recruiLimit grazing use during any portion of the critical period to no more than 30 percent of the active pre
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

103 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

the active preference and to no more than 50 percent utilization of key forage species’ current season growth. Require livestock operators to haul water to livestock in order to lessen impacts to riparian zones in specific problem areas. 

Establish minimum stubble height standards for herbaceous vegetation of 4 inches in spring-use pastur

and winter-use pastures, to be measured when livestock are removed, in riparian systems where perenn

(grasses and forbs) is important for achieving PFC and Land Health Standards. 

Rangeland management requires improving conditions on all sites to meet Rangeland Health Standards. 

Limit, as a guideline, allowable utilization level to no more than 35 percent of the current year’s production of desired cool-season and warm-season perennial grass species. 

Limit, as a guideline, allowable utilization level to no more than 50 percent of the current year’s production of desired cool-season and warm-season perennial grass species, where Rangeland Health Standards are being met. Implement, as a guideline, an allowable utilization level of 35 percent on a by-pasture basis where the Rangeland Health Standards for upland soil and healthy and productive plant and animal communities are not being met and progress is not being made toward meeting these standards. 

Limit, as a guideline, allowable utilization levels to no more than 50 percent of the current year’s production of desired perennial coolseason and warm-season grass species. 

Sam

Typical range improvements and the general procedures to be followed in implementing them are described in Appendix D. The extent, location, and timing of such actions would be based on the allotment-specific management objectives 

Typical range improvement BMPs are described in Appendix E. Additional considerations for planninAppendix F. These address those improvements appropriate for implementation in WSAs; those impr

physical protection of cultural resources; and those improvements to be applied to reduce conflicts betand recreation use. The extent, location, and timing of such actions would be based on the allotment-specific management through the grazing permit process, interdisciplinary development and review of proposed actions, con

and others, and BLM funding capability. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

104 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

adopted through the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) process, interdisciplinary development and review of proposed actions, contributions from operators and others, and BLM funding capability. Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Manage livestock under reduced intensity in order to utilize available forage and maintain plant vigor while, at the same time, not degrading recreation values. Do not attempt to maintain or improve forage composition and production through range vegetation treatments with the exception of prescribed fire, where appropriate. Use “rustic” range improvements near developed recreation areas. Manage livestock grazing for compatibility with recreation use. Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Reduce or control, when necessary, livestock grazing in order to protect cultural resources. Emphasis Area L: ACECs. - Manage livestock under low 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

105 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

to moderate intensity in order to use available forage and to maintain plant vigor while, at the same time, not degrading any present ACEC values. Leave unallotted tracts available for further consideration for authorized grazing, as provided in the BLM grazing regulations (43 CFR 4110 and 43 CFR 4130). However, certain tracts not currently authorized for grazing use would remain unallotted. 

Pursue establishing common reserve allotments, as they become available, to allow for periodic rest anallotments. Make one of the following determinations in the event a grazing permit is relinquished or cancelled: 1. Reissue a term grazing permit; 2. Close, either temporarily or permanently, the allotment to grazing, where any of the following exi

livestock grazing: 

 damage to cultural resources; 

 fragile soil/biological crusts essential for soil and water resource protection; 

 low forage production (less than 200 pounds/acre); 

 inadequate facilities to manage livestock grazing (i.e., fencing, water, or availability); an

 degraded riparian and/or upland conditions; or 

3. Create, temporarily or permanently, a reserve forage allotment. Permits for reserve forage allotme

specific grazing operators. Require grazing to meet the goals described for the area in the RMP an

AMP. Grant temporary, non-renewable use to Federal permit holders when there is a demonstratepermittee’s allotment. “Need” for rest would include, but not be limited to, the following reasonscondition of other allotments prior to prescribed fire or necessary fence construction; and during/aprojects, such as wildland fire, prescribed fire, drought, flood, insect damage, and/or disease. 

Conduct cultural resource inventory of livestock concentration areas, and assess livestock impacts for all unevaluated, eligible, or listed sites and mitigate impacts during the 10-year term of the permit. 

Conduct cultural resource inventories of livestock concentration areas; evaluate all previously unevalu

impacts for all unevaluated, eligible, or listed sites in livestock concentration areas; determine mitigati

identified impacts; and mitigate those impacts during the term of the grazing permit. 

 Fence streams and riparian areas where reduced livestock numbers or season of use adjustments do no

and Land Health Standards. 

 Work cooperatively with the CDOW to meet range conditions and forage needs for both wildlife and l

and/or wildlife adjustments, as needed. 

Establish a monitoring program that would determine whether or not the 

Involve permittees and interested members of the public in the ongoing monitoring program. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

106 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

goals and objectives of the RMP are being achieved by the management systems.  Allow no livestock 

supplemental feeding or temporary range improvement structures. 

Consider allowing livestock supplemental feeding and/or temporary range improvement structures on a case-by-case basis, where risk of damage to other resource values is low. 

AllsupConranon a whereso

 Implement protective measures, such as winter grazing only (December and January), while soil is fro

communities are identified. 

 Make adjustments annually in 

the form of rest for an entire growing season, in reduced livestock numbers, or in change in season of use if utilization or stubble height guidelines are not met based on livestock grazing. 

Make adjustments annually in the form of reduced livestock numbers or in change in season of use if utilization or stubble height guidelines are not met based on livestock grazing. 

Sam

Authorize grazing during the critical spring growth period (from March 1 to May 31) within a grazing unit for no more than one year in any three-year period. Accomplish this by implementing a rotational grazing system or by taking total non-use for two out of three years. 

Authorize grazing during the critical spring growth period (from Margrazing unit for no more than two years in any three-year period. Accimplementing a rotational grazing system or by taking total non-use e

Permit no spring use by domestic livestock in all allotments on native ranges during the critical period of early growth, unless a grazing system is implemented that provides critical period rest once every three years, or a spring use pasture is developed to absorb grazing use in meeting the rest requirements. (See Table 1 in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP/ROD for specific periods by allotment.) 

Allow no spring use where Land Health Standards are not being met. 

Implement more stringent spring deferment (two out of three years) or allow no spring use where Land Health Standards are not being met. 

ImpsprispriStanor wnot live
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

107 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

detecon

Base range improvements, such as fences, stock ponds, springs, and vegetation treatments (including burning, and their extent, location, and timing), on specific management objectives in AMPs. Implement all livestock use adjustments through documented mutual agreement or by decision. Revise existing AMPs, as necessary, and develop new AMPs, as necessary. Develop types of grazing systems to be implemented in cooperation with the livestock operator, based on consideration of the following factors: allotment-specific management actions (see Appendix D); resource characteristics, including vegetation potential and water availability; general management actions; operator’s needs; and implementation costs. Suggested Stock Rates – Management Actions  Allotment category “M” 

management status: 

Review existing grazing permits on a regular schedule and revise, as necessary, to address current con

in the context of achieving Land Health Standards and other resource management objectives. Make apermits based on utilization monitoring. Use revisions to grazing permits as the management vehicle to accomplish specific utilization goals, st

use, and proposed range improvements. Develop new grazing permits, as required, addressing the same management issues and objectives. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

108 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

- Existing preference 

– Base future adjustments on monitor data. 

 Allotment category “I” 

management status: - Estimate – Use 

existing preference unless amount varies by +20 percent of inventory data (allowable by livestock kind). If amount exceeds +20 percent, then use inventory data. Determine actual adjustments through monitoring data. 

 Allotment category “C” 

management status: - Estimate – Same as 

category “I,” except consider change where feasible to 100 percent 

Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management. - Manage suitable vegetation types for increased, sustained livestock production. Improve, as one goal, range condition and productivity on native rangeland. Use improved management systems, such as rest-rotation and deferred-rotation, if appropriate. Invest in range 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

109 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

improvements necessary to implement management systems. Develop AMPs where needed. Emphasize increasing forage, red meat, and animal fiber production, and improving forage composition and watershed conditions, contingent on meeting Public Land Health Standards. Initiate intensive Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management. - Manage suitable vegetation types for increased, sustained livestock production. One goal is to improve range condition and productivity on native rangeland. Use improved management systems such as rest-rotation and deferred-rotation, if appropriate. Invest in range improvements necessary to implement management systems. Develop AMPs where needed. Emphasis is on increasing forage, red meat, and animal fiber production, and improving forage 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

110 

RANGELAND RESOURCES 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

composition and watershed conditions, contingent on meeting Public Land Health Standards. Intensive livestock management within the McElmo RNA as soon as fence construction is completed. 

Remove livestock grazing from the McElmo RNA when fence construction is complete. 

Limit livestock grazing in the McElmo RNA to the period from November 15 to March 15. 

Impose no restrictions on grazing in the McElmo RNA. 

LimMcfrom 15, con

 Build on current monitoring program by developing a simple proactive permittee and public monitorin

understanding of grazing management regulations and guidance, monitoring methods, and current mon

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

GOAL: Manage and enable access to the Monument for recreational activities while, at the same time, protectin

resources, ensuring compatibility with other existing and permitted uses, and considering effects on adjacent land

community.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Produce Recreation Management Objectives for specific recreation opportunities, consisting of activities, experiences, and benefits

2. Sustain Recreation Setting Prescriptions setting character essential/required in order to produce targeted recreation opportunities an

attainment of experiences and benefits. 

3. Use Providers’ Implementing Actions to conduct, yet constrain, all management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative suppor

order to produce targeted recreation opportunities, facilitate outcome attainment, and sustain prescribed recreation setting character

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: Achieve recreation objectives through the management of the following Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and Extensiv

Areas (ERMAs), consisting of the following Recreation Management Zones (RMZs): 1. Pueblo Sites SRMA, including Painted Hand Pueblo RMZ, Lowry Pueblo RMZ, and Sand Canyon Pueblo RMZ; 2. Sand Canyon/Rock Creek SRMA, including Sand Canyon RMZ, and Rock Creek RMZ; 

3. Mockingbird Mesa-Rincon SRMA, including Mockingbird Mesa RMZ, and Rincon RMZ; 4. Squaw-Cross Canyons SRMA, including Squaw-Cross Canyons RMZ; 5. Goodman Point SRMA, including Goodman Point RMZ; and 6. AHC SRMA, including AHC RMZ. 

Recreation Management Area Configuration, Management Objectives, and Setting Prescriptio

Maintain developed recreation sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand 

PUEBLO SITES SRMA: Configuration. - Include 240 acres in three 

PUEBLO SITES SRMA: Configuration. - Include 12,478 acres in 

PUEBLO SITES SRMA: Configuration. - Include 41,115 acres in three 

PUCoInc
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

111 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

Canyon for interpretation information opportunities, picnicking, sightseeing, photography, etc. Maintain a broad range of recreation settings and activities while, at the same time, preventing or reducing resource degradation caused by recreation use, and providing for visitor health and safety. Continue to evaluate recreation opportunities on a case-by-case basis, as a part of project level planning. Provide for a blend of settings and opportunities that tend toward the resourcedependent end of the BLM’s Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) system. Allow local communities to provide for facility-dependent settings and opportunities. 

tracts with Painted Hand, Lowry, and Sand Canyon Pueblos. Management Objectives: Activities might include: day 

hiking, and viewing archaeological ruins. Experiences might include:

learning about the Monument, and contemplating people’s relationship with the land. Benefits might include: a 

greater respect for cultural heritage, and a greater desire for the protection of archaeological structures and sites. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Mid-Rural Country 

Social. -Mid-Front Country 

Administrative. -Mid-Front 

three tracts with Painted Hand, Lowry, and Sand Canyon Pueblos, and approximately eight adjoining sections. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

day hiking, and exploring native cultures. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional experiences that might include enjoying exploring alone. Benefits might include: an 

enlarged sense of wonder, improved physical fitness and health maintenance, stress reduction and mental restoration, a greater sensitivity to outdoor and cultural aesthetics, a greater respect for cultural heritage, a greater desire for the protection of archaeological structures/sites and reduced incidents of looting and vandalism of prehistoric sites. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural 

Country Social. -Back-Front Country 

tracts with Painted Hand, Lowry, and Sand Canyon Pueblos, eight adjoining sections, and public lands surrounding Hovenweep National Monument. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

cultural resource studies, backpacking, sketching, and painting. Experiences might include:

learning about prehistoric lifestyles, enjoying teaching others about natural and cultural history, and enjoying exploring alone. Benefits might include: an 

enlarged sense of wonder, an improved capacity for outdoor physical activity, a more holistic sense of wellness, a greater respect for cultural heritage, an increased capacity for artistic expression, an increased sense of stewardship and a desire for the protection of cultural resources, reduced incidents of looting and vandalism of prehistoric site; and increased local tourism revenue. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

Social. -Back-Rural Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

tracLowPueMaAct

hikarchExp

learand relaBen

greherfor archsiteSetPhy

Soc

Adm
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

112 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

Country Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

Country Cou

Periodically inspect the condition of the recreation lands and sites in order to determine the levels of resource damage occurring. Emphasize semi-primitive recreation opportunities in Cross, Cahone, and Squaw/Papoose Canyons. Review recreation area management plans periodically in order to determine if revisions are necessary due to changing conditions. Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management. - Manage for dispersed recreation as the primary recreation activity. Permit year-long, non-motorized recreation activities throughout the area. Establish site-specific visual quality objectives and design guidelines for landscape development projects during activity planning. 

SAND CANYON-ROCK CREEK SRMA: Configuration. –

7,877 acres, including most of Sand, Rock, and East Rock Creek Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

hiking. Experiences might include:

outdoor exercise, solitary exploration; enjoying solitude, isolation, and independence, and enjoying access to Monument amenities. Benefits might include: improved fitness and health, improved mental well-being, a greater respect for cultural heritage, and an increased sense of stewardship and a greater desire for the protection of cultural resources. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

SAND CANYON-ROCK CREEK SRMA: Configuration. – 6,303 acres, including the south half of Sand, Rock, and East Rock Creek Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

hiking, horseback riding, biking, and viewing cultural sites. Experiences might include:

outdoor exercise, relishing group affiliations and connections, escaping human-made machinery and noise, and enjoying access to close-to-home amenities. Benefits might include:

improved fitness and health, improved mental wellbeing, a closer relationship with the natural world, a greater respect for cultural heritage, and an increased sense of stewardship and a greater desire for the protection of cultural resources. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front 

SAND CANYON-ROCK CREEK SRMA: Configuration. – 5,847 acres, including the south half of Sand, Rock, and East Rock Creek Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

hiking, and studying prehistoric human habitation. Experiences might include:

learning about prehistoric lifestyles, relishing group affiliations and connections, escaping human-made machinery and noise, enjoying teaching others about natural and cultural history, and reduced vandalism of prehistoric sites. Benefits might include: same 

as Alternative II, with additional benefits that might include: increased local tourism revenue. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

SACRCo7,5SanCrePoiincMoMaAct

hikhorcultExp

outgroconmaand to-hBen

impimpclonatufor incrand proresoSetPhy
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

113 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

Country Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

Soc

Adm

Cou

Emphasis Area B: Wildlife. - Manage for dispersed recreation as the primary recreation activity. Permit year-long, non-motorized recreation activities throughout the area, except restrict recreation use in order to resolve people/wildlife conflicts, (favoring wildlife in such cases). Establish sitespecific visual quality objectives and design guidelines for landscape development projects during activity planning. Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Manage for a variety of recreation opportunities, consistent with classifications determined in ROS inventories. Provide necessary visitor management services and facilities required to meet recreation program goals. Emphasis Area E: Mineral Resources. - Establish site-specific visual 

MOCKINGBIRD MESARINCON SRMA: Configuration. - 109,872 acres, including the heart and southwest corner of the Monument. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

driving, horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking, and viewing archaeological ruins. Experiences might include:

enjoying solitude, isolation, and independence; enjoying contemplation; outdoor exercise; and solitary exploration. Benefits might include:

improved mental well-being, an enlarged sense of wonder, a greater respect for cultural heritage, and improved physical fitness and health maintenance. 

MOCKINGBIRD MESARINCON SRMA: Configuration. - 104,511 acres, including the heart and southwest corner of the Monument. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

same as Alternative II. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional experiences that might include a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle. Benefits might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional benefits that might include: a closer relationship with nature, a greater respect for cultural heritage, a greater desire for the protection of archaeological and historic sites, and a more outdoororiented lifestyle. 

MOCKINGBIRD MESARINCON SRMA: Configuration. - 99,842 acres, including the heart and the southwest corner of the Monument. Management Objectives: Activities might include: same 

as Alternative II. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional experiences that might include: learning about the Monument, contemplating people’s relationship with the land, and having others nearby who could help if needed. Benefits might include: same 

as Alternative II, with additional benefits that might include: increased experiential understanding of people’s relationship to/dependence on the land, a more outdoororiented lifestyle, an increased 

MORINCo109heaof tPoiMethe incprothe SRMMaAct

drivmoviewExp

samaddmigorieBen

impan egreherphymai
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

114 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

quality objectives and design guidelines for landscape development projects during activity planning. 

Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

Social. -Back-Rural Country 

Administrative. -Back-Rural 

Country

Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural 

Country Social. -Back-Rural Country 

Administrative. -Back-Rural 

Country

sense of stewardship and a greater desire for the protection of cultural resources, reduced incidents of looting and vandalism of prehistoric sites, and increased local tourism revenue. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Rural Country 

Social. -Back-Rural Country 

Administrative. -Back-Rural 

Country 

SetPhy

Soc

Adm

Cou

Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Make areas available for day use activities, where feasible. Construct public convenience developments, such as restrooms, observation areas, and/or interpretative trails. Provide input into development and operation of Anasazi Heritage Center. Develop public or visitor management plans for areas. Establish site-specific visual quality objectives and design guidelines for interpretation and visitor management during activity planning. Develop recreation activity management plans for Lowry cultural sites. 

CROSS-SQUAW CANYONS SRMA: Configuration. - 37,030 acres, including Cross, Cahone, Cow, and Squaw –Papoose Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

backpacking, camping, and exploring. Experiences might include:

outdoor exercise; enjoying contemplation, enjoying solitude, isolation, and independence; learning about the Monument, and enjoying exploring alone. 

CROSS-SQUAW CANYONS SRMA: Configuration. - 31,730 acres, including Cross, Cahone, Cow, and Squaw – Papoose Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

same as Alternative II. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II. Benefits might include:

same as Alternative II. 

CROSS-SQUAW CANYONS SRMA: Configuration. - 8,218 acres, including Cross, Cahone, Cow, and Squaw –Papoose Canyons. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

same as Alternative II. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II. Benefits might include: same 

as Alternative II. 

CRCASRCo37,CahPapporSRMin tWiSquMaAct

bacexpExp

outconsoliindthe exp
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

115 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

Emphasis Area L: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). - Manage recreational opportunities according to ACEC guidelines. Establish site-specific visual quality objectives and design guidelines for landscape development projects during activity planning. Close Cross, Cahone, and Squaw/Papoose Canyons to OHVs. Provide semiprimitive non-motorized recreation opportunities. Manage the McElmo Research Natural Area for its special research value. 

Benefits might include:

improved physical fitness, improved mental well-being, a closer relationship with the natural world, an enlarged sense of wonder, a greater desire for the protection of archaeological structures and sites, and confirmation and/or development of self-value. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country

Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front 

Country Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country

Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

Ben

impimpclonatusendesarchsiteSetPhy

Soc

Adm

Cou

GOODMAN POINT SRMA: Configuration. - 10,219 acres, including public lands in Goodman, Trail and Alkali Canyons and associated uplands. Management Objectives: ERMA objectives do not target activities, experiences, or benefits. Instead, they address the following: User Conflicts: By 2010, manage conflicts among active recreation participants and experiential learners (based on 

GOODMAN POINT SRMA: Configuration. - 10,219 acres, including public lands in Goodman, Trail and Alkali Canyons and associated uplands. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

viewing/studying/working with archaeological ruins, hiking, and exploring. Experiences might include:

learning about prehistoric lifestyles, more highly motivated students/improved 

GOODMAN POINT SRMA: Configuration. - 10,219 acres, including public lands in Goodman, Trail and Alkali Canyons and associated uplands. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

backpacking, camping, and exploring. Experiences might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional experiences that might include: an enlarged sense of wonder, reduced incidents of vandalism of 

GOCo10,lanAlkuplMaAct

viewwithikExp

learlifemosch
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

116 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

incident reports filed with the BLM), with the goal of fewer than one per month, accomplished through proactive heritage tourism, visitor ethics outreach messages on-site, at AHC, and through local chamber offices. Resource Protection: By 2010, heighten visitor understanding and visitor behavior to maintain the intrinsic character of on-site cultural resources at which on-site cultural resource research and/or educational tourism are being run to prevent the loss of any significant cultural resources. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country

scholarship, reduced exposure to at-risk youth, enjoying teaching others about natural and cultural history, reduced vandalism of prehistoric sites, greater community involvement in recreation and other land use decisions, and enjoying greater access to close-tohome recreation. Benefits might include: an 

enlarged sense of wonder, improved capacity for outdoor physical activity, a more holistic sense of wellness, a greater respect for cultural heritage, increased capacity for artistic expression, an increased sense of stewardship and a greater desire for the protection of cultural resources, reduced incidents of looting and vandalism of prehistoric sites, and increased local tourism revenue. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front 

Country Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

prehistoric sites, a heightened sense of community satisfaction, a greater household awareness of and appreciation for cultural heritage, improved local economic stability, enjoying having greater access to closeto-home recreation. Benefits might include: same 

as Alternative II. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Back-Front Country 

Social. -Back-Front Country 

Administrative. -Back-Front 

Country 

to ateacand incprecomrecrdecgrehomBen

enlimpphyholgreherfor incrand resolooprelocSetPhy

Soc

Adm

Cou

ANASAZI HERITAGE CENTER SRMA: Configuration. - 

ANASAZI HERITAGE CENTER SRMA: Configuration. - 

ANASAZI HERITAGE CENTER SRMA: Configuration. - 

ANCECo
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

117 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

94 acres, including the Anasazi Heritage Center and associated property. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

viewing interpretive exhibits, learning about ancient cultures, hiking, and viewing archaeological ruins. Experiences might include:

learning about the Monument, contemplating people’s relationship with the land, and doing something new and different. Benefits might include: a 

greater respect for cultural heritage, greater access to hands-on learning, improved environmental ethics, and an increased sense of stewardship of cultural resources. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Front-Rural 

Country Social. -Front-Rural Country 

Administrative. -Front-Rural 

Country

94 acres, including the Anasazi Heritage Center and associated property. Management Objectives: Activities might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional activities that might include: learning about ancient cultures and lifestyles, and learning about recreation opportunities in the Monument. Experiences might include:

contemplating people’s relationship with the land, learning how to respect other users and land uses, and learning new places to go. Benefits might include:

same as Alternative II, with additional benefits that might include: improved ability to relate to local cultures, more highly motivated students, enhanced ability for visitors to find what they want, and improved local economic stability. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Front-Rural 

Country Social. -Front-Rural 

Country Administrative. -Front94 acres, including the Anasazi Heritage Center and associated property. Management Objectives: Activities might include: same as Alternative II, with additional activities that might include: learning about recreation opportunities in the Monument. Experiences might include: learning about the value and methods of preservation, and curation of heritage tourism resources. Benefits might include: same as Alternative II. Setting Prescription: Physical. -Front-Rural Country Social. -Front-Rural Country Administrative. -Front-Rural Country 94 

AnassMaAct

samaddinclcultlearoppMoExp

conrelalearuseleara grBen

as Aaddinclrelahigenhfind impstabSetPhy

CouSoc

Adm

Cou
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

118 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

Rural Country

Management and Implementation Actions 

Continue dispersed recreational camping, consistent with current policies and practices and with the Proclamation. Retain existing limitations and closures. Exercise management discretion, where necessary, through emergency closures or other actions in order to protect Monument resources. 

Promote an undeveloped management strategy. Manage mostly for custodial purposes, including user conflicts, visitor safety, and resource protection. Focus on incidental visitors and/or local residents. Minimize infrastructure and visitor facilities. 

Promote a destination management strategy. Focus on establishing destinations for regional visitors, actively marketing to communities in the Four Corners area. Provide specific public access points and appropriate support facilities. Employ a greater reliance on collaboration with counties. 

Promote a destination management strategy. Focus on establishing destinations for national and international, as well as local and regional, visitors. Provide specific public access points and appropriate support with more infrastructure and visitor facilities. Employ a greater reliance on collaboration with counties, local tourism industries, and the NPS. 

PromanAltCanMoPoiCanPromanAltHanCanRMPromanAltand 

 157,124 acres managed as 

backcountry and 8,211 acres managed as front country settings. 

146,460 acres managed as backcountry and 18,875 acres managed as front country settings 

118,279 acres managed as backcountry and 47,056 acres managed as front country settings 

157bacmansett

 Prohibit recreational shooting 

(target shooting), geocaching, or climbing (rock climbing, repelling, and/or bouldering) anywhere in the Monument. Prohibit camping and campfires in all SRMAs. 

Prohibit recreational shooting (target shooting), geocaching, or climbing (rock climbing, repelling, and/or bouldering) anywhere in the Monument. Prohibit camping and campfires in the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon-Rock Creek, and AHC SRMAs, but allow such activities in 

Prohibit recreational shooting (target shooting), geocaching, or climbing (rock climbing, repelling, and/or bouldering) anywhere in the Monument. Prohibit camping and Campfires in Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon-Rock Creek, and AHC SRMAs, except in 

designated sites with fire pits, 

Recshowouin tClimrepwoudes
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

119 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

the Mockingbird MesaRincon, Squaw-Cross Canyon, and Goodman Point SRMAs. 

grates, or firepans. Allow camping and campfires in the Mockingbird MesaRincon, Squaw-Cross Canyons, and Goodman Point SRMAs. 

ProcamSanAHactiMeCanSRMMasiteinfothe Con(bicwitthe SRMoccMomewou

As identified in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP, some OHV designations will occur. Close public land within areas identified as closed to motorized vehicle use yearround to all forms of motorized vehicle use. Allow exceptions in WSAs based on applying BLM’s Interim Management Policy (BLM Revised, July 12, 1983). Provide increased semiprimitive, motorized 

Designate no additional trails, routes will be designated except where necessary in order to reroute for the protection of the objects of the Monument. Construct no new parking areas; better delineate existing parking areas with barriers to prevent further expansion. 

Additional routes may be designated outside of WSAs. Establish parking areas to accommodate up to 10 vehicles at the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon/Rock Creek SRMAs, and for trails leading to NPS units within the Monument. 

Additional routes may be designated. Establish parking areas to accommodate up to 20 vehicles the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon/Rock Creek SRMAs, and for trails leading to NPS units within the Monument. 

AddesEstaccvehSanSRMto NMo
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

120 

RECREATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

opportunities with some primitive, semi-primitive, non-motorized, and roaded natural settings and management objectives. Implement an off-road vehicle management program, as per that described in accordance with the San Juan/San Miguel RMP/EIS ROD.  Establish an entrance fee for 

Pueblo Sites and Sand Canyon/Rock Creek SRMAs, and continue the entrance fee for the AHC SRMA. 

Continue the entrance fee for the AHC SRMA. 

Issue no new commercial permits; grant no expansions of existing permits. 

Issue no special recreation use permits. Continue current existing special uses, but allow no renewal, extension, or transfer. 

Continue existing special recreation use permits; extend, renew, transfer and/or adjust on a case-bycase basis, at the discretion of the Monument Manager. 

Allow special recreation use permits on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the Monument Manager. 

Conrecrallotranon Allperthe 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

121 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

GOAL: Define a travel management network (i.e., system of areas and roads), with supporting facilities (e.g., p

provides reasonable access to the public, private landowners, and authorized users (e.g., fluid mineral operators apermittees) while, at the same time, protecting the objects identified in the Proclamation. (NOTE: For the purpoDRMP/DEIS, a “road” is defined as an open way for the passage of vehicles, persons, or animals on land, regardtravel; and “off-road” is defined as cross-country travel between designated roads. All off-road travel by motoriz

vehicles is prohibited in the Monument.) 

OBJECTIVES: 1. Designate administrative roads, by type of use (e.g., street-legal motorized vehicle and off-highway vehicle [OHV]) for authorized 

roads that lead to private land or developments that have an administrative purpose where the BLM or permitted user/private landoregular maintenance or operation. These authorized developments include such things as power lines, weather stations, oil and gas 

developments, corrals, and water troughs. All types of use include street legal motorized vehicle, OHV, dirt bike, foot, horse, and 

2. Designate existing and new roads to different types (e.g., street-legal motorized vehicle and OHV) of motorized and non-motorized 

the travel management network methodology in Appendix G. In summary, this methodology closes existing roads that do not acce

scenic overlook, camping site, or archaeological site allocated for public use) and/or that pose a threat to Monument resources. Alstreet-legal motorized vehicle, OHV, dirt bike, foot, horse, and bicycle. 

3. Designate travel management areas in order to protect Monument objects and to prohibit all off-road motorized and mechanized ve

emergency or authorized administrative purposes, as required under the Proclamation. 

4. Identify the types and locations of facilities necessary in order to support the functions of the transportation management network. 

5. Identify maintenance activities required to protect road surfacing in order to protect the objects of the Monument. 6. Identify criteria that would assist in deciding if additional roads should be added or removed from the transportation management n

7. Work in partnership with the CDOW to determine limitations (e.g., season of use and density level), if any, on new road constructi

game winter range and migration corridors within the Monument. 

8. Identify guidelines and/or limitations to properly maintain, manage, and/or monitor the travel management network. 9. Work in partnership with affected interests in order to manage overflights toward achieving and maintaining both visitor experienc

RMZs. 

10. Manage access to oil and gas leases issued prior to passage of the FLPMA in existing WSAs, to ensure that the BLM non-impairm

11. Identify maintenance activities needed to protect road surfacing, to protect the objects of the Monument. 

12. Work in partnership with affected interest groups to manage roads to protect resources and maintain visitor experiences and benefi

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None.  Permit access to private in- and edge-holdings through the transportation plan.  Consult with the CDOW to determine what, if any, limitations (e.g., season of use and density level) ar

and mule deer habitats prior to authorizing new roads within elk and mule deer winter range, and elk mdefined by the CDOW. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

122 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

 Work cooperatively with aircraft operators, adjacent land management agencies, and Native American 

National Monument, the Utah BLM Monticello Field Office, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the NavFederal Aviation Administration to direct overflights to appropriate RMZs. 

 The following questions would assist the Monument Manager in adding or removing additional roads 

management network in the future. If all answers are “no,” the road would be closed. If any answer is 

keeping the road open should be made.  Is the road officially recognized as a county road by both the BLM and the county it is located wit

 Does the road lead to developments that have an administrative purpose, where the BLM or a perm

private land access) must have access for regular maintenance or operation? 

 Is the road a primary or secondary unpaved road? 

 If so, does the road have a destination? 

 If so, does it contribute to the management objectives and framework and setting prescriptions of 

within? 

 If so, does the road avoid impacts to Monument objects and/or other resources? 

Comprehensive transportation plan established 

Roads are summarized as follows:  Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse = 7 miles; 

 Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 3 miles 

 Public Foot = 2 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse = 0 

miles 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 0 

miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle = 6 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 0 miles 

Roads designated open to different types of motorized and non-motorized public access are shown on Map 5. Roads are summarized as follows:  Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse = 79 miles 

 Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 0 miles 

 Public Foot = 9 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse = 0 

miles 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 0 

miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle = 0 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 0 miles 

Roads designated open to different types of motorized and non-motorized public access are shown on Map 5. Roads are summarized as follows:  Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse = 64 miles 

 Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 11 miles 

 Public Foot = 11 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse = 21 

miles 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 

1 mile 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle = 9 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 9 miles 

Roads designated open to different types of motorized and non-motorized public access are shown on Map 5. Roads are summarized as follows:  Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse = 31 miles 

 Administrative + Public 

Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 7 miles 

 Public Foot = 4 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse = 12 

miles 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 0 

miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle = 19 miles 

 Public Foot, Horse, 

Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 19 miles 

Roadiffand accRoafoll 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

123 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

Public Open to All Travel Means = 131 miles 

Public Open to All Travel Means = 50 miles 

Public Open to All Travel Means = 60 miles 

Public Open to All Travel Means = 102 miles 

PubMe

Total roads (public access + Administrative, not new mineral roads) = 149 miles 

Total roads (public access + Administrative, not new mineral roads ) = 138 miles 

Total roads (public access + Administrative, not new mineral roads) = 186 miles 

Total roads (public access + Administrative, not new mineral roads) = 194 miles 

TotAdmmin

Seven facilities required to support the transportation management network are identified on Map 5. 

Seven facilities required to support the transportation management network are identified on Map 5. 

Thirteen facilities required to support the transportation management network are identified on Map 5. 

Twenty facilities required to support the transportation management network are identified on Map 5. 

Elesupmaniden

In general, improvements should be minimal and designed solely to correct those conditions that are unsafe or hazardous. Permit activities that maintain, as opposed to enhance, existing roads. Keep grading and surfacing to a minimum, as needed for user safety. Allow existing unimproved vehicle trails that are not necessary for currently authorized users to deteriorate and reclaim naturally. Rehabilitate trails, as necessary. Keep access roads on public land near the Hovenweep Ruin primitive in order to provide cultural resources protection from heavy 

Maintain open roads within the disturbed travel surface area as of the date the ROD was signed; allow no widening, passing lanes, or other travel surface upgrades. Authorize maintenance to protect (e.g., prevent erosion and sediment loading in drainages) Monument resources outside the disturbed travel surface following sitespecific environmental analysis. Maintain administrative roads to the minimum level necessary to keep them open for limited use by highclearance vehicles. Administrative roads that only go to BLM range monitoring and study areas would not be maintained; however, periodic vehicular access to these sites would be allowed for required range monitoring uses. 

Same as Alternative II, except that travel surface upgrades would be authorized to ensure public safety and/or to protect Monument resources. 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

124 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

uncontrolled visitation. Close the area to crosscountry, off-road travel by motorized vehicles and mechanized vehicles, including mountain bikes, in order to reduce inadvertent damage to cultural resources, except for authorized administrative and emergency purposes. Restrict public access, by vehicles, on road ROWs in order to prevent impacts to cultural resource sites from vandalism. Allow public access via foot or horse. 

Allow foot travel and horseback riding only on designated roads in Recreation Management Zones 2 (Sand Canyon/Rock Creek). Authorize cross-country travel by horseback and foot, outside Zone 2. Prohibit new roads in RMZ 4 (Squaw/Cross Canyon), and within the McElmo RNA. 

Limit horseback riding to designated roads in RMZ 2 (Sand Canyon/Rock Creek). Authorize cross-country travel by horseback and foot, outside Zone 2. Develop no new roads, except those limited to foottraffic and those necessary to protect Monument resources, in RMZ 4 (Squaw/Cross Canyon), and within the McElmo RNA. Allow cross-country foot traffic and horseback riding. 

Develop no new roads, except those limited to foot traffic and those necessary to protect Monument resources, in RMZ 4 (Squaw/Cross Canyon), and within the McElmo RNA. Allow cross-country foot traffic and horseback riding. 

Sam

 Designate 38,598 acres as 

“closed” to OHV travel. Designate 126,737 acres as “limited” to OHV travel. Designate 0 acres as “open” to OHV travel. 

Designate 25,976 acres as “closed” to OHV travel. Designate 139,359 acres as “limited” to OHV travel. Designate 0 acres as “open” to OHV travel. 

Designate 25,976 acres as “closed” to OHV travel. Designate 139,359 acres as “limited” to OHV travel. Designate 0 acres as “open” to OHV travel. 

Sam

Allow motorized and mechanical vehicular use only on designated roads. 

Prohibit cross-country motorized and mechanized (e.g., mountain bike) travel. Limit motorized and mdesignated roads. Allow no cross-country travel for game retrieval. Prohibit OHVs in Sand and East Rock Canyons and Mockingbird Mesa. Sand and East Rock Canyons RMZs 1 and 2, and the area within Mockingbird Mesa includes the topographic extent of this feature. 

Motorized and mechanical vehicular use would be allowed only on designated roads or routes. 

Determine public use designations, if appropriate or if open or closed, as part of the development proc

proposed administrative roads. Outline closure method and maintenance in the plans for operation if a

closed to public use. 

Reclaim roads not needed for other operations. Gate oil and gas roads not needed for other authorized 

Consider any road not shown on Map 5 closed upon signing of the ROD, subject to valid existing rights. Reclaim closed roads within 10 years 

Same as Alternative II, except assign no specific time period to the BLM for either developing a strategy for, or actually restoring, closed roads. 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

125 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

uses in order to protect Monument resources. Close upgraded or new access roads into cultural resource emphasis areas to public vehicular traffic via gating or other means in order to protect sites. Sample visitor use using various methods, including road and trail counters and visitor registers. 

of signing of the ROD. Develop a strategy for restoring closed roads within the first year of signing of the ROD. Prioritize roads for restoration based on actual and/or probable impacts to resources, and on levels of use. Prioritize closed roads located in historical, high-use areas (e.g., RMZs 1 [Pueblo Sites] and 2 [Sand Canyon/Rock Creek]) or restoration first. Require that each closed road be considered individually, and select the best, least intrusive method for restoration, based on the geography, topography, soil, hydrology, and vegetation in the area. Other guidelines that would be incorporated in this strategy include:  not repairing washed out 

roads; 

 using natural barriers, 

such as boulders; 

 using dead-and-down 

wood to obscure road entryways; 

 using fencing, when 

necessary, to prohibit access; 

 ripping up the road bed 

and reseeding with vegetation natural to the area; and 

 providing visitor 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

126 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

education and information (e.g., maps and signing) on road closures. 

For administrative roads, strictly limit access and grant only for legitimate and specific purposes. Authorized users could include oil and gas permittees, grazing permittees, researchers, State or Federal agencies, Native Americans accessing recognized traditional cultural properties, and others carrying out authorized activities under a permit or other authorization. Evaluate roads for closure, following public notification and opportunity to comment, if the administrative purpose of a road ceases. Work with any individual operating within the Monument under existing permits or authorizations to document where access must continue to allow operations of a current permit of authorization if other than that shown on Map 5. Provide administrative access, other than that shown on Map 5, to livestock grazing permittees to meet the terms and conditions of the permits. Some administrative access 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

127 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

does not follow a visible road, but requires cross-country travel. As a result, this administrative access is not identified on Map 5, but would be authorized, as needed, and with proper clearances. 

 Develop a strategy for 

complying with the transportation management system within one year of signing of the ROD. Guidelines for this strategy could include: 1. keeping all types of use 

(e.g., street-legal motorized vehicle, bicycle, and OHV) on designated roads by hiring additional staff (e.g., law enforcement personnel and backcountry rangers) to patrol by foot, horse, and vehicle; 

2. developing and 

distributing maps and installing signs to assist in educating the public about roads that are open and closed; 

3. specifying in existing law 

enforcement MOUs with agencies (i.e., Hovenweep National Monument, the USFS), and those currently under development with the Sheriffs departments in 

Same as Alternative II, except assign no specific time period to the BLM for developing a strategy for, or actually restoring, closed routes. 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

128 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

Montezuma and Dolores Counties, the need to jointly enforce the Monument’s travel management system; 

4. work in partnership with 

affected interest groups to help gain compliance and protect resources; and 

5. incorporate Four E’s 

Strategy – education, engineering, enforcement, and evaluation. 

Jeep trails and unimproved roads may be closed to public vehicle traffic in cultural resource emphasis areas in order to prevent vandalism. Provide for oil, gas and CO2

activities, and related ROWs for access, power, and transportation in order to explore, develop, produce, and transport these leasable commodities in a manner consistent with ACEC guidelines. Acquire access for administrative/public use, where funding permits, for cultural resource management, in the following locations:  Sand/East Rock 

Canyons; 

 Hamilton Mesa; 

 Yellow Jacket Canyon; 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

129 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

 Cahone Canyon; 

 Woods Canyon; and 

 Negro Canyon. 

Emphasis Area A: Livestock Management. - Provide administrative access to public land in order to enhance management of the range resource. Provide maintenance of roads in the BLM transportation plan to minimum standards for user safety. Acquire access to the following grazing allotments: 8011, 8013, 8018, and 8019. Emphasis Area B: Wildlife.- Provide administrative access to public land for managing wildlife habitat. Provide very little, or no, maintenance to roads. Close and reclaim any abandoned and/or poorly designed roads. Acquire public access, where needed, to allow wildlife-related recreation (including hunting and fishing in underutilized areas). Emphasis Area F: Cultural Resources. - Provide administrative access to public land in order to 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

130 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

enhance the management of cultural resources. Provide public access to some of the cultural areas where public use will be managed. Provide maintenance of roads to a level of minimum standards for user safety. Close roads, when necessary, to limit access in order to protect cultural values.  Limit public access to 

Mockingbird Mesa and Sand and East Rock Canyons to foot or horse only and limit vehicle access to authorized vehicles only. 

 Acquire easement into 

Sand Canyon area. 

 Acquire administrative 

access into Cannonball Mesa and Yellow Jacket Canyon. 

Emphasis Area L: ACECs.- Provide administrative and public access, where needed, for ACEC management. Provide maintenance on only those roads needed for management purposes. Limit public access in Mockingbird Mesa and Sand and East Rock Canyons to foot or horse only and restrict vehicle access to authorized 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

131 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

vehicles only. Acquire administrative access into Sand and Yellow Jacket Canyons and Cannonball Mesa. Keep established roads and trails open to use as presently authorized. Initiate emergency closures prior to completion of the management plan only if significant resource damage is documented. Establish final decisions on designated roads for vehicular travel, including mountain bikes, through the management plan. Develop no new roads or trails, pending completion of the management plan. Employ existing roads for new operations, as much as possible, in order to avoid impacts that interfere with proper care of Monument resources. Utilize roads using existing access roads or trails before allowing new construction. Direct roads for planned public use away from visible sites. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

132 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Al

Maintain and develop trails and other means of public access, where necessary, in order to enhance recreation opportunities and allow public use. Emphasis Area C: Recreation Resources. - Provide public access to the public lands in order to enhance the recreation values. Provide a moderate level of maintenance on primary roads in order to promote user safety. Provide minimal levels of maintenance on secondary roads. Emphasis Area E: Mineral 

Resources. Provide or maintain public access in order to minimize impacts to mineral development. Work with mineral developers in order to ensure roads are maintained for public safety. 

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL: Provide consistent protection and management of important cultural sites. OBJECTIVES: Manage to maintain and/or enhance the special resource values within the Monument Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (The M
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

133 

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. The public land west of Cortez (approximately 156,000 acres) is designated as an ACEC - the Anasazi Cultural Multiple-use Area ACEC. Private lands within the ACEC would not be affected by the proposed designation. 

Drop the ACEC designation, except where applicable to RNAs (see RNA alternatives). 

165,335 acres ACEC 7,826 acres ACEC 427 acres ACEC SamProvide high-quality habitat for livestock and wildlife and also provide opportunities for recreation pursuits while, at the same time, emphasizing the cultural and mineral values. 

Same as Alternative I, No Action, with the primary emphasis on cultural resource values. Prov

liveprovrecrsamcult

Undertake closer monitoring of the surface-disturbing activities; request additional employees and money in order to more intensively manage this significant area. 

Same as Alternative I, No Action, with the primary emphasis on cultural resource values. 

SCENIC AND HISTORIC BYWAY 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alt

GOAL: Cooperate with management partners in order to implement corridor management plans for the Trail of 

and Historic Byway.

OBJECTIVES: Preserve resource values while, at the same time, implementing site-specific actions in the Corridor Management Plan. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None.  Implement all site-specific actions in the Corridor Management Plan for interpretation at the Anasazi H

Lowry Pueblo. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

134 

RESEARCH NATURAL AREA (RNA) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV A

GOAL: Provide a natural and undisturbed setting for scientific research and public education within the McElmOBJECTIVES: 1. Maintain and manage the McElmo RNA (427 acres) as a herpetological research area, a resource for educational institutions, and a

2. Enhance McElmo RNA surface disturbance protections. 3. Enhance research and outdoor educational opportunities within McElmo RNA. 4. Reduce livestock grazing pressure within the RNA. 5. Protect Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs) proposed by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) from negative impacts 

6. Evaluate the potential expansion of the RNA boundary. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Maintain Bridge Canyon NSO stipulation. 2. Continue to manage the existing RNA as an Instant Study Area (ISA). An ISA is managed as a WSA, but does not meet acreage r

3. Maintain the ACEC designation for RNAs. 

Acquire through exchange, if possible, adjacent private land in W1/2NE1/2, Sec. 27, T. 35N., R. 20W., and include this land within the RNA. 

Expand the RNA boundary (Map 8). Acquire adjacent private land from willing sellers and incorporate it into the RNA. 

Acquire through exchange, if possible, adjacent private land in W1/2NE1/2, Sec. 27, T. 35N., R. 20W., and include this land within the RNA. 

Sam

 Close the two-track access 

road. 

Improve existing 2-track road to a natural surface (dirt) road to the north end of the RNA along the mesa above Bridge Canyon for administrative purposes only. 

Improve existing 2-track road to a natural surface (dirt) road to the north end of the RNA along the mesa above Bridge Canyon and open to the public. 

Sam

 Prohibit all seismic operation.  Limit surface-disturbing authorizations and activities within McElmo RNA to only those uses that sup

(e.g., trails, parking areas, signs, toilets, and shelters). 

 Develop no established 

Recreation Activity Management plan. 

Prepare a Recreation Activity Management Plan within 5 years of plan completion, in order to:  establish delineated 

native surface parking area; 

 permit primitive 

facilities; and 

Prepare a Recreation Activity Management Plan within 5 years of plan completion, in order to:  establish developed 

parking area with improved surface; 

 permit improved 

facilities (picnic sites and 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

135 

RESEARCH NATURAL AREA (RNA) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV A

 establish a primitive trail 

(up to 1 mile). 

restroom); and 

 establish a hard surface 

interpretive trail (up to 1 mile). 

RNA is currently fenced, but grazing is allowed. After the immediate above action statement is accomplished, for logical management, include those BLM lands below the canyon rim (E1/2NE1/2, Sec. 27, T. 35N., R. 20W.) in the RNA. Construct boundary and/or gap fences in order to provide management control. 

Close the RNA to livestock grazing. 

Limit livestock grazing use (from November 15 to March 15). 

Same as Alternative I. Sam

 Designate as RNAs the 

Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs proposed by CNHP. 

Establish an NGD/NSO restriction for the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs. 

Establish a SSR/CSU stipulation for the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs. 

Desand by tEstafor tCan

427 acres managed as an RNA 

7,826 acres managed as an RNA 

427 acres managed as an RNA Sam

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV A

GOAL: Preserve free-flowing rivers with special values in their natural condition.OBJECTIVES: Manage rivers found suitable for WSR designation in order to protect their Outstandingly Remarkable Values and Classification, as idedetermination in the final RMP. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: None. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

136 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV A

Complete eligibility and tentative classification study. 

Manage all river segments determined to be eligible for WSR designation as WSRs. 

Consider no river segments suitable for WSR designation; therefore cWSRs. 

0 miles managed as WSR. 25.3 miles managed as WSR. 0 miles managed as WSR. 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV A

GOAL: Determine management guidance for WSAs, should Congress release them from WSA status.OBJECTIVES: 1. Maintain the non-impairment standard for WSAs, in accordance with the FLPMA, in order to prevent undue and unnecessary degr

characteristics. 

2. Protect and preserve wilderness characteristics where appropriate (i.e., their “naturalness,” their outstanding opportunities for solitu

primitive and unconfined recreation) where they occur in identified areas outside of WSAs (see Map 8). 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. WSAs will be patrolled periodically in order to detect and prevent unauthorized actions that could impair the suitability of such are

wilderness. 

2. Continue to manage the existing RNA as a WSA. 

Continue to apply the nonimpairment standards under the FLPMA to WSAs within the Monument. Apply existing non-impairment standards and practices to activities in order to protect WSA values and to assess proposed actions that may affect wilderness values. (See H-8550-1, Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Land Under Wilderness Review.) Continue to manage WSAs in compliance with BLM’s 

Manage the citizen’s proposed expansion of WSAs (5,223 acres) along with existing WSAs, for wilderness characteristics. If Congress releases WSAs from their designation, management of wilderness characteristics would be the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Continue to manage existing WSAs, excluding the citizens proposed expansion, for wilderness characteristics. If Congress releases WSAs from their designation, wilderness characteristics would continue to be emphasized while, at the same time, allowing minimum development, for research purposes only. 

Continue to manage existing WSAs, excluding the citizens proposed expansion, for wilderness characteristics. If Congress releases WSAs from their designation, wilderness characteristics would continue to be emphasized while, at the same time, allowing minimum development, for purposes of recreation interpretation, research, rangeland management structures, fuels and fire management, and vegetation 

Sam
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

137 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA) 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV A

Interim Management Policy (BLM Revised July 12, 1983), until they are reviewed and acted upon by Congress. Continue interim management of the WSAs in order to provide opportunities for hiking, backpacking, camping, horseback riding, photography, rock-climbing, and so forth, in primitive and unconfined settings. 

manipulation for wildlife habitat. 

25,549 acres managed as WSA. 

25,549 acres managed as WSA; An additional 5,223 acres managed for wilderness character. 

25,549 acres managed as WSA. 

25,549 acres managed as WSA. 

25,5addwild

 Provide range improvements appropriate for implementation in WSAs, as appropriate under WSA man Remove water-related developments (non-domestic) and fencing when they are no longer required for  Designate no travel roads in areas with wilderness characteristics.  Construct no new fencing or 

water-related developments (non-domestic) in WSAs (and citizen’s proposed expansion area). 

Construction of new fencing or water-related development (non-domeproposed expansion area) would rarely be permitted, and then only whenhance wilderness values, such as improved ecological conditions. 

 Establish an NGD/NSO to protect areas with wilderness characteristics from ground-disturbing activiti

PUBLIC SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV A

GOAL: Provide for public safety and enforcement of all Federal laws and regulations related to the use, manageMonument lands and resources.OBJECTIVES: 1. Address law enforcement strategies recommended in existing Monument Law Enforcement Plan including: 2. hazardous waste public safety; 3. drug and controlled substance; and 4. unauthorized use and development of Monument lands, resources, and objects. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

138 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT 

Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV A

5. Provide appropriate law enforcement training for specific Monument resources and objects. 6. Maintain coordination with other agencies and jurisdictions for fire control, emergency response, and search and rescue functions. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue cooperative efforts between the BLM and the NPS Stabilization Unit at Mesa Verde and BLM patrol rangers and NPS ra2. Follow State laws.  Develop and implement a protocol to identify, respond to, and remove hazardous materials wi

of the ROD. 

 Investigate, aggressively, suspected illegal dumping to determine liability and cost recovery.  Integrate considerations in Appendix F when updating the Monument Law Enforcement Plan,  Ensure that all law enforcement staff attends the Archaeological and Paleontological Resource 

Use cooperating agreements with local law enforcement agencies. Establish liaison with local 

paleontological and cultural resource law enforcement and assist local law enforcement personpaleontological and cultural resource law enforcement. 

 Coordinate with other Federal and State agencies to provide training and updates for all law en

respond to the Monument in applicable management policies and enforcement needs (i.e., recrtravel management system, WSAs, natural resource use permits, Special Use permits, and flui

 Cooperate with local law enforcement with regard to: 

 high-profile patrols during period with high to extreme fire conditions; 

 prevention and investigation of human-caused fires; and 

 investigation of all wildland fires of a suspicious nature. 

 Cooperate with County teams with regard to : 

 assisting county search and rescue teams and emergency medical services; 

 participating in county search and rescue training meetings; and 

 enforcing cultural resource laws, regulations, and policies. 

 Conduct investigations of vandalism within cultural resource sites jointly with Monument Law 

Resource staff, and others, as needed. 

Increase patrol efforts in cultural resource areas. 

Issue activity permits in compliance with stated Lands and Realty goals and objectives. Includ

scheduled patrols. 

In order to provide surveillance and public safety in cultural resource areas, two full time permanent BLM law enforcement rangers are needed, with seasonal support. Implement other preservation and protection measures, as needed. 

Coordinate with law enforcement personnel and AHC desk staff to create a protocol for visitoreporting of looting, vandalism, trespass, or other resource management violations. 
CHAPTER 3 

Affected 

Environment
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

142 

3.0 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter describes the current physical, biological, human, and land use environments of 

the Monument. The description provides a baseline against which to compare the impacts of 

the alternatives. The baseline described in this chapter represents environmental and social 

conditions in the Monument at the time the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) 

document was written (2005). In some cases, data have been updated to cover changes that 

have occurred since 2005. 

3.1. Resources 

This section describes the current physical and biological environments of Monument 

resources, including air quality and climate, cultural resources, fuels and fire management, 

geology, paleontological resources, soil resources, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, vegetation 

resources, visual resources, and water resources. 

3.1.1. Air Quality and Climate 

This section discusses the regulatory framework and current condition of the air resource and 

climate of the Monument. A more detailed description can be found in the AMS (BLM 2005b). 

3.1.1.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

Federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards for criteria air 

pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2,), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

particulate matter (PM) less than or equal to 10 microns in size (PM10), PM less than or equal to 

2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), ozone, and lead. Ozone is typically not emitted directly from 

emission sources, but at ground level it is created by a chemical reaction between ozone 

precursors, including oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Therefore, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates emissions of VOCs. 

With respect to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the EPA classifies all 

locations in the United States as either “attainment” (including “unclassified”), “non-attainment,” 

or “maintenance” areas. These classifications are determined by comparing actual monitored 

air pollutant concentrations to their applicable Federal standards. Most counties in the Four 

Corners region are classified as attainment areas for all pollutants (only a small area around the 

city of Telluride, Colorado, is a PM10 maintenance area). 

With respect to visibility, under sections 169 and 401 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), there are 

several programs in place to protect visibility. These programs include the National Visibility 

Program, Prevention of Significant Deterioration for the review of potential impacts from new 

and modified sources, the secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10 and 

PM2.5, and provisions for acid deposition control. In 1987, the Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) visibility network was established as a cooperative 

effort between the EPA, the NOAA, the NPS, the USFS, the USFWS, the BLM, and State 

governments to establish current conditions, track progress towards national visibility goals, and 

to provide information on types and sources of pollutants. 

Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress established a system for the 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) to protect areas that are not classified as nonattainment (i.e., cleaner than the NAAQS). A “PSD increment” classification system was 

implemented based on the amounts of additional NO2, PM, and SO2 degradation that would be 

allowed above existing baseline levels for various areas. A Class I area would have the 

greatest limitations, where virtually any degradation would be considered unacceptable. A 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

143 

Class II area would permit moderate deterioration and controlled growth. National Parks of 

more than 6,000 acres, and wilderness areas and memorial parks of more than 5,000 acres 

were defined as Mandatory Federal Class I areas under the 1977 Amendments. All other areas 

not classified as non-attainment were defined as Class II areas. In addition to more stringent 

ambient air increments, Class I areas are also protected by the regulation of Air Quality Related 

Values (AQRVs) by the Federal land managers (FLMs) responsible for the areas. Typically, 

FLMs are concerned about detectable changes to AQRVs, such as to visibility, flora, fauna, and 

water and soil chemistry. Currently, the Monument is classified as a Class II area. The 

mandatory Federal Class I areas closest to the Monument and their approximate distances from 

the Monument are as follows: 

 Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado (25 miles/40 kilometers); 

 Weiminuche Wilderness Area, Colorado (70 miles/112 kilometers); and 

 Canyonlands National Park, Utah (118 miles/190 kilometers). 

The existing air quality of the Monument, as well as future air quality impacts to the Monument, 

would be based on the pollutants and Class I Area parameters listed in Table 3-1. This table 

summarizes the NAAQS, Class I and Class II Significant Impact Levels (SILs), PSD allowable 

increments for Class I and Class II areas, and AQRVs for Class I area. 

Under the NEPA, potential air quality impacts due to activities in the Monument must be 

compared to applicable air quality standards. While comparisons are intended to evaluate a 

“threshold of concern” for potentially significant direct project impacts, they do not necessarily 

represent a cumulative analysis. Some regulatory analyses are the responsibility of the State 

air quality agency (under EPA oversight) and would be conducted during the permitting process. 

3.1.1.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Climate

The Monument is in a mountainous, continental region characterized by high mesas and 

plateaus, and deserts. Dry, sunny days and clear nights with extreme daily temperature 

changes characterize the climatic region. There are two long-term National Weather Service 

Cooperative Observer Program monitoring stations near the project area: one east at Cortez, 

Colorado (6,210 feet in elevation; 1929 through 2004), and one west at Hovenweep National 

Monument, Utah (5,240 feet in elevation; 1957 through 2004). 

In winter, the average daily maximum temperature is nearly 40 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with the 

average daily minimum temperature reaching 15 °F. In summer, the average daily maximum 

temperature reaches 90 to 95 °F, depending on the elevation, and the average daily minimum 

temperature is nearly 55 °F (WRCC 2005). Precipitation amounts are generally low, and fairly 

even throughout the year, except during a typically dry period in May and June when the 

westerly flow of moisture diminishes and summertime southerly flow has yet to be established. 

Snowfall is possible from mid-October through April, with an average snow depth of 1 inch or 

more from December through February. Total winter snowfall amounts range from 20 to 35 

inches throughout the Monument (depending on the elevation). 

Since 1999, the Monument has experienced a period of relatively low precipitation. The annual 

average precipitation at both monitoring stations has ranged from 49 to 89 percent of normal. In 

fact, four out of the 10 driest years ever measured at Cortez, Colorado, occurred during this 

period. Although significant periods of missing data have occurred at Hovenweep National 

Monument, Utah, a similar distribution may be expected west of the Monument. An extended 

period of low precipitation constitutes a drought condition. The impacts of the drought on the 

various resources in the Monument are described in each individual resource section below. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

144 

Table 3-1 Air Quality Standards, Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs), and Air Quality Related Value (AQRV) Criteria 

Pollutant/AQRV Averaging Interval EPA Class II SIL (μg/m3) NAAQS (μg/m3) Class II PSD Increment (μg/m3) EPA Proposed Class I SIL (μg/m3) Class I PSD Increment (μg/m3) AQRV Threshold 

NO2 Annual 1 100 25 0.1 2.5 -- 

SO2 3-hour 

24-hour 

Annual 

25 

5 1 

1,300 

365 

80 

512 

91 20 

1.0 0.2 0.1 

25 

5 2 

-- -- -- 

PM10 24-hour 

Annual 

5 1 

150 

50 

30 17 

0.3 0.2 

10 

5 

-- -- 

PM2.5 24-hour 

Annual 

-- -- 

65 15 

-- -- 

-- -- 

-- -- 

-- -- 

CO 1-hour 

8-hour 

2,000 

500 

40,000 10,000 

-- -- 

-- -- 

-- -- 

-- -- 

Ozone 8-hour 100 tpy VOC 0.08 ppm -- -- -- -- 

Lead Quarterly 0.1 1.5 -- -- -- -- 

Visibility 

(deciviews) 

24-hour -- -- -- -- -- 1.0 

Nitrogen 

Deposition 

(kg/ha-yr) 

Annual -- -- -- -- -- 3.0 

Sulfur 

Deposition 

(kg/ha-yr) 

Annual -- -- -- -- -- 5.0 

kg/ha-yr = kilograms per hectare per year; ppm = parts per million ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; tpy = tons per year 

The State of Colorado has established a 3-hour SO2 ambient air quality standard of 700 μg/m3 in addition to a program similar to the Federal PSD 

increments limiting additional amounts of SO2 above baseline conditions. The Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Value Workgroup (FLAG) 

Guideline (2000) established visibility AQRV thresholds for Class I Areas. The FLAG “just noticeable change” 1.0-deciview threshold is used to assess 

the significance of potential visibility impacts. The USFS has established cumulative deposition impacts thresholds of concern (Fox et al. 1989).
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

145 

Wind conditions are not monitored in the Monument; however, in the absence of synoptic winds 

from the west to southwest, winds are typically influenced by terrain features (upslope during 

the day and downslope at night). In addition, the strongest winds tend to occur during 

springtime synoptic systems and are associated with summer thunderstorms. Five Remote 

Automatic Weather Stations (RAWS) operate at elevations between 6,187 and 8,660 feet and 

are located outside the Monument (WRCC 2005). At these locations, the winds are calm 5 to 

39 percent of the time, and most have speeds less than 8 miles per hour (mph). 

Air Quality

The background air quality for the Monument is defined using air quality and AQRV monitoring 

data. Although there are no air quality monitors operating in the Monument, background air 

quality conditions in the area can be determined from monitoring data collected at other 

representative locations throughout the region. All criteria pollutants are monitored in the region 

by State and local air quality regulatory agencies. AQRV monitoring in Mesa Verde is 

conducted by the IMPROVE program. Table 3-2 summarizes the background air quality for the 

criteria pollutants, except lead, and AQRV data that would be used for the air quality analyses 

for the region. The background data represent the most conservative (highest) values from the 

monitoring data during the reporting period (derived from the EPA Air Data website [EPA 2004] 

at http://www.epa.gov/air/data/info.html). 

The air quality monitoring data from 2001 through 2004 show that for all EPA criteria pollutants, 

measured values are substantially lower than the applicable NAAQS values. All areas within or 

near the Monument meet air quality standards. 

Atmospheric mercury contamination in the Four Corners area is an emerging issue. The 

preliminary PSD permit for the new Desert Rock Coal Power Plant and the 2006 listing of a 

mercury fish advisory at Vallecito Reservoir indicate the need for concern. Additional bodies of 

water that currently have fish mercury advisories near the Monument, according to the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), include Totten, Narraguinnep, and 

McPhee Reservoirs, and others near Cortez, Colorado. Local atmospheric mercury levels are 

largely attributed to several regional coal power plants (Source: Environment Colorado: 

http://www.environmentcolorado.org/reports/madeintheusa.pdf.). Atmospheric deposition of 

mercury was identified as a contributing factor in the total maximum daily load (TMDL) 

measurements developed for McPhee and Narraguinnep reservoirs (CDPHE 2003a). 

The Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment (CDPHE) analyzed 15 composited samples of northern pike and 6 composited 

samples of walleye. Of the northern pike, 2 had mercury concentrations higher than 0.3 mg/kg, 

1 had higher concentrations than 0.4 mg/kg, and 1 had higher concentrations than 0.5 mg/kg. 

Of the walleye, 1 had mercury concentrations higher than 0.3 mg/kg, 1 had higher 

concentrations than 0.5 mg/kg, 1 had higher concentrations than 0.6 mg/kg, and 1 had higher 

concentrations than 0.7 mg/kg. The information gathered from the WQCD study was used to 

assess the potential health risk from mercury to the public consuming those fish. Based upon 

these mercury concentrations, the WQCD recommended that restrictions be issued on the 

consumption of northern pike and walleye caught in these reservoirs due to the high 

concentrations of mercury. 

Information regarding ozone concerns in the Four Corners area is available on the Four Corners 

Air Quality Task Force website (see 8-hour ozone) (Four Corners Air Quality Task Force 2005) 

(http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/4C/Docs/4CornersOzoneDataGraphs_files/frame.htm). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

146 

While the NAAQS for ozone are not exceeded, the ozone concentrations are very high for a 

rural area. With proposed new oil and gas activity, coupled with new coal power generation, 

these values could go higher (Four Corners Air Quality Task Force 2005). 

Table 3-2 Summary of Background Air Quality and AQRV Data 

Pollutant/AQRV Parameter Background Data Monitoring Station 

NO2 – Annual Concentration (ppb) 9 La Plata, CO 

SO2 – Annual Concentration (ppb) 2 Farmington, NM 

SO2 – 24-hr High-2nd High Concentration (ppb) 8 Farmington, NM 

SO2 – 3-hr High-2nd High Concentration (ppb) 26 Farmington, NM 

CO – 8-hr High-2nd High Concentration (ppm) 1.6 Ignacio, CO 

CO – 1-hr High-2nd High Concentration (ppm) 2.0 Ignacio, CO 

PM10 – Annual Concentration (μg/m3) 21 La Plata, CO 

PM10 – 24-hr High-2nd High Concentration (μg/m3) 64 La Plata, CO 

PM2.5 – Annual Concentration (μg/m3) 6.9 Farmington, NM 

PM2.5 – 24-hr High-2nd High Concentration (μg/m3) 22.5 Mesa Verde, CO 

Ozone – 8-hr Concentration (ppb) 71 Mesa Verde, CO 

Ozone – 1-hr Concentration (ppb) 77 Mesa Verde, CO 

Nitrogen Deposition (kg/ha-yr) 2.3 Mesa Verde, CO 

Sulfur Deposition (kg/ha-yr) 1.2 Mesa Verde, CO 

Mesa Verde Visibility (annual average deciview) 23.6 Mesa Verde, CO 

ppb = parts per billion 

hr = hour 

Major sources of pollution that impact local air quality include new and existing coal-fired power 

plants, increasing populations and mobile sources, and oil and gas development. Results from 

the Northern San Juan Basin Coal Bed Methane Project EIS (USDA Forest Service 2006), 

concluded that cumulative air quality impacts (visibility impairment) are expected in Mesa Verde 

and Weiminuche Class I areas as a result of current and planned oil and gas development in 

the Four Corners area. The Desert Rock Coal Power Plant Project, as proposed, would result 

in significant air quality impacts to these Class I areas. 

Air quality trends in the Four Corners area and at Mesa Verde are widely acknowledged as 

moving downward. An interagency task force was recently assembled to try and develop 

strategies to reverse pollution trends in the area. The role of the Four Corners Air Quality Task 

Force is to provide interim recommendations for emissions reductions. One such 

recommendation is that any new or replacement wellhead engines or large compression 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

147 

engines associated with oil and gas development would require the implementation of new 

emission control measures for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). This is a new requirement for all San 

Juan Public Land activities and would change the way the Monument has been permitting APDs 

in the Monument. Until such time that the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force makes final 

recommendations for emissions control, these interim guidelines are in effect. 

3.1.2. Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources are the material and physical remains of past human activity, ranging from 

objects such as artifacts, structures, and features, to natural features and landscapes. Cultural 

resources are finite and non-renewable resources that embody characteristics and information 

specific to the cultural group who produced them, and to the time period during which they were 

created. 

The NHPA and the ARPA provide for the protection of cultural resources on Federal lands. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their 

activities on significant historic properties, and specifies the procedures for meeting the statutory 

responsibilities. The NHPA also established the NRHP, which is a national program that 

coordinates and supports public and private sectors in the identification, evaluation, and 

protection of historic and archeological resources. The NRHP offers the official listing of the 

Nation's historic places deemed worthy of preservation. Section 110 of the NHPA is the legal 

basis for the historic preservation component of the BLM’s cultural program. Section 110 of the 

NHPA prescribes the responsibilities of Federal agencies in the identification, evaluation, 

registration, and protection of significant properties; provides guidelines as a standard of 

conduct; and directs agencies to ensure that preservation responsibilities are fully integrated 

into agency operations and management. 

Federal agencies are required to identify, evaluate, and nominate historic properties in Federal 

ownership or control to the NRHP. The NRHP significance of historic properties is determined 

through evaluation of the property using the guidelines and criteria in 36 CFR 60. The quality of 

significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present 

in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that: 

 are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history; 

 are associated with the lives of persons significant in America’s past; 

 embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; 

represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values; or represent a significant 

and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or 

 have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 

Significant cultural resources or “historic properties” are defined as those listed on, or that are 

eligible for listing on, the NRHP. 

Prehistoric cultural resources are often evaluated under the criteria of 36 CFR 60.4.d, which 

pertains to a site’s potential to yield scientific information addressing pertinent research 

questions. Sites most likely to contain important data are those with intact cultural deposits and 

those where artifacts and features are relatively undisturbed. Features such as hearths, storage 

or habitation structures, or living structures often yield charcoal for radiocarbon dating; 

macrobotanical, palynological, and faunal evidence of subsistence practices; and associated 

datable artifact assemblages. In some cases, prehistoric cultural resources may be significant 

in terms of the criteria of 36 CFR 60.4.a.-c. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

148 

Frequently, historic cultural resources are evaluated in terms of their architectural significance 

and/or in terms of their association with events of individuals of historical importance (36 CFR 

60.4 a.-c.). It is also important to consider historic cultural resources in terms of their value as 

an archaeological resource. Significant historic archaeological resources are those that are 

relatively undisturbed, those that can be attributed to a specific theme, and those that retain 

sufficient artifacts and features to permit further study. The NRHP significance of traditional 

cultural properties is usually assessed based upon information obtained through consultations 

with elders and other knowledgeable individuals of a cultural group, as well as through a review 

of historical documentation. 

On a landscape scale, the Monument contains a remarkable diversity and density of cultural 

resources that represent past lifeways and associated cultures and traditions spanning 

thousands of years. A site database compiled by the Colorado Historical Society’s Office of 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) for sites within the boundaries of the Monument 

was used to compile summary site data (see Table 3-3). 

Table 3-3 National Register Status of Recorded Cultural Resources, by Component 

National Register of Historic 

Places Status 

No. of 

Prehistoric 

Sites 

No. of 

Multicomponent 

Sites 

No. of 

Historic 

Sites 

Totala Percent 

Listed on NRHP 175b

 2 0 177 3.4 

Officially eligiblec 909 16 3 928 18.0 

Field eligibled 954 47 14 1,015 19.7 

Officially need datac 230 9 5 244 4.7 

Field need datad 796 7 11 814 15.8 

Officially not eligiblec 218 4 8 230 4.4 

Field not eligibled 426 13 33 472 9.2 

No NRHP assessment 1,257 13 7 1,277 24.8 

TOTAL 4,965 111 81 5,157 100.0 

a Site totals include 92 sites recorded in the Indian Camp Northeast Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project (Fetterman 

2004) and 12 sites from the Colorado College Survey of the Painted Hand Environs (Van Dyke et al. 2004) that are 

not yet entered into the OAHP database. Site totals also include 10 sites on the Anasazi Heritage Center (AHC) 

administrative site (80 acres) and 28 documented sites on two recently acquired Monument edgeholdings (295 

acres) and one in-holding (440 acres). 

b Four sites identified in the OAHP database as being part of the Hovenweep National Register District are not 

included in this total because it is currently undetermined whether these sites are located on NPS or BLMadministered land. This total includes 167 sites in the Sand Canyon National Register District and 8 individual sites 

including Lowry Pueblo, which is also a National Historic Landmark. The multi-component sites are not counted in 

the total as separate sites. 

c Field recommendations for National Register status are based on the site form prepared by the agency/recorder. 

Sites for which there has been no review and concurrence of determination by the SHPO are listed as field eligible, 

need data, or not eligible. 

d Official determinations of National Register eligibility are made after the SHPO has reviewed the agency report and 

site form and has agreed with the agency recommendation. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

149 

The Monument contains approximately 5,157 previously recorded cultural resources, 

representing a wide variety of site types and chronological periods, including cliff dwellings, 

villages, great kivas, shrines, springs, agricultural fields, check dams, reservoirs, rock art, sweat 

houses and habitations, historic homesteads and dwellings, camps, corrals, and mines. 

Individual sites range in size from less than 1 acre to more than 10 acres. 

The known cultural resources include 4,965 (96 percent) prehistoric sites, 81 (2 percent) historic 

sites, and 111 (2 percent) multi-component prehistoric/historic sites. The distribution of known 

cultural resources is presented on Map 1. An additional three sites of unknown age, as well as 

1,101 isolated finds, have been recorded (1,081 prehistoric and 20 historic), for a total of 6,261 

documented cultural resources in the Monument. 

Portions of the Monument have very high site densities, exceeding 100 sites per square mile. 

Areas of apparent heaviest site density reflect, to a large degree, areas that have had intensive 

archaeological surveys conducted. Approximately 18 percent of the Monument has been 

intensively inventoried for cultural resources. Many of the past inventories were not conducted 

in a manner that meets current standards. Subsequent reexamination of these areas has 

determined that earlier site data can be unreliable and/or poorly documented. Based on 

projections, it is estimated that the total number of sites in the Monument may range from 

20,000 to 30,000. 

The cultural history of the Monument was summarized in the Presidential Proclamation 

establishing the Monument, as follows: 

People have lived and labored to survive among these canyons and mesas for thousands of 

years, from the earliest known hunters crossing the area 10,000 years ago or more, through 

Ancestral Puebloan farmers, to the Ute, Navajo, and European settlers whose descendants still 

call this area home. There is scattered evidence that Paleo-Indians used the region on a 

sporadic basis for hunting and gathering until around 7500 B.C. During the Archaic period, 

generally covering the next 6,000 years, occupation of the Four Corners area was dominated by 

hunters and gatherers. 

By approximately 1500 B.C., the more sedentary Basketmakers spread over the landscape. 

Farming began to blossom as Ancestral Northern Puebloan people occupied the area around 

A.D. 750, and continued through about A.D. 1300, as the area became part of a much larger 

prehistoric cultural region that included Mesa Verde to the southeast. Year-round villages were 

established, originally consisting of pit house dwellings, and later evolving to well-recognized 

cliff dwellings. Many archaeologists now believe that throughout this time, the Ancestral 

Puebloan people periodically aggregated into larger communities and then dispersed into 

smaller community units. Specifically, during Pueblo I (from approximately A.D. 700 to A.D. 

900), the occupation and site density in the Monument area increased. Dwellings tended to be 

small, with three or four rooms. Then, during Pueblo II (from approximately A.D. 900 to A.D. 

1150), the size and number of settlements diminished and were highly dispersed. Late in 

Pueblo II and early in Pueblo III, around A.D. 1150, the size and number of settlements again 

increased and residential clustering began. Later pueblos were larger, multi-storied masonry 

dwellings with 40 to 50 rooms. For the remainder of Pueblo III (from approximately A.D. 1150 to 

A.D. 1300), major aggregation occurred in the Monument, typically at large sites situated at the 

heads of canyons. One of these sites includes the remains of approximately 420 rooms, 90 

kivas, a great kiva, and a plaza, covering more than 10 acres in all. These villages wrapped 

around the upper reaches of canyons and spread down onto talus slopes, enclosed year-round 

springs and reservoirs, and included low, defensive walls. The changes in architecture and site 

planning reflected a shift from independent households to a more communal lifestyle. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

150 

Farming during the Puebloan period was affected by population growth and by changing climate 

and precipitation patterns. As the population grew, the Ancestral Puebloans expanded into 

increasingly marginal areas. As a result, natural resources were increasingly compromised, 

impacting soil productivity and growing conditions. When dry conditions persisted, Pueblo 

communities moved south, southwest, and southeast, where descendants of these Ancestral 

Puebloan people live today. 

Soon after the Ancestral Puebloans left the Monument area, the nomadic Ute and Navajo took 

advantage of the natural diversity found in the variable topography by moving to lower areas, 

including the Monument’s mesas and canyons, during the cooler seasons. A small number of 

forked-stick hogans, brush shelters, and wickiups are the most obvious remnants of this period 

of occupation. 

Although the Monument was traversed by early Euro-American explorers, Euro-American 

occupation of the Monument area did not begin until the late nineteenth century, after the Utes 

had been restricted to reservations outside of the area. Successful homesteads left the public 

domain and are not included in the Monument boundaries. The primary uses of the Monument 

in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been mineral exploration, livestock grazing, 

hunting, and cultural resource exploration and looting. These uses are represented in the 

archaeological record by abandoned homesteads, mining claim markers, corrals, stock ponds, 

historic rock drawings and inscriptions, camps, and trash disposal sites. 

(NOTE: For management planning purposes discussed throughout this document, a prehistoric 

community refers to the collective physical remains or expressions of a cultural group’s 

occupation and use of a geographical area during an established chronological period of time, 

where residents had face-to-face contact with each other on a regular basis. The scale of the 

community is defined to include permanent and temporary habitation sites and associated 

architecture, such as storage, towers, pit structures, work areas, cultivation areas, specialized 

architecture, water sources, water storage and manipulation structures, and the composite or 

aggregate of sites and isolated finds [settlement and utilization of the land] through time. A 

prehistoric landscape is the composite of the physical remains or expressions of human 

occupation through time in an expanse of scenery that can be seen in a single view.) 

3.1.2.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

The regional cultural setting and regulatory framework are described in the following sections. 

A more detailed description can be found in the AMS (BLM 2005b). 

The cultural history of southwest Colorado is thoroughly described in Colorado Prehistory: A 

Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin (Lipe et al. 1999). The regional cultural 

chronology is summarized in Table 3-4. 

Table 3-4 Cultural Chronology for Southwest Colorado 

Dates Periods Distinctive Characteristics 

A.D. 776 to 

present 

EuroAmerican Homesteads dating from as early as the 1880s, camps, rock art and inscriptions, 

water control features, animal pens, mining claim markers, and roads. 

Undetermined 

date to 

present 

Ute A mobile lifestyle based on seasonal rounds of hunting and gathering. Later, there 

were farms in McElmo Canyon. Early sites were represented by wickiups, rock 

art, and brown-ware pottery. 

A.D. 1300 to Navajo Seasonal use of the area for livestock grazing and resource gathering; hogans, 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

151 

Table 3-4 Cultural Chronology for Southwest Colorado 

Dates Periods Distinctive Characteristics 

present sweat lodges, and distinctive pottery. 

A.D. 1150 to 

A.D. 1300 

Pueblo III Large pueblos and a shift in settlement from mesa tops to canyon rims in some 

areas with a dispersed pattern in others; high kiva-to-room ratios, cliff dwellings 

and towers; corrugated gray and elaborate black and white (B/W) pottery, and red 

or orange pottery (red ware) in some areas. There was a mass migration from the 

area by A.D. 1300. 

A.D. 900 to 

A.D. 1150 

Pueblo II A Chacoan influence; Great Houses, great kivas, roads, etc., in many, but not all 

regions; strong differences between Great Houses and surrounding unit pueblos 

composed of a kiva and small surface masonry room block; corrugated gray and 

elaborate B/W pottery, and decorated red ware. 

A.D. 750 to 

A.D. 900 

Pueblo I Large villages; unit pueblos of “proto-kiva” plus surface room block of jacal or 

crude masonry; great kivas; plain and neck-banded gray pottery; and low 

frequencies of B/W and decorated red ware. 

A.D. 500 to 

A.D. 750 

Basketmaker 

III 

Habitation in deep pit houses, plus surface storage pits, cists, or rooms; dispersed 

settlement with occasional small villages and occasional great kivas; plain gray 

pottery; and low frequencies of B/W pottery. The bow and arrow replaced the 

atlatl; and beans were added to the diet. 

A.D. 50 to 

A.D. 500 

Basketmaker 

II (late) 

Habitation in shallow pit houses, plus storage pits or cists; dispersed settlement 

with small low-density villages in some areas; campsites were important as well; 

gray pottery; atlatl and dart; corn and squash, but no beans; and upland dry 

farming in addition to floodplain farming. 

1500 B.C. to 

A.D. 50 

Basketmaker 

II (early) 

Long-term seasonal use of caves, rock shelters, and alcoves for camping, storage, 

burial, and rock art; San Juan anthropomorphic style pictographs/petroglyphs; and 

limited activity sites in open. There were baskets, but infrequent gray pottery; 

atlatl and dart; corn and squash, but no beans; and cultivation was primarily 

floodplain or runoff based. 

7000 B.C. to 

1500 B.C. 

Archaic Subsistence based on hunting and gathering of wild foods; high mobility; low 

population density; shelters and open sites; atlatl and dart; and use of baskets, but 

not pottery. 

8000 B.C. to 

7000 B.C. 

Paleo-Indian Big game hunting and wild food procurement; high mobility; low population 

density; large, unfluted lanceolate projectile points; and use of baskets, but not 

pottery. 

Source: Adapted from Lipe, et al. 1999. 

Important laws, regulations, executive orders, etc., governing cultural resource management in 

the Monument are discussed in detail in the AMS (BLM 2005b) and summarized in Table 3.5. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

152 

Table 3-5 Cultural Resource Mandates and/or Authorities 

Laws and Proclamations 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 59-209; 34 Stat. 225; 16 USC 431 - 433) 

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (PL 74-292; 49 Stat. 666; 16 USC 461) 

Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, as amended by Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 

86-523; 74 Stat. 220, 221; 16 USC 469; PL 93-291; 88 Stat. 174; 16 USC 469) 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA) (PL 89-665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 USC 470) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (PL 91-190; 83 Stat. 852; 42 USC 4321) 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA) (16 USC 469-469C) 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (PL 94-579; 90 Stat. 2743; 43 USC 1701) 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978(PL 5-431; 92 Stat. 469; 42 USC 1996) 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (PL 96-95; 93 Stat. 721; 16 USC 47Oaa et seq.) 

as amended (PL 100-555; PL 100-588) 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (PL 101-601; 104 Stat. 3048; 

25 USC 3001) 

Monument Proclamation (establishment of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument by the President 

of the United States of America, June 9, 2000; Appendix A) 

Regulations 

36 CFR Part 7 (Waiver of Federal Agency Responsibilities under Section 110, NRHP) 

36 CFR Part 60 (National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) 

36 CFR 79 (Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) 

36 CFR Part 800 (Protection of Historic Properties) 

43 CFR Part 3 (Preservation of American Antiquities; implementing regulations for the Antiquities Act) 

43 CFR Part 7 (Protection of Archaeological Resources) 

43 CFR Part 10 (NAGPRA Regulations; Final Rule) 

Policy and Interim Guidance 

1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Transfer of 

Ownership of Cultural Property (implemented in the United States by PL 97-446 in 1983 [19 USC 2601]) 

(UNESCO 1970) 

BLM Colorado State Director’s Guidance Regarding Interim Management for Canyons of the Ancients 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

153 

Table 3-5 Cultural Resource Mandates and/or Authorities 

National Monument (BLM 2001c) 

BLM Interim Management for all National Monuments (BLM 2001a) 

Interim Management Guidance for Oil and Gas Leasing and Development (BLM 2001b) 

BLM policy and program guidance for the management of cultural resources, outlined in Manual Sections 

8100, 8110, 8120, and 8130 (BLM 2004b) 

Departmental Manual Part 411 Museum Property Management 

Instruction Memorandum 

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. CO-2002-029, Interim Historic Preservation Guidelines and Procedures 

for Evaluating the Effect of Rangeland Management Activities on Historic Properties (BLM 2002b) 

Executive Orders 

Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

Executive Order 13007, Providing for American Indian and Alaska Native Religious Freedom and Sacred 

Land Protections 

Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13195, Trails for America in the 21st Century 

Executive Order 13287, Preserve America 

Agreements 

State Protocol Agreement between the Colorado State Director of the BLM and the Colorado State Historic 

Preservation Officer (BLM 1998a) regarding the manner in which the BLM will meet its responsibilities under 

the National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Programmatic Agreement between the BLM, the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic 

 Preservation Officers 

Programmatic Agreement between the BLM, the State of Colorado, the national forests in the State of 

Colorado, the USFS, the State Historic Preservation Office of Colorado, and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation regarding the management of wildland fire for resource benefits 

 (Agreement No. 1102-002-98-038) (BLM 1998b) 

Programmatic Agreement between the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers regarding the manner in which the BLM will meet its 

responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (BLM 1999) 

Informational Bulletin No. 2002-101 Cultural Resource Considerations in Resource Management Plans 

(BLM 2002d) 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the BLM Canyons of the Ancients National Monument and 

the State of Colorado, Colorado Historical Society, June 19, 2003 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

154 

Table 3-5 Cultural Resource Mandates and/or Authorities 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the BLM Canyons of the Ancients National Monument and 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, September 18, 2003 

3.1.2.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

The condition of cultural resources in the Monument varies according to a number of factors, 

including terrain, construction, geomorphology, visibility, access, and historic and current land 

use patterns. Surface and buried cultural resources can be affected by disturbances resulting 

from natural processes, including wind and water erosion; animal-caused actions, including 

burrowing and trampling; and ground-disturbing human activities, including vandalism. Cultural 

resources with standing walls are vulnerable to erosion and impacts from livestock and humans. 

The most common forms of vandalism include graffiti on rock art panels and unauthorized 

excavation and looting of sites. Inadvertent damage to sites can result from recreational 

activities, such as off-road motorized vehicles and bicycles, as well as from increases in public 

visitation. It is important to recognize that authorized activities at sites, such as scientific 

information recovery (permitted excavations), can also result in the destruction of portions of 

sites. Wildfires also cause site deterioration, with the degree of damage being dependant upon 

the intensity and duration of the fire as well as upon the type of site(s) that are burned. Such 

damage can include total loss of site elements that are flammable, spalling of rock faces, 

alteration of dating potential, and post-fire erosion. Even fire suppression tactics, such as fireline construction and aerial fire retardant drops, can result in damage to sites. 

Information on the condition of cultural resource sites in the Monument is extremely variable and 

generally incomplete, making quantification difficult. This is because a consistent methodology 

for quantifying and recording site condition data has not been used in the past. It is also due, in 

some measure, to changes in site recording methods and forms, technology, and advances in 

knowledge. To collect reliable site condition information, a consistent method for site condition 

quantification and documentation should be developed and implemented for use in the 

Monument. In addition, the locations of sites recorded from the 1960s to the early 1990s should 

be validated, and the site documentation should be updated to current standards. 

Carefully collected, standardized data on conditions is needed to obtain more accurate 

information on the specific types of impacts that are occurring to sites in the Monument. The 

AMS (BLM 2005b) summarizes the results of a study of the condition of cultural resources in the 

Monument for seven different disturbance factors, in which chaining was found to have had the 

greatest impact. 

As detailed in the AMS (BLM 2005b), the principal uses of cultural resources in the Monument 

today are tourism, scientific research, education, interpretation, and cultural heritage values. 

The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a) specifies that cultural resources be 

allocated according to their potential uses and that the associated appropriate management 

actions be implemented as follows: 

 Scientific Use: Sites are preserved until their research potential is realized; appropriate 

research, including data recovery, would be permitted. 

 Conservation for Future Use: Sites are preserved until conditions for use are met; 

protective measures/designations would be proposed. 

 Traditional Use: Sites are preserved for the long term; information about sites with 

heritage values for the various individual groups with cultural connections to the 

Monument area–including both Native American and Euro-Americans–needs to be 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

155 

obtained, so that such sites can be protected and managed. For sacred sites, it would 

be necessary to develop an approach to site management that does not require tribes to 

divulge their locations. 

 Public Use: Sites are managed for long-term preservation and site interpretation; 

permitted use would be determined. 

 Experimental Use: Sites are protected until used; the nature of the experiment would 

be determined. 

 Discharged from Use: Sites would be removed from protective measures. 

As part of the planning process, all previously recorded cultural resources in the Monument 

would be allocated to use categories. Safeguards against incompatible land and resource uses 

may be imposed through withdrawals, stipulations on leases and permits, design requirements, 

and similar measures developed and recommended by an appropriately staffed interdisciplinary 

(ID) team. 

Sites must be documented before they can be assigned to use categories. More than 80 

percent of the Monument has not yet been inventoried for cultural resources; thus, a phased 

approach to the cultural resource inventory would be necessary. Areas in the Monument should 

be identified and prioritized for future inventory. Criteria for inventory needs could be based 

upon such factors as the lack of systematic inventory, high public recreation use, high research 

potential, and previously inventoried areas for which records need field-checking/updating. The 

Proclamation’s requirement to protect objects of scientific or historic interest is the highest 

requirement. 

3.1.3. Fuels and Fire Management 

Pinyon-juniper woodlands dominate the Monument landscape, covering approximately 67 

percent of the Monument land area. This vegetative community type has a fire regime that 

ranges from frequent, low-intensity fires to rare, high-intensity, stand-replacing fires. Salt-desert 

shrub communities are the second most abundant vegetative type, covering 22 percent of the 

Monument. This vegetation type typically has infrequent, low intensity fires. Big sagebrush 

communities, which cover approximately 8 percent of the Monument land area, experience 

relatively frequent, low-intensity fires. Riparian communities, which cover approximately 1 

percent of the Monument, experience infrequent, stand-replacing fires. 

Based upon general knowledge of fire ecology in the region and the vegetation structure of the 

Monument, it is likely that fire has the greatest impact on the ecology of pinyon-juniper 

woodlands and big sagebrush habitat types. It has a lesser impact on riparian and salt-desert 

shrub habitats. However, there is little data available regarding the fire regime, including fire 

frequency, seasonality, intensity, and/or scale for the area. Based on data extrapolated from 

other areas with similar conditions, it can be predicted that, given the current state of the fuels in 

the Monument, there is a 90-percent risk of very high to extreme fire danger. Within the past 7 

years, there have been five documented fires in the Monument, ranging in size from 1 acre to 

more than 1,000 acres. 

Aerial photographs of the area illustrate an increase in stand density in the pinyon-juniper 

woodlands over the last 40 years, indicating that fuels in the Monument have increased during 

this period. In addition, infestations by Ips Beetles and drought conditions over the past several 

years have increased the mortality rates of pinyon trees. In many areas around the Monument, 

60 to 90 percent of pinyon trees have died. The degree of mortality has not been as high within 

the Monument. In addition, the year 2005 saw a major increase in cheatgrass (Anisantha 

tectorum), due in large part to the drought and openings in the woodland floor caused by tree 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

156 

mortality. These conditions have resulted in larger and higher-intensity fires in the Monument 

and have increased the risk of high-severity crown fires. Detailed descriptions of these 

communities are found in Sections 3.1.8, Vegetation Resources, and 3.2.6, Rangeland 

Resources. 

The National Fire Plan and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act outline State and national goals 

and objectives relative to fire and fuels management. However, because most vegetation types 

in the Monument have high-intensity fire regimes, there is often conflict between attaining 

healthy ecosystems, protecting cultural resources, and ensuring public safety. In addition, the 

wildland/urban interface is a major issue influencing fire and fuels management in the 

Monument. 

3.1.3.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

The fuels and fire regional setting and regulatory framework are described below. A more 

detailed description can be found in the AMS (BLM 2005b). 

The Monument is located on the Colorado Plateau; it is situated in a transition zone between 

montane and desert communities. Fire season in the Monument generally lasts from June 

through September, with some drought years extending the season from March through 

September. Most fires in the area are started naturally (by lightning strikes). Larger fires are 

typically associated with wind events, since winds are necessary to spread the fire through the 

canopies of the pinyon-juniper stands. Although lightning is a frequent occurrence in the 

Monument, conditions necessary to spread fire, including wind, are often absent. However, the 

increase in pinyon mortality, and the resulting increase in dead fuels and cheatgrass, may 

cause new fires to spread faster and more easily across the area. 

In general, management of the Monument’s vegetation resources is guided by the Colorado 

Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (BLM 

1997), as well as by livestock management actions in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD 

(BLM 1985). Additional laws, regulations, and policies that pertain to the planning process, or 

are generally applicable to more than one of the related resources and land uses in the 

Monument, are described and listed in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need. In terms of fuels and fire 

management on BLM lands, the laws and regulations listed below are specifically related to 

management of vegetation resources: 

 the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003; 

 the BLM Prescribed Fire Handbook (H-9214-1) (BLM 1998c), supported by the Office of 

Fire and Aviation Instruction Memorandum 2002-027 (BLM 2002e); 

 the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review (USDOI 1995 and 

2001); 

 the National Fire Management Analysis System (USDA, et al 2006), which determines 

appropriate suppression responses as they relate to natural-resource goals and 

objectives, fire suppression and pre-suppression organizations, resource allocation, and 

budgets; 

 the U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S. Department of Agriculture Western Governors’ 

Association, 2001; A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to 

Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and 

Implementation Plan (USDOI and USDA 2001); 

 the Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations (published annually) (USDOI 

2006a); 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

157 

 the Strategic Plan and National Fire Plan Actions (USDOI 1999); 

 the Interagency Fire Management Plan Template (USDOI 2006b); 

 Restoring Fire-Adapted Ecosystems on Federal Lands – A Cohesive Strategy 

(USDA/USDOI 2000); 

 the National Fire Plan (USDOI, USDA); 

 Instruction Memorandum 2003-38, Interim Guidance for Completion of Fire Management 

Plan Revisions (BLM 2003b); and 

 Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2004-007, Land Use Plan and 

Implementation Plan Guidance for Wildland Fire Management Guidance (BLM 2004c). 

3.1.3.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Current conditions, management practices, and trends are described below. 

Community Structure and Fuel Conditions 

The Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a protocol used to ecologically evaluate presentday landscapes within the context of fire and fuels management (Schmidt et al. 2002). FRCCs 

describe the historical baseline for the composition, structure, and disturbance regime of 

specific vegetation types. This baseline, or reference condition, is defined as the “historic range 

of variability” (HRV), which recognizes that ecosystem composition, structure, and disturbance 

vary over time and space. After the HRV description is developed, vegetation types are 

assigned to their appropriate Fire Regime Group. Fire Regime Groups range from I to V, with 

Group I describing frequent low-intensity fires in long-needle pine communities, Group II 

describing frequent stand-replacing fires in grassland and shrub communities, Group III 

describing intermittent fires of moderate intensity in dry sagebrush or chaparral communities, 

Group IV describing intermittent stand-replacing fires in lodgepole pine or aspen habitat, and 

group V describing infrequent stand-replacing fires in high-elevation conifer communities. 

Pinyon-juniper habitat in the Monument ranges from communities with closed canopies and 

sparsely vegetated understories to open stands with understories that are densely vegetated 

with an assortment of shrubs and grasses. Due to this diversity, pinyon-juniper woodlands in 

the Monument can be classified in Fire Regime Groups I, IV, and V; however, most pinyonjuniper communities in the Monument fall into Group IV. In general, young pinyon-juniper 

communities in the Monument include trees with high live-fuel moisture and little dead material, 

representing areas where fire would spread slowly and where fuel loads are light. Older pinyonjuniper communities comprise areas with high tree density, large amounts of dead material, and 

low live-fuel moisture, representing areas where fire is predicted to spread rapidly and burn with 

high intensity. 

Management practices have undoubtedly contributed to the alteration of pinyon-juniper 

communities in the Monument. Fire exclusion has had an important influence on the overall 

structure of these woodlands. Currently, the density of pinyon and juniper trees is extremely 

high, and many pinyon-juniper habitats in the Monument have lower than expected herbaceous 

coverage in the understory (BLM 2005b). Livestock grazing in the Monument has also 

contributed to the deterioration of understory vegetation, as this has allowed non-native weeds 

(including cheatgrass) and woody species to out-compete native herbaceous species. 

Cheatgrass can increase fire frequency in pinyon-juniper habitats. This poses a significant 

threat to both herbaceous and woody vegetation that is not adapted to frequent fire (Section 

3.1.3). Extensive chaining (a mechanized vegetation management treatment used on trees 

prior to reseeding with perennial grasses) in the 1960s and 1970s in the Monument has led to 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

158 

an increase in dead material in several areas, potentially increasing the intensity of future fires. 

Insect outbreaks, particularly by bark beetles, are widespread, and are occurring in virtually all 

pinyon-juniper communities in the Monument. Insect infestations increase mortality in pinyonjuniper stands, which then increase fuel loads and create small openings in cover that provide 

habitat for other plant species. 

Big sagebrush communities in the Monument are typically classified in Fire Regime Group III; 

however, this designation can vary depending on the density of shrubs in the area and the 

density of herbaceous vegetation in the understory. Fires in sagebrush vegetation are most 

commonly of high intensity and occur with moderate frequency. 

As with pinyon-juniper communities, past and ongoing management practices have greatly 

altered the historic conditions of big sagebrush vegetation in the Monument. Fire exclusion has 

contributed to an increase in shrub density and the encroachment of pinyon and juniper trees. 

Livestock grazing in the Monument has also facilitated the encroachment of pinyon-juniper 

woodlands into big sagebrush communities. Livestock grazing and other disturbances have led 

to reductions in native herbaceous cover, which has been followed by the invasion of 

cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is now present in all of the sagebrush communities in the Monument 

(BLM 2005b) and, presents the potential for more frequent fires in these areas. 

Management Practices

Fire management activities consist of fire suppression as well as preventative and proactive 

vegetation management treatment methods, including prescriptive burning, selective thinning, 

hydromowing, plowing, and disking. Planning for fire management requires effective 

communication and coordination of all methods, techniques, and resources. 

Most pinyon-juniper woodlands on the Colorado Plateau evolved under infrequent, highintensity fire regimes. This created mosaics of open and dense stands populated with a mixture 

of old and young trees. Fire exclusion has allowed stand density to increase and has created a 

relatively homogenous fuel bed. From an ecological perspective, fuels management practices 

should aim to create a more heterogeneous landscape, thereby creating variability in stand 

densities across the landscape and diversity in age classes of individuals within stands. 

However, in the Monument, fire management practices have been guided by social mandates 

rather than by ecological necessity. Fire suppression is mandated within most areas of the 

Monument to protect the high density of cultural resources; however, the preservation of riparian 

habitat and the prevention of erosion also guide fuels management practices in the Monument. 

Fire and fuels management practices in the Monument include hand thinning and mechanical 

fuels treatment. These methods can be effective in reducing fuel loads and decreasing the 

intensity and scale of future fires when applied to large areas. The protection of cultural 

resources has precluded widespread use of prescribed fire and mechanical fuels reduction in 

the Monument. Protection of cultural resources using fire suppression may be an unattainable 

goal, since fires that occur near or within cultural sites are predicted to burn with high intensity 

(BLM 2005b) and thus, may not be controllable. 

The San Juan Public Lands 2003 Fire Management Plan (BLM 2003c) outlined specific fireplanning objectives for the Monument and, for planning purposes, categorized certain critical 

areas in the Monument into nine polygons according to their resource management objectives 

and constraints (see Map 6). The Category A polygon encompasses Lower Yellow Jacket 

Canyon, where complete fire suppression is required. Category A polygons are areas where 

fire is not desired at all. These areas include ecosystems where fire never played a role in the 

function of the ecosystem, where significant heritage sites exist, and/or where suppression is 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

159 

required to prevent direct threats to life and/or to property. All fires in these areas would be 

aggressively suppressed. 

Category B polygons include the Hovenweep Protection Zone and three additional cultural 

resources, as well as communications sites operated by the Western Area Power Administration 

(WAPA) and Shell Oil. Category B polygons are areas where natural fire is not desired under 

current conditions. These are ecosystems where an unplanned ignition could, without mitigation 

measures, have negative effects. Fire control would be emphasized in these areas. “Negative 

effects” include risks to private lands and urban interfaces, areas with important cultural 

resources, areas with unnatural fuel buildups, and/or areas where the seed bank does not exist 

for natural reseeding. Mitigation efforts could include fuels reduction through mechanical means 

and/or prescribed burns that reduce fuel loading around private land and urban interfaces, 

creation of agreements that allow fire to cross from public to private lands, cultural resource 

inventories, and preparation of rehabilitation plans prior to a fire event. Category B areas would 

be prime areas for identification of hazardous fuel reduction projects designed to mitigate 

existing hazards. Once mitigation is in place, these areas could move into a C or D category. 

The Category C polygon encompasses most of the Monument. Category C polygons are areas 

where natural fire is desired, but where there may be cultural, social, political, and/or ecological 

constraints that must be considered. These constraints could include air quality considerations 

(such as their proximity to Class I air sheds or non-attainment areas), threatened or endangered 

species considerations (such as the effects of fire on the survival of these species), or habitat 

considerations (both spatial and temporal). Habitat considerations could be described in terms 

of maximum burn acreage (e.g., to preserve sage grouse habitat, no more than 10 percent of 

the polygon acreage can burn per year), or in terms of time of year (e.g., fall only). Significant 

prescribed burning would be expected in theses areas for public and firefighter safety reasons, 

as well as to help attain desired resource/ecological conditions. Reseeding is required after 

fires in Category C polygons. 

The 2003 Fire Management Plan (FMP) does not classify any land area in the Monument 

boundaries as falling within a Category D polygon. Category D polygons are areas where fire is 

desired and where there are few or no constraints to its use. These areas offer the resource 

manager the opportunity to take advantage of the full range of options available for fire 

management. However, given the density of sensitive resources and the mandate to protect 

them, fire management without constraints is not feasible. A combination of prescribed fire, 

hand-thinning, and mechanical fuels treatment may be the best option for treating vegetation in 

the Monument. 

3.1.4. Geologic Resources 

The geology of the Monument accommodates a variety of recreational activities, including rock 

climbing on sheer cliffs, hiking on varied topography, mountain biking, horseback riding, and 

OHV travel (which is only allowed on designated roads). All off-road travel by motorized or 

mechanized vehicles is prohibited in the Monument. (A more detailed description of these 

activities is provided in Section 3.2.9, Transportation.) The primary use of geologic resources in 

the Monument is commercial extraction of minerals. Rock, mineral, and fossil collection is not 

legal in the Monument. 

3.1.4.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

The Monument includes portions of both the Canyonlands and Navajo sections of the Colorado 

Plateau physiographic province (Thornbury 1965). In general, the Colorado Plateau is 

characterized by highly dissected uplands of gently dipping sedimentary rocks, punctuated by 

localized areas of sharply dipping or folded strata, relatively young volcanic fields, and a few 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

160 

laccolithic mountain ranges (e.g., Sleeping Ute Mountain, which is a few miles south of the 

Monument). Except for the isolated mountain ranges, most of the topographic relief in the 

Colorado Plateau is the result of downcutting of rivers and their tributaries. This is evidenced in 

the Monument by a series of parallel canyons and intervening ridges created by downcutting of 

streams flowing generally from northeast to southwest. This pattern is part of the regional 

drainage from highlands of the southern Rocky Mountains toward the San Juan River. 

The flanks of the ridges and broader plateaus show the stair-step pattern typical of the Colorado 

Plateau, resulting from erosion of alternating hard and soft sedimentary layers. The Monument 

elevation ranges from approximately 5,000 feet on canyon floors to 7,500 feet atop the highest 

plateaus, reflects the absence of major streams capable of cutting dramatically deep canyons, 

as well as the absence of volcanic features and laccolithic mountains. In comparison, Ute Peak, 

the highest point of Sleeping Ute Mountain, which is a short distance south of the Monument, 

rises to just under 10,000 feet in elevation. 

In the Monument, the Burro Canyon and Dakota formations of the Lower Cretaceous period 

generally form the more resistant plateau tops, while the canyons are mostly cut into the 

underlying Morrison Formation of the upper Jurassic Period. The oldest outcrops are of lower 

Jurassic Entrada Sandstone and underlying Triassic-Jurassic Navajo Sandstone. Quaternary 

Period alluvium is found on the canyon bottoms and mixed with eolian deposits on the plateaus 

in the northern part of the Monument. Colluvium is present on the slopes of most canyons, 

mesas, and ridges. 

No specific laws apply to management or use of geologic resources in the Monument, except as 

they pertain to mineral extraction (including oil and gas) and protection of paleontological 

resources. Before the area was designated as a National Monument, 43 CFR 3620, Subpart 

3622, allowed an individual to remove up to 250 pounds of mineral materials for sampling. This 

also allowed collection of petrified wood without a permit, except for specimens weighing more 

than 250 pounds. However, the Proclamation closed Monument lands to all unpermitted 

collecting. Interim Management for all National Monuments (BLM 2001a) states, “The collection 

of specimens will not be permitted, except where intended for legitimate scientific uses for which 

documentation is provided to the satisfaction of the responsible management official.” 

The BLM’s goals and objectives for the management of the Monument’s geologic, topographic, 

and geographic resources include: 

 locating, evaluating, and managing significant geologic features or landscapes on public 

lands; 

 facilitating the appropriate scientific, educational, and recreational uses of significant 

geologic forms; 

 facilitating economic-related geologic uses, as consistent with the Proclamation forming 

the Monument; and 

 fostering public awareness and appreciation of geological heritage resources. 

3.1.4.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

The natural processes of weathering and erosion are gradually changing the topographic and 

geologic resources of the Monument. However, these changes are occurring over long periods 

of geologic time and are not to be considered pertinent with respect to this planning document. 

The only perceptible changes are associated with fluvial processes or localized mass wasting 

associated with slope failure and rock slides. These issues are addressed by planning 

decisions affecting the location of recreational or extractive facilities on steep slopes, areas of 

rockfall hazards, or active floodplains. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

161 

Minor localized degradation of topographic features is expected to occur at a more rapid pace 

than that resulting from natural causes related to recreational activity. However, the 

Proclamation prohibits motorized and mechanized off-road vehicles, which greatly reduces the 

potential severity of such impacts. The present low level of mineral and fossil collection, 

although prohibited, is expected to continue by individuals either unaware of, or unconcerned 

about, compliance with this restriction. Similar to recreational use, however, these impacts are 

not expected to result in significant regional changes in the resource base. 

Structural Geology and Seismicity

Two types of structural features can be recognized on the Colorado Plateau: 1) those resulting 

from tectonic activity that now appear as folded and faulted features composed of sedimentary 

rocks, and 2) those formed because of igneous intrusion (Patton et al. 1991). The latter 

laccolithic mountain ranges include the Abajo, Henry, and La Sal Mountains of eastern Utah; 

Navajo Mountain and the Carrizo Mountains of northeastern Arizona; and the Rico and La Plata 

Mountains in Colorado, as well as Sleeping Ute Mountain. 

The laccolithic ranges are younger than the tectonic structural features of the surrounding area 

(e.g., the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt to the northeast, the Blanding Basin synclinal trough to 

the west, the Monument anticlinal upwarp to the west, and the San Juan Basin to the 

southeast), and appear to have not been influenced by them (Witkind 1964). However, these 

other structural features have influenced the topography of the region, as reflected in sometimes 

dramatic folding and faulting of the generally gently sloping layers. Structurally part of the 

Paradox Basin, the topography of the Monument is influenced by the Blanding Basin synclinal 

trough to the west, the Dove Creek Anticline to the north, the McElmo Syncline to the east, and 

the McElmo Dome to the south. The southwest-trending dendritic drainage pattern that 

characterizes most of the area is related to these underlying structures. 

There is one named fault located in the Monument: the House Creek Fault. This fault 

essentially separates the Dove Creek Anticline and the McElmo Syncline with its southwestern 

terminus on the southern canyon rim of Yellow Jacket Canyon. The fault extends approximately 

19 miles northeast from this point. Many smaller, unnamed faults associated with the Sleeping 

Ute Mountain laccolith are also present. Most are located on the northwestern and 

southwestern flanks of Sleeping Ute Mountain, and some of these are associated with uranium 

prospects. 

Earthquake hazard of the Four Corners region, including the Monument, is quite low. Within a 

50-year period, an earthquake with a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 4.27 has a 10-percent 

probability of occurrence, while the probability of an earthquake with a PGA of 10.76 is only 2 

percent. A PGA of approximately 10 is required for damage to occur to older buildings 

(especially those built before 1965). 

Exposed Geologic Units 

Based on published geologic maps (Haynes et al. 1972), nine main geologic units representing 

four different geologic time periods are exposed in the Monument. These units, from youngest 

to oldest, are listed in Table 3-6. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

162 

Table 3-6 Geologic Time Periods in the Monument 

Period Unit 

Quaternary Alluvial, eolian, and colluvial deposits 

Mancos Shale 

Undifferentiated Dakota-Burro Canyon 

Dakota Sandstone 

Cretaceous 

Burro Canyon Formation 

Brushy Basin Member 

Westwater Canyon Member 

Recapture Member 

Morrison 

Formation 

Salt Wash Member 

Junction Creek Sandstone 

Summerville Formation 

Jurassic 

Entrada Sandstone 

Triassic-Jurassic Navajo Sandstone 

The oldest exposed unit, the Triassic-Jurassic Navajo Sandstone, represents an expanse of 

windblown sand (dune fields). These were followed by episodic shallow seas (Summerville 

Formation) and another interval of eolian sand (Junction Creek Sandstone). Near the end of the 

Jurassic Period, the area was covered by a large, alkaline lake complex (the Morrison 

Formation) that included episodes with deposition of fine sediments (mudstones and siltstones), 

coarser sediments (sandstones), and some limestones. The Morrison Formation represents at 

least two different regimes. The first regime is characterized by high-gradient streams 

depositing the coarse materials of the Salt Wash Member, and the second regime is 

characterized by lacustrine (lake) environments resulting in fine-grained silts and clays of the 

Brushy Basin Member. The Burro Canyon Formation, which was formed at the beginning of the 

Cretaceous Period, represents the spread of fluvial (stream-transported) clastics, interspersed 

with lake deposits, which originated from slowly rising highlands in western Utah. By the middle 

Cretaceous Period, a transgressing (advancing) Western Interior Seaway reached the area. 

This interval, represented by the Dakota Sandstone, was characterized by a complex mosaic 

(both temporally and spatially) of fluvial deposits, coastal swamps, and near-shore marine 

deposits, including both marine sandstones and carbonaceous shales. Continued deposition as 

the sea continued to advance is characterized by sediments reflecting deeper marine 

environments–the Mancos Shale. 

Following the deep-water marine environments of the Mancos Shale, there was a regressive 

period in which the sea became more shallow. This led to deposition of near-shore sandstones 

and interbedded palustral (swamp-derived) coals of the Mesa Verde Group, followed by another 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

163 

transgressive-regressive cycle that included deposition of marine shales of the Lewis Formation, 

and near-shore sands, shales, and coals of the Fruitland and Kirtland Formations, all of late 

Cretaceous age. However, these overlying strata, exposed elsewhere in the region (e.g., the 

cliff-forming sandstones of the Mesa Verde Group) were removed by erosion. Erosion 

associated with the Laramide Orogeny occurring at the end of the Cretaceous Period some 65 

million years ago, led to Tertiary fluvial deposits. More recent erosion is associated with the 

uplifting of the Colorado Plateau occurring over the last 5 million years. The more recent 

erosion has led to both the downcutting of the canyons and the deposition of Quaternary 

sediments, and is continuing through to the present (Holocene time). 

The following is a description of geologic units exposed in the Monument, from the youngest 

surficial deposits to the oldest exposed bedrock units. Abbreviations correspond to U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) convention. A map of exposed geologic units is presented in Map 9. 

Alluvial, Eolian, and Colluvial Deposits (Pleistocene and Holocene) 

 Qae, alluvial and eolian deposits: windblown silt and sand on benches and broad 

valleys, reworked in part by running water. 

 Qa, alluvial deposits: silt, sand, and gravel in stream valleys and floodplains; includes 

soil and, locally, some colluvial and eolian deposits. 

 Qe, eolian deposits: reddish-brown loess on broad plains, mesas, and large benches; 

unconsolidated silt and sand banked against cliffs and mantling large areas of broad 

valleys. 

 Qea: active eolian sand (Holocene). 

 Qcl, landslide debris: unsorted material, commonly in large, displaced blocks with 

characteristic arcuate hummocky surfaces. 

Mancos Shale, Km (Upper Cretaceous) 

The Mancos Shale consists of gray to dark gray, soft, fissile, sparsely fossil-bearing marine 

shale. A few thin, distinctive calcareous sandstone and sandy clayey limestone ledges are 

present in the lower 500 feet. The Mancos Shale is approximately 2,000 to 3,000 feet thick and 

thickens northeastward. 

Dakota Sandstone, Kd (Upper Cretaceous) 

The Dakota Sandstone consists of dominantly yellowish-brown to gray, quartzitic sandstone and 

conglomerate in thick beds with subordinate thin lenticular beds of gray claystone, impure coal, 

carbonaceous papery shale, and gray friable carbonaceous sandstone. Coarse basal 

conglomerate is present locally. Depositional environments are of marine origin near the top 

and of fluvial origin near the base. The Dakota Sandstone intertongues with Mancos Shale. 

This sandstone ranges from tens of feet thick to 225 feet thick, and averages approximately 100 

feet thick. 

Burro Canyon Formation, Kbc (Lower Cretaceous) 

The Burro Canyon Formation consists of light gray and light brown, fluvial quartzose sandstone 

and conglomerate in thick beds. Lenticular greenish-gray, locally purplish, commonly nonbentonitic siltstone, shale, and mudstone are also present, and a few thin lenses of gray 

limestone and chert are present near the top. The formation thickness averages approximately 

150 feet, and thins southward to an irregular wedge near the San Juan River, resulting from 

erosion occurring beneath the basal Dakota Unconformity. Thin, discontinuous mudstone and 

sandstone lenses are locally mapped within the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

164 

Formation. A few uranium deposits occur in some thick sandy conglomeratic beds and some 

beds of gray shale. 

The latter two geologic units are often mapped together as Kdb, Dakota and Burro Canyon 

Formations. 

Morrison Formation, Jm (Upper Jurassic) 

The Morrison Formation consists of dominantly fluvial, subordinately lacustrine sandstone and 

mudstone alluvial deposits. Generally, it is approximately 600 feet thick, with its total thickness 

ranging from 550 to 800 feet. Four members of this formation are found in the Monument: 

 Jmb, Brushy Basin Member: This is a variegated gray, pale green, red-brown, or 

purple, bentonitic, lacustrine mudstone with a few lenses of distinctive green and red 

chert-pebble conglomeratic sandstone, some of which contains uranium-vanadium 

deposits. The thickness of the Brushy Basin Member ranges from approximately 150 to 

more than 700 feet. In the San Juan Mountains, as mapped locally, it includes the Burro 

Canyon Formation. 

 Jmw, Westwater Canyon Member: The Westwater Canyon Member is mostly 

yellowish and greenish-gray to pinkish-gray, lenticular, fine- to coarse-grained arkosic 

sandstone with some interbedded greenish-gray or grayish-red sandy shale and 

mudstone. This member is approximately 180 feet thick near Bluff, Utah, and thins 

northeastward to a wedge between Blanding, Utah, and Cortez, Colorado. 

 Jmr, Recapture Member: his member is a reddish-gray, white, and brown, fine- to 

medium-grained sandstone characterized by dark- and light-colored grains. It contains 

interbedded reddish-gray siltstone and mudstone. The Recapture Member is 

approximately 200 feet thick, and thins, intergrades, and intertongues northeastward 

with Salt Wash Member. A few uranium deposits are also present. 

 Jms, Salt Wash Member: This pale gray, grayish-orange, or moderately reddish-brown, 

fine- to medium-grained fluvial sandstone is present in thick discontinuous beds and 

interbeds with greenish-gray and reddish-gray mudstone. There are thin beds of 

limestone locally near the base. In the San Miguel Mountains, the Salt Wash Member 

may include a thin equivalent of Junction Creek Sandstone at the base. It can be as 

thick as 550 feet. Thicker, more continuous sandstone beds contain numerous small 

and large uranium deposits. 

Junction Creek Sandstone, Jj (Upper Jurassic) 

The Junction Creek Sandstone consists of pink or reddish-orange, fine- to coarse-grained, 

poorly sorted eolian cross-bedded sandstone. This sandstone forms a rounded “slick rim.” 

Approximately 275 feet thick, the Junction Creek Sandstone merges northward with the upper 

part of the Summerville Formation. It thins and becomes even-bedded to the east, and is 

mapped with the Salt Wash Member (Jms) of the Morrison Formation. 

Summerville Formation, Js (Upper Jurassic) 

The Summerville Formation consists of thin and even-bedded, dark reddish-brown or gray 

siltstone, shale, and fine-grained sandstone of marine origin. It contains an irregular zone of 

concretionary chert, with or without limestone nodules, commonly at the top. The Summerville 

Formation erodes to ledgy cliffs or, where non-calcareous, to a smooth slope. Thickness varies 

from between 60 to 200 feet. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

165 

Entrada Sandstone, Je (Upper Jurassic) 

The Entrada Sandstone includes three members, from oldest to youngest they are: 1) the Moab 

Member, which is a white, medium-grained, cross-bedded or flat-bedded well-sorted sandstone; 

2) the Slick Rock Member, a white or reddish or yellowish-orange, thick, massive fine- to 

medium-grained eolian cross-bedded quartz sandstone that erodes to prominent rounded cliffs; 

and 3) the Dewey Bridge Member, which consists of reddish brown flat-bedded, locally 

contorted earthy siltstone and some flat-bedded white sandstone. Together, these units average 

about 150 feet thick, but can range in thickness from between 70 to 440 feet. 

Navajo Sandstone, JTRn (Upper Triassic - Lower Jurassic) 

The Navajo Sandstone consists of white, gray, yellowish-gray, or pale orange, fine-grained, 

well-sorted, conspicuously cross-bedded eolian quartz sandstone. This sandstone commonly 

erodes to rounded cliffs and domes or, where capped by resistant beds, to vertical or recurved 

(overhanging) cliffs. The Navajo Sandstone is more than 400 feet thick. 

Underlying Geologic Units 

Separating the oldest exposed unit (Navajo Sandstone) from the Proterozoic (Precambrian) 

igneous and metamorphic basement is a thick section of older (Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic) 

sedimentary rock. These units include sandstones, siltstones, and shales of the Triassic Chinle 

Formation, Permian Cutler Formation, and Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group. These units are the 

sources of hydrocarbon (petroleum and natural gas) production in the region. One unit, the 

Paradox Member of the Hermosa Formation, is the source of carbon dioxide (CO2) production in 

the Monument. The Paradox Member represents an expansive, warm, shallow sea or saline 

lake that resulted in non-clastic layers, such as algal limestones (the source of CO2 production) 

and localized deposits of potash and other salts (evaporites). The deepest and oldest 

sedimentary formation in the area is the Cambrian Ignacio quartzite. 

3.1.5. Paleontological Resources 

Based on published geologic maps (Haynes et al. 1972), nine main geologic units representing 

four different geologic time periods are exposed in the Monument. These units are described in 

Section 3.1.4, Geology. At least four of these units bear documented fossil localities within the 

boundaries of the Monument. Most of the remaining units are known to contain paleontological 

resources outside the Monument, and with further investigation these units will likely prove to be 

fossiliferous in the Monument. 

3.1.5.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

In 1899, Walter Granger of the American Museum (American Museum of Natural History) 

conducted the first paleontological work in the area. Scientific investigation has been sporadic 

since that time, and no comprehensive paleontological investigation of the area has been 

conducted. Much of the area is remote; thus, paleontologists have relied upon reports of fossil 

localities by ranchers, rockhounds, or the public. Unfortunately, by the time some localities are 

reported, they have already been looted. 

No comprehensive study or evaluation of paleontological resources has been conducted in the 

Monument. Additionally, some locations, as well as the amount of illegal fossil collecting in the 

Monument, are known and documented. 

Known fossils found in the Monument are Jurassic and Cretaceous in age and include various 

plants (mostly as petrified wood), invertebrates, and vertebrates (mostly dinosaurs). Of the nine 

main geologic units, the four formations in the Monument known to have significant fossils are 

the Junction Creek Sandstone Formation, the Morrison Formation, the Burro Canyon Formation, 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

166 

and the Dakota Sandstone Formation. At least six known paleontological localities occur within 

the boundaries of the Monument. These formations and their paleontological resources, as well 

as their potential paleontological resources, are briefly described below. A map of exposed 

geologic units is presented in Map 9. 

Dakota Sandstone Formation (Upper Cretaceous)

The Dakota Sandstone Formation consists of dominantly yellowish-brown to gray, quartzitic 

sandstone and conglomerate with subordinate thin, lenticular beds of gray claystone, impure 

coal, carbonaceous papery shale, and gray, friable, carbonaceous sandstone. Depositional 

environments are of marine origin near the top and of fluvial origin near the base. The Dakota 

Sandstone and its fossils characterize the beach and near-shore sands associated with the 

initial stage of the encroaching Cretaceous epicontinental seaway. 

In the Monument, Tempskya wood, wood impressions, coals, and invertebrate traces are 

present in the Dakota Sandstone. Elsewhere, the Dakota Sandstone Formation is well known 

for its dinosaur tracks. 

Burro Canyon Formation (Lower Cretaceous)

The Burro Canyon Formation is composed of light-gray and light-brown, fluvial, quartzose 

sandstone and conglomerate in thick beds with lenticular, greenish-gray, locally purplish, 

siltstone, shale, and mudstone. The Burro Canyon Formation is a continuation of the basin fill 

atop the Morrison Formation, but has sediments derived from Sevier Highlands in central Utah 

(Aubrey 1992). 

Dinosaur bones are the only known fossils of the Burro Canyon Formation in the Monument; 

however, dinosaur bones and tracks, limonitic wood, seedpod, and leaf impressions are known 

to be present in other areas in the Four Corners region. 

Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic)

Dominantly fluvial, subordinately lacustrine, sandstone and mudstone alluvial deposits make up 

the Morrison Formation. The Morrison Formation is a vast shallow-basin deposit that extends 

across nine western states. In the Four Corners region, the Morrison Formation records the 

deposition of detritus derived from Jurassic Mongollan highlands of central Arizona. The 

coarser-grained lower members of the Morrison Formation preserve remains of large river 

deposits with associated floodplain and shallow ponds and lakes. The Morrison Formation of 

the western United States is famous for its dinosaur fossils. Gymnosperm fossils are also 

known to occur, and ongoing research addressing Hermanophyton presence in the McElmo 

Creek area is underway. Of the four members of the Morrison Formation found in the 

Monument, only the Brushy Basin Member contains fossils. The other members are 

fossiliferous outside of the Monument. 

The Brushy Basin Member consists of variegated, bentonitic lacustrine mudstone with a few 

lenses of chert-pebble conglomeratic sandstone, some of which contain uranium-vanadium 

deposits. Significant fossils include carnivorous dinosaurs, such as Allosaurus, sauropod 

dinosaurs including Camarasaurus, gastroliths (stomach stones), and petrified wood, including 

Hermanophyton and Xenoxylon. Auracaria-like conifers are also known to occur in the 

Monument. 

Elsewhere in the Four Corners region, the Brushy Basin Member and the remaining members of 

the Morrison Formation (see Table 3-6) generally contain dinosaur bones, petrified wood, and 

plant fossils. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

167 

Junction Creek Sandstone Formation (Upper Jurassic)

The Junction Creek Sandstone Formation consists of pink or reddish-orange, fine- to coarsegrained, poorly sorted, eolian crossbedded sandstone. The Junction Creek Sandstone and the 

fossils it bears, record the sand dune deposits derived from winds coming off of the retreating 

Curtis Sea. 

Dinosaur tracks have been reported in the Junction Creek Sandstone Formation, along the 

northern edge of McElmo Canyon. 

Potential Paleontological Resources

Almost all rock formations that occur in the Monument contain fossils. These fossil types 

include invertebrate trace fossils, vertebrate fossils, gastropods, dinosaur bones and tracks, 

petrified wood, seedpods, and leaf impressions. Of significant note, the Navajo Sandstone is 

known to produce the most diverse ichnofauna (e.g., protomammal, dinosaur, pterosaur, 

crocodile, lizard, and invertebrate traces) of any Mesozoic strata of the Colorado Plateau 

(Rainforth 1997). Additionally, the Navajo Sandstone found elsewhere in the Four Corners 

region has produced petrified wood, remains of prosauropod and theropod dinosaurs, aetosaur, 

and therapsid vertebrate fossils. Additionally, the Mancos Shale contains skate or ray teeth, 

ammonites, pelecypods, scaphites, oysters, gastropods, baculites, and stromatolites. 

The Proclamation, BLM policy, and guidance, as given in the BLM H-8270 Manual and 

Handbook for the Management of Paleontological Resources (BLM 1998d), outline the 

authorities used for the protection of paleontological resources. Before the area was designated 

as a National Monument, 43 CFR 3620, Subpart 3622, detailed recreational collecting of 

common invertebrates and petrified wood on BLM-administered lands outside of the Monument. 

This also allowed collection of petrified wood without a permit, except for specimens weighing 

more than 250 pounds. Currently, however, BLM Interim Management for all National 

Monuments (BLM 2001a) states, “The collection of specimens will not be permitted, except 

where intended for legitimate scientific uses for which documentation is provided to the 

satisfaction of the responsible management official.” 

The BLM’s goals and objectives for the management of the Monument’s paleontological 

resources, as stated in BLM H-8270 Manual and Handbook for the Management of 

Paleontological Resources (BLM 1998d), include: 

 evaluating the potential of areas to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences 

of invertebrate or plant fossils; 

 developing management recommendations (including mitigation measures in specific 

locations) to promote the scientific uses of fossils on Monument lands and to mitigate 

resource conflicts; 

 developing strategies to monitor Monument lands regularly where important 

paleontological localities have been identified; and 

 fostering public awareness and appreciation of paleontological resources. 

3.1.5.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Use of the Resource

The principal legal use of the paleontological resource is researching or viewing fossils in their 

natural surroundings. Collection in the name of scientific research is carried out under permits 

issued by the Colorado BLM. Recreational use of fossils may include viewing them and noting 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

168 

their differences from other rocks while on outings. Collection of fossils in the Monument is not 

allowed, except with a Colorado BLM Paleontological Resource Use Permit. 

As detailed in the AMS (BLM 2005b), the principal uses of paleontological resources in the 

Monument today are scientific research and recreational use. The BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook (BLM 2005a) specifies that paleontological resources should be allocated according 

to their potential uses and that the associated appropriate management actions should be 

implemented. 

Before the Canyons of the Ancients was designated as a National Monument, recreational 

collection of “common invertebrate” fossils in “reasonable quantities,” as well as of up to 250 

pounds of petrified wood per person per year per individual was allowed. This activity is now 

prohibited at the Monument. Illegal collection of fossils has occurred on both a commercial and 

a casual basis. Continued, illegal collection would impact important fossil deposits. Additional 

impacts to paleontological resources are being threatened by ground-disturbing activities 

associated with mineral exploration and extraction and recreational activity, including illegal 

OHV and mountain bike use off existing or established roads. 

The natural processes of weathering and erosion impact paleontological resources in the 

Monument by continually exposing fossilized material. Lower rates of erosion expose fossils but 

delay their destruction; whereas, higher rates will expose and more quickly destroy the fossils. 

This varying rate of erosion also allows a window of time in which a fossil might be discovered, 

properly identified, and studied. 

The condition of paleontological resources may improve through informational and educational 

programs designed to inform the public about the nature of paleontological resources. The use 

of websites, brochures, signage, and exhibits would foster an awareness and appreciation of 

paleontological resources in the Monument. 

Appropriate scientific collecting, by permit, would help build the knowledge base of the scientific 

aspects of fossils, formations, and geology, both in the Monument and for the surrounding area. 

3.1.6. Soil Resources 

The entire Monument is described in the Soil Survey of Cortez Area, Colorado, Parts of Dolores 

and Montezuma Counties, published in 2003. A draft of this document was used in conducting 

the health assessment of the Monument’s rangeland in 2001. When the soil survey was 

published in 2003, no changes were made to the soil map units. The survey area is in the 

Colorado Plateau Semi-Desert Province, Grand Canyon Section (Bailey 1995) and consists 

principally of a gently southwest-sloping plain, known locally as the Dolores Plateau (NRCS 

2003). Monument soil units are shown on Map 10. 

3.1.6.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

The primary regulatory tools used in soil management are found in the Clean Water Act (CWA), 

as described in Section 3.1.10, Water Resources. Sediment resulting from excessive erosion is 

considered a water quality pollutant and is regulated by State water quality standards. The 

Clean Air Act also applies, due to the potential for dust or wind erosion. Other laws relating to 

soil management include: 

 the Taylor Grazing Act; 

 the Food Security Act of 1985; 

 the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1984; 

 the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977; and 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

169 

 the Healthy Forests Act of 2003. 

Of the five BLM Colorado Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management (Appendix D), one focuses on upland soil, as follows: 

Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates that are appropriate to soil type, 

climate, landform, and geologic processes. Adequate soil infiltration and permeability allows 

for the accumulation of soil moisture necessary for optimal plant growth and vigor, and 

minimizes surface runoff. 

Indicators of land health include the following: 

 Expression of rills and soil pedestals is minimal. 

 Evidence of actively eroding gullies (incised channels) is minimal. 

 Canopy and ground cover are appropriate. 

 There is litter accumulating in place, and it is not sorted by normal overland water flow. 

 There is appropriate organic matter in soil. 

 There is diversity of plant species with a variety of root depths. 

 Upland swales have vegetation cover or density greater than that of adjacent uplands. 

 There are vigorous, desirable plants. 

An interdisciplinary (ID) team will determine whether or not soil is meeting Land Health 

Standard 1, based upon the aforementioned indicators. 

3.1.6.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Soil in the Monument is organized into three general soil map units that have similar landform or 

positions on the landscape, and similar parent material, including: 

 soil in canyons and on hills and rock outcrops; 

 soil on hills and mesas; and 

 soil of floodplains, stream terraces, and alluvial fans. 

Most of the soil in the Monument falls within the landform category of soils in canyons and on 

hills. These soils are formed of colluvium, alluvium, and residuum derived from sandstone and 

shale. Approximately 66 percent of Federal land in the Monument is correlated with JurassicPeriod geologic stratigraphy. Soil and soil properties are summarized in Table 3-7. Soil map 

units are presented on Map 10. 

Table 3-7 Soil Properties for Soil in Canyons and on Hills, Federal Land Only 

Soil 

Map Unit Soil Name Ecological Site 

Rangeland 

Suitability

Available 

WaterHolding 

Capacity 

Runoff 

Hazard 

Water 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Wind 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Acres, 

Proportion of 

the Monument

109, 110 

RombergCrosscan 

Complex (6 to 

80% slope) 

Pinyonjuniper Very poor Low to 

very low 

High to 

very high Severe Slight 80,885 

49% 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

170 

Table 3-7 Soil Properties for Soil in Canyons and on Hills, Federal Land Only 

Soil 

Map Unit Soil Name Ecological Site 

Rangeland 

Suitability

Available 

WaterHolding 

Capacity 

Runoff 

Hazard 

Water 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Wind 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Acres, 

Proportion of 

the Monument

129, 130, 

133 

Typic 

Torriorthents, 

Torriorthents 

(12 to 100% 

slope) 

Salt desert 

Breaks Poor Very low Low Severe Slight 13,309 8% 

22 

Claysprings 

(12 to 65% 

slope) 

Salt desert 

Breaks Very poor Very low Very high Severe Slight 7,463 5% 

138 

Uzacol, 

Zwicker, 

Claysprings 

Complex 3 to 

12% slope 

Clayey Salt 

desert Very poor Low Very high Moderate Moderate 3,931 2% 

108 Rock outcrop Unsuitable 3,078 

2% 

The second largest category of soil is in the landform category of soil on hills and mesas. This 

soil is formed primarily from eolian material derived from sandstone with some colluvium, 

residuum, and alluvium derived from sandstone. This soil is, for the most part, correlated with 

Cretaceous and Quaternary Period geologic stratigraphy. Approximately 31 percent of the 

Federal land in the Monument is in this category. Table 3-8 presents information about this soil 

and its properties. Soil map units are presented on Map 10. 

Table 3-8 Soil Properties for Soils on Hills and Mesas 

Soil 

Map 

Unit 

Soil 

Name 

Ecological 

Site 

Rangeland 

Suitability 

Available 

Water 

Holding 

Capacity 

Runoff 

Hazard

Water 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Wind 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Acres, 

Proportion 

of the 

Monument

42 

Gladel-Pulpit 

Complex (3 to 

9% slope) 

Pinyon-juniper/ 

loamy foothills Poor Very low Medium Moderate Moderate 14,867 

9% 

105 

RiznoGapmesa 

Complex (3 to 

9% slope) 

Pinyon-juniper/ 

semi-desert loam Poor Very low Medium Severe Moderate 11,547 

7% 

31 Farb, rock 

outcrop (3 to Shallow desert Poor Very low Low Severe Moderate 5,812 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

171 

Table 3-8 Soil Properties for Soils on Hills and Mesas 

Soil 

Map 

Unit 

Soil 

Name 

Ecological 

Site 

Rangeland 

Suitability 

Available 

Water 

Holding 

Capacity 

Runoff 

Hazard

Water 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Wind 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Acres, 

Proportion 

of the 

Monument

12% slope) 4% 

144 Wetherill Loam 

(3 to 6% slope) Loamy foothills Good High Medium Moderate Moderate 4,235 

2% 

8, 11 

Barx, Barx-Gap 

Mesa Complex 

(2 to 6% slope) 

Semi-desert loam Fair High Medium Moderate Moderate 2,777 

2% 

70 Mack (0 to 6% 

slope) Alkali flat Fair High Medium Moderate Moderate 2,640 2% 

95, 

113, 

116, 

118 

Pulpit Loam, 

Sharps Loam, 

SharpsCahona, 

Sharps-Pulpit 

Complex (6 to 

12% slope) 

Loamy foothills Fair Low to 

moderate High Severe Moderate 1,055 1% 

143 Wetherill Loam 

(1 to 3% slope) Loamy foothills Good High Medium Slight Moderate 1,050 

1% 

145 

Wetherill Loam 

(6 to 12% 

slope) 

Loamy foothills Good High High Severe Moderate 923 

1% 

100 Recapture (0 to 

6% slope) Alkali flat Fair (alkalinity) Moderate Low Slight Moderate 848 1% 

106, 

107 

RiznoRuinpoint 

Complex, 

RiznoLittlenan-Bodry 

Complex (1 to 

50% slope) 

Semi-desert shallow 

clay, semi-desert 

loam 

Poor Very low Medium Moderate Moderate 770 

<1% 

19, 20 

Cahona Loam 

(6 to 12% 

slope), 

Cahona-Pulpit, 

Complex (3 to 

Loamy foothills Good to fair High High Severe Moderate 746 

<1% 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

172 

Table 3-8 Soil Properties for Soils on Hills and Mesas 

Soil 

Map 

Unit 

Soil 

Name 

Ecological 

Site 

Rangeland 

Suitability 

Available 

Water 

Holding 

Capacity 

Runoff 

Hazard

Water 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Wind 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Acres, 

Proportion 

of the 

Monument

12% slope) 

9 Barx Loam (6 

to 12% slope) Semi-desert loam Fair High High Severe Moderate 604 <1% 

17, 18, 

21 

Cahona Loam, 

CahonaSharpsWetherill 

Complex (1 to 

6% slope) 

Loamy foothills Good High Medium Slight to 

moderate Moderate 510 <1% 

10 Barx (1 to 4% 

slope) Upland loam Good High Low Moderate Moderate 466 

<1% 

114 Sharps loam (6 

to 12% slope) Semi-desert loam Poor Low High Severe Moderate 370 <1% 

94, 

117 

Pulpit Loam, 

Sharps-Pulpit 

Complex (2 to 

6% slope) 

Loamy foothills Fair Low to 

moderate Medium Moderate Moderate 179 <1% 

115 

SharpsGapmesa 

Complex (6 to 

12% slope) 

Semi-desert loam Fair Low High Severe Moderate 113 

<1% 

The smallest general soil map unit for soil in the Monument is the landform category of soils on 

floodplains, stream terraces, and alluvial fans. These soils are formed of alluvium derived from 

sandstone and shale, and occur most often in canyon bottoms. These typically have diverse 

vegetation, attenuate flood peaks, are sensitive to disturbance, support aquatic species, and 

filter pollutants. They are, for the most part, correlated with Quaternary-Period geologic 

stratigraphy. Approximately 3 percent of the Federal land in the Monument is in this category. 

Table 3-9 presents information about these soils and soil properties. Soil map units are 

presented on Map 10. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

173 

Table 3-9 Soil Properties on Floodplains, Stream Terraces, and Alluvial Fans, 

Federal Land Only 

Soil 

Map 

Unit 

Soil 

Name 

Ecological 

Site 

Rangeland 

Suitability

Available 

Water 

HoldingCapacity

Runoff 

Hazard

Water 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Wind 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Acres, 

Proportion 

of the 

Monument 

98 Ramper Loam (0 to 

3% slope) 

Loamy 

bottom Fair Moderate Medium Slight Moderate 1,608 1% 

12 

Battlerock Clay 

Loam (0 to 6% 

slope) 

Alkali 

bottom Fair High Medium Moderate Moderate 1,116 

1% 

38 

Fluvents, 

Fluvaquents 

complex (0 to 3% 

slope) 

River 

bottom Good Very low Very low Slight Slight 976 

1% 

101, 65 

Recapture Sandy 

Loam, Lillings Silt 

Loam (0 to 6% 

slope) 

Alkali 

bottom 

Poor, 

excess 

alkalinity, 

salts, and 

sodium 

Moderate 

to high Medium Slight to moderate Moderate 631 <1% 

122 Sheppard Fine Sand 

(1 to 6% slope) 

Desert 

sand Poor Low Very low Moderate Severe 527 <1% 

135 Ustic Torriorthents (0 

to 3% slope) 

Loamy 

bottom Fair Low Low Slight Severe 246 <1% 

99 Ravola Clay Loam (0 

to 3% slope) 

Alkali 

bottom 

Poor, 

excess 

salts 

Low Medium Slight Moderate 238 

<1% 

1 Ackmen Loam (1 to 

3% slope) 

Loamy 

bottom Fair High Low Slight Moderate 142 <1% 

75 Mikim Loam (3 to 6% 

slope) Alkali flat 

Fair, 

excess 

salinity 

High Medium Moderate Moderate 117 

<1% 

147 

Yarts Fine Sandy 

Loam (1 to 6% 

slope) 

Semidesert 

loam 

Fair Moderate Low Moderate Moderate 76 

<1% 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

174 

Table 3-9 Soil Properties on Floodplains, Stream Terraces, and Alluvial Fans, 

Federal Land Only 

Soil 

Map 

Unit 

Soil 

Name 

Ecological 

Site 

Rangeland 

Suitability

Available 

Water 

HoldingCapacity

Runoff 

Hazard

Water 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Wind 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Acres, 

Proportion 

of the 

Monument 

2, 97 

Ackmen Loam, 

Ramper Clay Loam 

(0 to 6% slope) 

Loamy 

bottom Fair High Medium Slight Moderate 8 <1% 

The proportions for only the most restrictive suitability ratings, soil properties, or limitation 

classes are listed below. Percentages represent the percent of Federal land acreage in the 

Monument. These restrictive ratings or limitation classes are an indication of where the soil and 

vegetation resources are most vulnerable, especially when excessive disturbance or 

environmental stresses are applied. 

 Rangeland suitability: Very poor: 58% 

 Available water-holding capacity: Very low: 50% 

 Runoff hazard: Very high: 58% 

 Water erosion hazard: Severe: 75% 

 Wind erosion hazard: Severe: <1% 

 Sodium, alkalinity, salts: Excess: 1% 

Biological Soil Crusts

Biological soil crust communities consisting of varied proportions of cyanobacteria, mosses, and 

lichens are present throughout most upland environments in the Monument. Where 

undisturbed, these cyanobacteria crusts may extend up to 1 centimeter in depth and can greatly 

enhance soil stability. The contributions of biological soil crusts to enhanced soil stability and 

diminished vulnerability to erosion are well supported by experimental research (Williams et al. 

1995a, 1995b; Belnap and Gillette 1998; Eldridge 1998; Issa et al. 2001), and numerous 

technical reviews (Harper and Marble 1988; Metting 1991; Johansen 1993; Eldridge and 

Greene 1994; Warren 1995, Warren 2001). 

In addition to enhancing soil stability, biological soil crusts are recognized for their importance in 

several aspects of nutrient cycling, including the ability of some soil crust organisms to acquire 

and convert atmospheric nitrogen into forms available to higher plants (Evans and Johansen 

1999). Through their effects on soil nutrient dynamics, cyanobacteria and some lichens may 

also enhance the nutritional quality of forage plants used by wildlife (Harper and Pendleton 

1993). 

Resource Condition

The public land health evaluation process is a qualitative assessment of an ecological site. A 

Rangeland Health Evaluation and Ecological Site Inventory (BLM 2001i) was conducted in the 

Monument during the summer of 2001. As part of this inventory, the condition of the upland soil 

and hydrology was assessed. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

175 

Eighteen site indicators were used to assess ecological sites relative to a reference site 

condition for that ecological site. The site indicators are related to three public land health 

attributes: soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity. Ten of the site 

indicators apply directly to the soil and site stability attribute, and 12 apply to the hydrologic 

function attribute. Site indicators included rills, water flow patterns, pedestals and/or terracettes, 

bare ground, gullies, wind-scoured blowouts and/or deposition areas, litter movement, soil 

surface resistance to erosion, soil surface loss or degradation, plant community composition 

and distribution relative to infiltration and runoff, compaction layer, litter amount, and biological 

crusts. Table 3-10 presents the ratings, by ecological site, for the attributes of soil and site 

stability; Table 3-11 displays the ratings for hydrologic function. 

A slight degree of departure would have slight differences from the site potential. A moderate 

rating is somewhat analogous to an “at-risk” rating (Pellant et al. 2000). Rangelands that are “at 

risk” have a reversible loss in productive capability and an increased vulnerability to irreversible 

degradation, based on an assessment of current conditions (NRC 1994). An extreme degree of 

departure probably has an irreversible loss of site capability. 

Table 3-10 Public Land Health Assessment Ratings for Soil and Site Stability

Capable Portions of 

Ecological Sites, Federal Land 

Onlya

Degree of Departure from a Reference Site, Percent of Acres 

Falling Within Each Health Rating for Each Ecological Site 

Ecological Site Acres Rated Extreme Moderate to 

Extreme Moderate Slight to Moderate Slight 

Alkali bottom 2,060 0 53 33 15 0 

Alkali flat 3,942 0 6 36 53 5 

Clayey salt desert 4,519 0 21 63 16 0 

Desert sand 586 0 0 95 5 0 

Loamy bottom 2,321 0 23 28 49 0 

Loamy foothills 21,403 0 2 46 44 8 

Pinyon juniper 56,354 0 9 46 42 3 

Salt desert breaks 19,913 0 6 75 19 0 

Semi-desert loam 9,033 0 13 71 16 0 

Shallow desert 5,641 0 14 36 42 8 

Upland loam 1,331 0 0 67 33 0 

Semi-desert 

Shallow loam 848 0 0 73 27 0 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

176 

Table 3-10 Public Land Health Assessment Ratings for Soil and Site Stability

Capable Portions of 

Ecological Sites, Federal Land 

Onlya

Degree of Departure from a Reference Site, Percent of Acres 

Falling Within Each Health Rating for Each Ecological Site 

Ecological Site Acres Rated Extreme Moderate to 

Extreme Moderate Slight to Moderate Slight 

TOTAL 127,951 0 9 52 36 3 

a “Capable” refers to land capable of being utilized by livestock. 

Table 3-11 Public Land Health Assessment Rating for Hydrologic Function 

Capable Portions of 

Ecological Sites, Federal 

Land Only1 

Degree of Departure from a Reference Site, Percent of Acres Falling 

Within Each Health Rating for Each Ecological Site 

Ecological Site Acres 

Rated Extreme Moderate to Extreme Moderate Slight to Moderate Slight 

Alkali bottom 2,060 0 63 28 9 0 

Alkali flat 3,942 0 11 37 52 0 

Clayey salt desert 4,519 0 20 69 11 0 

Desert sand 586 0 0 67 33 0 

Loamy bottom 2,321 0 27 25 49 0 

Loamy foothills 21,403 0 8 43 48 <1 

Pinyon juniper 56,354 <1 20 44 36 0 

Salt desert breaks 19,913 0 11 80 9 0 

Semi-desert loam 9,033 0 22 68 10 0 

Shallow desert 5,641 0 16 25 60 0 

Upland Loam 1,331 13 0 55 33 0 

Semi-desert 

shallow loam 848 0 0 73 27 0 

TOTAL 127,951 <1 16 51 32 <1 

a

 “Capable” refers to land capable of being utilized by livestock. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

177 

Soil data were collected at all Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) sites. (Methodology and 

corresponding vegetation communities are described in Section 3.1.8, Vegetation Resources.) 

Ground cover was measured at each sample point. Table 3-12 summarizes average ground 

cover ratings for each ESI site. “Bare soil” refers to a soil surface with no cover, such as rock, 

litter, biological crust, or plant base. “Total litter” refers to all organic litter cover, such as pine 

needles, old grass material, and small and large wood. “Total rock” refers to the combined sum 

of the cover for five rock size classes: gravel, cobble, stone, boulder, and bedrock. “Total 

BioCrust” refers to the sum of the total cover by biological soil crust communities. “Basal 

vegetation” refers to the amount of soil surface occupied by live vegetation base. Reference 

sites are shown in bold typeface. 

Table 3-12 Average Ground Cover Values (%) for Ecological Sites in the Monument

Ecological Site Bare Soil Total Litter Total Rock Total 

BioCrust 

Basal 

Vegetation 

Alkali bottom 36 56 2 6 2 

Alkali flat 42 49 1 6 3 

Clayey salt desert 43 31 16 9 3 

Desert sand 45 52 0 2 2 

Loamy bottom 19 72 2 6 4 

Loamy foothills, pinyon-juniper 27 50 4 19 2 

Loamy foothills, pinyon-juniper 

reference 28 57 0 12 4 

Loamy foothills, sage 35 48 1 14 2 

Loamy foothills, sage reference 22 55 0 21 4 

Loamy Foothills, chaining 35 48 1 16 2 

Loamy foothills, chaining 

reference 23 66 2 7 4 

Pinyon-juniper 28 36 22 14 1 

Pinyon-juniper, reference 18 60 13 7 2 

Pinyon-juniper, chaining 33 41 13 14 2 

Salt desert breaks 33 28 29 9 2 

Semi-desert loam 37 37 7 19 2 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

178 

Table 3-12 Average Ground Cover Values (%) for Ecological Sites in the Monument

Ecological Site Bare Soil Total Litter Total Rock Total 

BioCrust 

Basal 

Vegetation 

Semi-desert loam, reference 29 41 4 26 2 

Shallow desert 39 31 14 15 2 

Upland loam 48 41 1 10 1 

Table 3-13 displays average cover values for all sites combined, all reference sites combined, 

and the highest and lowest cover values sampled in the Monument. 

Table 3-13 Average, Highest, and Lowest Ground Cover Values (%) for the Monument 

Ecological Site Bare 

Soil 

Total 

Litter 

Total 

Rock 

Total 

BioCrust 

Basal 

Vegetation 

Monument, all sites combined (356 

points) 33 42 11 13 2 

Monument, all reference sites (27 

points) 23 50 8 13 3 

Highest cover value sampled 83 96 79 59 9 

Lowest cover value sampled 2 4 0 0 <1 

3.1.7. Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife 

Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, including sensitive species and their habitats, are described 

below. Additional information is available in the AMS (BLM 2005b) and in Appendix H. 

3.1.7.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

The Monument is located in a semi-arid transition zone between generally higher elevations to 

the north, east, and west, and generally lower elevations to the south. Due to its transitional 

position, large size, and wide range of soil types (from clayey to sandy and rocky), the 

Monument supports a variety of habitat types and subtypes. The most extensive habitat type, 

pinyon-juniper woodland, covers approximately 67 percent of the Monument, while sagebrush 

and saltbush shrublands and shrub-grass communities cover approximately 22 percent and 8 

percent, respectively. As is typical throughout the region, riparian habitats represent only a 

small portion of the landscape (approximately 5 percent of the Monument), but are of 

disproportionate importance to wildlife, including to a number of special status species. 

Additional habitat types include rocky canyons (some with minor cliff bands) and both perennial 

and ephemeral/seasonal aquatic habitats. Although limited in area, these types, such as 

riparian habitats, add to the total biodiversity of the Monument. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

179 

Among the variety of species known, or potentially present, within the Monument are seven 

species Federally listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, two candidates for 

Federal listing, 15 species listed by the BLM as sensitive species in Colorado, two species listed 

by the CDOW as threatened or endangered at the State level, and six species that are Statelisted as being of special concern in Colorado (five of which are also BLM sensitive species). 

These special status species are in addition to other species of special ecological, recreational, 

or economic importance in the region. 

Monitoring of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat is guided by the BLM Standard for Public 

Land Health in Colorado, which focuses on threatened, endangered, sensitive, or other specialstatus (TES) species. This standard is applicable to both animals and plants; therefore, it 

directly correlates to the livestock grazing regulations that came into effect on August 21, 1995. 

Currently, this standard is not being achieved in 12 of the 16 relevant livestock grazing 

allotments in the Monument, all of which provide potential habitat for special status species. 

Management for wildlife and wildlife habitat in the Monument is also governed by provisions 

specified in the Rangeland Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing in Colorado (BLM 

1996). 

Various laws, regulations, and policies that pertain to the planning process, or are generally 

applicable to more than one of the related resources and land uses in the Monument, are 

described in other sections of this document. The laws and regulations that are specifically 

related to the management of wildlife and wildlife habitats on BLM National Monuments and 

other BLM lands include: 

 the Sikes Act of 1960 (as amended); 

 the Fish and Wildlife Management Act of 1956; 

 the Endangered Species Act; 

 the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668d); 

 the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (as amended); 

 the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (Public Law [PL] 106-247); 

 the Cave Resources Protection Act (16 USC 4301 et seq.); 

 the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 50, Section 402 (50 CFR 401), Interagency 

Cooperation: Endangered Species Act (ESA); 

 the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) (BLM 1988b); 

 the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) (BLM 2001g); 

 the BLM Manual 4180 – Rangeland Health Standards (BLM 2001e); 

 the BLM regulations contained in 43 CFR 8200; 

 Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fisheries (June 7, 1995); 

 Executive Order 13186: Conservation of Migratory Birds (January 10, 2001); and 

 the Brunot Agreement: Hunting Rights for Ute Mountain Utes (1874). 

Current management of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife is summarized in Chapter 2 (Alternatives) 

and the description of the No Action Alternative in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

180 

3.1.7.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Information on the occurrence, distribution, and habitat use of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife is 

summarized below. This discussion is organized into three major subsections: 

 General Occurrence by Habitat Type 

 Special Status Species 

 Other Species, Habitats, and Areas of Special Management Importance 

Information presented in these subsections is derived from the AMS (BLM 2005b); a search of 

online databases, including those administered by the CDOW and the Colorado Natural 

Heritage Program (CNHP 2004 and 2005); and standard ecological references for Colorado, 

including those related to mammals (Armstrong 1972; Fitzgerald et al. 1994), birds (Andrews 

and Righter 1992; Kingery 1998), reptiles and amphibians (Hammerson 1999), and fishes 

(Woodling 1985), as well as analogous references for adjacent states (Utah, New Mexico, and 

Arizona). 

The AMS (BLM 2005b) also summarizes the current conditions and trends for wildlife and 

wildlife habitat. This is based on monitoring performed under the BLM Colorado Standard for 

Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management in Colorado (BLM 1997). 

As noted previously, this pertains primarily to special status species. 

General Occurrence by Habitat Type

This subsection describes the occurrence, distribution, and habitat use of terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife based on habitat type. Owing to a lack of quantitative or comprehensive qualitative 

surveys for most species groups, the following descriptions are based on the scientific 

references cited above, opportunistic observations by the BLM and the USFS, and/or other 

agency personnel, and the general familiarity of section authors with the fauna of the region. 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands 

Although heterogeneous in tree height, tree density, and type of understory, pinyon-juniper 

woodlands are relatively consistent in the types of wildlife they support. The trees provide 

habitat for arboreal (tree-dwelling) species that use the trunks or canopy for nesting, denning, 

and/or feeding. The understory supports use by non-arboreal (ground-dwelling) species as well 

as by arboreal species that move out of the trees and onto the ground to feed or hunt. 

Understory wildlife may include species that are partially dependent on some aspect of the trees 

(e.g., as cover or a food source [e.g., pinyon nuts and juniper berries]), and species that are 

associated with a particular type of understory irrespective of the presence of trees. 

Of particular importance is the fact that pinyon-juniper habitat supports a number of species that 

occur infrequently, if at all, in other habitat types and thus may be considered pinyon-juniper 

“obligates.” Among these are the pinyon mouse, the gray flycatcher, the pinyon jay, the juniper 

titmouse, the gray vireo, and the black-throated gray warbler. Other species strongly associated 

with pinyon-juniper habitat, but which are also present in some other types of habitats, include 

the ash-throated flycatcher, the western scrub-jay, the bushtit, and the blue-gray gnatcatcher. 

In winter, nomadic species such as the Clark’s nutcracker may move into this habitat from 

higher-elevation coniferous forests, especially during years of heavy pinyon nut production. 

Except for the pinyon mouse, most mammals of the pinyon-juniper woodland are influenced 

primarily by the type of shrub or grass community in the understory rather than by the presence 

of trees. Examples include the long-tailed weasel, the coyote, the red fox, the bobcat, mule 

deer, the black-tailed jackrabbit, the desert cottontail, the rock squirrel, the least chipmunk, and 

the deer mouse. The Merriam’s shrew and the desert shrew may also occur in the understory, 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

181 

and Rocky Mountain elk may also seek the shelter of the trees. A large rodent, the porcupine, 

may also feed (and/or den) in the trees. 

Other mammals using pinyon-juniper habitat, due to the presence of trees, but that are not 

limited to the trees, include a variety of bats. More common and/or widespread among these in 

southwestern Colorado are the California myotis, the western small-footed myotis, the longeared myotis, the long-legged myotis, the little brown bat, the big brown bat, the hoary bat, the 

silver-haired bat, the western pipistrelle, the pallid bat, and the Brazilian free-tailed bat. Other 

mammals associated with pinyon-juniper in rocky canyons are described later in this section. 

Due to the relative scarcity of other tree communities (i.e., small areas of riparian woodland and 

montane conifers), several raptors are associated primarily with pinyon-juniper habitat in the 

Monument. Examples include a variety of raptors that nest in trees, but also feed in nearby 

shrub-grass communities (including the American kestrel, the golden eagle, the red-tailed hawk, 

and the Swainson’s hawk), or that nest in trees and hunt within the woodland (including the 

Cooper’s hawk, the sharp-shinned hawk, and the northern pygmy-owl). 

Other arboreal birds associated with pinyon-juniper habitat (and other woodland habitats) 

include the black-chinned hummingbird, the northern flicker, the dusky flycatcher, the western 

kingbird, the Cassin’s kingbird, the black-billed magpie, the American crow, the Bewick’s wren, 

the western bluebird, the mountain bluebird, the northern mockingbird, the loggerhead shrike, 

the plumbeous vireo, the orange-crowned warbler, the Virginia’s warbler, the brown-headed 

cowbird, and the house finch. In small numbers, the Scott’s oriole enters the region from the 

southwest. Ground-nesting birds present in the understory, but that are not tied to the presence 

of trees, are described in the following subsection on shrubland and shrub-grassland 

communities. 

Presence of reptile species in pinyon-juniper woodland is influenced primarily by the type of 

understory and/or by the presence of rock outcrops. However, some species (including the 

western whiptail, the plateau striped whiptail, the tree lizard, and the striped whipsnake) may be 

more common in pinyon-juniper habitat than in shrubland and shrub-grassland communities. 

The same is true for the night snake, a species named in the Presidential Proclamation. 

Saltbush and Sagebrush Shrublands and Shrub-Grasslands 

These habitats, while different in terms of plant species composition, are structurally similar to 

each other due to the presence of shrubs. Shrublands differ from shrub-grasslands primarily in 

shrub density. Chief among the factors influencing the distribution of these types is substrate, 

with saltbush generally occurring on sandier soil or drier sites, and sagebrush generally 

occurring on finer or rockier soil and more moderate sites. Depending on soil and moisture 

situations, associated shrubs commonly include greasewood and rubber rabbitbrush. Although 

the following discussion addresses both saltbush and sagebrush habitats, some differences in 

wildlife use are noted. 

As with pinyon-juniper habitat, mammal use of saltbush and sagebrush shrubland and shrubgrassland communities is often related more to the type of substrate or herbaceous understory 

than to the shrubs themselves. Deer and, to a lesser extent, elk may use sagebrush as an 

important winter browse species. A variety of smaller mammals may den beneath the shrubs 

and/or use the saltbush fruits as a seasonally important food source, but they are not associated 

only with the shrubs. For example, these same species may also feed on pinyon nuts or juniper 

berries that fall to the ground in pinyon-juniper habitats. 

Mammals in the shrubland and shrub-grassland include the larger species discussed under 

pinyon-juniper habitat (including the coyote, the bobcat, the red fox, as well as mule deer, and 

elk), with all, except for the coyote, probably less common than in areas with trees. However, 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

182 

another carnivore, the American badger, is probably more common in these types of habitats 

than in pinyon-juniper woodlands. Smaller mammals expected in shrubland and shrubgrassland include the Merriam’s and the desert shrews, the desert cottontail, the black-tailed 

jackrabbit, the white-tailed antelope squirrel, the spotted ground squirrel, the Apache pocket 

mouse, the Hopi pocket mouse, the Ord’s kangaroo rat, the western harvest mouse, the deer 

mouse, and the Gunnison’s prairie dog. 

Several of the bird species associated with shrubland and shrub-grassland communities use the 

woody plants for nesting. Three such species, the sage thrasher, the sage sparrow, and the 

Brewer’s sparrow, approach the status of sagebrush obligates. Other species that make greater 

use of the shrubs than of the intervening grassy areas include the Say’s phoebe, the loggerhead 

shrike, the green-tailed towhee, the lark sparrow, and the black-throated sparrow. Groundnesting species not particularly tied to the presence of shrubs include the northern harrier (a 

raptor), the scaled quail, the mourning dove, the horned lark, the western meadowlark, the 

vesper sparrow, and the burrowing owl. A large raptor present in the region only during winter, 

the rough-legged hawk, is also found in either shrubland or shrub-grassland habitats. 

Most of the reptiles found in saltbush and sagebrush habitats are also found in grasslands or 

open pinyon-juniper habitats with a comparable understory. One species, the sagebrush lizard, 

is more commonly associated with shrubland than with the other types of habitats. While most 

wildlife species use a variety of habitat types, those most commonly found in shrubland and 

shrub-grassland are the short-horned lizard, the western whiptail, the plateau striped whiptail, 

the bullsnake (the gopher snake), the western rattlesnake, and the longnose leopard lizard. 

Riparian Areas, Rocky Canyons, and Wooded Canyons 

As described elsewhere in this document, the Monument is traversed by a series of southwestflowing drainages that occupy distinct, and sometimes deep and steep-sided, canyons or 

arroyos. Although representing a small portion of the total area of the Monument, these are of 

special importance to a number of wildlife species. This is due to factors such as the presence 

of water (whether perennial or seasonal), stands of riparian trees or tall shrubs, topographic 

screening, and/or cliffs or rocky ledges. Taken together or separately, these features attract 

and sustain a variety of species not present in other habitats. Additionally, they support a 

disproportionately large richness and density of species in relation to the limited extent of the 

area. 

Many of the mammals described above for pinyon-juniper woodland also occur along the rocky 

canyons or riparian drainages, including larger species such as the mule deer, the coyote, the 

red fox, and the bobcat (which is found mostly in rugged terrain). A small carnivore, the gray 

fox, is more likely to be found in canyons, as are two additional large carnivores, the mountain 

lion and the black bear. Smaller mammals most often found along canyons include three 

woodrat or “packrat” species–the Mexican, the bushy-tailed, and the white-throated–as well as 

the ringtail, the western spotted skunk, the rock squirrel, the Hopi chipmunk, the least chipmunk, 

the brush mouse, and the canyon mouse. 

Riparian habitats that contain persistent water also attract the raccoon and the striped skunk. 

The only vole species expected to occur in the Monument, the long-tailed vole, prefers areas of 

lush grasses along drainages. 

The availability of riparian trees and tall shrubs for nesting and feeding is especially beneficial to 

birds. This is due to the increased height and structural complexity, as compared to other 

habitats. Large trees are suitable for nesting by several raptors (including red-tailed, 

Swainson’s, Cooper’s, and sharp-shinned hawks; the great horned owl; the long-eared owl; and 

the western screech-owl). Trees and tall shrubs on the canyon floors and sideslopes support 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

183 

many of the arboreal species listed previously for pinyon-juniper woodland and may also attract 

the following: the Lewis’ woodpecker, the downy woodpecker, the hairy woodpecker, the 

western wood-pewee, the cordilleran flycatcher, the ash-throated flycatcher, the violet-green 

swallow, the black-capped chickadee, the white-breasted nuthatch, the house wren, the 

American robin, the warbling vireo, the yellow warbler, the MacGillivray’s warbler, the yellowbreasted chat, the black-headed grosbeak, the lazuli bunting, the spotted towhee, the song 

sparrow, the Bullock’s oriole, and the American and lesser goldfinches. The western yellowbilled cuckoo, a special status species, is limited to riparian areas with mature cottonwoods. 

Although the species is potentially present, the absence of large stands of mature or gallery 

cottonwoods makes its presence unlikely. Where cattail and bulrush occur along a stream or 

spring discharge area, the habitat may also attract wetland species, such as the red-winged 

blackbird, the common yellowthroat (a warbler), and the song sparrow, as well as, although less 

commonly, the yellow-headed blackbird, and, potentially, the marsh wren. 

Canyon cliffs and rock ledges provide habitat for rock-dwelling birds, including the whitethroated swift, the rock wren, and the canyon wren, as well as the more widely distributed Say’s 

phoebe. Both the barn swallow and the cliff swallow may also nest on canyon walls, as well as 

beneath bridges, in culverts, or on various other structures. Two other swallows (the northern 

rough-winged and the bank) may nest in holes or niches on muddy or sandy banks of steepsided arroyos. Banks along perennial streams that support fish provide nesting habitat for 

another hole-nesting riparian bird, the belted kingfisher. 

A number of raptors may nest on rock ledges or on the generally minor cliff faces of some 

canyons in the Monument. These include the turkey vulture, the prairie falcon, the American 

kestrel, the golden eagle, and the red-tailed hawk. Peregrine falcons have been sighted in the 

Monument. 

Rocky canyons are the preferred habitat of species such as the collared lizard, the plateau spiny 

lizard (or swift, or fence lizard), the western rattlesnake, the plateau striped whiptail, and, 

potentially, the night snake. The desert spiny lizard is found primarily in rock outcrops and in 

sparsely vegetated streambanks along McElmo Creek, Bridge Canyon, and Yellow Jacket 

Creek. Canyons and arroyos with riparian habitat on their floors provide habitat for additional 

reptiles, including the common kingsnake, the milk snake, the smooth green snake, and the 

western terrestrial garter snake. 

Aquatic Habitats 

Aquatic habitats in the Monument include three perennial streams; several ephemeral streams, 

some of which have relatively persistent moisture in areas of springs or shallow bedrock; and 

numerous springs, seasonal pools, and stock ponds. 

Areas of permanent or persistent surface water provide a drinking source for a variety of wildlife, 

particularly the larger, wide-ranging mammal. The associated riparian and wetland vegetation 

supports nesting, denning, and/or feeding uses by a variety of habitat-specific wildlife (see 

above). In terms of biodiversity, areas of surface water are especially important in providing 

habitat for aquatic and amphibious wildlife that are tied directly to the water instead of to 

adjacent vegetation. 

Amphibians that only need seasonal water (seasonal streams, ponds, pools, and marshes) for 

breeding include two “true toads” (the red-spotted toad and the Woodhouse’s toad), one 

“spadefoot” toad (the New Mexico spadefoot), and one wetland-dwelling member of the treefrog 

family (the western chorus frog). A second species of spadefoot (the plains spadefoot) is 

documented a short distance away in Utah, and may occur in Colorado. A second non-arboreal 

treefrog, the canyon treefrog of extreme western Colorado, occupies habitat such as that found 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

184 

in larger rocky canyons of the Monument and is documented in both Montezuma and Dolores 

Counties. The only salamander species in the region, the tiger salamander, could breed in 

either permanent or temporary aquatic habitats and is capable of wandering much farther from 

water during the non-breeding season than most tailless forms. 

Perennial waterways in the Monument (Yellow Jacket Creek, McElmo Creek, and Cross 

Canyon tributary) host a number of aquatic species, including some of special importance. 

Native fishes known to occur in the Monument include the speckled dace and the mottled 

sculpin, as well as two special status species (described later in this section): the flannelmouth 

sucker and the bluehead sucker. Another special status fish, the roundtail chub, is potentially 

present in perennial Monument streams. Non-native fishes known to occur include the green 

sunfish, the common carp, the red shiner, the fathead minnow, and the plains killifish. 

From a management perspective, it is important to note that water flows in the three perennial 

stream reaches in the Monument are sustained to a large degree by return flows from irrigation 

of adjacent agricultural lands. Much of this irrigation water is delivered from the Dolores River 

basin, rather than from the San Juan River basin (to which these on-site streams are tributary); 

thus, the agricultural irrigation in the area represents an addition to the water balance of the site, 

rather than a depletion, as is more commonly associated with irrigation withdrawals. 

Aquatic mammals occurring in the Monument include beaver and muskrats. A few species of 

waterbirds may also use areas of surface water to nest and/or feed. Species potentially present 

based on known geographic range, although present in smaller numbers due to the limited 

habitat, include a large wading bird (the great blue heron), waterfowl (including the mallard and 

the green-winged teal), two shorebirds (the killdeer and the spotted sandpiper), two rails (the 

Virginia rail and the sora), and additional, unrelated species (the pied-billed grebe and the 

American coot). A wider variety of waterbirds may stop during migration, but they probably do 

not nest on-site. 

Special Status Wildlife Species

The following discussions and Table 3-14 present information on special status terrestrial and 

aquatic wildlife species known to occur, or known to have a reasonable potential of occurring, in 

the Monument. All Federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered species 

(USFWS 2005) are also listed by the BLM as sensitive species and by the CDOW (2005) as 

threatened, endangered, or special-concern species at the state level. Other species having 

special management importance are discussed later in this section. 

Table 3-14 Special Status Wildlife Species Present or Potentially Present

Species Listing Agency and 

Status Habitat Associations Known to Occur? 

Fringed myotis BLM sensitive Roosts in rocky canyons and 

wooded areas 

No, but likely to 

occur due to the 

presence of 

suitable habitat 

Yuma myotis BLM sensitive Roosts in rocky canyons and 

wooded areas No 

Spotted bat BLM sensitive Roosts in rocky canyons and 

wooded areas No 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

185 

Table 3-14 Special Status Wildlife Species Present or Potentially Present

Species Listing Agency and 

Status Habitat Associations Known to Occur? 

Townsend’s bigeared bat BLM sensitive; 

CDOW special concern 

Roosts in rocky canyons and 

wooded areas No 

Allen’s (Mexican) 

big-eared bat BLM sensitive Roosts in rocky canyons and wooded areas 

No, but recorded 

in vicinity 

Big free-tailed bat BLM sensitive Roosts in rocky canyons and 

wooded areas 

No, but likely to 

occur due to the 

presence of 

suitable habitat 

Kit fox CDOW endangered Occurs in shrublands and shrubgrasslands No 

Peregrine falcon CDOW special concern Nests along cliffs and hunts for 

waterfowl and upland fowl 

No, but occurs in 

vicinity 

Bald eagle 

USFWS threatened; 

CDOW threatened 

Nests or roosts in large trees 

along rivers and lakes; hunts 

primarily for fish and waterfowl 

but may feed on smaller 

mammals and carrion 

Yes 

Ferruginous hawk BLM sensitive; 

CDOW special concern 

Hunts in dry, open country; may 

nest in trees or on cliffs/ledges Yes 

Mexican spotted 

owl 

USFWS threatened; 

CDOW threatened 

Nests/roosts in ponderosa 

pine/mixed conifer in canyons, 

especially with cliffs 

No, but occurs at 

Mesa Verde 

(BLM 2005b) 

Burrowing owl CDOW threatened 

Nests/roosts in abandoned prairie 

dog burrows in shrub-grassland 

and grassland habitats 

Yes 

Gunnison sagegrouse BLM sensitive; 

CDOW special concern 

Nests primarily in sagebrush but 

also uses grassland and riparian 

habitats during certain seasons 

No, but occurs in 

vicinity 

Western yellowbilled cuckoo USFWS candidate Inhabits riparian areas with 

mature cottonwood forest No, very unlikely 

Southwestern 

willow flycatcher 

USFWS endangered; 

CDOW endangered 

Nests in riparian habitats with 

willows and other tall shrubs No 

Northern leopard 

frog 

BLM sensitive; 

CDOW special concern 

Aquatic habitats and adjacent 

areas 

Yes 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

186 

Table 3-14 Special Status Wildlife Species Present or Potentially Present

Species Listing Agency and 

Status Habitat Associations Known to Occur? 

Longnose leopard 

lizard 

BLM sensitive; 

CDOW special concern 

Found in areas with scattered 

shrubs or other low plants Yes 

Desert spiny lizard BLM sensitive Prefers sparsely vegetated banks 

and outcrops along drainages Yes 

Common 

kingsnake 

BLM sensitive; 

CDOW special concern 

Found in variety of habitats, 

mostly with trees, shrubs, or rock 

outcrops 

Yes 

Milk snake BLM sensitive Woodlands, rocky hillsides, and 

borders of wetlands Yes 

Mesa Verde night 

snake 

None, but named in 

Presidential Proclamation 

Found in rugged terrain with 

rocky slopes, including pinyonjuniper Yes 

Colorado 

pikeminnow 

USFWS endangered; 

CDOW threatened 

Mostly limited to large rivers and 

major tributaries 

No, but occurs in 

San Juan River 

Roundtail chub BLM sensitive; 

CDOW special concern 

Mostly limited to large rivers and 

major tributaries 

No, but occurs in 

San Juan River 

Bonytail chub USFWS endangered; 

CDOW endangered 

Mostly limited to large rivers and 

major tributaries 

No, but occurs in 

San Juan River 

Humpback chub USFWS endangered; 

CDOW threatened 

Mostly limited to large rivers and 

major tributaries 

No, but occurs in 

San Juan River 

Razorback sucker USFWS endangered; 

CDOW endangered 

Mostly limited to large rivers and 

major tributaries 

No, but occurs in 

San Juan River 

Flannelmouth 

sucker BLM sensitive Prefers mid- to large-size rivers but may occur in tributaries Yes 

Bluehead sucker BLM sensitive Prefers mid- to large-size rivers 

but may occur in tributaries Yes 

Federally Listed and Candidate Threatened or Endangered Species 

One Federally listed threatened or endangered animal species is documented to occur in the 

Monument, and two other listed species (the Mexican spotted owl and the SWWF) and one 

candidate species (the bald eagle) are potentially present, based on habitats present and known 

geographic ranges. A candidate species (the yellow-billed cuckoo) is listed for Montezuma 

County, but habitat for this species in the Monument is lacking. Specific information about the 

abundance and distribution of these listed species in the Monument and vicinity is lacking. 

However, based on habitats present on-site, the following general discussion provides some 

information on potential occurrence and habitat use. This discussion also addresses four other 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

187 

Federally listed species (the Colorado pikeminnow, the bonytail chub, the humpback chub, and 

the razorback sucker)–big-river fishes listed as endangered and occurring in the Colorado River 

basin downstream from the site–and a number of other special status species that either occur 

or are potentially present on-site. 

Bald Eagle – This raptor nests in large trees along rivers and streams, where it hunts for fish 

and waterfowl. During periods or seasons when their typical prey may not be accessible, bald 

eagles may feed on terrestrial prey, such as prairie dogs, rabbits, and carrion. Bald eagles 

routinely occur along the Dolores River and reservoirs in the region and have been observed in 

the Monument, mostly along McElmo Creek and northeastern drainages during winter. They 

could occur during any season, but are most likely migrants and winter visitors, or vagrants from 

offsite nesting areas. The scarcity of mature cottonwood woodlands and perennial surface 

water in the Monument greatly reduces the level of use by this species. 

Map 11 shows bald eagle use areas as mapped by the CDOW (National Diversity Information 

Sources [NDIS] website). In addition to the large expanse of winter range along McElmo Creek 

and the U.S. Highway 491 corridor, note the areas of more concentrated use near Dolores and 

Cortez. 

Mexican Spotted Owl –This subspecies occurs in the general region (including Mesa Verde), 

but has not been documented in the Monument. It prefers canyons with cliffs and mature 

ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, or other montane conifers. Although these conditions are limited in 

the Monument, some of the deeper canyons or more heavily wooded canyons (e.g., the 

headwaters of Sand Canyon) offer potentially suitable habitat. This large owl hunts primarily for 

small mammals within the wooded habitat in which it nests. 

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo – Another candidate species, the western yellow-billed cuckoo is 

a secretive bird that nests in large groves of mature cottonwood forests along rivers and larger 

creeks. The Monument offers only limited potentially suitable habitat, along the larger perennial 

streams. The potential for this species to occur on-site is low. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher – The SWWF has not been documented in the Monument. 

However, suitable willow shrublands along some of the drainages in the Monument and the 

presence of southwestern flycatchers in the region combine to make them potentially present 

on-site. The quality of on-site habitat for this subspecies has been compromised by livestock 

grazing, which often becomes concentrated in areas along streams due to the presence of 

water, shade, and lush forage. Impacts from livestock grazing include direct or indirect loss of 

willow habitat due to herbivory and/or trampling. Invasion of riparian corridors by aggressive 

non-natives (e.g., the Russian-olive and tamarisk [salt-cedar]) further reduces the quality of 

riparian corridors by choking out willows and other native species. 

Colorado River Fishes – Four non-game fishes associated with major rivers and larger 

tributaries in the Colorado River drainage basin are known to occur in the San Juan River (a 

major tributary of the Colorado River) downstream from the Monument. These are the Colorado 

pikeminnow, the bonytail chub, the humpback chub, and the razorback sucker. These species, 

although not documented in Monument streams and generally not found in creeks as small as 

Yellow Jacket, McElmo, and the Cross Canyon tributary (the three perennial streams on-site), 

could be adversely affected by changes in the flow regime of the occupied reaches farther 

downstream. Modification of the historic flow regime, including construction of dams and 

seasonal withdrawals for agriculture, and its resulting influence on gravel bars, shallows, and 

other habitats needed for spawning and larval growth, is generally cited as a major contributor 

to the decline of these species. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

188 

BLM Sensitive Species 

The Monument provides potential habitat for several BLM sensitive species. These include six 

bat species: the fringed myotis, the Yuma myotis, the spotted bat, the Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, the Allen’s (Mexican) big-eared bat, and the big free-tailed bat. All of these species have 

been captured in Montezuma County by the CDOW. The spotted bat and the big free-tailed bat 

are rare in Colorado. The Allen’s big-eared bat was recorded near the area by the CDOW in 

2006, and represents the first recorded in Colorado. 

Another BLM sensitive species potentially present on-site is the ferruginous hawk, listed 

previously in the descriptions of wildlife in pinyon-juniper woodland and rocky canyon habitats. 

This species, the largest hawk in Colorado, winters in the Monument and feeds in more open 

terrain, such as semi-desert shrubland, shrub-grassland, or grassland types. Although 

consuming a wide range of prey, this species may be particularly common in areas with the 

presence of prairie dogs, which the hawks are large enough to take readily, and which can offer 

a concentrated and abundant prey source. 

The Gunnison sage-grouse was recently elevated from subspecies to species status. Although 

it is not known to occur in the Monument, it is present nearby, and the expanse of sagebrush 

shrubland and sage-grassland makes portions of the Monument potentially suitable for natural 

colonization or reintroduction of this species. Although it generally nests in sagebrush habitats 

and uses sagebrush as a winter food source, the Gunnison sage-grouse also occurs in other 

habitats, particularly in riparian areas and lush grasslands during summer and fall. 

Other BLM sensitive species known to occur in the Monument include the longnose leopard 

lizard and the desert spiny lizard, as well as the common kingsnake, the milk snake, and the 

northern leopard frog. All of these species were discussed previously in descriptions of species 

occurrence by habitat type. 

As described previously, BLM sensitive fish species known to occur include the flannelmouth 

sucker, the bluehead sucker, and the roundtail chub. Habitat for these and other fish species 

on-site is limited to the three perennial stream segments (Yellow Jacket Creek, McElmo Creek, 

and the Cross Canyon tributary) that are sustained by groundwater and spring discharges, as 

well as by irrigation return flows from adjacent agricultural lands. 

State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Species 

All of the Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species are also State-listed as 

threatened or endangered by the CDOW. In addition, the CDOW lists some species as 

threatened or endangered at the State level that do not have a similar Federal status. Statelisted species potentially present in or near the Monument are discussed below. 

Kit Fox – This small carnivore, State-listed as endangered, occurs in western and southwestern 

Colorado, as well as in portions of other southwestern and intermountain states. It inhabits 

drier, more open habitats than the red fox and the gray fox, and feeds primarily on rabbits, small 

rodents, and ground-nesting birds. Suitable habitat in the Monument consists of the expanses 

of saltbush and sagebrush shrubland and shrub-grassland, as well as open stands of pinyonjuniper. There is a record of a kit fox sighting from 1962, from in or near the Monument 

(Meaney et al. 2006). 

Burrowing Owl – State-listed as threatened, this small owl nests in abandoned prairie dog 

burrows or, less commonly, burrows of large ground squirrels or other ground-dwelling species. 

Its prey consists primarily of large insects (e.g., grasshoppers) and small vertebrates. In 

Colorado, the burrowing owl is more common in the eastern plains, where the black-tailed 

prairie dog is more abundant and widespread than the Gunnison’s prairie dog is in southwestern 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

189 

Colorado. Gunnison’s prairie dogs and burrowing owls are known to occur in the Monument. 

Suitable habitat in the Monument consists of the expanses of saltbush and sagebrush shrubland 

and shrub-grassland. 

State-Listed Species of Special Concern 

The CDOW also lists species that are of special concern in Colorado due to limited or declining 

habitat, small or localized populations despite ample habitat, and/or due to other reasons. 

Special concern species potentially present in the Monument and vicinity include most of the 

species listed as sensitive by the BLM, as well as those Federally listed, proposed, or candidate 

species not designated as threatened or endangered in Colorado. The only State-listed special 

concern species potentially present in the Monument, and not included in one of the other 

special status categories, is the peregrine falcon. This raptor was previously Federally listed as 

endangered, then downgraded to threatened, and finally de-listed (removed from the Federal 

list) due to recovery. The peregrine falcon nests along cliffs and other secluded rock exposures, 

from where it hunts primarily for small birds and, opportunistically, other large birds, such as 

quail, grouse, and pigeons. Suitable nesting habitat does occur in the Monument, and sightings 

of peregrines during the breeding season have been documented. 

Other Species, Habitats, and Areas of Special Management Importance

In addition to the special status wildlife species discussed above, other species, habitats, and 

areas of special importance in terms of current and/or future management of the Monument are 

summarized below. 

Native Birds Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

Most native species of birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In addition 

to protecting the birds from being killed, injured, and/or harassed, the MBTA protects active 

nests, that is, those nests that contain eggs or young and, if interpreted more broadly, those 

nests that are being tended to by adults in preparation for nesting. 

The MBTA prohibits the unregulated “take” of most native bird species, except for gallinaceous 

birds (grouse, quail, wild turkey, etc.). This law is understood to cover direct harm to birds, 

rather than including harm to their habitat. The law does not exempt unintentional take of birds 

and, as currently interpreted, proposals that appear to risk direct damage to birds and/or live 

eggs must show diligence in avoiding or reducing this risk. The lead enforcement agency, the 

USFWS, publishes a list, “Birds of Conservation Concern,” indicating that avoiding harm to the 

species on this list will contribute substantially to showing diligence to the requirements of the 

MBTA. Within the Monument, the following birds of conservation concern may be found: the 

golden eagle, the Swainson’s hawk, the northern harrier, the ferruginous hawk, the Gunnison 

sage-grouse, the short-eared owl, the peregrine falcon, the prairie falcon, the western burrowing 

owl, the pinyon jay, the black-throated gray warbler, the gray vireo, and the sage sparrow. 

Amphibians 

None of the amphibians (salamanders, frogs, and toads) present, or potentially present, in the 

Monument are Federally listed as threatened or endangered; however, many species are 

vulnerable to local extirpation in semi-arid environments due to the need for perennial or 

predictable seasonal water sources for breeding. Amphibian species present in the Monument 

have adaptations for arid environments. 

While most amphibians are not strictly limited to perennial waters, as are fishes, loss of an 

occupied water source can have a much more prolonged impact on amphibians than the 

occasional drying of a stream has on the fish population. This is because fish may quickly 

recolonize the stream from downstream or upstream reaches when surface flows are 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

190 

reestablished, while recolonization by amphibians can be a very slow process requiring 

overland dispersal from distant, isolated pools. Additionally, physical disturbances that prevent 

breeding or that destroy the eggs or tadpoles of a population can negate the entire reproductive 

effort for that year. Only a few years of failed reproduction can lead to loss of the population, as 

adults gradually succumb to age without successfully replacing themselves. 

Recreationally or Economically Important Game Species 

One of the current recreational uses of the Monument is hunting. Hunted species in or near the 

Monument include the wild turkey, the Gambel’s quail, the black bear, the mountain lion, mule 

deer, and Rocky Mountain elk. Although locals hunt small game, deer and elk are a more major 

draw, attracting hunters from other areas as well. 

As shown on Map 11, most of the Monument area is mapped by the CDOW as supporting a 

resident population of mule deer. Winter range occurs along some of the northeastern 

drainages and, along with a small area mapped as a winter concentration area, just north of the 

northwestern corner. Note that the map depicts only Colorado data; however, similar uses 

extend across the state line into Utah. 

In comparison, elk make more limited use of the Monument, with resident populations mostly 

along the northeastern boundary and, for winter range, extending generally farther northeast. 

Severe winter range areas (i.e., habitats used during the severest winters, when other habitats 

are unavailable due to snow cover) are mapped northeast of U.S. Highway 491. Two migration 

corridors enter the Monument from winter range and severe winter range: from Yellow Jacket 

Canyon and from Sandstone Canyon. Use of the Monument by elk is a result of the building of 

McPhee Reservoir and of the cultivation of agricultural fields, predominantly with alfalfa. 

The Brunot Treaty, ratified by Congress in 1874, withdrew over 5,000 square miles in the 

mountains of southwestern Colorado from the 1868 Ute Reservation. The Brunot cession area 

includes 3,857 acres (including 216 acres of private land) in the southeastern corner of the 

Monument. The agreement, entered into between the United States (as represented by Felix 

Brunot) and the Ute Indians in Colorado, was passed into law (18 Stat., 36) by the House of 

Representatives and the Senate of the U.S. Congress on April 29, 1974 (after Congress 

decided in 1871 that the U.S. would no longer make treaties with Native American tribes; yet 

continued to interact with Native American tribes in much the same manner through executive 

orders and agreements enacted as statutes). Under the “reserved rights doctrine,” hunting 

rights on reservation lands relinquished by the Utes were retained; that is, the tribes retained 

such rights as part of their status as prior and continuing sovereigns. Article II of the Brunot 

Agreement specified that “the United States shall permit the Ute Indians to hunt upon said lands 

so long as the game lasts and the Indians are at peace with the white people.” This is 

considered a valid existing right that, under the terms of the Proclamation that established the 

Monument, must be honored. 

3.1.8. Vegetation Resources 

Vegetation resources in the Monument are considered to have intrinsic value, and to provide a 

setting for the cultural objects, biomass for livestock forage, food and fiber collection, forest 

products (including Christmas trees), and habitat for wildlife. Following BLM guidance, 

vegetation resources in the Monument will be discussed with a general distinction made 

between uplands, comprising primarily woodlands and shrublands, and riparian and wetland 

areas. Management of special status plant species and significant plant communities, as well 

as noxious weeds, will also be considered and discussed. 

There are approximately 174,100 acres in existing grazing allotments in the Monument, 

including those contributed by private in-holdings. The condition and trend of vegetation in 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

191 

these allotments, and the associated livestock grazing permits, are discussed in Section 3.2.6, 

Rangeland Resources. Information on Christmas tree permits, fuelwood cutting, and other 

forest-related products collected in the Monument is located in Section 3.2.3, Special Forest 

Products. Food and fiber collection in the Monument is generally limited to collection of pinyon 

and juniper wood for specialty purposes, pinyon nuts, skunkbrush sumac fruits, mushrooms, 

native tobacco from recent burns, and various shrubs and grasses for basketry, weaving 

clothes, tools, and ceremonial contexts. These uses are discussed more thoroughly in Section 

3.1.2, Cultural Resources. Permits for seed collecting for commercial purposes have been 

issued in the past, but potential impacts from this practice have not been assessed. The use of 

vegetation resources by wildlife is discussed Section 3.1.7, Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife. 

3.1.8.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

The Monument lies within the Colorado Plateau Semi-desert Province (Bailey 1995). This 

ecoregion barely enters Colorado in the southwestern corner of the state. In this classification 

system, the defining characteristic of this and other similarly grouped provinces in the 

Subtropical Steppe of the Dry Domain is the regional aridity. Short-grass grasslands, with 

locally developed shrub lands and woodlands, characteristically dominate steppe provinces. 

Six major vegetation types occur in the Monument, including pinyon-juniper woodlands, saltdesert shrublands, big sagebrush shrublands, and cottonwood-willow-tamarisk woodlands, as 

well as unvegetated rock outcrops and agriculture/industrial areas. General vegetation types 

are presented in Table 3-15. Pinyon-juniper woodlands are the most common vegetation type 

in the Monument, accounting for approximately 67 percent of the total land area (see Map 12). 

The second most abundant vegetation type, salt-desert shrublands dominated by shadscale or 

saltbush, represents 22 percent of the Monument area. Big sagebrush shrublands account for 

almost 8 percent of the Monument area. 

In general, the Colorado Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management (BLM 1997) and livestock management actions in the San Juan/San Miguel 

Resource Management Plan (BLM 1985) have guided management of the Monument’s 

vegetation resources. Additional laws, regulations, and policies that pertain to the planning 

process, or are generally applicable to more than one of the related resources and land uses in 

the Monument, are described and listed in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need. The laws and 

regulations specifically related to management of vegetation resources on BLM National 

Monuments and other BLM lands include: 

 the Healthy Forest Act of 2003; 

 the Clean Water Act of 1977; 

 Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands; and 

 Executive Order 13112: Control of Invasive Species. 

Table 3-15 General Vegetation Types and Constituent Ecological Sites 

Vegetation Types/Ecological Sites Acres Total Area (%) 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands 109,169 67 

Pinyon-Juniper 87,766 54 

Loamy foothills 21,403 13 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

192 

Table 3-15 General Vegetation Types and Constituent Ecological Sites 

Vegetation Types/Ecological Sites Acres Total Area (%) 

Salt-Desert Shrublands 36,661 22 

Salt-desert breaks 19,913 12 

Shallow desert 5,641 3 

Clayey salt desert 4,519 3 

Alkali flat 3,942 2 

Alkali bottom 2,060 1 

Desert sand 586 <1 

Big Sagebrush Shrublands 13,533 8 

Semi-desert loam, shallow loam 9,881 6 

Loamy bottom 2,321 1 

Upland loam 1,331 1 

Cottonwood – Willow – Tamarisk Woodlands 962 ≤1 

River bottom 962 ≤1 

Unvegetated 2,992 2 

Rock 2,972 2 

Water 20 <1 

Agricultural/Industrial Areas 596 <1 

Agriculture/old disturbance 403 <1 

Industrial 193 <1 

TOTAL 163,913 100 

3.1.8.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

The condition and trend for vegetation resources has been assessed based on the results of 

four separate, but related, assessment processes: 

 Rangeland trend information has been collected along 40 permanent transects in the 

Monument since 1981, using permanent transects that are remeasured every 5 years. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

193 

 A public land health assessment of the 27 livestock grazing allotments in the Monument, 

consisting of 174,100 acres, and regulated through 22 permits, was conducted in 2001. 

This study is a qualitative assessment of a number of site indicators relative to a 

reference site of the same ecological type. The indicators relate to the three Public Land 

Health Standards: soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity (Pellant 

et al. 2000). A summary of these results in terms of biotic integrity and vegetation 

condition rating is presented in Table 3-16. Complete results are presented in the AMS 

(BLM 2005b). 

 An Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) was conducted simultaneously and co-located with 

the public land health assessment to generate quantitative data with which to assess the 

health of vegetation communities. An “ecological site” is an area where climate, soil, 

and relief are sufficiently uniform to produce a distinct natural plant community. ESI 

sites were chosen as those most representative of ecological site descriptions, based on 

soil types from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Cortez Area Soil 

Survey (NRCS 2003). Tables 3-7 through 3-9 summarize these results in terms of the 

extent of the defined plant communities that comprise the general vegetation types 

described above. Complete results of the ESI are presented in the AMS (BLM 2005b). 

 An evaluation of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) was conducted for riparian areas in 

the Monument in 2001 and 2002, following the methods described in Prichard (1998 and 

1999). A summary of these results is presented in the Riparian and Wetlands Section. 

Complete results are presented in the AMS (BLM 2005b). 

Table 3-16 Public Land Health Evaluation Ratings for Biotic Integrity and Vegetation Condition Ratings 

Capable Portions of 

Ecological Sites, 

Federal Land Onlya

Degree of Departure From a Reference Site, 

Percent of Acres Falling in Each Health Rating 

for Each Ecological Site 

Species Composition, Percent 

Similar to a Desired Plant 

Community 

Ecological 

Site 

Acres 

Rated Extreme 

Moderate 

to 

Extreme

Moderate Slight to 

Moderate Slight 0-25%Poor 

26-

50% 

Fair 

51-

75%

Good

76-100%

Excellent

Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands 

Pinyon-juniper 56,354 0 13 73 11 3 21 32 23 24 

Loamy 

foothills 21,403 0 18 60 21 0 14 45 22 18 

Salt-Desert Shrublands 

Salt-desert 

breaks 19,913 0 31 59 10 0 10 63 27 0 

Shallow desert 5,641 0 27 31 42 0 18 49 26 7 

Clayey saltdesert 4,519 1 80 19 0 0 14 69 15 2 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

194 

Table 3-16 Public Land Health Evaluation Ratings for Biotic Integrity and Vegetation Condition Ratings 

Capable Portions of 

Ecological Sites, 

Federal Land Onlya

Degree of Departure From a Reference Site, 

Percent of Acres Falling in Each Health Rating 

for Each Ecological Site 

Species Composition, Percent 

Similar to a Desired Plant 

Community 

Ecological 

Site 

Acres 

Rated Extreme 

Moderate 

to 

Extreme

Moderate Slight to 

Moderate Slight 0-25%Poor 

26-

50% 

Fair 

51-

75%

Good

76-100%

Excellent

Alkali flat 3,942 0 54 39 7 0 57 19 24 0 

Alkali bottom 2,060 10 81 9 0 0 42 54 3 0 

Desert sand 586 0 4 96 0 0 4 45 51 0 

Big Sagebrush Shrublands 

Semi-desert 

loam 9,033 0 22 69 9 0 15 75 9 1 

Semi-desert 

shallow loam 848 0 33 67 0 -- 33 27 39 0 

Loamy bottom 2,321 2 64 29 6 0 8 63 29 0 

Upland loam 1,331 13 39 14 34 0 19 0 48 33 

Cottonwood-Willow-Tamarisk – see Riparian and Wetland text 

TOTAL 127,951 <1 24 61 13 1 19 44 23 14 

a

 “Capable” refers to land capable of being utilized by livestock. 

General Occurrence and Habitat

The four predominant native (excluding agricultural lands) vegetation types (see Map 12) are 

described below, utilizing the ESI site information for the composite vegetation communities. 

For detailed descriptions of potential and existing conditions for each of the ESI sites in the 

Monument, refer to the AMS (BLM 2005b). Results of the general trend monitoring are 

presented below. Results of the ESI are also presented and summarized in Tables 3-10 and 

3-11. 

Evaluating the changes in the frequency of the species present on each permanent transect 

allows for general trend assessments. Thirteen of the 27 larger livestock grazing allotments 

have one or more transects. The following trends were determined from these transect data: 

 upward trend: 2 transects; 

 downward trend: 22 transects; 

 stable trend: 5 transects; 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

195 

 stable-to-downward trend: 5 transects; and 

 stable degraded condition: 6 transects. 

Uplands, Including Woodlands and Shrublands 

Upland areas are described in terms of pinyon-juniper woodlands and salt-desert and big 

sagebrush shrublands. The biotic integrity and vegetation condition for each ESI community 

type are summarized in Table 3-16. Communities are referred to by name. Following the first 

reference, the defining soil types and landscape positions are given. Additional information 

regarding soil for the ESI sites is found in Section 3.1.6, Soil Resources. 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands

The pinyon-juniper (Romberg-Crosscan Complex [soil map units 109, 110], Gladel-Pulpit 

Complex [soil map unit 42] and Rizno-Gapmega Complex [soil map unit 105], canyons and hills) 

and loamy foothills (Wetherill, Cahona, Sharps, and Pulpit, mesas and hills) ecological sites 

define the pinyon-juniper woodlands of the Monument. These areas are dominated by pinyon 

pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Sabina osteosperma) with a diverse understory of limited 

cover. Principal grasses are muttongrass (Poa fendleriana), needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa 

comata), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum 

hymenoides), and bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides). Shrubs such as big sagebrush 

(Seriphidium tridentatum), Green’s rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus greenei), bitterbrush (Purshia 

tridentata), and cliffrose (Purshia stansburiana) are common. Should these communities 

decline in health, perennial grasses, especially the large, cool-season bunchgrasses, will 

decrease. Plant species most likely to invade the site are cheatgrass and weedy annual forbs, 

such as tansy mustard (Descurainia spp.). 

Approximately 12,818 acres of pinyon-juniper woodlands (13 percent of the total) were chained 

in the 1960s. Chaining is a vegetation-manipulation treatment that involves dragging a large 

chain across the ground surface, which knocks down trees to enhance grass, forb, and shrub 

production. These sites were typically seeded with crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), 

although little remains in these areas. The chained sites have returned to a tree canopy of 25 

percent cover ranging from 7 to 10 feet in height. The chained sites have a higher cover of 

annual grasses, weedy annual forbs, and shrubs, probably due to the initial disturbance from 

the vegetation treatment and because of the open canopy of these sites. 

Salt-Desert Shrublands

This shrubland vegetation type consists of six ecological sites, all having similar plant 

communities, but different soil types. These include salt-desert breaks (Claysprings [soil map 

unit 22] and Typic Torriorthents [soil map unit 133], hills, knobs, ridges, and canyons on all 

slopes); shallow desert (Farb [soil map unit 31], mesas, and escarpments), clayey salt-desert 

(Claysprings, Uzacol, Zwicker and Complex [soil map unit 138], hills, knobs, ridges, and 

canyons on slopes from 3 to 12 percent for Uzacol and Zwicker and up to 65 percent for 

Claysprings); alkali flat (Mack [soil map unit 70], Mikim Loam [soil map unit 75], and Recapture 

[soil map unit 100], mesas, terraces, and alluvial fans on slopes less than 6 percent); alkali 

bottom (Battlerock Clay Loam [soil map unit 12], Ravola Clay Loam [soil map unit 99], and 

Recapture Sandy Loam and Lillings Silt Loam [soil map units 101, 65], floodplains, 

drainageways, and alluvial fans on slopes less than 6 percent), and desert sand (Sheppard Fine 

Sand [soil map unit 122], dunes, alluvial fans, and terraces on slopes less than 6 percent). 

When near their vegetation potential, these areas are a grassland community with scattered 

stands of four-winged saltbush and shadscale (Atriplex spp.). Shrub cover can be as high as 30 

to 40 percent. The grassland understory is dominated by galleta (Hilaria jamesii), alkali sacaton 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

196 

(Sporobolus airoides), Salina wildrye (Leymus salina), bottlebrush squirreltail, needle-andthread, and Indian ricegrass. Subdominant grasses that may be present are Sandberg 

bluegrass (Poa sandbergii), New Mexico feathergrass (Hesperostipa neomexicana), western 

wheatgrass, and three-awn (Aristida purpurea). Subdominant shrubs include winterfat 

(Krascheninnikovia lanata), big sage, bud sage (Picrothamnus desertorum), black sage 

(Seriphidium novum), Mormon-tea (Ephedra viridis), snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), green 

molly (Kochia americana), spiny hop-sage (Atriplex spinosa), and cliff-rose. Utah juniper occurs 

in small amounts at the higher elevations. 

As the ecological condition of the plant community declines, the plant species most likely to 

invade the site are cheatgrass and annual forbs, such as Russian-thistle (Salsola australis) and 

filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) may invade when it is 

close to its natural habitat. Cool-season bunchgrasses, such as Indian ricegrass, needle-andthread, and Salina wildrye, as well as the more sensitive shrubs, including winterfat, bud sage, 

and four-winged saltbush, will drop out of the plant community with overuse. Warm-season 

grasses may increase initially, but will also decline with continued overuse. Eventually, even 

shadscale will decline, and a large part of the cover will become annual grasses and forbs. 

Big Sagebrush Shrublands

This shrubland vegetation type consists of four ecological sites, all having similar plant 

communities, but different soil types. These include semi-desert loam (Gap Mesa [soil map 

units 11, 105], Barx Loam and Barx-Gap Mesa Complex [soil map units 8, 9, 11], Sharps Loam 

and Sharps-Gap Mesa Complex [soil map units 114, 115], Yarts Fine Sandy Loam [soil map 

unit 147], mesas and hills); loamy bottom (Ramper Loam [soil map unit 98], Ustic Torriorthents 

[soil map unit 135], alluvial fans, drainageways, and flood plains on slopes less than three 

percent) and upland loam (Barx [soil map unit 10], gently sloping benches, mesas, and rolling 

hills). 

At potential, this vegetation type is a mixed grass-shrub community, with big sagebrush as the 

dominant shrub. The major grasses are galleta, New Mexico feathergrass, blue grama 

(Chondrosum gracile), Indian ricegrass, and bottlebrush squirreltail. In some areas, four-winged 

saltbush is abundant. 

As the plant community declines in condition, plant species most likely to invade the sites are 

cheatgrass, sixweeks fescue (Vulpia octoflora), annual weedy forbs, and snakeweed. Perennial 

grasses, especially the large, cool-season bunchgrasses, will decrease, and there will be a 

corresponding increase in basin big sagebrush. In the absence of fire, pinyon and juniper are 

often invasive on these sites. 

Riparian and Wetlands (Including Cottonwood-Willow-Tamarisk Woodlands) 

There are 73 miles of perennial and intermittent stream, with 923 acres of associated riparian 

vegetation on BLM lands in the Monument. There are three primary wetland areas associated 

with Bluewater Spring, Confluence Spring, and H-O Spring. The total area of wetlands 

associated with springs is estimated at less than 5 acres. 

A Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment was completed in 2001 and 2002 for lentic 

(i.e., standing water, such as seeps and springs) and lotic (i.e., moving water, such as within 

river floodplains) riparian areas. An inventory of point-water sources was made during the PFC 

assessment. A summary of these results follows: 

 The results of the point source inventory documented approximately 100 springs and 

seeps in the Monument. Approximately 45 percent of these springs have perennial 

surface flow, with the remaining 55 percent flowing only intermittently or not at all. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

197 

Springs were selected for PFC assessment based on the presence/absence of flowing 

water and wetland or riparian vegetation, and based on historic photos and notes. 

Springs without such vegetation (including contact seeps, fault/joint/fracture springs) 

were not considered for assessment. 

 PFC data were collected for 11 springs in the Monument. Four of these (West 

Mockingbird, Cannonball Spring, Bluewater Spring, and Hackle Spring) have been 

developed as water sources for livestock. Of the 11 springs evaluated, three were found 

to be meeting PFC criteria (Hackle Spring, Cannonball Spring, and Confluence Spring) 

(Jensen 2003). These results are summarized in Table 3-17. 

Table 3-17 Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Ratings for Evaluated Springs and Seeps 

Allotment Spring/Seep 

Name 

Date 

Evaluated Rating 

Causal Indicators for 

Functional-At-Risk (FAR) or 

Non-functional (NF) Ratings 

Burro Point 

Community 

Hackle 

Spring 8/26/2003 PFC 

Nice Spring 1/30/2003 FAR - Stable trend 

Livestock grazing and compaction 

associated with the historical 

homestead site 

Old 160 

Spring 1/30/2003 NF 

Livestock grazing and upstream 

watershed conditions on private 

land Cahone 

Mesa 

West 

Mockingbird 

Spring 

4/2/2003 NF 

Livestock grazing and an increase 

in sediment, attributable to 

development associated with oil 

and gas extraction (well pad and 

roads) 

Cannonball Cannonball 

Spring 4/9/2003 PFC 

Braven 

Spring 4/2/2003 NF 

Increased sediment loading as a 

result of agricultural development 

upstream and the input of toxic 

substances from private land 

upstream

Cross 

Canyon 

Frothy 

Spring 4/6/2003 FAR - trend not 

apparent 

Increase in water yield from 

upstream agricultural 

development, resulting in mass 

wasting at the spring and 

increase in sediment from 

livestock grazing and an historic 

road 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

198 

Table 3-17 Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Ratings for Evaluated Springs and Seeps 

Allotment Spring/Seep 

Name 

Date 

Evaluated Rating 

Causal Indicators for 

Functional-At-Risk (FAR) or 

Non-functional (NF) Ratings 

H-O Spring 4/2/2003 FAR - downward 

trend 

Increased sediment and water 

yield from development of an 

access road through the spring, 

an increase in sediment and 

water yield from upstream 

agricultural fields, and livestock 

grazing

Hamilton 

Mesa 

Bluewater 

Spring 1/30/2003 FAR - downward trend 

The Blue Water Spring 

development, water troughs, and 

fencing that have concentrated 

livestock, resulting in compaction, 

decrease in extent of riparian 

wetland area, and altering flow 

patterns. The unregulated flow in 

the tanks is potentially dewatering 

the spring. 

Confluence 

Spring 4/7/2003 PFC 

Hovenweep 

Canyon 

Miller Spring 4/7/2003 FAR - static trend 

Livestock grazing and compaction 

around the spring associated with 

an historic homestead/corral

 PFC data were collected on 73 miles of stream in the Monument. Streams were 

selected for PFC assessment based on local knowledge of riparian conditions and flow 

regimes. Perennial streams were given the highest priority for assessment, intermittent 

streams were given the second-highest priority, and ephemeral streams were not 

considered. If recent data existed, they were used in the assessment of existing 

conditions. 

 Ten miles of stream were rated as PFC, 18 miles of stream as Non-Functional (NF), and 

45 miles of stream as Functional-At-Risk (FAR) Of the 45 miles of FAR-rated streams, 

24 miles rated FAR with a downward trend, 1 mile rated FAR with an upward trend, 18 

miles rated FAR with a trend not apparent, and 2 miles were rated FAR with the trend 

assessed as static (Jensen 2003). Causal factors for FAR and NF ratings include 

livestock grazing and agriculture practices upstream that increase sediment delivery 

and/or water yield. McElmo Creek is unique in that road encroachment is also a casual 

factor. These results are summarized in Table 3-18. 

 Sixteen livestock grazing allotments that contained riparian areas were evaluated as part 

of the Monument’s Standards for Public Land Health determination process. Of these, 

two have achieved PFC, one was making progress toward achieving the desired 

condition, and the remaining 13 had not achieved the desired condition. It has been 

noted that both tamarisk and Russian-olive are increasing in species composition as a 

result of either natural or management-related competitive advantage. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

199 

Table 3-18 Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Ratings for Evaluated Lotic Riparian Systems 

Stream Reach Date 

Evaluated 

Type of 

Evaluation Rating 

From the pasture fence in Section 19, T39N, 

R18W to its confluence with Cross Canyon; 

includes photo point CH1 

2003 Ground survey FAR - downward 

trend 

Cahone 

Creek From the pasture fence in Section 19, T39N, 

R18W to the Monument boundary; includes 

photo point CH2 

2003 Ground survey FAR - stable 

Cave 

Spring 

Canyon 

All public reaches; includes photo point CS1 2001 Ground survey PFC 

Little Cow Canyon near Lowry Pueblo just 

below Monument boundary; includes photo 

point LC2 

2003 Ground survey FAR - downward 

trend 

Cow 

Canyon Little Cow Canyon, except for segment just 

below Lowry Pueblo, and Cow Canyon to a 

point in Section 17, T38N, R19W; includes 

photo points LC1 and CC1-CC2 

2003 Ground survey FAR - downward 

trend 

Below Cow Canyon confluence to the 

Utah/Colorado border; includes photo points 

CR1-CR3 

2003 Ground survey PFC 

Above Cow Canyon confluence to pasture 

fence in Section 5, T38N, R19W; includes 

photo points CR4-CR7 

2003 Ground survey NF 

From pasture fence in Section 5, T38N, 

R19W to a point in Section 27, T39N, 

R19W; includes photo points CR8-CR11 

2003 Ground survey PFC 

Cross 

Canyon 

From a point in Section 27, T39N, R19W to 

Monument boundary; includes photo points 

CR12-CR14 

2003 Ground survey FAR - trend is not 

apparent 

Public reach in Flodine Park allotment; 

includes photo point ME1 2002 Ground survey 

FAR - trend not 

apparent/possibly 

stable 

Public reaches in Hamilton Mesa allotment; 

includes photo points ME2-ME4 2003 Ground survey NF 

McElmo 

Creek 

Public reaches in Aztec Canyon allotment; 

includes photo points ME5-ME8 2003 Ground survey FAR - upward trend 

Papoose T38N/T39N survey line to Utah/Colorado 2001 Ground survey FAR - downward 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

200 

Table 3-18 Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Ratings for Evaluated Lotic Riparian Systems 

Stream Reach Date 

Evaluated 

Type of 

Evaluation Rating 

Canyon border; includes photo point PC1 trend 

Sandstone 

Canyon 

All public reaches; includes photo points 

SS1-SS4 2002 Ground survey NF 

Squaw 

Canyon 

All public reaches; includes photo points 

SQ1-SQ7 2003 Ground survey FAR - downward 

trend 

From its confluence with Sandstone Canyon 

to approximately the section line between 

Section 17 and Section 16, T37N, R18W 

(includes photo point WD1) and from 

approximately the section line between 

Section 16 and Section 15, T37N, R18W to 

the Monument boundary (includes photo 

point WD3) 

2002 Ground survey FAR - downward 

trend 

Woods 

Canyon 

Approximately the portion of Woods Canyon 

that traverses Section 16, T37N, R18W; 

includes photo point WD2 

2002 Ground survey NF 

All public reaches, except those in Yellow 

Jacket allotment; includes photo points YJ6-

YJ9 

2002 

Aerial 

reconnaissance, 

ground survey 

along upper 

public reach 

FAR - trend not 

apparent/possibly 

downward Yellow 

Jacket 

Canyon 

All public reaches in Yellow Jacket 

allotment; includes photo points YJ1-YJ5 2003 Ground survey NF 

Special Status Plant Species and Significant Plant Communities

Table 3-19 identifies the status, habitat requirements, potential habitat, and occurrence of 

special status plant species in the Monument. 

Special Status Plant Species 

No Federally listed plant species are known to occur in the Monument. Potential habitat for 

Sleeping Ute milkvetch (Astragalus tortipes), a candidate species for Federal listing, occurs in 

the Monument (USFWS 2005). 

Two BLM-listed sensitive plant species are known to occur in the Monument (see Map 13). 

These include Jones blue star (Amsonia jonesii) and Naturita milkvetch (Astragalus 

naturitensis). Sensitive plant species are derived from a list approved by the BLM Colorado 

State Director (BLM Colorado State Office Information Bulletin No. CO-2000-014). BLM policy 

is that no action should be taken that would contribute to these species becoming listed as 

candidate species through actions funded, authorized, or implemented by the BLM. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

201 

Table 3-19 Federal, BLM, and USFS Sensitive Plant Species Known or Suspected 

 to Occur in the Monument 

Species Statusa Habitat 

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present? 

Documented Occurrence 

in the Monument 

Jones blue star 

(Amsonia jonesii) G4/S1 

Dry, open areas with clay, sandy, or gravelly soil, in 

desert-steppe, rocky gorges, and canyons at 4,500 to 

5,000 feet 

Yes 

One population is present 

on slopes near the base of 

Sleeping Ute Mountain. 

Cronquist milkvetch 

(Astragalus cronquistii)

G2/S2 

BLM 

Low, sandy, or gravelly ridges and sandy washes in 

blackbrush and salt-desert shrub communities on 

sandstone or red sandstone of the Cutler and 

Morrison Formations at 4,000 to 5,000 feet 

Yes No 

Naturita milkvetch 

(Astragalus naturitensis) 

G2G3/S2S

3 BLM 

Cracks and ledges of sandstone cliffs and flat 

bedrock areas with some shallow soil development, 

within pinyon-juniper woodlands at 5,000 to 7,000 

feet 

Yes 

Several large populations 

exist in the McElmo 

Canyon area of the 

Monument. 

Sleeping Ute milkvetch 

(Astragalus tortipes) 

G1/S1 

Candidate 

Scattered colonies on lower slopes of ridges and 

knolls of Cretaceous Mancos Shale separating 

mountain foothills from desert badlands (5,600 to 

5,750 feet) in mixed desert scrub with Atriplex 

confertifolia, Chrysothamnus greenei, Eriogonum 

clavellatum, Frankenia jamesii, and Gutierrezia 

sarothrae

Yes No 

Giant helleborine 

(Epipactis gigantean) 

G3G4/S2 

FS 

Moist areas along stream banks, lake margins, 

seeps, and springs; a variety of habitats, all having a 

constant source of water for the roots (4,800 to 8,000 

feet) 

Yes No 

Kachina daisy 

(Erigeron kachinensis) 

G2/S1 

BLM 

Low-elevation seeps and hanging gardens to highelevation mesic sandstone outcrops in aspen and 

ponderosa pine communities at 5,000 to 8,000 feet 

Yes No 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

202 

Table 3-19 Federal, BLM, and USFS Sensitive Plant Species Known or Suspected 

 to Occur in the Monument 

Species Statusa Habitat 

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present? 

Documented Occurrence 

in the Monument 

Comb Wash buckwheat 

(Eriogonum clavellatum) 

G2/SNR, 

BLM 

Sandy to heavy clay washes and slopes, saltbush 

communities; of conservation concern; 3,900 to 

5,500 feet 

Yes No 

Eastwood monkey flower 

(Mimulus eastwoodiae) G3/S1 Shallow caves and seeps on steep canyon walls at 4,700 to 5,800 feet Yes No 

The status classifications include: G1 - Global rank, critically imperiled - at very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (5 or fewer) very steep declines, or other factors. 

G2 - Global rank, imperiled - at high risk of extinction due to rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. 

G3 - Global rank, vulnerable - at moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (80 or fewer), recent or widespread declines, or 

other factors. 

G4 - Global rank, apparently secure - uncommon, but not rare; some cause for long term-concern due to declines or other factors. 

S1 - State rank, critically imperiled - due to extreme rarity (5 or fewer) or because of factors such as very steep declines that make it very vulnerable. S2 - State rank, imperiled - due to rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. 

S3 - State rank, vulnerable - due to restricted range, relatively few populations (80 or fewer), recent or widespread declines, or other factors. 

SNR - State, not ranked, conservation status not decided 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

203 

Potential habitat exists for five sensitive plant species that are not currently known to occur in 

the Monument. These include giant helleborine (Epipactis gigantea), kachina daisy (Erigeron.

kachinensis), Eastwood monkey flower (Mimulus eastwoodiae), Comb Wash buckwheat 

(Eriogonum clavellatum), and Cronquist milkvetch (Astragalus cronquistii) (NatureServe 2005; 

Spackman et al. 1997; Flora of North America 1993; and Spackman and Anderson 2002). 

Significant Plant Communities 

Four unusual or significant plant communities occur in the Monument and are discussed below. 

Biological Crust Communities

Although not comprising vascular plant species, biological soil crust communities are a unique 

biological feature throughout much of the upland areas in the Monument. These communities 

form a crust on the surface of the soil that consists of varying proportions of cyanobacteria, 

mosses, and lichens. Where undisturbed, these crusts may extend up to 1 centimeter in depth. 

The contributions of biological soil crusts to enhanced soil stability and diminished vulnerability 

to erosion are well supported by experimental research (Williams et al. 1995a, b; Belnap and 

Gillette 1998; Eldridge 1998; Issa et al. 2001), and numerous technical reviews (Harper and 

Marble 1988; Metting 1991; Johansen 1993; Eldridge and Greene 1994; Warren 1995; 2001). 

In addition to enhancing soil stability, biological soil crusts are recognized for their importance in 

several aspects of nutrient cycling, including the ability of some soil-crust organisms to acquire 

and convert atmospheric nitrogen into forms available to higher plants (Evans and Johansen 

1999). Through their effects on soil nutrient dynamics, cyanobacteria and some lichens may 

also enhance the nutritional quality of forage plants used by wildlife (Harper and Pendleton 

1993). 

The status of these communities was assessed in the ESI, which included a parameter for 

various ground cover types, including total biological crust cover. The primary component of 

biological soil crusts are the cyanobacteria, with less moss and a relatively small lichen 

component. Cyanobacteria is the fastest component to return to a disturbed site, with mosses 

and lichen taking a much longer time to colonize a site. A site was considered to have a key 

biotic crust community when at least 30 percent of the ground cover consisted of one or more of 

the following: cyanobacteria (“blue-green algae”), green algae, lichen, moss, microfungi, or 

other bacteria. 

Sand Dunes

Small areas with sand dunes are found in only two locations in the Monument: Yellow Jacket 

Canyon and the Flodine Park area, which is south of Ismay. These fall within the Desert Sand 

Ecological site and all consist of Sheppard Fine Sand soil. Sheppard soils are very deep (more 

than 60 inches). Parent material is eolian material derived from sandstone. There are 586 

acres of this ecological site on Federal lands in the Monument. A variety of forbs, grasses and 

shrubs were found to be unique to this ecological type, including sandhills muhly (Muhlenbergia 

pungens), sanddune skyrocket (Ipomopsis gunnisonii), flaxflowered gilia (Ipomopsis longiflora), 

sand sage (Oligosporus filifolius), and rush skeleton plant (Lygodesmia juncea). 

Mature, Undisturbed Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands

Old growth pinyon-juniper woodlands have been characterized as stands of pinyon and juniper 

with very old trees, and a complex woody structure of dead branches, dead tops, and piles of 

tangled down wood. The pinyon component often has a higher density in the understory and 

higher rates of mortality, while juniper has a greater basal area and greater longevity. Canopy 

gaps occur, most commonly with a bitterbrush understory, while the pinyon-juniper understory is 

composed of native bunchgrasses with a high foliar cover. Disturbance events, such as insect 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

204 

and disease outbreaks or individual lightning strikes, create small openings of one to several 

trees or openings of up to 15 acres (Floyd 2003). The Monument is defining mature 

undisturbed pinyon-juniper woodlands as having old trees, a tree canopy cover of at least 20 

percent, and an undisturbed understory of biological crusts of at least 30 percent cover and/or 

native perennial bunchgrasses with cover over 20 percent. Under this definition, based on the 

2001 ESI, there are 16,360 acres of this type in the Monument, which is about 14 percent of all 

sites with pinyon-juniper canopy. 

Cottonwood Gallery Forests

Less than 1 percent of the Monument has streams or wetlands with riparian vegetation. Of this, 

a very small proportion is cottonwood overstory. Cottonwood gallery forests should have a 

diverse age class of cottonwood, and an understory of willow, skunkbrush sumac, silver 

buffaloberry, rabbitbrush, and water-dependent forbs and graminoids. Currently all cottonwood 

gallery forests are impacted to some extent by livestock, as well as by the invasive species of 

tamarisk, smooth brome, Russian-olive, and knapweed. For most areas in the Monument, the 

age-class distribution of cottonwood is not diverse, and tends toward older, decadent trees with 

few younger or middle-age class replacements. 

Noxious Weeds

An “invasive” species is defined as: 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under 

consideration; and 2) one whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or 

environmental harm, or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112, February 3, 1999). 

With respect to the management of noxious weeds, the Monument conforms to the rules 

promulgated by the Colorado Department of Agriculture. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act, 

Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) § 35-5.5-101–119 (2003), defines a “noxious weed” as an 

alien plant, or parts of an alien plant, that has been designated by rule as being noxious or has 

been declared a noxious weed by a local advisory board, and meets one or more of the 

following criteria: 

 aggressively invades or is detrimental to economic crops or native plant communities; 

 is poisonous to livestock; and/or 

 is a carrier of detrimental insects, diseases, or parasites. 

The direct or indirect effect of the presence of these plants is detrimental to the environmentally 

sound management of natural or agricultural ecosystems. 

The Colorado Department of Agriculture designates three levels of management for noxious 

weeds in Colorado. List A species must be eradicated before seed development, List B species 

must be contained pursuant to State noxious weed management plans, and List C species may 

be designated for control by other local governing bodies (e.g., county weed programs). The 

BLM has a Participating Agreement with Montezuma County, and under this agreement the 

County receives funding for noxious weed control along major roads in the Monument. There 

are no known populations of Colorado Noxious Weed Act List A species in the Monument. 

Species on the Colorado Noxious Weed Act List B that are known to occur in the Monument are 

as follows: 

 Salt-cedar (Tamarix chinensis, T. parviflora, and T. ramosissima), Russian-olive 

(Elaeagnus angustifolia), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and quackgrass (Elytrigia 

repens) are associated with riparian areas, intermittent or ephemeral draws, seeps, and 

reservoirs. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

205 

 Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) and Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) are often 

present in areas of disturbance, such as roadsides, roads, power line corridors, 

pipelines, well pads, gravel pits, reservoirs, and corrals, as well as other areas heavily 

used by livestock. Russian knapweed has also been observed on both public and 

private land along McElmo Creek, in Flodine Park, as well as in Hovenweep, Cross, 

Yellow Jacket, and Sandstone Canyons. 

 Broad-leaved Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), narrow-leaved Dalmatian toadflax, 

(Linaria genistifolia), and perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) are occasionally 

present in pinyon-juniper areas that have been chained or are otherwise associated with 

ground-disturbance areas. Small populations of Dalmatian toadflax are known to occur 

at Goodman Point and in Yellow Jacket Canyon. 

 Redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) is a common noxious weed found in all habitats. 

This species increases under conditions of disturbance. Along with cheatgrass, it 

dominates vegetation in many areas of the Monument. 

In addition, diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), hoary cress (also called whitetop, Cardaria 

draba), and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) are likely to occur in the Monument. 

Species on the Colorado Noxious Weed List Act C that are known to occur in the Monument are 

as follows: 

 Downy brome (also called cheatgrass, Anisantha tectorum) is considered to increase 

under conditions of disturbance and/or fire. It dominates vegetation and is common 

throughout the Monument. 

 Chicory (Cichorium intybus), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), field bindweed 

(Convolvulus arvensis), common burdock (Arctium minus), jointed goatgrass (Aegilops 

cylindrica), johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), and halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) 

are occasionally situated in areas of disturbance in the Monument. 

In addition, perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) and wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) 

are likely to occur in the Monument. 

3.1.9. Visual Resources 

The overall landscape of the Monument is highly diverse and contains many outstanding 

features that are visible from many key viewing sites. The Monument contains a large number 

of areas that possess a high degree of scenic quality and a high level of visual sensitivity 

(representing a measure of public concern for scenic quality and/or changes in that scenic 

quality), drawing an increasing number of visitors each year who come to recreate and sightsee. 

High scenic quality is a by-product of the extraordinary topography, geology, and cultural 

history; scenically diverse vistas and canyons; unusual geological formations; colorful and highly 

contrasting sandstones; and numerous prehistoric structures and pieces of rock art. Specific 

areas in the Monument have a high degree of visual sensitivity because of visitor interest and 

public concern. The Proclamation establishing the Monument states: 

The natural resources and spectacular landforms of the Monument help explain why past 

cultures have chosen to live in the area. The geology of the Monument evokes the very 

essence of the American Southwest. Structurally part of the Paradox Basin, from a distance 

the landscape looks deceptively benign. From the McElmo Dome in the southern part of the 

Monument, the land slopes gently to the north, giving no indication of its true character. 

Once inside the area, however, the geology becomes more rugged and dissected. Rising 

sharply to the north of McElmo Creek, the McElmo Dome itself is buttressed by sheer 

sandstone cliffs; with mesa tops rimmed by caprock, and deeply incised canyons. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

206 

The major areas in the Monument that possess both outstanding scenic quality and high visual 

sensitivity include, but are not limited to, areas of Hovenweep National Monument within and 

adjacent to the Monument, Sand Canyon Pueblo, Sand Canyon road, Painted Hand Pueblo, 

Lowry Pueblo, and the three Wilderness Study Areas (Cross Canyon, Cahone Canyon, and 

Squaw/Papoose Canyon). Visually scenic and sensitive waterways include Yellow Jacket 

Canyon and Creek; Sandstone, Woods, and Burro Canyons; and McElmo Creek. 

Areas of high scenic quality and visual sensitivity that are associated with travel corridors 

include McElmo Canyon; the Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway (County Road 10); 

key observation points (KOPs) consisting of views from Lowry Pueblo, Sand Canyon Pueblo, 

Painted Hand Pueblo, and the upper Sand Canyon Trailhead; and in-holdings of the 

Hovenweep National Monument. The Monument also contains many miles of jeep, bike, horse, 

and foot roads that are used to access scenic areas. 

3.1.9.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

In addition to the laws, regulations, and policies that pertain to the planning process, or are 

generally applicable to more than one of the resources and uses in the Monument, as described 

in Chapter 1, several others specifically address visual resources: 

 BLM Information Bulletin 98-135: This restates the BLM policy on the use of Visual 

Resource Management (VRM) in land-use planning, decision making, and 

environmental documents. VRM classes are assigned to all public lands as part of the 

Record Of Decision for an RMP. Visual design considerations are incorporated into all 

surface-disturbing projects occurring on public lands regardless of the size or potential 

visual impact of these projects. 

 BLM Information Bulletin 98-164: This provides additional BLM guidance on the use of 

VRM when making VRM-related decisions. 

 BLM Information Bulletin 2000-096: This provides guidance on designating and 

managing Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) as VRM Class I areas until Congress 

designates the areas as wilderness or releases them for other uses. 

 BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1 Visual Resource Inventory (BLM 1986b): This 

system analyzes the quality of the view, the sensitivity of the visual resource, and the 

impacts that development would have at different distances. This comprehensive 

approach allows resources to be ranked in the context of their surroundings. 

3.1.9.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

A visual resource inventory was completed under the 1985 San Juan/San Miguel RMP (BLM 

1985). However, no management objectives were identified for VRM, and no management 

classes were established for the resource area. VRM classes and objectives were established 

in the Sand Canyon Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) (BLM 1986c). Currently, 

impacts and site-specific mitigation to visual resources are being implemented on a project-byproject basis. The three Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in the Monument (Squaw/Papoose 

Canyon, Cahone Canyon, and Cross Canyon) are assigned to Management Class I. Cumulative 

impacts to the landscape are resulting from increases in recreation and tourism, vehicular travel, 

the number of user-developed roads, and the number of sightseers attracted to the area for its 

cultural, recreational, and scenic qualities. Additional impacts are resulting from the 

development of utility corridors, oil and gas exploration and development, seismic exploration, 

and other land use disturbances. Recreational activities, such as off-road travel, are impacting 

visual resources most intensely in the areas east of Risely Canyon. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

207 

The increasing number of travel roads in the Monument has indirect effects on visual resources. 

Seldom-seen zones (defined later in this section) are decreasing in the Monument, and an 

increase in the number of visitors on BLM roads is creating changes in foreground views, 

middleground views, and visual sensitivity. The increasing number of user-made roads is 

expanding surface disturbances that impact visual resources. 

An inventory of the current visual landscape was prepared to provide a basis for management of 

visual resources through the current planning process. The process and results to date are 

outlined below. 

Four steps are involved in the VRM classification process: 1) outlining and numerically 

evaluating scenic quality; 2) outlining visual sensitivity levels; 3) delineating distance zones; and 

4) assigning VRM inventory classes. 

Scenic Quality 

The 165,000 acres in the Monument have been broken down into five Scenic Quality Rating 

Units (SQRUs). The results of the ratings for each unit are presented in Table 3-20. 

Table 3-20 Scenic Quality Rating Units (SQRUs) 

Unit Description Scenic Quality 

Rating 

1 WSAs in the northwestern part of the Monument 

include Squaw/Papoose Canyon WSA, Cross 

Canyon WSA, and Cahone Canyon WSA. A 

citizen coalition has proposed additional areas to 

be considered for Wilderness designation 

adjacent to these WSAs. 

A 

2 Yellow Jacket Canyon area – deep canyon and 

tablelands B+ 

3 Sand Canyon and East Rock Creek Canyon A 

4 Hovenweep Canyon and Cannonball Mesa areas, 

including the 443-acre McElmo Research Natural 

Area (RNA) 

B+ 

5 Bowdish/Rincon area in the southwestern portion 

of the Monument C 

Sensitivity Levels 

Sensitivity levels represent a measure of public concern for scenic quality. Public lands are 

assigned high, medium, or low sensitivity levels by analyzing the various indicators of public 

concern. The factors to consider in assigning sensitivity levels include: 

 type of user; 

 amount of use; 

 public interest; 

 adjacent land use; 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

208 

 special areas; and 

 other factors (indicators of visual sensitivity). 

Key Observation Points (KOPs) and sensitivity concerns for the units, as described for scenic 

quality are: 

 Unit 1: WSAs and Lowry Pueblo, high public interest in maintenance of visual quality. 

 Unit 2: Changing land uses from agricultural to residential, County Road P to 

Cannonball Mesa Road. 

 Unit 3: Sand Canyon and East Rock Creek Canyon Cultural Resource Management 

Plan and National Historic Register Districts, Goodman Point (Hovenweep National 

Monument), and Sand Canyon Pueblo, use by outfitters and guides, and visual concerns 

by Sand Canyon road users. 

 Unit 4: Large number of users, due to access via Cannonball and Mockingbird Mesas, 

Bridge Canyon, Painted Hand Pueblo, and Mockingbird Mesa Cultural Resource 

Management Plan; and adjacent land use concerns for visual quality by Hovenweep 

National Monument and McElmo Canyon Road users. Trail of the Ancients Scenic and 

Historic Byway (Colorado, Utah, and Arizona). 

 Unit 5: Views from Hamilton Mesa. 

Distance Zones

Mapping distance zones, for use in the VRM inventory process, use distances, as listed below, 

to determine general visibility of the landscape. These distances are measured from primary or 

secondary roads, heavily used roads, and important vista points, such as from scenic overlooks 

(KOPs). As a general rule, in the analysis process used to define inventory classes, the closer 

the landscape to the viewer, the more sensitive it is to visible change. 

 Foreground zone: The detailed landscape found within 0 to 0.5 mile from the viewer. 

 Middleground zone: The space between the foreground and background zones, from 

0.5 mile to 3 to 5 miles from the viewer. 

 Background zone: The space from the middleground zone outward to approximately 15 

miles (5 to 15 miles). 

 Seldom-Seen zone: The area not visible within the foreground, middleground, or 

background zones, and areas beyond 15 miles from any observation points. 

VRM Inventory Classes 

Upon completion of the three steps outlined above, the information is compiled and inventory 

classes are assigned to the Monument based on the various combinations of quality, distance, 

and sensitivity. Classes and objectives for maintaining the visual landscape according to the 

inventory are described below. 

 Class I Objective - Preserve the existing character of the landscape: Under this 

class, the level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must 

not attract attention. This class provides for ecological changes; however, it does not 

preclude very limited management activity. 

 Class II Objective - Retain the existing character of the landscape: Under this class, 

the level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management 

activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

209 

changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

 Class III Objective - Partially retain the existing character of the landscape: Under 

this class, the level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. 

Management activities may attract attention, but should not dominate the view of the 

casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant 

natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

 Class IV Objective - Provide for management activities that require major 

modification of the existing character of the landscape: Under this class, the level of 

change to the characteristic landscape can be high. Management activities may 

dominate the view and may be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every 

attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful 

location, minimal disturbance, and repetition of the basic elements of form, line, color, 

and texture. 

The quality of visual resources in the Monument is directly related to many other resources, 

such as the quality of passive and active recreational experiences, the preservation of the 

cultural resources, and the quality of air and wildlife habitat. 

3.1.10. Water Resources 

This section discusses the regulatory framework and current conditions for water resources of 

the Monument. Water resources in the Monument are shown on Map 14. A more detailed 

description can be found in the AMS (BLM 2005b). 

3.1.10.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

The surface waters of the Monument are tributary to the San Juan River, which is part of the 

Colorado River system. The State of Colorado regulates water quality in the Monument. 

Immediate downstream neighbors include the Navajo Nation, the Ute Mountain Ute Indian 

Tribe, and the State of Utah. 

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and the Water Quality 

Control Commission (WQCC) are the administrative agencies responsible for developing 

specific water quality policy in Colorado, in a manner that implements the broader policies set 

forth by the legislature in the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The WQCC adopts water 

quality classifications and standards for surface and groundwater of the State, as well as 

various regulations aimed at achieving compliance with all applicable Federal and State 

requirements (CDPHE 2003b). 

The Navajo Nation and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe have jurisdiction over water quality on 

their respective lands. 

Colorado Water Law

The Colorado water law system governs the allocation of water to various uses, both within the 

State and in the Monument. Colorado operates on a “prior appropriation” system, which means 

that the earliest established water rights have the highest priority for water usage. The oldest 

water rights are given their entire allocation of water before the next-oldest water rights are 

given any water. Under this system, water shortages on stream systems are not shared; 

instead, the limited supply is given to those with the oldest water rights. 

Colorado has a system of water courts that continuously receive applications for water rights 

and they adjudicate them. Federal agencies make applications to the water court when water is 

needed to fulfill Federal land management purposes. Water rights are awarded for direct 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

210 

diversion from streams and springs, for storage of water in reservoirs, and for underground 

water. Colorado also awards water rights for maintenance of minimum flow rates in natural 

streams; however, by State law these water rights may be held only by the Colorado Water 

Conservation Board. Colorado also requires permits for construction of reservoirs on 

ephemeral channels and construction of wells; however, the permits do not constitute a water 

right. 

Some unique aspects of Colorado water law apply to the hydrologic situation in the Monument. 

Parties who import water to a basin from another basin are entitled to use that water “to 

extinction” if they maintain control of the water. This means that the Dolores Water 

Conservancy District (DWCD), Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company (MVIC), and other entities 

that import water to the watersheds in which the Monument is located could use 100 percent of 

the water they import, rather than allow return flows to move downstream. This means that any 

long-term effort to manage for and predict flow on the perennial streams in the Monument will 

require close cooperation with these water users. 

State of Colorado Water Quality Standards

The State of Colorado has not identified any water body in the Monument as officially impaired, 

according to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. None of the Monument streams carry an 

impaired status; however, there are still localized water quality concerns. The 2006 303(d) list 

identifies Narraguinnep Reservoir as not meeting water quality standards for mercury. The 

2006 Monitoring and Evaluation List identifies several tributaries with water quality concerns, 

including Mud Creek for iron, selenium, and nitrates; and Crow Canyon for iron and nitrates. 

Mud Creek, a tributary of McElmo Creek at the southeastern corner of the Monument, was on 

Colorado’s 2004 Monitoring and Evaluation List for suspected impairment due to iron, selenium, 

and nitrate. The Monitoring and Evaluation List identifies water bodies that are suspected of 

impairment due to sediment, but they cannot be added to the 303(d) list due to a lack of 

information. McElmo Creek is heavily influenced by irrigation return flows and the saline 

Mancos Shale that results in high total dissolved solids (BOR 1977). The water quality of 

McElmo Creek varies, based on the amount of irrigation return flows present. From 1960 to the 

present, a variety of water quality parameters and discharge data have been collected by the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) for McElmo Creek (USGS 2006). 

Colorado Water Quality Standards are based on beneficial use categories, which are assigned 

numeric standards. Streams or stream segments in the Monument are classified as Recreation 

1a, Agriculture, or Aquatic Life Warm 1. Water quality data exist for Yellow Jacket Canyon in 

the form of “grab” samples collected by the BLM between 1983 and 2001. Grab sample data 

indicate that the Recreation 1a and Agriculture standards are being fully supported in Yellow 

Jacket Canyon; however, they also indicate that the Aquatic Life Warm 1 standards are not 

being fully supported, due to high concentrations of ammonia. Between 1983 and 2001, acute 

and chronic standards for ammonia were exceeded for all samples. Failure to meet acute and 

chronic standards for ammonia is most likely due to irrigation return flows containing fertilizers 

and, to a lesser extent, livestock in or near the stream. 

BLM Standards for Public Land Health in Colorado

There are five BLM Colorado Standards for Public Land Health, one of which focuses on 

surface water quality. Twenty-seven livestock grazing allotments in the Monument were 

evaluated for their compliance with BLM Colorado Standards for Public Land Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. Surface water is not present on 11 of these 

allotments; therefore, an assessment of water quality was not completed on these allotments. 

Of the 16 allotments that have completed water quality assessments, seven met water quality 

standards, and nine did not. Causal factors for these determinations consist primarily of land-
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

211 

use activities upstream in the watershed (including agriculture, irrigation, and livestock grazing). 

This assessment concluded that livestock grazing was a significant factor in all but one of the 

nine allotments that did not achieve water quality standards. That one allotment had recently 

changed livestock grazing management, and needs to be monitored to determine the 

effectiveness of that change. 

3.1.10.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Current conditions and trends for surface and groundwater water are described in the following 

sections. 

Surface Water

Surface water streamflow, along with seeps and springs, in the Monument are characterized 

below. 

Streamflow Characteristics 

Discharge is highly variable in canyons throughout the Monument. Generally speaking, water is 

scarce within the Monument boundaries. Only during very wet years, and immediately following 

precipitation events, does water flow in most of the canyons. Due to return flows from upstream 

irrigation, some streams in the Monument have streamflow year-round or for a significant 

portion of the year. Peak flows occur as the result of late-afternoon thunderstorms during the 

monsoon season in late summer. This precipitation is carried quickly through drainages and 

has little chance to percolate into the ground, especially in areas with little ground cover and 

large areas of exposed bedrock. After precipitation events, standing pools in small depressions 

are common; however, they tend to evaporate within days or weeks, depending on the aspect of 

the canyon. 

Irrigation return flows create six perennial streams that flow in the Monument. Dolores Water 

Conservancy District (DWCD) and Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company (MVIC) divert water 

from the Dolores River to land upstream of the Monument. In an average year, the DWCD 

delivers 50,000 acre-feet to 28,000 irrigable acres in the Cross Canyon and Yellow Jacket 

Canyon watersheds. MVIC delivers an average of 153,400 acre-feet to 37,500 irrigable acres 

primarily south of the community of Yellow Jacket. In addition to irrigation water services 

provided by DWCD and MVIC, there are numerous independently operated surface diversions 

on streams that flow through the Monument. 

Some of the perennial streams, such as Cross Canyon, have reaches that go dry during drought 

periods, but otherwise flow while conditions are normal. Since most streams are intermittent or 

ephemeral, these perennial streams have very high resource values in the Monument. The 

perennial streams are listed in Table 3-21. 

Table 3-21 Perennial Streams in the Monument 

Stream Perennial Length (miles) 5th Code Watershed 

McElmo Creek 0.7 McElmo Creek 

Trail Canyon 2.8 McElmo Creek 

Yellow Jacket Canyon 39.2 Yellow Jacket Canyon 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

212 

Table 3-21 Perennial Streams in the Monument 

Stream Perennial Length (miles) 5th Code Watershed 

Dawson Draw 0.6 Yellow Jacket Canyon 

Cross Canyon 6.9 Cross Canyon 

Cahone Canyon 4.0 Cross Canyon 

The perennial streams in the Monument generally have established riparian areas that help 

regulate peak flows, maintain base flow, and provide wildlife habitat. Some of the perennial 

streams, such as Yellow Jacket Canyon, are also important fisheries habitat. Intermittent 

streams with established riparian areas also have high values in the Monument, because they 

provide higher stream functions (see perennial discussion above) than do intermittent streams 

without riparian areas or ephemeral streams. The intermittent streams with established riparian 

areas are listed in Table 3-22. 

Table 3-22 Intermittent Streams With Established Riparian Areas in the Monument 

Stream Stream Length (miles) 5th Code Watershed 

Cave Spring Canyon 1.1 Yellow Jacket Canyon 

Sandstone Canyon 17.2 Yellow Jacket Canyon 

Squaw Canyon 8.5 Cross Canyon 

Woods Canyon 7.8 Yellow Jacket Canyon 

Given the lack of historic hydrologic instrumentation and monitoring on Monument land, it is 

difficult to characterize typical streamflows that are created by the combination of natural 

hydrology in combination with irrigation return flows. McElmo Creek is the only perennial 

stream in, or next to, the Monument that has long-term stream-gauging data. Five gauging 

stations exist along the creek. However, these gauging stations are heavily influenced by return 

flows from irrigation, and these practices have changed substantially over the life of the gages. 

The main conclusion that can be drawn from stream gauging stations is that the watershed’s 

natural hydrology is very flashy, in that rainfall and convective storms can create very high 

stream flows; flows with the potential for significant erosion and scouring of stream channels. 

The BLM has collected hydrologic data on Yellow Jacket Canyon since 2001. These data 

demonstrate very high, instantaneous peak flows in response to thunderstorm events, 

sometimes exceeding 250 cubic feet per second (cfs). Typically, flows in Yellow Jacket Canyon 

are at their lowest during winter, after irrigation return flows have subsided. Flows measured 

during winter are often between 4 and 6 cfs. Flows gradually increase as the irrigation season 

proceeds. Average flows are usually highest in late September, as the Monument receives both 

surface water return flows and return flows from groundwater systems that have been fully 

charged by irrigation practices. Flows in September typically range from 10 to 25 cfs. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

213 

Springs and Seeps 

Springs in the Monument are most commonly found on canyon walls at the contact zone 

between the Dakota Formation and the Morrison Formation. During 2001 and 2002, the BLM 

conducted a systematic inventory of point water sources in the Monument and documented 

roughly 100 springs and seeps. Approximately 45 percent of these springs have perennial 

surface flow, with most springs producing less than 5 gallons per minute (gpm). However, there 

are isolated perennial springs in the Monument that can produce from 15 to 25 gpm (BLM 2002f 

and 2003d). The remaining 55 percent of the sources flow only intermittently. Some do not 

produce surface flow at all, and are only evidenced by a collection of water-dependent 

vegetation on the land surface. As a group, the springs serve very important functions in the 

Monument as wildlife water and habitat locations. 

Springs were selected for Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment based on the 

presence or absence of flowing water and/or the presence or absence of riparian vegetation. 

The method of selection involved looking at historical notes and photos in the water source 

inventory files at the Dolores Public Lands Office. Springs that had riparian vegetation and flow 

were given a high priority for PFC assessment. Those that had riparian vegetation and little or 

no flow were given a moderate priority. Springs that had no riparian vegetation, such as contact 

seeps, and fault/joint/fracture springs, were not considered for assessment. 

PFC data were collected for 11 springs in the Monument. Four of these (West Mockingbird, 

Cannonball Spring, Bluewater Spring, and Hackle Spring) were developed as water sources for 

livestock. Of the 11 springs evaluated, three were found to be meeting PFC criteria (Hackle 

Spring, Cannonball Spring, and Confluence Spring) (Jenson 2003). These results are 

summarized in Table 3-17 in Section 3.1.8, Vegetation Resources. 

Groundwater

Localized, shallow groundwater resources in the Monument may be found in alluvial deposits 

associated with surface water drainages. These shallow aquifers consist of Quaternary Period 

deposits of alluvial gravel, sand, silt, and clay and/or Quaternary Period deposits of eolian sand 

and silt (Robson and Banta 1995). These aquifers tend to contain localized, near-surface water 

and are of limited aerial extent. Traditionally, most stream systems in the Monument were 

ephemeral or intermittent, but the introduction of irrigation return flows has enhanced the flow of 

some streams. Irrigation return flow may also contribute to recharge of some shallow 

groundwater aquifers. 

According to Robson and Banta (1995), the principal aquifers under the Monument are part of 

the Colorado Plateau aquifer system. This aquifer system underlies an area of approximately 

110,000 square miles in western Colorado, northwestern New Mexico, northeastern Arizona, 

and eastern Utah. The aquifers that make up the Colorado Plateau system are composed of 

permeable sedimentary rocks that vary in thickness, lithology, and hydraulic characteristics. In 

the Monument, the Dakota-Glen Canyon aquifer system is the uppermost water-yielding unit in 

the Colorado Plateau aquifer system, and the Coconino-De Chelly aquifer system is the 

deepest. The aquifers, confining units, and equivalent geologic units that compose these two 

aquifer systems are listed in Table 3-23. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

214 

Table 3-23 Deep Groundwater Aquifers and Associated Stratigraphic Units 

System (age) Hydrologic Unit Stratigraphic Unit 

Mancos Confining Unit Mancos Shale 

Cretaceous 

Dakota Aquifer Dakota Sandstone 

Morrison Confining 

Unit 

Brushy Basin Member of the 

Morrison Formation 

Morrison Aquifer Morrison Formation 

Curtis-Stump 

Confining Unit 

Curtis Formation, Wanakah 

Formation, Stump Formation 

Entrada Aquifer Entrada Formation 

Carmel-Twin Creek 

Confining Unit Carmel Formation 

Jurassic 

Dakota-Glen Canyon 

Aquifer System 

Glen Canyon Aquifer

Glen Canyon Group comprises 

Navajo Sandstone, Kayenta 

Formation, and Wingate 

Sandstone 

Triassic-Permian Chinle-Moenkopi Confining Unit Chinle Formation and Moenkopi 

Formation 

Permian Coconino-De Chelly 

aquifer system 

Coconino-De Chelly 

Aquifer 

Cutler Formation 

(in Four Corners area) 

Pennsylvanian, 

Mississippian, and 

Devonian 

Other, deeper units not considered principal 

aquifers

Hermosa Formation, Molas 

Formation, Leadville Limestone, 

Ouray Limestone, Elbert 

Formation 

Many standard consumption water wells exist in and next to the Monument. The State of 

Colorado HydroBase data set shows that more than 70 well permits have been issued for 

domestic and livestock purposes inside the Monument and within 2 miles of its boundary, 

excluding the highly developed McElmo Canyon valley (Colorado Division of Water Resources 

[CDWR] 2003). 

Typically, domestic and livestock wells are permitted for less than 3 acre-feet of water annually. 

Only three water well permits listed in the database are used for industrial purposes, with 

allowable-use quantities ranging from 20 to 56 acre-feet annually. One well permit exists for 

irrigation, for 35 acre-feet per year. Water wells drilled before 1972 did not need a drilling permit 

and although several of these older wells likely exist, no official records are available. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

215 

3.2. Resource Uses 

Section 3.2 describes the current environments of the Monument with regard to resource uses, 

including education and interpretation, facilities and infrastructure, special forest products, lands 

and realty, minerals, rangeland resources, recreation, and transportation. 

3.2.1. Education and Interpretation 

For more than 125 years the cultural resources of the Monument area have been the focus of 

numerous scientific studies. Consequently, the incredibly dense and well-documented 

resources make the Monument one of the most intensely studied archaeological cultural 

landscapes in the world. Twenty-five modern Native American tribes and pueblos claim 

traditional association with the Monument. For these reasons and others, including historic 

features, natural environment, and diverse recreational activities, opportunities abound in the 

Monument for research, education, interpretation, and heritage tourism. It is estimated that 

Monument visitation averages about 45,000 people each year. To foster understanding, and to 

protect and preserve the resources while, at the same time, enhancing the public’s experience 

and appreciation, a variety of educational and interpretive programs and opportunities are 

currently available. Research, education, interpretation, and heritage tourism are critical tools to 

actively engage the public and to enlist their help in protecting this veritable outdoor museum 

and ensuring its preservation in perpetuity. 

3.2.1.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

There is no regulatory framework specifically applicable to education or interpretation. 

3.2.1.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Research in the Monument has been conducted by many not-for-profit organizations and 

academic institutions. Recent work has been conducted by the Crow Canyon Archaeological 

Center, Fort Lewis College, and Colorado College. Developed in partnership with Crow Canyon 

and funded by the National Science Foundation, Washington State University’s nationally 

acclaimed Village Project utilized Monument data. In addition to the on-the-ground activities, 

more than 1 million objects collected specifically from the Monument, from a variety of 

excavations and inventories, are curated as part of the Anasazi Heritage Center (AHC) 

collection and are actively used and available for research. 

Due to the number of extensive studies in the Monument, a large body of information has been 

published (Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin [Lipe, et al 

1999]) that summarizes much of the research and synthesizes the results. Included in this 

publication is an extensive bibliography of hundreds of reports and publications. In addition to 

the scientific work, recent syntheses are also available in popular form, such as the 2006 School 

of American Research book, The Mesa Verde World: Explorations in Ancestral Pueblo 

Archaeology, which is a collection of articles edited by David Grant Noble (2006). 

Even with such extensive scientific studies, public education and interpretation of the resources 

are critical for protection and long-term preservation. One of the BLM’s current strategies is to 

encourage all visitors to first visit the Anasazi Heritage Center (AHC), which also serves as the 

headquarters for the Monument. The AHC is a museum for interpreting the history and culture 

of Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, as well as for the Trail of the Ancients Scenic 

and Historic Byway and the Four Corners region. The AHC’s hands-on discovery area, their 

permanent and special exhibits, and the films shown at the center, all explore archaeology, local 

history, and Pueblo, Ute, and Navajo lifeways. The AHC also offers a 10-activity curriculum for 

school students, a Junior Explorer–Archaeology booklet, 12 artifact loan trunks, a 9,000-volume 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

216 

library, and intermittent docent-led interpretive programs. Approximately 4,000 school students 

visit the AHC each year, in addition to the 25,000 visitors the center receives annually. 

The Monument’s education programs exist in partnership with other organizations as well. The 

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center offers a unique “Castle Rock Field Days” experience for all 

fourth graders in Montezuma County, as well as adult education field trips and explorations. 

The McElmo Canyon Research Institute teaches participants in elderhostel programs, while also 

performing critical rock art documentation and offering site stabilization assistance. The San 

Juan Mountains Association instructs participants in site stewardship and road information 

specialist programs who then, in turn, disseminate both resource and protection information to 

the public. The Colorado Historical Society’s State Historical Fund has generously funded 

education programs in the Monument, for an approximate total to date of $500,000. In 2003, 

the Historical Fund assisted in the publication of Getting to Know Canyons of the Ancients 

National Monument (Cohn 2005) – a book that includes activities for educators. In addition to 

an archaeological and Native American focus, the book includes interviews with ranchers, 

farmers, wildlife biologists, artists, geologists, and land managers. 

Currently, heritage tourism in the Monument occurs on both an individual and on a group basis. 

In Section 3.2.8, Recreation, 10 special recreation use permits exist for outfitters and guides in 

the Monument. Many individuals visit the Monument to experience heritage tourism. Canyons 

of the Ancients and the AHC are part of the Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway, the 

country’s first and only archaeological byway. In addition, information about visiting the 

Monument is regularly included in the Mesa Verde Country visitor guide, as well as on various 

websites and in area guidebooks. 

It is critical to inform visitors of the backcountry nature of the Monument, as well as about 

visitation etiquette and archaeological resource protection laws governing the area. When 

visitors go to the AHC first before visiting the Monument, front desk staff and volunteers offer 

one-on-one personalized service to match these visitors, as well as their abilities, interests, and 

timeframes, with sites appropriate to their needs; they also educate visitors to the needs of site 

protection. In the Monument, visitors are directed to the following areas: Lowry Pueblo, Painted 

Hand Pueblo, Sand Canyon Pueblo, and the Sand Canyon road. A variety of interpretive 

products for these locations are available, including signs, brochures, and maps. In addition, 

the AHC offers two alternative forms of access to Lowry Pueblo, including the People in the 

Past and The Lowry Photo Archives computer exhibits and the Ancient Images and Pueblo 

Perspectives exhibit about Lowry Pueblo’s five painted kivas. 

No other sites in the Monument are currently prepared for visitation; however, all public land in 

the Monument is available to visitors. Managed as an outdoor museum where visitors must 

earn their experiences through self-discovery, visitors are encouraged to use Leave-No-Trace 

ethics. Visitors are informed that there are no services, no restaurants, no gas stations, no 

ranger-guided tours, and no developed campgrounds in the Monument. Visitors are also 

educated as to the nature of private property in-holdings and to the concept of multiple resource 

management. 

Continued research, education, interpretation, and heritage tourism will raise awareness about 

the values of the Monument’s resources and about the sensitivities necessary to protect and 

preserve the resources. Developing these programs in conjunction with specific site 

improvements and recreation experiences should increase visitors’ sense of value and respect 

for the Monument and enhance their overall experiences in the Monument. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

217 

3.2.2. Facilities and Infrastructure 

Facilities and infrastructure support the transportation network, recreational function, oil and gas 

exploration and development, and public utilities in the Monument. These facilities and 

infrastructure include the water diversion and conveyance system, and the transportation road 

network, offering both access to and around the Monument. Paved and natural-surface roads 

are accessible by private and commercial vehicles. A network of roads accommodate 

motorized and mechanized use. Infrastructure is in place for motorized travel and nonmechanized uses, such as hiking, camping, horseback riding, hunting, and viewing of wildlife 

and cultural resources. Additional recreation support facilities and infrastructure include the 

AHC and Lowry Pueblo, which offer parking areas, picnic tables, and restrooms. Supporting 

infrastructure for oil and gas exploration and development and public utilities includes roads, 

rights-of-way (ROW) pipelines, and other associated infrastructure. 

3.2.2.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

Various laws, regulations, and policies that pertain to the planning process, or are generally 

applicable to more than one of the related resources and land uses in the Monument, are 

described in other sections of this document. The laws and regulations that are related to 

management of facilities and infrastructure on BLM National Monuments, as well as on other 

BLM lands, are described in: 

 Section 3.2.4., Lands and Realty; 

 Section 3.2.5., Minerals; 

 Section 3.2.8., Recreation; and 

 Section 3.2.9., Transportation. 

3.2.2.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Current conditions and trends related to the facilities and infrastructure of the Monument are 

described in other sections of this document. The system of roads providing access to the 

Monument, and their categorical designation, is described in Section 3.2.9, Transportation. The 

OHV roads, non-motorized road network, and recreation supporting facilities in the Monument 

are described in Section 3.2.8, Recreation. The supporting infrastructure for oil and gas 

exploration and development is described in Section 3.2.5, Minerals. The public utilities 

infrastructure, including communication sites, utility corridors, and ROWs, are described in 

Section 3.2.4, Lands and Realty. 

3.2.3. Special Forest Products 

The dominant forest vegetation type in the Monument is the pinyon-juniper woodlands, 

consisting of pinyon pine and Utah juniper. These woodlands cover approximately 67 percent 

of the Monument and are the dominant vegetation type on the mesa tops and in the canyon 

bottoms. The distribution of these woodlands is shown on Map 12. They are described in 

additional detail in Section 3.1.8, Vegetation Resources, and Section 3.1.3, Fuels and Fire 

Management. 

3.2.3.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

In general, the Colorado Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management (BLM 1997) and the livestock management actions described in the San Juan/San 

Miguel RMP (BLM 1985) have guided management of the Monument’s vegetation resources. 

Additional laws, regulations, and policies that pertain to the planning process, or are generally 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

218 

applicable to more than one of the related resources and land uses in the Monument, are 

described and listed in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need. Laws and regulations specifically related 

to management of vegetation resources on BLM National Monuments and other BLM lands 

include: 

 the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003; 

 BLM Regulations 43 CFR 5000 et seq.; and 

 the National Fire Plan. 

Interim guidance from the Colorado BLM State Director, which was completed, states the 

following regarding fuelwood and vegetative use permits: 

Commercial forest products sales will not be permitted. Vegetative use areas for private 

fuelwood and vegetative use permits will be identified by December 1, 2000. These areas will 

be limited to previously chained areas to remove dead-and-down wood and to reduce fuel load 

and fire hazards. Vegetative uses are an integral part of traditional tribal subsistence activities. 

3.2.3.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Currently in the Monument, forest-related products include fuelwood, Christmas trees, and 

round wood products, such as poles and fence posts. More traditional forest-related products 

include bark materials, limb wood, foliar materials, seeds, and nuts. 

Following the official designation of the Monument, the Colorado BLM State Director’s Guidance 

required that fuelwood and vegetative use permits be limited to previously chained areas to 

remove dead wood and to reduce fuel loads and fire hazards. After the completion of a Class 1 

cultural resource inventory, all previously chained areas were found to contain a high density of 

cultural resources. At that time, a recommendation was made to close the Monument to 

fuelwood gathering and a final decision was deferred until completion of the final RMP/final EIS 

ROD. In 2003, eight permits were issued for the collection of Christmas trees in the Burro Point 

area of the Monument. No fuelwood permits have been issued in the Monument since 2002. 

3.2.4. Lands and Realty 

The lands and realty program includes both land tenure adjustments and land use 

authorizations. Land tenure adjustments focus primarily on land acquisition and disposal, while 

land use authorizations consist of BLM approvals of ROWs, utility corridors and communication 

sites, and other leases or permits. Scattered tracts of private lands are present throughout the 

Monument, complicating the BLM’s ability to manage or control access or provide opportunity 

for enjoyment by the public. Opportunities exist to increase public benefits by acquiring, by sale 

or exchange, offered lands in areas that would enhance public enjoyment and more efficiently 

facilitate resource management. 

Encroachment is an ongoing concern. There are several examples of Monument lands being 

incorporated into private land holdings and used for private purposes without authorization. 

Historic surveys of public land boundaries were not as accurate as current technology allows; 

and, as a result, uses occurring on neighboring private lands encroached onto public lands. 

Such activities include plowing of fields, the construction of buildings, the alignment of fences, 

and other uses. The Monument was established by the President of the United States; 

therefore, it requires Congressional authorization to change the boundary through the sale or 

transfer of public Monument property into private ownership. Historic encroachment is different 

from present day personal use of public lands. For example, the inadvertent clearing of land for 

private development or for the construction of an unauthorized road or building on public land, 

given today’s clear demarcation of surveyed lands, is a law enforcement violation. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

219 

3.2.4.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

The Monument encompasses approximately 182,876 acres of Federal and privately-owned 

land. The BLM manages 165,335 acres in the Monument. As part of the Hovenweep National 

Monument, the NPS manages approximately 400 acres, consisting of four discontiguous tracts. 

The remaining 17,541 acres are privately owned land within the Monument boundary, consisting 

of approximately 45 parcels of relatively large, isolated tracts of land under approximately 31 

different ownerships. These private land parcels range in size from approximately 30 acres to 

approximately several thousand acres. The 313-mile Monument perimeter lies adjacent to 

approximately 250 separate landowners in Montezuma County. There are a number of private 

landowners adjacent to the Monument boundary in Dolores County as well, although the exact 

number is not known. All acreage figures presented here were derived from Geographic 

Information System (GIS) land use data. 

Land tenure decisions must conform to the following regulations and policies: 

 43 CFR 2400, lands for retention, proposed disposal, or acquisition (based on 

acquisition criteria identified in the land use plan; FLPMA Section 205[b]; Oregon Natural 

Resources Council, 78; and Interior Board of Land Appeals [IBLA] 124 [1983]) – Lands 

are to be retained under Federal ownership, unless it is determined that disposal of a 

particular parcel will serve the national interest (FLPMA Section 102[a][1]). Land use 

plans should avoid prescribing the method of disposal, acquisition, or property interest to 

be acquired. 

 FLPMA – Acquisitions – Section 205; Exchanges – Section 206; permits for temporary 

use, such as filming – Section 302; rights-of-ways (ROWs) – Section 501 – ROWs for 

facilities and systems for the impoundment, storage, transportation, or distribution of 

water; pipelines for other uses; systems for generation, transmission, and distribution of 

electric energy; systems for transmission or reception of radio, television, telephone, 

telegraph, and other electronic signals; roads; railroads; airways; livestock driveways; 

etc. 

 Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) of 2000 – FLTFA amended the 

FLPMA to allow disposal in land use plans prior to July 25, 2000. The FLTFA currently 

does not apply to lands identified for disposal after July 25, 2000. 

 43 CFR 2300, land management guidelines regarding withdrawal areas – This regulation 

affects lands proposed for withdrawal, including existing withdrawals to be continued, 

modified, or revoked. Requirements describe how the lands would be managed if the 

withdrawal were relinquished and an opening order issued. 

 Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended (43 USC 315[f]), Land 

Classifications – The procedures applicable to Section 7 outlined in 43 CFR 2400 must 

be followed. The following actions require classification: Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act sales (see 43 CFR 2740) and leases (see 43 CFR 2912), agricultural 

entries (see 43 CFR 2520, 2530, 2610), and State grants (see 43 CFR 2620). To the 

extent that the land use planning procedures pursuant to 43 CFR 1600 differ from 

applicable classification procedures in accordance with 43 CFR 2400, the latter 

procedures shall be followed and applied. The analysis that supports classification 

decisions is normally the same analysis utilized in the land use planning/NEPA process 

to make decisions concerning the disposal or retention of public lands. For any 

classification decision made through the land use plan, classification decision 

requirements are initiated (i.e., proposed and initial decisions required under 43 CFR 

2400) at the time the decision document is issued for the land use plan. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

220 

 43 CFR 2740, 2912, 2911, and 2920, Land Use Authorizations – These regulations 

describe where and under what circumstances authorizations for use, occupancy, and 

development (such as major leases and land use permits) may be granted. 

3.2.4.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

The Federal lands of the Monument are administered under the multiple-use concept described 

in the FLPMA. The lands are subject to public-at-large uses, which include hunting, camping, 

hiking, touring, OHV use, wildlife viewing, and visits to archeological sites. Authorized uses of 

the land include livestock grazing, commercial outfitting and guiding, oil and gas exploration and 

extraction, access to private land, and installation of utilities infrastructure. 

The private in-holdings are used primarily for livestock grazing, dryland agriculture, temporary 

lodging, hunting, hiking, and oil and gas extraction. There are two active unpatented mining 

claims in the Monument (CMC249153 and CMC249154). 

Table 3-24 lists the number of BLM authorizations currently active for a variety of ROWs, and 

the approximate acreages of those permitted uses. 

Table 3-24 Active BLM Authorizations for Rights-of-Ways (ROWs) 

Type of ROW Number of 

Authorizations Acres 

Road ROW 45 697.2 

Power facility 1 1.6 

Power transmission line 8 411.8 

Communications site 3 4.5 

Telephone/telegraph 7 6.1 

Water facility 5 13.6 

Oil and gas pipeline 6 84.1 

TOTAL 75 1,218.9 

In 1992, the Western Utility Group prepared the Western Regional Corridor Study for power and 

other energy-related linear ROWs existing and planned in the western United States. The 230-

kilovolt (kV) aerial power line currently traversing the southwestern corner of the Monument, and 

the buried CO2 pipeline and infrastructure located in the southeastern area of the Monument, 

are delineated in the document. 

Based on the Proclamation, lands and realty disposition is largely set under law as follows: 

 Federal lands will remain in public ownership. 

 No leases or sales of land will occur in the Monument. Exchanges of land may be 

considered, if they will further the purposes of the Monument. 

 ROWs that were authorized prior to Monument designation are recognized as valid. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

221 

 No new ROWs or ancillary facilities will be processed, except for ROWs authorized 

pursuant to existing policies and practices, as well as those necessary for access to 

private land. 

 Acquisition of lands in the Monument to protect important cultural or biological values will 

be considered, from willing sellers. 

 While existing withdrawals, reservations, or appropriations are not revoked in the 

Monument, disposal of Federal lands is prohibited. Conversely, the Federal government 

may acquire private lands, or interests in private lands, from willing sellers within or 

adjacent to the Monument boundaries. 

Changes in land tenure status are generally not attributable to natural factors. They are more 

likely to occur due to individual, private decisions to sell or trade land. These decisions may 

result from external forces that impact the real estate market, such as catastrophic natural 

events like wildfire, large-scale beetle infestation, drought, and/or flooding. However, they may 

just as likely stem from personal factors in the lives of the landowners. 

3.2.5. Minerals - Fluid 

The Monument lies within a geologic region called the Paradox Basin, which covers portions of 

southwestern Colorado, southeastern Utah, northwestern New Mexico, and northeastern 

Arizona. The area has high oil, natural gas, and CO2 potential and is currently producing oil and 

gas from the Paradox, Leadville, and Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail Formations in the 

Monument. Fluid and solid mineral resources will be discussed in separate sections below. 

3.2.5.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

The Paradox Basin is typically defined by the existence of evaporite deposits underlain by thick 

deposits of Devonian and Mississippian Period carbonates, which are unconformably overlain 

by Pennsylvanian Period strata. The Paradox Basin is a mature oil and gas province, with 

known oil and gas reservoirs within the Leadville Formation and various carbonate members of 

the Paradox Formation. The Leadville Formation is the largest CO2-containing reservoir in the 

country, and the Desert Creek and Ismay members of the Paradox Formation are the primary 

source of oil and natural gas in the Monument. 

Oil was first discovered in the Paradox Basin in 1908 near Mexican Hat, Utah, where shallow 

wells were drilled near an existing oil seep along the San Juan River. Natural gas was first 

discovered along the southeastern edge of the Paradox Basin in 1921, at the Ute Dome in New 

Mexico. In the Monument boundary, several old, very mature oil and gas fields exist. The 

larger fields are the Cache, Flodine Park, McClean Basin (Cutthroat), McElmo Dome, Island 

Butte, and Papoose Canyon Fields. There are several smaller fields, usually consisting of one 

or two producing wells. Oil and gas development commenced in 1948, with the discovery of 

natural gas in the Shinarump Formation. 

Oil and natural gas production in the Monument is primarily from algal mounds or oolitic shoals 

that originated in the shallow shelf environments and are surrounded by low-permeability 

carbonate muds. As a result, oil and gas production in the Monument depends on localized 

depositional environments and diagenetic trends in carbonates of the Desert Creek and Ismay 

members. Although these members extend beneath the entire Monument area, only areas with 

higher porosity and permeability contain exploitable oil and gas reservoirs, which accounts for 

the somewhat discontinuous and isolated nature of commercial production. Source rocks for oil 

and gas are the carbonaceous shales of the Paradox Formation and possibly the Cambrian 

Bright Angel Shale, both of which underlie the entire Monument. There may also be some 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

222 

future potential for natural gas discoveries in the Permian Cutler Formation and increased 

production in the Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail Formation. 

In general, management of the Monument’s oil and gas resources is guided by the Monument 

Proclamation and the 1991 Oil and Gas Leasing Amendment to the San Juan/San Miguel RMP 

(BLM 1985). Additional laws, regulations, and policies that pertain to oil and gas management 

include the following: 

 43 CFR, Parts 3100 and 3200; 

 BLM Onshore Oil and Gas Orders; 

 BLM National Notice-to-Lessees; 

 the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (FOGRMA); 

 the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (FOOGLRA); 

 the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996 (FOGRS+FA); 

 the Unitization Manual 3180 (Exploratory); 

 the Unitization Handbook H-3180-1 (Exploratory); 

 the 2006 Oil and Gas Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines (Goldbook, 4th 

edition) (BLM 2006); and 

 the integration of BMPs into applications for permit to drill approvals and associated 

ROWs (WO IM 2007-021). 

3.2.5.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Drilling and Production 

According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 185 oil, natural gas, and CO2

wells have been drilled in the Monument since the 1940s. Of these wells, 125 are currently 

active, and 60 have been plugged and abandoned. Eighty-one active wells are producing from 

five units in the Monument: Island Butte II, Cutthroat, McElmo Dome, Cache, and Canyon 

(Shallow). The remaining 44 wells are producing from Monument land not in a unit. From 1950 

through 2003, the average number of wells drilled per year was four. The most wells drilled in a 

year was 19, and there have been several years of no drilling activity. The overall success rate 

of all wells is 60 percent, with success rates for CO2 wells at 65 percent and oil and natural gas 

wells at 57 percent. Drilling and completion costs are typically in the range of $700,000 to 

$1,500,000 per well. 

Current daily production from wells in the Monument is approximately 550 barrels of oil, 3,850 

million cubic feet (mcf) of natural gas, and 750,000 mcf of CO2. Peak production since 1970 

was 3,220 barrels of oil per day in 1994, and 9,200 mcf of natural gas per day in 1997. Oil and 

natural gas production from wells in the Monument has been declining steadily since the mid1990s. The production of CO2 from McElmo Dome Unit wells in the Monument has remained 

relatively constant over the last 10 years, with production ranging from between approximately 

700,000 to 800,000 mcf/day. 

Most oil and gas fields in the Monument have produced to near their estimated ultimate 

recovery and are now considered near depletion, even at current high energy prices. The 

estimated reserves from existing fields (both inside and outside the Monument) are 551,125 

barrels of oil and 2,953,553 mcf of natural gas, as shown in Table 3-25. Considering fields as a 

whole, this corresponds to approximately three years of oil production and two years of natural 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

223 

gas production at current daily production rates. With workovers and recompletions occurring in 

the Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail Formation, production will continue indefinitely. 

Table 3-25 Estimated Oil and Gas Reserves of Units Inside and Outside the Monument 

Cumulative Production Estimated Ultimate 

Recovery 

Estimated Remaining 

Reserves Field 

Oil, bbl Gas, mcf Oil, bbl Gas, mcf Oil, bbl Gas, mcf 

Cutthroat 5,603,914 19,300,181 5,842,632 20,734,357 238,718 1,434,176 

Cache 4,570,047 7,606,130 4,703,626 7,900,021 133,579 293,891 

Island Butte 2,213,239 5,948,770 2,222,143 5,956,710 8,904 7,940 

Flodine Park 2,772,600 16,876,098 2,839,511 17,348,207 66,911 472,109 

Papoose Canyon 6,459,776 35,890,976 6,562,572 36,510,415 102,796 619,439 

Canyon (Shallow) 7,922 809,647 8,139 935,645 217 125,998 

TOTAL 21,627,498 86,431,802 22,178,623 89,385,355 551,125 2,953,553 

Bbl = barrels

The most significant mineral resource in the Monument is CO2 reserves in the McElmo Dome 

Unit. To date, approximately 4.4 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of CO2 has been produced, which 

represents only 29 percent of the projected ultimate recovery of 15.3 tcf. The field has an 

expected economic life of at least 50 more years from proven, producing reserves. A significant 

amount of acreage within the Unit, as well as large portions of the Unit that are not currently 

being produced, is available for future development. Continued high oil prices could increase 

demand for CO2 in West Texas tertiary recovery operations, resulting in additional wells and 

facilities in the McElmo Dome Unit. 

At least 54 separate seismic surveys have been approved and completed in the Monument, with 

three 3-D surveys and 51 2-D surveys. Most individual lines on 2-D surveys were from between 

3 to 8 miles long. The highest levels of seismic activity in the Monument are within the 

Cutthroat and Island Butte II Units. 

Leasing 

The Monument encompasses 182,876 acres of land, of which approximately 165,000 acres is 

under Federal surface ownership, managed by the BLM. Of the 182,876 acres, 143,503 acres 

are leased for oil and gas development under 334 leases; 39,373 acres are not leased. Of the 

334 total leases, 31 are private (non-Federal minerals). Table 3-26 shows the breakdown of 

Federal, private, leased, and unleased mineral estates. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

224 

Table 3-26 Lease Status of Federal Mineral Estates in the Monument 

Land/Mineral Status Total Area (acres) Leased (acres) Unleased (acres) 

Federal surface/Federal minerals 164,357 132,353 32,004 

Federal surface/private minerals 456 279 177 

Private surface/private minerals 4,975 0 4,975 

Private surface/Federal minerals 13,088 10,871 2,217 

TOTAL 182,876 143,503 39,373 

Approximately 81 percent (143,503 acres) of the Federal mineral estates in the Monument is 

leased for oil and gas exploration and development, while 19 percent is currently not leased. 

Leases entitle the lessee to develop all oil and gas, including natural gas, oil, condensate, and 

CO2. The six oil, natural gas, and CO2 units cover the majority of leased acreage in the 

Monument. Lease operators are required to exercise due care and diligence to ensure that 

leasehold operations do not result in undue damage to surface and subsurface resources, or 

any surface improvements. 

Units are typically from 160 acres to several thousand acres in size, and usually consist of 

several leases. A unit is a “joining of all or substantially all interests in a reservoir or field, rather 

than a single tract, to provide for efficient development and operation of a common reservoir 

without regard to separate property interests.” Leases are generally unitized at the convenience 

of the government or when geologic conditions do not permit the drilling of wells at conventional 

locations; well sites are selected based on geologic conditions. Unitization provides operators 

the flexibility to explore, develop, and manage the reservoir properly. As long as there is 

production within the unit, the individual leases in the unit are held by production and do not 

expire. 

The Monument Proclamation includes guidance as to oil-and-gas management for both existing 

and potential (new) leases. In terms of existing leases, development will continue, subject to 

valid and existing rights, provided that the activities do not create new impacts that interfere with 

the proper care and management of the objects protected by the Proclamation. The 1991 Oil 

and Gas Leasing Amendment to the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (BLM 1991a) set forth 

stipulations that apply to all new leases. These relate to surface occupancy, timing of 

operations, CSU, lease notices, and conditions of approval. 

The 1991 Amendment to the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (BLM 1991a) prohibited additional 

leasing inside the Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) (Cahone Canyon, Cross Canyon, 

Squaw/Papoose Canyon) in the Monument. The NSO stipulation currently applies to 59,278 

acres, or to approximately 32 percent of the total land area in the Monument. However, none of 

these stipulations apply to leases issued before 1991. They apply to only 15 of the total 334 

leases in the Monument. 

Except for oil-and-gas leasing, the Proclamation reserved and appropriated all Federal lands 

and interests in lands in the Monument and withdrew them from all forms of entry, location, 

selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public-land laws, including the mineralleasing and mining laws. Thus, with the exception of oil-and-gas leases, no new Federal 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

225 

mineral leases will be issued in the Monument. Authorization of activities on existing mineral 

leases will be governed by valid existing rights. 

3.2.6. Minerals - Solid 

Solid minerals are divided into the classifications of locatable (metallic including uranium) and 

saleable (industrial). There are two existing unpatented uranium mining claims (locatable 

mineral) and one building stone quarry (saleable mineral) located in the Monument. 

3.2.6.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

No metal mining is currently occurring in Montezuma or Dolores Counties, although resources 

such as uranium, silver, gold, copper, lead, and zinc have been mined in the past. The region 

produced nearly $50 million in locatable minerals prior to 1958. 

The most readily available saleable minerals in the region are sand, gravel, and building stone. 

Alluvial deposits containing sand and gravel underlie the Dolores River valley and its main 

tributary drainages. In addition, the portions of the region are also overlain by eolian (windderived) sand. The deposits are used primarily as roadbase and fill material. Eolian sand is a 

potential source of silica, which is used in industries such as glass and ceramic manufacturing. 

The Dakota Sandstone is a good source of building stone, and may also be useful for industries 

requiring high silica content in their manufacturing process. 

Laws and regulations that apply to solid mineral leasing and extraction in the Monument include 

the following: 

 The 1872 General Mining Law, which established the general principles of acquiring 

mining claims. It has been substantially reduced by several subsequent Congressional 

acts, primarily: 

 The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, which authorized that deposits of oil, 

gas, coal, potassium, sodium, phosphate, oil shale, native asphalt, solid and semi-solid 

bitumen and bituminous rock, and oil-impregnated rock/sand may be acquired through a 

mineral-leasing system; and 

 The Materials Act of July 31, 1947, as amended, which further excluded common 

varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, cinders, clay, humate, and petrified wood from 

claims staking. 

 Additionally, an operator would be required to comply with BLM stipulations and other 

restrictions, and pertinent Federal (NHPA, ESA) and State laws. 

 The Clean Water Act, which requires that all discharges of pollutants to surface waters 

(streams, rivers, lakes, bays, and oceans), must be authorized by a permit issued under 

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. 

 The extraction and sale of aggregate materials, which are generally governed by the 

Mineral Materials Disposal regulations codified in CFR (43 CFR 3600-3622). However, 

this use has been withdrawn through The Proclamation. 

 The Proclamation including: 

− for mineral activities (including hardrock, oil, gas, and coal), except for oil-and-gas 

leasing, the Proclamation reserved and appropriated all Federal lands and interests 

in lands in the Monument and withdrew them from all forms of entry, location, 

selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public-land laws, including the 

mineral-leasing and mining laws. Thus, with the exception of oil-and-gas leases, no 

new Federal mineral leases will be issued in the Monument, and authorization for 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

226 

activities on existing mineral leases will be governed by valid existing rights. 

Currently, there are no leases or contracts in the Monument for solid minerals and 

only two existing claims; and 

− for hardrock minerals, no new mining claims can be located, and no new prospecting 

or exploration activities can be undertaken to identify locatable minerals or establish 

the discovery of valuable mineral deposits except by existing claimants. Plans for 

mining operations are generally not approved, unless the BLM has determined the 

validity of the mining claims and mill sites covered by the plan. The BLM may 

choose to require a validity examination. 

3.2.6.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

The two unpatented uranium mining claims in the Monument include CMC 249153, Spider Rock 

1 (SW 12-T38N-R20W), and CMC 249154, Spider Rock 2 (SW 12-T38N-R20W). The claimant 

recorded the claims in 1996; and although they have never produced, they are potentially 

viable. The Federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate. The claimant filed 

the mining claims before the Proclamation withdrawal and has kept his claims current (i.e., 

rental/maintenance fee has been paid), and therefore has the right to develop the minerals. 

Before he can produce the claims, he would have to submit a plan of operation and a bond. 

The government could request a validity examination to determine whether or not a prudent 

operator would develop the claims before approving the plan of operation. 

To the extent that these claims contain a valid discovery of a valuable mineral deposit as of the 

date of the designation, they will be respected as valid existing rights. The exercise of such 

rights may be regulated to protect the purposes of the Monument, but any regulation must 

respect such rights. Existing mining claims that lack a valid discovery of a valuable mineral 

deposit have no valid, existing rights; activities on such claims may be regulated or prohibited to 

protect the purposes of the Monument. The Proclamation withdrew the area from the 1872 

Mining Law; thus, new mining claims are prohibited. 

The H&H Quarry 2, a decorative/building stone quarry, is located inside the Monument. No 

information about current or past production is available. This operation is also split estate, with 

the BLM controlling the surface and the private sector controlling the subsurface minerals. The 

location of the pit is NENW, T 39 N, R 18 W, S7. 

No information about current or past production is available; therefore, future conditions are 

difficult to anticipate for H&H Quarry 2. 

3.2.7. Rangeland Resources 

Of all the historic human use activities in the Monument boundaries, livestock grazing has the 

longest history and covers the largest area. Approximately 98 percent of the 165,000 acres of 

the Monument is currently used for livestock grazing. A total of 8,492 animal unit months 

(AUMs) are permitted and active in the Monument. An additional 1,692 AUMs are currently 

suspended. 

In general, the Colorado Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management (Public Land Health Standards) (BLM 1997) and livestock management actions in 

the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (BLM 1985) have guided management of the Monument’s 

vegetation resources. The Public Land Health Standards were developed in response to 

livestock-grazing regulations that became effective August 21, 1995, and were approved by the 

Secretary of the Interior on February 3, 1997. Standards that are monitored include: 1) upland 

soils; 2) riparian systems; 3) plant and animal communities; 4) special status, threatened, and 

endangered species; and 5) water quality. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

227 

3.2.7.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

The Monument is located in the semi-arid transition zone between the montane zone of the San 

Juan Mountains to the north and east, and the arid badlands and deserts of northern New 

Mexico to the south. At the landscape level, the area slopes gradually from higher elevations in 

the north and east, to lower elevations in the south and west. At smaller scales, aspects and 

slopes vary widely due to the numerous gullies and canyons that occur in the area. 

Several other resources that interact with livestock grazing are discussed in greater detail in 

other sections of the document, including Section 3.1.6, Soil Resources; Section 3.1.7, 

Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife (including special status species); Section 3.1.8, Vegetation 

Resources (including special status species); and Section 3.1.10, Water Resources. All of 

these features are also discussed in the AMS (BLM 2005b). 

In this region, two resources are especially susceptible to the effects of livestock grazing: 

riparian zones and biological soil crusts. In arid and semi-arid environments, livestock spend a 

disproportionate amount of their time in riparian vegetation communities and consequently 

concentrate much of their impacts on these habitat types (Roath and Krueger 1982; Clary and 

Medin 1990). These impacts affect riparian vegetation, stream morphology, and water quality 

(Chaney et al. 1990; Fleischner 1993). 

Biological soil crusts are easily crushed by livestock or other agents, resulting in a decrease in 

overall cover of biological crusts and a decrease in the number of crust species present. 

Untrampled crusts often have four to ten species of soil lichens and/or four to six species of 

cyanobacteria. In contrast, trampled areas often have no lichens and only one species of 

cyanobacteria (Belnap 1995). This loss of biological crusts negatively affects soil development, 

nutrient cycling, and plant germination success, as well as overall soil vigor (Belnap 2003). 

Many laws, regulations, and policies that pertain to the planning process, or are generally 

applicable to more than one of the resources/uses in the Monument, are described in other 

sections of this document. Laws and regulations that are most directly related to management 

of livestock on BLM lands and/or on National Monuments include: 

 the Proclamation; 

 the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934; 

 the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PL 95-514); 

 Executive Order 12548 (1986): Establishment of annual fees for domestic livestock 

grazing on public rangelands; 

 the FLPMA, sections 102, 201, 202, 302, 304, 307, 309, 310, 401, 402, and 403; 

 BLM regulations contained in 43 CFR 4100 et seq; 

 BLM Manual 4180 – Rangeland Health Standards (BLM 2001e); and 

 Interim Management for all National Monuments, which permits livestock grazing in the 

Monument, pursuant to the terms of existing permits and leases. Appropriate livestock 

grazing-management practices should be followed to protect rangeland resources and to 

ensure compliance with BLM Colorado’s Standards for Public Land Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing. Enforcement actions against trespassers or other 

violators would continue to be authorized. 

These laws range from the most general, such as the Taylor Grazing Act that mandates the 

overall allotment system, to the more specific regulations that guide local land managers in their 

day-to-day decisions. Achievement of Public Land Health Standards strongly influences the 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

228 

majority of local decisions concerning stocking levels, times of use, and standards of 

performance. These standards were developed in response to livestock-grazing regulations 

that became effective August 21, 1995, and were approved by the Secretary of the Interior on 

February 3, 1997. 

3.2.7.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Current conditions and trends have been assessed by the BLM and have been reported in the 

AMS (BLM 2005b). This analysis is based on monitoring performed under the BLM Colorado 

Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. Table 

3-27 summarizes the BLM interdisciplinary (ID) team’s determinations as to whether or not the 

allotments are achieving the standards, along with causal factors. Although the determinations 

are organized by livestock grazing allotments, causal factor(s) are not limited to livestock 

grazing. Instead, a variety of multiple-use activities (including recreation and oil and gas 

development) could be responsible for a determination. Allotments are shown on Map 3. 

The standards were developed in response to livestock-grazing regulations that became 

effective August 21, 1995, and were approved by the Secretary of the Interior on February 3, 

1997. Standards that are monitored are: 1) upland soils; 2) riparian systems; 3) plant and 

animal communities; 4) special status, threatened, and endangered species; and 5) water 

quality. This section is a brief summary of the more detailed information available in the AMS 

(BLM 2005b). 

Table 3-27 Standards for Public Land Health – BLM Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Determinations 

Standards for Public Land Health 

Allotment Upland 

Soils 

Riparian 

Systems 

Healthy Plant

and Animal 

Communities 

TES Plants 

and 

Animals 

Water 

Quality 

Grazing a 

Significant 

Factor 

Adam Lewy Not achieved Not achieved Not achieved Not 

achieved 

Not 

achieved Y 

Alkali Achieved Not achieved Achieved Not 

achieved Achieved 

N-Livestock 

mgmt. 

actions 

already 

taken 

Aztec Canyon Achieved 

Progress 

toward 

achieving 

Not achieved Achieved Achieved Ya

Blue Littlewater Not achieved NA Not achieved NA NA N 

Burro Point 

Community Not achieved Achieved Not achieved NA Achieved Y 

Burro Point 

Individual Not achieved NA Not achieved NA NA 

N-Utility 

corridor 

mgmt. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

229 

Table 3-27 Standards for Public Land Health – BLM Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Determinations 

Standards for Public Land Health 

Allotment Upland 

Soils 

Riparian 

Systems 

Healthy Plant

and Animal 

Communities 

TES Plants 

and 

Animals 

Water 

Quality 

Grazing a 

Significant 

Factor 

Cahone Mesa Not achieved Not achieved Not achieved Achieved Achieved Ya

Cannonball Achieved Achieved Not achieved Achieved Achieved 

N-Livestock 

mgmt. 

actions 

already 

taken 

Cross Canyon Not achieved Not achieved Not achieved Not 

achieved Achieved Y 

East McElmo 

Creek Not achieved NA Not achieved NA NA Y 

Flodine Park Not achieved Not achieved Not achieved Not 

achieved Achieved Ya

Goodman 

Gulch Not achieved NA Not achieved Achieved NA Ya

Goodman Point Achieved NA Achieved NA NA N 

Hamilton Mesa Not achieved Not achieved Not achieved Not 

achieved Achieved Ya

Hovenweep 

Canyon Not achieved Not achieved Not achieved NA Not 

achieved 

N-Wildfire 

caused 

Lower Aztec 

Canyon Not achieved NA Achieved NA NA Y 

Lower McElmo Not achieved Not achieved Not achieved Not 

achieved 

Not 

achieved Ya

McLean Not achieved NA Not achieved NA NA Y 

Papoose 

Canyon Not achieved Not achieved Achieved Not 

achieved Achieved N-Wildfire 

caused 

Rock Creek Not achieved NA Not achieved NA NA 

N- Livestock 

mgmt. 

actions 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

230 

Table 3-27 Standards for Public Land Health – BLM Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Determinations 

Standards for Public Land Health 

Allotment Upland 

Soils 

Riparian 

Systems 

Healthy Plant

and Animal 

Communities 

TES Plants 

and 

Animals 

Water 

Quality 

Grazing a 

Significant 

Factor 

already 

taken 

Sand Canyon 

East Not achieved NA Not achieved Not achieved NA Ya

Sand Canyon 

West Not achieved NA Not achieved Not 

achieved NA Ya

Sandstone Not achieved Not achieved Not achieved Not 

achieved 

Not 

achieved Y 

Squaw Canyon Achieved Not achieved Achieved Not 

achieved Achieved Y 

Trail Canyon 

Progress 

toward 

achieving 

NA Achieved NA NA N 

Ute Mountain Not achieved NA Not achieved NA NA 

N- Livestock 

mgmt. 

actions 

already 

taken 

Yellow Jacket Not achieved Not achieved Not achieved Not 

achieved 

Not 

achieved Ya

Yellow Jacket 

Canyon Not achieved Not achieved Not achieved Not 

achieved 

Not 

achieved Y 

a

 Since the Public Land Health determinations were made, changes to grazing management (i.e., livestock numbers, 

season of use, and grazing management) have been implemented on these allotments. It is anticipated that these 

changes will make significant progress toward meeting the Public Land Health Standards. 

NA: The standard is not applicable because it is not present in the allotment. 

Brief summaries of the information contained in Table 3-27 are presented below. More detailed 

information on current trends and conditions are found in sections concerning applicable 

environmental conditions in this document and in the AMS (BLM 2005b). Fourteen of the 28 

allotments did achieve one or more of the five standards. Livestock grazing is listed as a 

significant factor for not achieving standards in 18 of 28 allotments. 

The standard for upland soils is not being achieved on 22 of the allotments in the Monument. 

Progress is being made toward achieving the standard on one allotment (Trail Canyon). Causal 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

231 

factors for these determinations are identified as livestock grazing, historic use of intermingled 

homestead lands and adjacent private lands, change in historic fire cycle, recent wildfire, and 

invasion of knapweed. 

The standard for riparian systems is not being achieved on 13 of the 16 applicable livestockgrazing allotments in the Monument (the other 11 do not contain riparian areas). Progress is 

being made toward achieving the standard on one allotment (Aztec Canyon). Causal factors for 

these determinations are identified as livestock grazing, upstream land uses, historic homestead 

sites, tamarisk and Russian-olive invasion, road encroachment, augmented flows, recent 

wildfire, and lack of perennial ground cover. 

The standard for healthy, productive plant and animal communities is not being achieved on 22 

of the 28 livestock-grazing allotments in the Monument. Causal factors for these determinations 

are identified as livestock grazing, historic and/or current use of intermingled or adjacent private 

land, unsuccessful chaining and seeding of pinyon-juniper vegetation in the 1970s, presence of 

utility corridors, adjacent private land weed source, and the Hovenweep wildfire of 2000 and 

subsequent invasion of knapweed. 

The standard for special status species is not being achieved on 13 of the 17 applicable 

livestock-grazing allotments in the Monument. This standard does not apply to the remaining 11 

allotments because neither special status species, nor their habitats, are present. Moreover, of 

the 13 allotments not achieving this standard, only two of these determinations are associated 

with plants; the rest are associated with animals. More specifically, only the Sand Canyon East 

and West allotments are not achieving this standard, which is a result of Naturita milkvetch 

(Astragalus naturitensis), a sensitive plant species. This plant is present in the allotment, but is 

thought to be at risk due to the increase in unauthorized recreational roads in the Sand Canyon 

area. The remaining allotments are not achieving the standard on the basis of habitat 

requirements for an endangered animal species, the SWWF. Habitat for this species is being 

degraded due to changes in vegetative structure and composition. Causal factors for these 11 

determinations are identified as livestock grazing, upstream land uses, lack of perennial ground 

cover, and road encroachment. 

The standard for water quality is not being achieved on 6 of the 16 applicable livestock-grazing 

allotments in the Monument. Surface water is not present on 11 of these allotments; therefore, 

an assessment of water quality was not completed for these allotments. Causal factors for 

these determinations consist primarily of land-use activities upstream in the watershed 

(including agriculture, irrigation, and livestock grazing). This assessment concluded that grazing 

was a significant factor in all but one of the nine allotments that did not achieve water quality 

standards. One allotment (Hovenweep Canyon) had recently changed grazing management 

and needs to be monitored to determine the effectiveness of that change. 

3.2.8. Recreation 

From the San Juan Mountains to the Dolores River Canyon and the area’s thousands of 

archaeological sites, the Four Corners region is a land of great geographic and cultural diversity. 

Public lands in the region attract visitors from across the nation and from around the world. 

Recreational opportunities in the Monument offer quality-of-life enrichment for visitors. Steady 

population growth has placed an increasing recreational demand on adjacent undeveloped 

public lands, as visitors and nearby residents seek diversity in their recreational opportunities. 

Prior to the establishment of the Monument, recreation management focused on providing 

opportunities for all segments of the public, commensurate with demand. Management was 

open to commercial use opportunities and cross-country vehicle opportunities. Currently the 

Monument is managed in accordance with the Proclamation and the Interim Management Policy 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

232 

for BLM National Monuments. Recreation management has been primarily custodial, allowing 

visitors dispersed recreation opportunities and limiting commercial recreation opportunities. 

For the past 125 years, scientists and visitors alike have been drawn to this area. The cultural 

resources alone set this area apart. Colorado's population has grown significantly in the past 10 

years (U.S. Census Bureau 2002), and an increasing number of people are living near, or are 

seeking, undeveloped public land for recreational use. In addition, Colorado remains a popular 

destination for tourists, especially those seeking experiences in an undeveloped setting. As a 

result, public lands administered by the BLM are absorbing increasing recreational use. Other 

factors include: 

 changing population demographics (U.S. Census Bureau 2002); 

 an increase in dispersed recreation use, both summer and winter; 

 an increase in popularity of public lands as a local recreation destination for local 

communities; 

 the amount of adjacent private lands and in-holdings; 

 an increase in the economic and social value of recreation and tourism; 

 an increase of public interest in, and growing awareness of, the area; 

 an increase in the desire of Americans to play a greater role in the management of their 

public lands; 

 technological advances, such as OHVs and mountain bikes, as well as better outdoor 

equipment and clothing; 

 the integration of recreation use with sustainable management of other resources; and 

 an increase in educational interest in past cultures. 

3.2.8.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

Current recreation management is based on the Proclamation and the Interim Management 

Policy and Interim Management Guidance, Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM 

2001b). The interim policy addresses a variety of concerns related to commercial use, facilities, 

recreation opportunities, dispersed camping, and resource protection. It also provides 

guidelines for future site improvements, maintenance activities, and management decisions. 

In addition to the laws, regulations, and policies that pertain to the planning process, or are 

generally applicable to more than one of the resources/uses in the Monument, as described in 

Chapter 1, there are others that specifically address recreation. They include: 

 The specific terms and conditions authorizing Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) that 

are issued for commercial or organized events. 

 The Brunot Agreement of 1874, which provides limited hunting rights to the Ute 

Mountain Ute Indian Tribe in the southeastern portion of the Monument. In exercising 

their Brunot hunting rights, the Ute Mountain Utes must adhere to regulations 

established by the Monument designed to protect other resources, such as the 

resources listed in the Monument’s transportation plan. 

 Cooperative agreements between the CDOW and the BLM that provide for enforcement 

of hunting regulations. CDOW game wardens have primary responsibility for enforcing 

CDOW regulations and permit conditions. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

233 

3.2.8.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Recreational opportunities offered by the land and facilities of the Monument include wildlife 

viewing, scenic drives, hunting, camping, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, visiting 

archaeological sites, sport climbing, stargazing, and OHV use. People pursue these activities in 

a full range of settings: some are near urban areas (e.g., Sand Canyon), while others are in 

remote backcountry locales, such as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). 

Hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are important local recreational elements. Elk and 

mule deer are the principal species hunted on public land in the Monument. Mountain lion 

hunting occurs in the winter, but is generally not a large part of hunting recreation activity. 

Recreational shooting is conducted on a limited basis. There are no developed shooting areas, 

and informal shooting rarely occurs. 

The Monument offers the opportunity for visitors to experience solitude and challenge in natural 

settings. Most backcountry recreation occurs in the northwestern portion of the Monument, in 

the existing WSAs. There are no developed camping areas in the Monument; however, there is 

a developed campground at Hovenweep National Monument. Dispersed camping is permitted 

in the Monument. Popular dispersed-camping areas include sites along the Cannonball Mesa 

road, at Big Point, and near Painted Hand. There are three developed interpretive sites for 

archaeology: Lowry Pueblo, Sand Canyon Pueblo, and Painted Hand Pueblo. Of the three 

interpretive sites, Lowry Pueblo is the most developed, offering visitors the opportunity to visit 

an archaeological site, as well as offering them a parking area, picnic facilities, and vault toilets. 

The AHC, located 10 miles north of Cortez and 3 miles west of Dolores, is the headquarters for 

the Monument. The AHC is a visitor center and a museum. 

Other regional recreation providers of developed and dispersed recreation opportunities in the 

region include: 

 the NPS, at Mesa Verde National Park and Hovenweep National Monument; 

 the USFS, at the San Juan National Forest and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre National 

Forest; 

 the BLM, at the San Juan Public Lands and Uncompahgre Field Office; and 

 the Colorado Division of Parks, at Lone Mesa and Mancos State Parks. 

Private recreation facilities, such as campgrounds and guest ranches, are found throughout the 

region. 

Commercial opportunities in the Monument involve nine outfitters and guides. The outfitters are 

authorized annually under the Special Recreation Permit (SRP) Program. The Proclamation 

and Interim Guidelines allow historic commercial use to continue, with the provision that 

modifications can be made to existing permits if risk is posed to the objects of the Monument. 

The outfitters and guides that operate in the Monument are listed in Table 3-28. 

Table 3-28 Outfitters and Guides Operating in the Monument 

Outfitter Type 

Book Cliff Outfitters* Lion hunts 

Crow Canyon Arch Ctr. Tours 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

234 

Table 3-28 Outfitters and Guides Operating in the Monument 

Outfitter Type 

Dolores River Outfitters* Horseback riding/big game/lion hunts 

High Country Outfitters* Lion hunts 

Kelly Place Summer horseback riding/hiking 

Red Mesa Outfitters* Lion hunts 

San Juan Outfitters Summer horseback riding 

Silver Peak Outfitters* Lion hunts 

Western Spirit Cycling Mountain biking 

*Hold SRP to operate on public land, both within and outside the Monument. 

Currently, there is a moratorium in place for issuing new SRPs in the Monument. Prior to the 

establishment of the Monument, there were 13 active SRPs. Since then, two permittees 

decided to cease operations (one lion hunting, one big-game hunting), and one was cancelled 

by the BLM (big-game hunting). Although no formal documentation has been kept during this 

moratorium to track new commercial interests, the BLM has documented seven requests for 

SRPs from June 2000 through September 2002, as follows: 

 one for backpacking trips; 

 two for horseback rides; 

 two for conducting archaeological tours; and 

 two for big-game outfitting. 

The total commercial client days by outfitter and guide for the years 1999 through 2003 in the 

Monument are shown in Table 3-29. 

Table 3-29 Total Commercial Client Days by Outfitter for Years 

1999 through 2003 

Outfitter 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Book Cliff Outfitters 1 0 0 7 12 

Crow Canyon Arch Center 12 12 51 0 0 

Dolores River Outfitters 0 0 4 9 6 

Far Out Expeditions 40 4 0 0 0 

High Country Outfitters 9 18 15 9 21 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

235 

Table 3-29 Total Commercial Client Days by Outfitter for Years 

1999 through 2003 

Outfitter 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Kelly Place 146 87 143 85 212 

Red Mesa Outfitters 2 2 2 0 2 

San Juan Outfitters 0 73 0 20 17 

Silver Peak Outfitters 0 0 2 0 0 

Western Spirit Cycling No data 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 210 196 217 130 270 

Several organized groups tour the Monument, including schools, archaeological organizations, 

and environmental-education groups. Not-for-profit groups (including public schools, churches, 

universities, etc.) are sometimes limited by group size; however, they are not charged a fee, and 

are not required to have an SRP. If schools or universities contact the Monument, they are 

asked to visit the AHC for information (including information on road conditions and locations to 

visit) before entering the Monument. 

Since 1992, the Monument and the AHC have partnered with the Crow Canyon Archaeological 

Center to host the Castle Rock Field Days, held in April or May. On this annual occasion, all 

fourth grade school children in Montezuma County are invited to spend a day in the Castle Rock 

area of the Monument to learn about cultural and natural resources. Some 300 students 

participate each year. Other popular locations for groups include Lowry Pueblo, Sand Canyon 

Pueblo, and Painted Hand Pueblo. All other types of activities for financial gain (commercial, 

competitive, special-area use, or organized-group activity) require an SRP. 

3.2.9. Transportation 

(NOTE: For the purpose of this DRMP/DEIS, a “road” is defined as an open way for the 

passage of vehicles, persons, or animals on land, regardless of the type of travel; and “off-road” 

is defined as cross-country travel between designated roads. All off-road travel by motorized 

and/or mechanized vehicles is prohibited in the Monument.) 

This section addresses transportation and access to BLM lands, including recreational offhighway vehicle (OHV) use. The BLM maintains approximately 126 miles of roads in the 

Monument. Access, whether by foot, motorcycle, horse, or vehicle, is one of many uses the 

BLM manages for. Reasonable access is made available to persons engaged in valid uses, 

such as for mining claims, mineral leases, livestock grazing, recreation, and other uses. 

Primary access to the Monument is via county roads that originate from State Highway 491 

(formerly Highway 666). All access to the Monument is by private or commercial vehicles. No 

public transport, mass transit, or shuttle services are available. No air service infrastructure 

exists in the Monument. The Montezuma County Airport, located 3 miles southeast of the 

Monument, is the closest public air transport facility. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

236 

3.2.9.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

Travel management is aimed at providing adequate access to BLM system lands for visitor use 

and for administration of those lands while, at the same time regulating travel to protect public 

safety, prevent damage to resources, and resolve conflicts among users. Current management 

is based on the Proclamation and Interim Management Policy and Interim Management 

Guidance, Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM 2001b). The interim policy 

addresses a variety of concerns related to vehicle use, roads, and resource protection, and 

provides guidelines for future road improvements, maintenance activities, and management 

decisions. 

Vehicle use in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is managed under the direction 

and authority in 43 CFR Part 8340, “Off-Road Vehicles,” Subpart 8342, “Designation of Roads 

and Trails.” The OHV regulations apply to use of roads by the general public. Certain other 

roads may be open to private in-holders, and grazing or other permittees, to meet specific 

access needs and/or legal rights. All motorized and mechanized vehicle use off road is 

prohibited. 

All public lands are required to be designated as “open,” “limited,” or “closed” to OHVs (43 CFR 

8342.1). In “open” areas, cross-country travel by motorized or mechanized means is not limited. 

On lands designated as “limited,” cross-country travel is prohibited and travel is limited to 

specific roads. The network of roads available and the terms and conditions of use on those 

roads are usually identified on published maps. In “closed” areas, no motorized or vehicle use 

is permitted. Cross-country travel by foot or by horse is usually permitted in all areas, 

regardless of OHV designation. Current OHV travel is “limited” to designated roads in the 

Monument. The Monument is closed to cross-country, off-road travel by motorized and 

mechanized vehicles, including mountain bikes, to reduce inadvertent damage to cultural 

resources. Established roads are open to use, as currently authorized. Monitoring of natural 

and cultural resources will be initiated in critical locations to determine whether or not resources 

are being damaged by vehicle use. A final decision on designated roads for vehicular travel, 

including mountain bikes, will be established through this planning process. Additional 

regulations and guidelines for transportation management include: 

 The Transportation Safety Act of 1974 and subsequent Hazardous Materials 

Transportation Act amendments of 1976, and 1990 amendments (49 USC 1801 et seq.), 

and associated regulations (49 CFR 171-173, 177, 383, 392, 395, and 397); and 

 Executive Order 11644, “Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands.” The purpose of 

this order is “to establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use 

of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the 

resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to 

minimize conflicts among various uses of those lands.” 

3.2.9.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Two roads provide the primary transportation system used for access through the Monument. 

County Road G (McElmo Creek Road) is a connector linking the Cortez area to destinations in 

Utah. County Road 10 receives substantial truck traffic and tourists traveling back and forth 

from Hovenweep National Monument, and is part of the Trail of the Ancients designated loop. 

The BLM maintains approximately 126 miles of motorized roads. This network includes twowheel-drive accessible roads, four-wheel-drive “two-track” roads, and OHV roads. All roads in 

the Monument, except County Road 10 (which is chip sealed), have a gravel or natural surface. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

237 

BLM roads provide public and administrative (agency and permittee) access to public lands and 

inholdings of private land within the Monument. Reasonable access is also made available to 

persons engaged in valid uses that include, but are not limited to the following: 

 The movement of equipment and material associated with oil, natural gas, and CO2

extraction (currently an average of 77 truck trips/day, with an estimated increase to 100 

truck trips/day over the next 20 years) (Reasonable Foreseeable Development or RFD), 

(BLM 2005c). The 2005 RFD estimates the increase in road mileage in the Monument 

over the next 20 years, resulting from oil and gas exploration and extraction, will be 

approximately 67 miles. Currently, there are approximately 196 miles of roads for 

access to oil-and-gas sites. 

 Access to inholdings, including: 

− five private landowners, who have applied for and received ROW grants for 

authorized access to their property; and 

− Hovenweep National Monument land parcels within and abutting Monument 

boundaries, managed by the NPS, which will be considered to ensure “reasonable” 

access from BLM-administered lands. From the western portion of the Monument, 

Road 4721 and two small non-system (non-categorized) roads provide access to 

Hovenweep National Monument. From the eastern portion of the Monument, access 

occurs on County Road P. 

 The movement of livestock into and out of areas permitted for grazing. 

 Access for recreation uses, including camping, hunting, wildlife viewing, hiking, mountain 

biking, equestrian use, OHV use, archaeological site visitation, and general touring. 

Traffic counts at Lowry Pueblo totaled 974 vehicles from January 2004 through April 

2004. 

The county roads located on BLM lands in the Monument are listed in Table 3-30. These data 

were generated from the Monument Travel Routes GIS coverage, dated July 2004. All roads in 

the Monument have a gravel or natural surface, except for Montezuma County Road 10, which 

is chip-sealed. Travel system management has focused on maintaining major access roads, 

which generally receive most of the recreation traffic. Corrective maintenance occurs as 

problems are identified and as funds permit. Road construction has been limited to improving or 

upgrading segments of roads to enhance access and/or to alleviate maintenance or 

environmental problems. Road maintenance and construction has been dealt with by each 

respective county. 

Table 3-30 County Roads Intersecting Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument

Road Name/Number County Length on BLM Land (miles) 

4 Dolores 2.92 

CC Montezuma 1.87 

10 Montezuma 7.16 

P Montezuma 0.75 

N Montezuma 5.38 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

238 

Table 3-30 County Roads Intersecting Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument

Road Name/Number County Length on BLM Land (miles) 

McElmo Creek/G Montezuma 0.53 

TOTAL 18.61 

Table 3-31 lists the roads located within the boundaries of the Monument, as presented in the 

San Juan/San Miguel RMP (BLM 1985). This table does not include roads that have 

subsequently been established for the development of oil and gas (i.e., oil, natural gas, and 

CO2). 

Table 3-31 Road Categories, Specifications, and Lengths Within 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Road Length 

Road Classification Surface 

Feet Miles 

Primary Road Paved Chip sealed 37,804 7.16 

Subtotal 37,804 7.16 

Primary Road, Unpaved Gravel 43,607 8.26 

Primary Road, Unpaved Natural 27,718 5.25 

Primary Road, Unpaved Other 15,606 2.96 

Primary Road, Unpaved Soil 13,361 2.53 

Subtotal 100,292 19.00 

Secondary Road, Unpaved Gravel 6,267 1.19 

Secondary Road, Unpaved Natural 17,222 3.26 

Secondary Road, Unpaved Soil 73,205 13.86 

Subtotal 96,694 18.31 

Tertiary Road, Unpaved Natural 15,535 2.94 

Tertiary Road, Unpaved Soil 12,993 2.46 

Subtotal 28,528 5.40 

Single Track Soil 104 0.02 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

239 

Table 3-31 Road Categories, Specifications, and Lengths Within 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Road Length 

Road Classification Surface 

Feet Miles 

Subtotal 104 0.02 

Reclaiming Soil 117 0.02 

Subtotal 117 0.02 

TOTAL 225,735 42.75 

Several roads have been inventoried in the Monument to assist with the development of a 

transportation plan. This inventory was completed from 2000 to 2002. A comparison of the 

available data reveals that a far greater number of roads exist on the ground than are indicated 

in the transportation plan from the 1985 San Juan/San Miguel RMP. A more detailed discussion 

of access, including a description of the Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway, is 

included in Section 3.3.2, Scenic and Historic Byway. 

3.3. Special Designations 

The FLPMA directs the BLM to consider and evaluate lands for a number of special 

designations during the land use planning process. In general, lands are eligible for these 

designations based on the presence of particular values and qualities through several different 

types of processes and management frameworks. Current and potential special designations in 

the Monument include Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns (ACECs), Scenic and Historic 

Byway, Research Natural Areas (RNAs), Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), and Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs). 

The National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) was created in June 2000 by the BLM to 

protect the remote and wild character of unique places on BLM-administered lands, including 

Monuments, wilderness areas, National Conservation Areas, WSAs, WSRs, and National 

Scenic and Historic Byways and Trails. The Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is 

part of the NLCS, which emphasizes the protection of entire landscapes of cultural and natural 

values to maintain their integrity amongst the surroundings that sustain them. 

3.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

The entire area of the Monument was designated as the Anasazi Culture Multiple Use ACEC in 

the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (BLM 1985). The ACEC was established to provide elevated 

levels of protection for the cultural landscape and to preserve opportunities for other identified 

uses, including recreation, livestock grazing, oil and gas exploration/extraction, and protection of 

wildlife habitat. 

3.3.1.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

The Anasazi Culture Multiple Use ACEC continues to exist; however, its status is not well 

defined because no language was included in the Monument’s Presidential Proclamation that 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

240 

supersedes the ACEC designation. Therefore, on an administrative level, the entire Monument 

remains a designated ACEC. 

As part of the land use planning process, the FLPMA directs the BLM to “give priority to the 

designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern” (Section 202[c][3]). The 

FLPMA defines ACECs as “areas within public lands where special management attention is 

required...to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic 

values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life or 

safety from natural hazards” (Section 103[a]). BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (BLM 1988a), outlines the procedures for nominating, evaluating, and 

determining whether or not special management attention is required for potential ACECs. The 

BLM is directed to develop ACEC management prescriptions within land use plans (RMPs) with 

sufficient detail to minimize the need for subsequent ACEC management plans (BLM 1988a, 

2005a). 

Existing management guidance for the Anasazi Culture Multiple Use ACEC is provided in the 

following documents: 

 the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (BLM 1985); and 

 the Anasazi Culture Multiple Use Area of Critical Environmental Concern Plan, 

Management Guidelines, and Environmental Assessment (BLM 1986a). 

The management guidance provided in these documents will be superseded by the Canyons of 

the Ancients Monument Final RMP. 

3.3.1.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

The entire Monument remains a designated ACEC. Management of the ACEC would be guided 

by the Monument Final RMP. There are no proposals to designate tracts of land in the 

Monument as separate ACECs, except where they overlap with RNAs. 

3.3.2. Scenic and Historic Byway 

The Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway loops through the northern and western 

portions of the Monument, and consists of portions of County Road CC and County Road 10 

(see Map 8). 

3.3.2.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

Scenic and historic byways are a system of primitive roads that pass through public lands with 

high scenic or public-interest value. The Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway was 

designated by the State of Colorado in 1998. 

The byway is managed via a Corridor Management Plan. The Trail of the Ancients Scenic and 

Historic Byway Amended Corridor Management Plan establishes the vision and goals for 

preservation and use of the byway (Friends of Trails of the Ancients 2001). 

3.3.2.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

The Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway provides access to a number of examples 

of Ancestral Puebloan culture and scenic vistas of Colorado Plateau geology and ecology. The 

byway is located in Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. Efforts are currently underway to include 

roads in northwestern New Mexico. 

The portion of the byway that is situated in the Monument links U.S. Highway 491 with 

Hovenweep National Monument. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

241 

3.3.3. Research Natural Areas (RNAs) 

The McElmo Research Natural Area (RNA) is the sole so-designated site in the Monument. 

The RNA consists of approximately 427 acres and is located in Bridge Canyon (see Map 8). 

The BLM, in cooperation with Fort Lewis College, designated the RNA to provide an area for 

herpetological research and habitat protection. 

3.3.3.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

RNAs are considered types of ACECs and are thus subject to the same designation process. 

The McElmo RNA was designated in March 1986 through the San Juan/San Miguel RMP 

(1985) and has the duel designation of an Instant Study Area, which is managed, as a 

Wilderness Study Area. 

3.3.3.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

The principal use of the RNA is the study of indigenous reptile species (herpetology). A 

proposal to expand the RNA is being considered. 

3.3.4. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) in the Monument. The BLM has 

initiated a review of all waterways in the Monument for possible WSR designations. 

3.3.4.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) in 1968 to preserve a river's freeflowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. The most important 

provision of WSRA governs protecting rivers from the harmful effects of water resources 

projects. To protect free-flowing character, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (which 

licenses non-Federal hydropower projects) is not allowed to license construction of dams, water 

conduits, reservoirs, powerhouses, transmission lines, or other project works on or directly 

affecting WSRs. Other Federal agencies may not assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise 

any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which 

a river was designated. 

The WSRA also directs that each river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National 

System) be administered in a manner that protects and enhances a river's outstanding natural 

and cultural values. It allows existing uses of a river to continue and future uses to be 

considered, as long as the existing or proposed uses do not conflict with protecting river values. 

The WSRA also requires building partnerships among landowners, river users, tribal nations, 

and all levels of government. 

The WSRA requires determinations to be made regarding a river's eligibility, classification, and 

suitability. Eligibility and classification represent an inventory of existing conditions. Eligibility is 

an evaluation of whether or not a river is free-flowing and possesses one or more outstandingly 

remarkable value(s). If found eligible, a river is evaluated regarding its current level of 

development (water resources projects, shoreline development, and accessibility) and a 

recommendation is made that it be placed into one or more of three classes: wild, scenic, or 

recreational. 

3.3.4.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Several waterways in the Monument have been analyzed for inclusion in the National System. 

Table 3-32 summarizes the waterways that have been determined to be eligible for further 

analysis. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

242 

Table 3-32 Wild and Scenic River (WSR) Eligibility Summary 

Waterway 

Reviewed 

Free Flowing Outstanding 

Remarkable Values 

on Public Lands 

Eligible Tentative 

Classification 

Cross Canyon Yes Yes - Cultural Yes Scenic 

Hovenweep 

Tributary 

Yes Yes - Cultural Yes Scenic 

Sandstone 

Canyon 

Yes Yes - Cultural Yes Scenic 

Bowdish 

Canyon 

Yes Yes - Cultural Yes Wild 

3.3.5. Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

There are no designated wilderness areas in the Monument. There are three Wilderness Study 

Areas (WSAs) in the Monument, plus the RNA, which is also a WSA. Acreages for WSAs 

described in this document do not include the RNA, which is analyzed separately. WSAs 

include the Cross Canyon WSA, the Squaw/Papoose Canyon WSA, and Cahone Canyon WSA 

(see Map 8). The Cahone Canyon WSA is situated entirely within the boundaries of the 

Monument. The Cross Canyon and Squaw/Papoose Canyon WSAs extend beyond the western 

boundaries of the Monument into Utah. In addition, there are two Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal 

Areas: Mares Tail Canyon and Cross Canyon. 

3.3.5.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

Wilderness provides undeveloped Federal land in a natural condition, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, which has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and/or unconfined-type of recreation. In addition, a wilderness must consist of at least 

5,000 acres of land or be of sufficient size to make its preservation and use practical. 

Wilderness may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, and/or historical value. The original wilderness inventory of BLM public lands was 

performed pursuant to Sections 201 and 603 of FLPMA, beginning in 1978. This process 

involved evaluating public lands to determine and locate areas containing wilderness 

characteristics that meet the criteria established in the Wilderness Act. 

Areas identified as WSAs are to be managed under the Interim Management Policy until they 

are designated as wilderness or until they are released by Congress. Land use plans are given 

the task of identifying management direction for WSAs, should they be released from 

Wilderness consideration by Congress (BLM 2005a). The three WSAs in the Monument were 

determined in 1981 to be suitable for designation as wilderness areas by Congress. 

3.3.5.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Table 3-33 summarizes the WSAs and the Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal Areas in the 

Monument. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

243 

Table 3-33 Existing Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal 

Areas 

Wilderness Study Area Acreage in 

Monument 

Acreage Outside 

Monument Total Acreage 

Cahone Canyon 9,156 0 9,156 

Cross Canyon 4,681 6,452 11,133 

Squaw/Papoose Canyon 11,712 980 12,692 

Citizens’ Wilderness 

Proposal Area 

Acreage Outside 

WSAs in 

Monument 

Acreage Outside 

WSAs Outside of 

Monument 

Total Acreage 

Mares Trail Canyon 157 1 158 

Cross Canyon 5,066 1,958 7,024 

Public access to WSAs is limited, partly because many of the WSA boundaries are adjacent to 

private land. However, all three WSAs have at least one access point. 

Since 2002, the San Juan Mountain Association (SJMA) has been recruiting, training, and 

providing volunteers to monitor the Cahone Canyon WSA. In 2003, SJMA also began 

supporting monitoring efforts of the Cross Canyon WSA. Volunteers visit these two WSAs 

monthly, from different access points, and record/report activities observed (e.g., type of 

recreational activity occurring) and also report on the condition of WSA access signs. 

The closure (and restoration) of illegal motorized two-tracks that lead into the WSAs is a 

constant challenge. In fall 2003, volunteers from the Colorado Environmental Coalition assisted 

with the closure of an illegal two-track that led into the Cross Canyon WSA. Volunteers placed 

deadfall over the tracks, removed the visual evidence of wheel tracks by raking them out, and 

installed WSA signs at the boundary. So far, this project has been successful in closing this 

unauthorized access to motorized and mechanized vehicles. 

One of the characteristics examined during the inventory process for establishing WSAs is the 

opportunity offered for primitive and unconfined recreation in each area. Recreational aspects 

of WSAs in the Monument provide visitors the opportunity to experience remoteness while, at 

the same time, preserving the natural setting. The types of recreational uses within the WSAs 

include hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, visiting archaeological sites, and dispersed camping. 

As visitation to the Monument increases, and subsequently to the WSAs, there may be a need 

to develop more formal access to them (e.g., parking areas). Such access could be required if 

resource impacts and/or trespassing onto adjacent private lands increases. 

3.4. Social and Economic Conditions 

3.4.1. Public Safety and Law Enforcement 

Public safety and law enforcement management in the Monument consists of six principal 

activities: addressing hazardous materials, enforcement of Colorado and Federal codes in the 

event of criminal actions, enforcement of Colorado codes regarding terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife, fire protection, emergency medical response, and search and rescue (SAR). These 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

244 

activities are generally carried out under cooperative agreements among several agencies to 

ensure that adequate personnel can be placed in the field to cover the large agricultural areas 

and wildlands that characterize the vicinity of the Monument. 

No hazardous waste sites have been identified either within or directly adjacent to the 

Monument. The principal risks to users of the Monument include collisions with commercial 

vehicles associated with oil and gas (i.e., oil, natural gas, CO2), development and exploration 

and energy extraction, potential inhalation of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) during oil and gas drilling 

and production operations, firearm accidents, and getting lost in remote areas. 

3.4.1.1. Regional Setting and Regulatory Framework 

At any given time, the State of Colorado has approximately eight to ten BLM law enforcement 

officers, four of whom are typically based within a 90-mile radius of the Canyons of the Ancients 

National Monument. Officers are usually stationed in Monticello, Utah; Farmington, New 

Mexico; Durango, Colorado; and Dolores, Colorado. In addition, there are at least four special 

agents in the State of Colorado, one of which currently operates out of Dolores. These agents 

oversee and provide assistance on felony or long-term case investigations. 

The BLM has entered into Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with Hovenweep National 

Monument, the Rocky Mountain Region of the National Park Service, and the CDOW. These 

agreements allow Hovenweep National Monument law enforcement officers to take limited 

action on BLM land if they encounter a violation, and vice versa for BLM law enforcement 

officers on Hovenweep National Monument NPS land. The MOU with the CDOW designated 

BLM law enforcement officers as Special District Wildlife Managers. These agreements allow 

law enforcement officers to assist with incidents on all BLM land in the San Juan Public Lands 

area which include the Monument, without concerns over jurisdiction issues. 

During incidents where additional personnel are required, respondents can be requested from 

the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Marshal Service 

(USMS), the Colorado State Patrol, the CDOW, and the San Juan County (Utah), and 

Montezuma County and Dolores County (Colorado) sheriffs’ offices. 

The CDOW is the government agency responsible for issuing hunting permits and enforcing 

State codes addressing terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species that inhabit the Monument. All 

CDOW officers are Level 1 peace officers in Colorado, which allows them to take action on BLM 

land if they encounter a violation. Under an MOU between the BLM and the CDOW, BLM law 

enforcement officers in Colorado are granted a Level 2 peace officer commission with the State 

of Colorado, granting BLM officers the authority to help the CDOW enforce State codes. In 

accordance with CDOW policy, however, enforcement under this commission is limited to fish 

and game violations. 

Fire protection in the Monument is provided by the combination of resources described in 

Section 3.1.3, Fuels and Fire Management. In addition, volunteer fire departments are located 

in each town in the vicinity of the Monument. Response in Shared Responsibility Areas is 

defined in the series of cooperative agreements laid out in the Interagency Standards for Fire 

and Aviation Operations 2004 (National Interagency Fire Center 2004). Fire detection for the 

wildland areas is provided by two seasonal fire lookouts: one located in Mesa Verde National 

Park and one located on USFS land at the Benchmark site. An additional response team, 

based out of Mesa Verde National Park, is operated by the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe. 

Search and rescue (SAR) operations are ultimately the responsibility of the U.S. Air Force 

(USAF). However, the USAF has delegated all aspects of search and rescue, with the 

exception of the use of their aircraft, to the Montezuma County Sheriffs Department. At present, 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

245 

there are two SAR teams composed of volunteers available for response in the Monument. 

One team is based in Cortez, and the second team, which is a contract canine search and 

rescue team, is based in Dolores. 

The mandates and legal authorities that permit and regulate the policing and protection services 

that guard public health and safety are: 

 CRS 33-1-101 (1), Authority and Mandate for Division of Wildlife; 

 the BLM Manual H-9260-1; and 

 the BLM Law Enforcement Plan for the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

(draft). 

3.4.1.2. Current Conditions and Trends 

Changing demographics and increasing local population levels will result in changing 

requirements for emergency services, principally in areas adjacent to the Monument, but also in 

the Monument. It is expected that with the combination of a growing local population and 

awareness of the Monument resulting in an increasing number of visitors, the number of 

incidents requiring police and emergency response will also increase. 

3.4.2. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

People have been using Monument resources for at least ten thousand years and resource 

management strategies have changed over time. Initially, hunters and gatherers subsisted on 

wild food sources, later; farmers used both wild and cultivated food sources. Modern society 

utilizes a variety of Monument resources including wild food (deer, elk, and small game), 

cultivated food (cattle and sheep grazing), fuel (firewood gathering), industrial resources (oil and 

gas), recreation (hiking, horseback riding, off-road/on-road 4WD vehicle travel, mountain biking, 

and primitive camping), and religious/cultural practices (many tribes and pueblos are culturally 

affiliated with the sites in the Monument). In some ways, the Monument may be considered a 

geographic and cultural center within the socioeconomic study area. Many local and regional 

residents report that their quality of life is linked to the open space, vistas, cultural resources, 

wildlife, and recreational opportunities provided by the Monument. 

The purpose of this section is to review baseline social and economic conditions in the 

socioeconomic study area. For this assessment, the following variables are evaluated: 

 economic assessment: population, employment, and personal income; 

 social assessment: land use patterns, community resources; and 

 environmental justice: poverty rates and minority populations. 

A baseline scenario is established for each assessment and described in Alternative I (the NoAction Alternative). 

3.4.2.1. Population 

As defined in the AMS, the socioeconomic study area (study area) consists of Montezuma and 

Dolores Counties. Montezuma County is located in the southwest corner of Colorado and 

contains 1.3 million acres. Less than one-third of the land area in Montezuma County is 

privately owned. Commercial, governmental, and social activities are focused in the city of 

Cortez. The towns of Dolores and Mancos provide some limited tourist and resident services. 

Dolores is the closest town to the Anasazi Heritage Center, the primary visitor center for the 

Monument. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

246 

Population trends for Montezuma and Dolores Counties are illustrated in Figure 3-1 (BEA 2007). 

Population for municipalities in Montezuma County is shown in Table 3-34. Population growth 

in Montezuma County has been faster than that in the U.S. or in the State of Colorado because 

of the “attractiveness of Western Slope cities to small businesses and telecommuters wanting to 

get away from large metropolitan areas” (Preston 2005). Preston notes that “‘relative 

remoteness’ and ‘reserves of natural beauty and cultural diversity’, have proven to be assets 

that have driven a large share of the migration to Southwest Colorado since 1970” (Preston 

2005). The State Demography Office, Preston, and the AMS generally refer to this trend as 

“amenity migration”. 

Figure 3-1 Population Trends for Montezuma and Dolores Counties 

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004

Population

Dolores County Montezuma County

Table 3-34 Study Area Population 

Community 1990 2000 2005 

Dolores County 1500 1840 1850 

 Dove Creek 710 700 680 

 Rico 160 210 240 

Montezuma County 18670 23830 24860 

 Cortez 7980 8550 

 Dolores 860 900 

 Mancos 1120 1220 

(Source: CSDO 2006) 

As the Montelores name hints, Dolores County is often considered together with Montezuma 

County. However, Dolores County has some unique challenges and opportunities that are very 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

247 

different from Montezuma County. Most of the residents in Dolores County rely on cities and 

towns outside of the county for all but the most basic services, which creates close ties with 

neighboring Montezuma and San Miguel Counties. Dolores County contains 674,000 acres 

with 42 percent private land and 58 percent State and Federal land, primarily managed by the 

USFS San Juan National Forest. 

Dolores County is split into two distinct physical and human geographic units. The eastern part 

of the county surrounding the town of Rico has a high mountain character with a hard rock 

mining heritage. The western part of Dolores County, including Dove Creek and the areas 

adjacent to the Monument, was settled around dry-land farming. These agricultural roots 

remain strong, as Dolores County is the only county in the region to experience continued 

growth in agricultural employment and revenue. Recent domestic water and irrigation projects 

are changing this pattern. According to the AMS, a primary appeal of western Dolores County 

is its wide open vistas. Population for Dolores County is shown in Table 3-34. 

3.4.2.2. Employment and Income 

Trends for total employment and personal income in Montezuma and Dolores Counties are 

illustrated in Figures 3-2 and 3-3 (BEA 2007). Employment, income, and average wages, by 

sector, for Montezuma County in 2005 are shown in the Table 3-35. The unemployment rate in 

Montezuma County in 2005 was 5.3 percent, just slightly higher than the State and National 

unemployment rates of 5.0 and 5.1 percent, respectively (Comprehensive Economic 

Development Strategy [CEDS] 2007). 

Figure 3-2 Total Employment in Montezuma and Dolores Counties 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Total Employment

Montezuma County Dolores County
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

248 

Figure 3-3 Total Personal Income in Montezuma and Dolores Counties 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

Total Personal Income

(Thousands)

Dolores County Montezuma County

Table 3-35 Employment and Income Summary for Montezuma County 2005 

Category 

Percent of 

Total Jobs 

Average Wage Percent of 

Total Income 

Agriculture 7 $8,500 2 

Mining & Utilities 2 $69,000 4 

Construction 9 $43,400 13 

Manufacturing 4 $29,400 4 

Transportation & Warehousing 2 $49,000 3 

Trade 15 $24,800 12 

Finance, Insurance and Real 

Estate 

5 $31,400 5 

Services 31 $29,100 25 

Government 25 $37,600 32 

(Source: CEDS 2007) 

Total personal income is the sum of all income accruing to residents from sources such as 

employment income, transfer payments, dividends, interest and rent, and residency adjustments 

for commuters. Total personal income for Montezuma County was approximately $687 million 

in 2005, and consists of employment earnings (55 percent), and payments to retirees (14 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

249 

percent) (CEDS 2006). According to the AMS, the fastest growing income source is from 

retirees. 

Dolores County’s jobs and wages in 2005 are shown in Table 3-36. The unemployment rate in 

Dolores County in 2005 was 6.9 percent, considerably higher than the State and National rates 

(CEDS 2007). Total personal income in Dolores County amounted to approximately $45.5 

million in 2005. The majority of personal income comes primarily from government, service, and 

agriculture employment. As in Montezuma County, the fastest growing source of income is from 

retirees. In 2005, payments to retirees accounted for almost 17 percent of total personal 

income in Dolores County. 

Table 3-36 Employment and Income Summary for Dolores County 2005 

Category 

Percent of 

Total Jobs 

Average 

Wage 

Percent of 

Total Income 

Agriculture 27 $4,100 5 

Mining & Utilities 3 $42,300 5 

Construction 10 $26,000 11 

Manufacturing 1 $68,200 2 

Transportation & Warehousing 1 $84,800 4 

Trade 11 $18,500 10 

Finance, Insurance and Real 

Estate 

3 $50,000 8 

Services 20 $26,600 24 

Government 24 $29,000 31 

 (Source: CEDS 2007) 

3.4.2.3. Economic Assessment and Key Planning Issues 

There are three key planning issues that are specifically addressed in the socioeconomic 

analysis: oil and gas development, rangeland resources management, and recreation and 

transportation management. This discussion presents some of the evidence supporting the 

economic and social impact analysis for these key issues. Discussion of cultural resource 

management impacts and additional detail for other key topics is included in Appendix I. 

Oil and Gas Development

McElmo Dome, one of the world’s largest deposits of nearly pure CO2, is located, in part, on 

Monument lands (K-M 2007). Kinder Morgan CO2, Inc operates 44 wells that produce CO2 from 

the McElmo Dome at a rate of about 1 billion cubic feet per day. This CO2 is transported 650 

miles in a pipeline to Denver City, Texas, where it is distributed for advanced oil recovery 

operations (BLM 2005c). In January 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 announced a $200 million 

expansion project to increase CO2 production and transport pipeline capacity to 1.35 billion 

cubic feet per day. The economic impacts associated with this project include from 150 to 200 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

250 

construction jobs, five new permanent jobs, and an increase in county property tax revenues 

(Cortez Journal 2007). 

About 90 percent of the oil and gas production in Montezuma County is from CO2 production; 

therefore, oil and gas production have a relatively small economic impact on the study area 

(Cortez Journal 2006). The relatively small oil and gas reserves inside the study area are 

mostly played out, with only three percent of estimated ultimate recovery remaining (Table 

3-25). Notably, most of the land area in the Monument was leased prior to the Proclamation 

and is managed under existing lease agreements, although conditions of approval for new wells 

may change. 

Jobs and income from oil and gas development are important to the study area because they 

increase employment diversity and offer some of the highest wages, as shown in Tables 3-36 

and 3-37. In addition, Montezuma and Dolores Counties are highly dependent on tax revenues 

generated by CO2 production from McElmo Dome to fund schools and other county services. In 

Montezuma County, property and severance tax revenues related to CO2 production from 

McElmo Dome comprise almost half of all county revenues. In Dolores County, about onequarter of total revenues are related to oil and gas development. These revenues are expected 

to grow significantly after 2007, when six new CO2 production wells will be added inside Dolores 

County. Changes to CO2 production or pricing have a direct impact on funding for county 

services and schools, comprising almost three-quarters of the counties’ budgets. Therefore, 

management actions that would cause rapid changes to CO2 production from McElmo Dome 

could have adverse socioeconomic impacts in the study area because the counties are so 

highly dependent on this resource. These production-related impacts could be mitigated or 

exacerbated by higher or lower CO2 prices; which the BLM does not have any influence over. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Agricultural employment and income for the study area are illustrated in Tables 3-35 and 3-36. 

The agriculture sector supplied over 1,000 jobs in the study area in 2005, comprising about 

eight percent of total employment. However, due to low average wages, agricultural jobs 

contributed only two percent of total income. The economic forecast for the study area predicts 

that the percentage of agricultural income will drop to less than one percent of total personal 

income during the next 20 years (CSDO 2006). Farm incomes have been trending toward the 

negative for the past 20 years in both counties, as shown in Figure 3-4 (CAS 2006). 

In terms of agricultural income in the study area, crops and livestock comprise about half of the 

total income, with government payments and other farm income, such as from custom tilling and 

other services, comprising the other half. In the economic analysis, management actions for 

rangeland resources are linked to employment, income, and population through the agricultural 

sector. 

Recreation and Transportation Management

Recent studies of tourism employment in the study area found that 20 percent of total 

employment in Montezuma County and 11 percent in Dolores County are related to tourism 

(CEDS 2002). In Montezuma County, 12 percent of total employment is related to public lands 

(Colorado State Parks 2004). Furthermore, tourism generates tax income through sales and 

lodging taxes. In 2000, travel related sources generated six percent of State and local taxes in 

Dolores County, and 38 percent of these taxes in Montezuma County (Colorado State Parks 

2004). Recreation and transportation management actions are linked to employment, income, 

and population through the tourism sector. 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

251 

Figure 3-4 Net Farm Income for Dolores and Montezuma Counties 

-$6,000

-$4,000

-$2,000

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$1000

Net Farm Income Dolores County Net Farm Income Montezuma County

3.4.2.4. Social Assessment 

The social assessment evaluates impacts to communities in the study area through changes to 

land use patterns and community resources. The study area is being affected by larger social 

trends that are changing settlement patterns and community groups throughout the study area 

and the southwestern United States. These include: 

 Amenity migration: Newcomers are moving in to the area to take advantage of the 

unique natural resources, quality of life, and other amenities that the region offers. Many 

of these newcomers are retirees or second homeowners who bring along their pensions 

and other retirement benefits. This "new" money affects the local economy (primarily in 

the construction and real estate sectors) as it is spent on new homes and goods and 

services. As non-labor income, it also serves to diversify and stabilize total personal 

income in the area (CEDS 2002). 

 Land conversion: Traditional ranching and agricultural lands are being converted to 

low-density rural residential subdivisions. In Dolores County, the average farm size has 

decreased from 1,266 acres in 1992, to 734 acres in 2002; a 42 percent reduction. 

Montezuma County experienced a 22 percent reduction in average farm size during the 

same time period, from 1,262 acres to 988 acres (Operation Healthy Communities 

[OHC] 2005). 

 Rising land values: On one hand, rising land prices make it difficult for existing 

agricultural operations to expand and for a new generation of farmers and ranchers to 

get established. On the other hand, those who have land equity have seen it grow, 

providing forbearance and credit to ride out difficult economic times and the opportunity 

to sell off pieces of land when the need for cash dictates. However, land values tend to 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 3 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

252 

have less impact on a family’s choice to sell their ranch than retirement needs or a lack 

of interested heirs (Preston 2005). 

In evaluating the social impacts of management actions, it is important to consider if a “tipping 

point” has been reached. A fundamental finding of the social landscape analysis for the study 

area was that open space benefits, such as unimpeded vistas, wildlife, and remote recreation 

are contingent, in part, on the economic viability of agriculture (Preston 2005). If farm and ranch 

operations remain viable, the open space benefits that they provide will be sustained. However, 

there are several factors that affect the rate at which privately owned agricultural lands are 

converted to other land uses. Some of the factors identified by ranchers and farmers include: 

 increasing subdivision of surrounding agricultural land; 

 residential subdivisions in agricultural areas generating conflicts with essential farm 

practices, such as night-time farming and aerial spraying; 

 high land prices; 

 negative farm income; 

 uncertainty concerning potential changes in fees and stocking rates on Federal land; and 

 private grazing lands for lease, which are becoming increasingly scarce (Preston 2002). 

Different scenarios are possible for future land use of private agricultural properties: Scenario A) 

farms or ranches remain as agricultural enterprise; Scenario B) farms or ranches are sold to a 

buyer with the means to maintain the agricultural land use; and Scenario C) farms or ranches 

are subdivided into residential properties. 

Scenario C is the least desirable in terms of open space, wildlife, and maintaining the rural 

lifestyle and quality of life in the study area. Additionally, the degradation of these amenities 

could reduce or reverse amenity migration. This can be documented by recent inter-regional 

migration from the southern part of La Plata County to Montezuma and Dolores Counties, 

resulting from coal-bed methane development accelerating in that area and changing the 

landscape. Scenario B supports open space and wildlife values, but detracts from the historical 

custom and culture represented by agriculture. Under this scenario, some of the enterprises 

and community groups supported by agriculture, such as the Farm Bureau, would fade away 

and erode the community resources that support the rural lifestyle. Scenario A would represent 

the best option for supporting both the open space amenities and the rural lifestyle because 

agricultural enterprises would continue to be viable and sustainable into the future. 

In the study area, community resources, such as social services and community groups, are 

funded and organized through the counties. Montezuma and Dolores Counties are highly 

dependent on tax revenues generated by CO2 production to fund schools and other county 

services. The quality and availability of social services in the study area are evaluated 

periodically by Operation Healthy Communities (OHC 2005). Results from the most recent 

analysis found that Montezuma and Dolores Counties are consistently below regional and State 

averages. These low scores are generally due to lack of services rather than to poor service 

quality. If CO2 production from McElmo Dome were reduced, county social service programs 

would probably be cut, due to lack of funding, and would further degrade the level of social 

services in the study area. 

3.4.2.5. Environmental Justice 

As explained in the AMS, further analysis of minority and low-income populations is included in 

this section, identifying any proposed Federal actions that could have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health and environmental effects on these populations. According to the 
Chapter 3 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

253 

AMS, the two types of data that must be reviewed to evaluate environmental justice effects are 

minority populations and income levels. Minority populations are documented in the AMS. 

Based on 2005 census data, the only minority population that is in a higher proportion in the 

area than in the rest of the State is the Native American population, which comprises 13 percent 

of the population of Montezuma County (CSDO 2006). 

The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe has reservation lands throughout the Four Corners region, with the 

highest concentration of members living on the lands inside Montezuma County around 

Towaoc. The reservation inside Montezuma County has a population of about 1,500 people. 

The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is one of the largest employers in the Four Corners area, with 

enterprises including the Ute Mountain Casino, Travel Center, Hotel, and RV Park; the 

Weiminuche Construction Authority; and the Farm and Ranch Enterprise. Recent infrastructure 

improvements on the reservation include a water settlement that brought irrigation water to the 

Farm and Ranch Project from McPhee Reservoir, as well as a major construction project to 

upgrade and expand the Hotel, RV Park, and Travel Center. In spite of these economic 

initiatives, unemployment and poverty rates on the reservation remain above those for the 

surrounding communities. 

Income levels can be measured in a variety of ways, including the percentage of individuals 

living below the poverty threshold. Figure 3-5 maps the percentage of individuals below the 

poverty threshold in 2000, as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2000, the entire study 

region had a higher rate of individual poverty than the average for Colorado, at 9.3 percent. The 

highest poverty level was found on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, where almost one-third of 

the population was living in poverty. 

Figure 3-5 Individuals Below Poverty Threshold in 2000 
CHAPTER 4 

Environmental

Consequences
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

254 

4.0 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter describes and compares the environmental consequences that may result from 

implementing the five alternatives presented in Chapter 2. In terms of complying with the 

NEPA, the specific purpose of this chapter is to present the analyses of the alternative 

management actions and to disclose the potential impacts of the Federal action on the human 

and natural environment. For this DRMP/DEIS, the Federal action is the BLM’s selection of an 

alternative, which will serve as the framework for future land use planning direction and for the 

appropriate use of the public lands that comprise the Monument. The human environment is 

considered to include both the natural environment (resources) and the BLM multiple-use land 

management environment (resource uses). 

The potential consequences or impacts of each alternative are addressed in the same order of 

resource topics as was presented in Chapter 3 (e.g., Resources, Resource Uses, Special 

Designations, and Social and Economic Conditions). This parallel organization will allow 

readers to compare existing resource conditions (Chapter 3) to potential impacts (Chapter 4) for 

the same resource(s). The impacts analysis of environmental consequences emphasizes key 

planning issues (see Chapter 1) raised during the scoping process, rather than all possible 

consequences. 

Potential impacts for a particular resource or resource use are discussed primarily in terms of 

the direct physical change and the indirect consequences of change resulting from the specific 

management of that resource or resource use under a particular alternative, followed by those 

impacts from other management on that specific resource or resource use, in turn, resulting 

from: 

 the management of cultural resources; 

 the anticipated level of oil and gas development; 

 the management of rangeland resources; 

 the management of recreation and/or transportation; and, 

 the management of other resources that may impact the particular resource or resource 

use under discussion. 

The two exceptions to this organization occur in the discussion of Air Quality (Section 4.2.1) and 

Social and Economic Conditions (Section 4.4.). In the case of Air Quality, the impact analysis 

model for oil and gas development, was run in terms of the highest level of potential air quality 

impacts of the action alternatives (although not at “worst-case” scenario levels). Therefore one 

analysis covers Alternatives II through V and is based on the alternative with the most 

development (Alternative IV). Impacts from the other oil and gas development scenarios 

discussed in the other action alternatives are assumed to be potentially less than those modeled 

for Alternative IV. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, it is important to remember that this planning process is somewhat 

more constrained, in terms of the range of alternatives, than many other BLM land-use planning 

environmental analyses. This is due to the management of the planning area as a National 

Monument and to the specific requirements of the Proclamation that designated it as a National 

Monument. It is also important to note that the actions described under each alternative would 

not necessarily be permitted by the adoption of any alternative as a result of the planning 

process. For example, although new oil and gas leasing may be allowed under some of the 

alternatives, actual development would only occur after an area has been leased, and/or after 

any proposed well locations, road and/or pipeline alignments, and/or other 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

255 

facilities/infrastructure have gone through a permitting process. Furthermore, while the 

assumptions associated with the alternatives represent reasonable projections of what could 

occur, it is impossible to predict with certainty the precise location of potential development or 

structure, or the precise outcome of any of the alternatives, due to the large number of variables 

involved. 

The actions analyzed in this chapter include both the proposed land-use planning actions for a 

variety of resources and resource uses, as well as the proposed implementation decisions 

regarding travel management. 

4.1. Impact Analysis Methods and Assumptions 

4.1.1. Analysis of Alternatives 

The analysis of alternatives describes how each alternative could affect baseline conditions of 

individual resources in the planning area. Impacts typically are described by topic, such as 

surface disturbance, and other resources or resource uses. If a particular allowable use or 

management action is not discussed for a particular resource, it is because no impacts are 

expected or the anticipated impact is not considered significant. 

4.1.2. Impact Analysis 

When applicable, definitions of the following types of impacts are included in the evaluation of 

environmental consequences (all possible impacts are not described and, unless otherwise 

stated, impacts described in this chapter are assumed adverse), including: 

 Direct/Indirect Impacts: In general, direct impacts result from activities authorized by 

the BLM and generally occur at the same time and place as the management activity or 

action causing the impact. For example, for the action of building a road, a direct 

adverse impact is surface disturbance. Surface disturbance is the impact (the effect) of 

heavy equipment (the cause) removing existing vegetation as it grades the proposed 

road location. Indirect impacts often occur at some distance or time from the action. In 

the above example, an indirect impact could occur days after the surface is disturbed, as 

well as some distance from the disturbance. Heavy precipitation following the removal 

of vegetation and/or disturbance of the ground surface could erode soil and transport 

sediment into streams. The impact on stream-water quality is considered an indirect 

adverse impact. 

 Onsite/Offsite Impacts: Onsite impacts occur within the Monument. Offsite impacts 

occur outside the Monument, but result from an action taken within the Monument. The 

degree to which land uses, management actions, and environmental changes under the 

alternatives would affect other lands depends on the absolute and relative amount of 

onsite changes, the causal linkage between onsite changes and offsite consequences, 

and the relationship between changes resulting from the alternative and those that would 

occur without the alternative. 

 Short- or Long-Term Impacts: When applicable, the short-term or long-term aspects of 

impacts are described. For purposes of this DRMP/DEIS, short-term impacts occur 

during or after the activity or action and may continue for up to 2 years. Long-term 

impacts occur beyond the first 2 years. Five years is an approximation of the time 

required to restore or reclaim an area following surface disturbance. 

 Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts result from the interaction of impacts of the 

alternative along with impacts resulting independently from unrelated actions and 

activities. Cumulative impacts may include private lands within the Monument, as well 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

256 

as both private and public lands outside the Monument. Additionally, cumulative impacts 

are not necessarily limited to the types of actions and activities affecting BLM lands in 

the Monument. 

Quantification of cumulative impacts is difficult for the resources, land uses, and management 

actions due to: 

 uncertainties regarding the location, scale, and/or rate of changes on BLM lands in the 

Monument resulting from the alternatives; 

 uncertainties about the location, scale, and rate of changes on private lands adjacent to, 

or near, the Monument that would occur irrespective of the alternative; and 

 uncertainties about the location, scale, and rate of changes resulting from the general 

human population growth of the county. 

All of the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of any of the alternatives 

would be in addition to ongoing existing impacts occurring on Federal lands in the Monument, 

private lands within the Monument, and both public and private lands adjacent to, or near, the 

Monument. Even where an estimate of cumulative impacts resulting from offsite causes is 

available (e.g., the number of oil and gas wells in Montezuma County in 20 years), it is not 

known how much long-term surface disturbance would result; to what degree adverse impacts 

would be avoided or mitigated; or how the impacts would affect other resource values and land 

uses, such as hunting, off-road travel, visual quality, livestock grazing, and so forth. Therefore, 

the descriptions of cumulative impacts for the individual resources addressed in Sections 4.2 

through 4.4 are necessarily qualitative. 

Also germane to the discussion of cumulative impacts are the boundaries used to define impact 

sources and levels. These differ by resource. For example: 

 for wide-ranging wildlife, such as deer and elk, the cumulative impact area may include 

offsite habitats that are used to some extent by onsite populations and that are subject to 

impacts from development in the offsite areas; 

 for air quality, the cumulative impact area may be an entire air shed, including all 

emission sources that affect the same air quality parameters potentially impacted by the 

implemented alternative; 

 for surface water quality, the cumulative impact area may be one or more watersheds, 

including all pollutant sources that affect the same water quality parameters potentially 

impacted by the implemented alternative; and 

 for socioeconomics, the cumulative impact area may be one or more towns or counties, 

including all sources of beneficial and adverse impacts on tax revenues, employment, 

housing, and/or quality of life considerations reasonably (i.e., not too remotely) affected 

by changes related to the implemented alternative. 

Although these are only examples, they illustrate that cumulative impact boundaries may not 

only differ considerably among resources, but that the boundaries may be either natural or 

artificial. 

Beyond the 20-year planning horizon, the BLM believes that quantitative impact assessments 

are speculative and unreliable, and hence, inappropriate. This is due to a large number of 

economic, geopolitical, environmental, regulatory, technological, and/or other factors that could 

affect conditions in the Monument beyond 20 years, and are themselves subject to change in 

unexpected ways or degrees. In general, however, it can reasonably be assumed that the 

Monument would continue to support existing multiple uses beyond the 20-year timeframe. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

257 

4.1.3. Methods and Assumptions 

Due to the programmatic and strategic nature of this DRMP/DEIS, the timing and specific 

location of project-specific actions that could impact resource values are not defined. Moreover, 

the relationship between cause (future actions) and effect (impact on resources) is not always 

known or quantifiable. For these reasons, the analysis of alternatives is both qualitative and 

quantitative and is based on a series of assumptions. The methods and assumptions listed 

below, and for each resource in the following sections, are disclosed to provide a basis for the 

conclusions reached. Assumptions common to all alternatives and all resources are listed 

below, whereas assumptions unique to specific resources and resource uses are listed under 

the appropriate resource section. 

 All alternatives are implemented in compliance with standard practices, best 

management practices (BMPs), guidelines for surface-disturbing activities, and 

applicable laws, standards, policies, and implementation plans, as well as with all BLM 

polices and regulations. 

 An oil and gas lease grants the lessee the “right and privilege to drill for, mine, extract, 

remove and dispose of all oil and gas deposits” in the leased lands, subject to the terms 

and conditions incorporated in the lease (BLM Form 3100-11, Lease for Oil and Gas). 

The Secretary of the Interior has the authority and responsibility to protect the 

environment within Federal oil and gas leases; therefore, restrictions are imposed on the 

lease terms. 

 Provisions in leases that expressly provide the BLM the authority to deny or restrict 

development, in whole or in part, depend on an opinion provided by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding impacts to endangered or threatened species or to 

habitats of plants and animals that are listed or proposed for listing. If the USFWS 

concludes that the development likely would jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered or threatened plant or animal species, then the development may be denied 

in whole or in part. 

 Although not defined as a surface-disturbing activity, concentrated livestock and wild 

ungulate grazing, off-road vehicle use, and fire may remove vegetation and expose the 

soil surface leading to increased erosion. 

 Comparison of impacts among resources is intended to provide an impartial assessment 

to inform the decision maker and the public. The impact analysis does not imply or 

assign a value or numerical ranking to impacts. Actions resulting in adverse impacts to 

one resource may impart a beneficial impact to other resources. 

 Key planning issues identified in Chapter 1 provide the focus for the scope of impact 

analyses in this chapter. 

 In general, adverse impacts described in this chapter are considered important if they 

result from, or relate to: 

− the key planning issues described in Chapter 1; 

− the context and/or intensity of impacts suggest potential impacts to public health and 

safety; 

− a potential for violating legal standards, laws, and/or protective status of resources; 

and/or, 

− potential impacts to unique resources. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

258 

 The comparison of individual alternatives is qualitative, relative to Alternative I (the No 

Action Alternative), and based on professional judgment and consideration of the context 

and intensity of allowable uses and management actions anticipated to impact resources 

and resource uses. 

 Analysis of environmental consequences considered the extent of projected surface 

disturbance and associated development from BLM actions. 

 Analysis of environmental consequences focuses on the anticipated incremental and 

meaningful impact of management actions and the allowable uses proposed for each 

alternative. The impact of past and present actions is encompassed within the 

description of existing conditions in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. 

4.1.4. General Levels of Impacts 

In an attempt to reduce the necessarily complex impact analysis process to readily 

understandable terms, the following subsections use a qualitative approach for summarizing 

impacts to specific resources, management actions, and uses. For some resources the impacts 

are defined more quantitatively, while others remain as general levels of impact. In terms of 

duration, impacts may be short-term (less than 2 years) or long-term (greater than 2 years). 

4.1.5. Impact Analysis Components 

The starting point for analysis of the alternatives is the Analysis of the Management Situation 

(AMS) (BLM 2005b) and the RFD (BLM 2005c) for oil and gas development in the Monument. 

The AMS describes the current management activities in the Monument, the physical 

environment, and the regulatory requirements. The RFD is intended as a technical and 

scientific approximation of anticipated levels of oil and gas development that could potentially 

take place during the planning timeframe. As such, neither the RFD, nor the planning process 

of which it is a part, are intended to define the specific numbers and locations of wells and pads 

needed to develop the oil and gas resource. Instead, they are intended to allow flexibility during 

resource development while, at the same time, providing sufficient specificity to support the 

impact analysis and the alternative selection processes. 

Table 4-1 summarizes the quantifiable components of resource management actions that are 

used for all of the impact analyses. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

259 

Table 4-1 Impact Analysis Components 

Resource Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

165,000 acres and 256 square miles of Monument area 

Cultural Resources 

Sites Stabilized 

and/or Developed 

Develop new sites for 

controlled visitation. Develop 13 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. 

Site Stabilization Stabilize up to 240. 

Document and allow 

standing walls to 

deteriorate. 

Document and allow 

standing walls to 

deteriorate. 

Stabilize and preserve 

standing walls. 

Document standing 

walls and allow to 

deteriorate; 

stabilization 

authorized under 

discretion of 

Monument Manager. 

Protection Methods 

Apply National 

Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) Section 

106. 

Apply NHPA Section 

106 to communities, 

sites, and isolated 

finds. 

Apply NHPA Section 

106 to communities 

and sites. 

Apply NHPA Section 

106 to communities 

and sites. 

Apply NHPA Section 

106 to communities 

and sites. 

Fire Management Zones (FMZs) 

Fuels and Fire 

Manage Monument 

as combination of 

FMZs A, B, and C. 

Manage 157,258 

acres (95%) with no 

specific fire 

suppression 

requirements. 

Manage 7,983 acres 

(5%) with specific fire 

suppression 

requirements. 

Manage entire 

Monument (165,000 

acres) as FMZ B, with 

specific fire 

suppression 

requirements. 

Manage entire 

Monument (165,000 

acres) as FMZ B, with 

specific fire 

suppression 

requirements. 

Manage entire 

Monument (165,000 

acres) as FMZ B, with 

specific fire 

suppression 

requirements. 

Manage entire 

Monument (165,000 

acres) as FMZ B, with 

specific fire 

suppression 

requirements. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

260 

Table 4-1 Impact Analysis Components 

Resource Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Soil/Water 

Soil Resources 

Apply Site-Specific 

Relocation 

(SSR)/Controlled 

Surface Use (CSU) 

stipulations to protect 

slopes greater than 

40 % 

(21,036 acres). 

Apply No Ground 

Disturbance 

(NGD)/No Surface 

Occupancy (NSO) 

stipulations to protect 

slopes greater than 

30% 

(36,504 acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulations to protect 

slopes greater than 

30% 

(36,504 acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulations to protect 

slopes greater than 

30% 

(36,504 acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulations to protect 

slopes greater than 

30% 

(36,504 acres). 

Riparian Protection Manage 2,415 riparian acres. 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulations to protect 

canyon bottoms, 

riparian, floodplain 

areas (5,312 acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulations to protect 

canyon bottoms, 

riparian, floodplain 

areas (5,312 acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulations to protect 

riparian, floodplain 

areas (3,217 acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulations to protect 

canyon bottoms, 

riparian, floodplain 

areas (5,312 acres). 

Water Development 

Apply no restrictions 

on groundwater 

and/or new water 

developments. 

Discourage 

groundwater and/or 

new water 

development. 

Allow groundwater 

and/or new water 

development. 

Encourage 

groundwater and/or 

new water 

developments to 

support expanded 

resource 

development. 

Discourage 

groundwater and/or 

new water 

development. 

Fluid Mineralsa

Number of acres 

available for lease 

No new acres 

available for lease. 

Lease up to 880 

acres. 

Lease up to 3,021 

acres. 

Lease up to 24,462 

acres. 

Lease up to 880 

acres. 

New well pads on 

new leased lands 

Permit no new well 

pads. 

Permit up to 2 new 

well pads. 

Permit up to 8 new 

well pads. 

Permit up to 59 new 

well pads. 

Permit up to 2 new 

well pads. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

261 

Table 4-1 Impact Analysis Components 

Resource Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

New roads on new 

leased lands Allow no new roads. Allow up to 1 mile of new roads. Allow up to 3 miles of new roads. Allow up to 19 miles of new roads. Allow up to 1 mile of new roads. 

Total Disturbance on 

new leased lands 

Allow no new 

disturbance. 

Allow up to 18 acres 

of disturbance on new 

leased lands. 

Allow up to 73 acres 

of disturbance on new 

leased lands. 

Allow up to 447 acres 

of disturbance on new 

leased lands. 

Allow up to 18 acres 

of disturbance on new 

leased lands. 

Rangeland 

Animal Unit Months 

(AUMs) (Active 

Preference) 

Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. Permit 8,368 AUMs. Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs 

Allotments Manage 28 allotments. Manage 23 allotments. Manage 23 allotments. Manage 28 allotments. Manage 23 allotments. 

Recreation 

Promotion Strategy, 

Facility Development, 

Visitation 

Management 

Promote no specific 

recreation strategy. 

Allow facility 

development, as 

needed. Maintain 

developed recreation 

sites at Lowry, 

Painted Hand, and 

Sand Canyon 

Pueblos for 

interpretation. 

Promote undeveloped 

strategy with 

minimum facilities for 

local visitors. Manage 

8,211 acres for public 

visitation. Manage 

157,124 acres for 

backcountry use. 

Promote destination 

strategy with 

appropriate support 

facilities for regional 

visitors. Manage 

18,875 acres for 

public visitation. 

Manage 146,460 

acres for backcountry 

use. 

Promote destination 

strategy with more 

facilities for national 

and international 

visitors. 

Approximately 47,056 

acres for public 

visitation. Manage 

118,279 acres for 

backcountry use. 

Promote a 

combination of 

strategies, including 

undeveloped with 

minimal facilities for 

local visitors, as well 

as destination 

strategy with support 

facilities for regional, 

national and 

international visitors. 

Manage 7,875 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 157,460 

acres for backcountry 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

262 

Table 4-1 Impact Analysis Components 

Resource Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

use. 

Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

Allow no new 

commercial SRPs. 

Allow no new SRPs. 

Allow no renewal of 

existing SRPs. 

Allow no new SRPs. 

Allow renewal of 

existing SRPs. 

Allow new SRPs on a 

case-by-case basis. Allow up to 10 SRPs. 

Transportationb

Total Road Miles 

(acres) (motorized, 

nonmotorized, plus 

new minerals) 

Manage 149 total 

road miles (with 864 

acres of disturbance). 

Manage 139 total 

road miles (with 806 

acres of disturbance). 

Manage 189 total 

road miles (with 1,096 

acres of disturbance). 

Manage 213 total 

road miles (with 1,235 

acres of disturbance). 

Manage 169 total 

road miles (with 980 

acres of disturbance). 

Road Density 

(includes new mineral 

roads) 

Allow road density of 

0.58 miles/square 

mile. 

Allow road density of 

0.54 miles/square 

mile. 

Allow road density of 

0.73 miles/square 

mile. 

Allow road density of 

0.83 miles/square 

mile. 

Allow road density of 

0.66 miles/square 

mile. 

Off-Highway Vehicle 

(OHV) Management 

Manage 25,976 acres 

as closed. Manage 

139,359 for limited 

OHV use. 

Manage 38,598 acres 

as closed. Manage 

126,737 for limited 

OHV use. 

Manage 25,976 acres 

as closed. Manage 

139,359 for limited 

OHV use. 

Manage 25,976 acres 

as closed. Manage 

139,359 managed for 

limited OHV use. 

Manage 38,598 acres 

as closed. Manage 

126,737 for limited 

OHV use. 

Number of Support 

Facilities 

Allow 7 support 

facilities. 

Allow 7 support 

facilities. 

Allow 13 support 

facilities. 

Allow 20 support 

facilities. 

Allow 11 support 

facilities. 

Special Designations 

Special Designation 

Areas 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as Wilderness Study 

Areas (WSAs), Make 

no Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (WSR) 

designations. 

Manage 427 acres as 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA, plus 5,223 

acres for wilderness 

character. 

Consider all eligible 

river segments 

suitable as WSR 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA. Consider no 

river segments 

suitable as WSR. 

Manage 427 acres as 

RNA. Manage 427 

acres as ACEC. 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA. Consider no 

river segments 

suitable as WSR. 

Manage 427 acres as 

RNA. Manage 427 

acres as ACEC. 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA, plus 5,223 

acres for wilderness 

character. Consider 

no river segments 

suitable as WSR. 

Manage 7,826 acres 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

263 

Table 4-1 Impact Analysis Components 

Resource Alternative I (No Action) Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred) 

Resource Natural 

Area (RNA). Manage 

165,335 as ACEC. 

(25.3 miles). Manage 

7,826 acres as RNA. 

Manage 7,826 as 

ACEC. 

as RNA. Manage 

7,826 acres as ACEC.

a Figures are for new-leased lands only.  Figures for existing leased lands are as follows: - number well pads -121 - miles of road - 67 - number of treatment facilities - 8 - miles of pipeline - 53 - Total acres of disturbance - 883 gross, 428 net (includes abandoned & reclaimed acres) bIt was estimated that for every mile of road, approximately 5.8 acres of ground are disturbed, using the average for local roads, which is a 24’ road crown width 

and 48’ disturbance width (BLM 9113 Roads Manual, 1985). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

264 

4.1.5.1. Protective Stipulations and Other Restrictions on Surface Use 

The RFD does not incorporate all of the land management direction and multiple-use 

considerations that the BLM must take into account as part of its responsibilities under the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Therefore, in developing the alternatives, 

assumptions in the RFD were subjected to various “screens” or “filters” representing restrictions 

designed to protect specific resource values and meet the BLM’s multiple-use and sustainability 

mandates. Protection of specific resources is accomplished by a combination of management 

actions and the surface-use stipulations described in Section 2.2. These include: 

 Site-Specific Relocation (SSR): Under this restriction, the BLM may require special 

restrictions, including shifting a ground-disturbing activity by more than 200 meters from 

the proposed location to another location, to protect a specific resource. In oil and gas 

leases, this stipulation is termed Controlled Surface Use (CSU). 

 No Ground Disturbance (NGD): Under this restriction the BLM would not allow longterm ground-disturbing activities (i.e., with an impact that would last longer than 2 years). 

For oil and gas leases, this stipulation is termed No Surface Occupancy (NSO). In 

regard to certain cultural or biological resources, the inability to have no impacts beyond 

2 years negates the activity from being implemented altogether. 

 Timing Limitation (TL): Under this restriction, the BLM may allow specified activities 

within the area, and/or at a proposed location, but not during certain sensitive seasons 

(e.g., in raptor nesting areas, bald eagle winter roosting areas, big game winter range). 

It is important to note that TL restrictions can apply to NGD/NSO and SSR/CSU areas, 

as well as to areas with standard restrictions and limitations. 

On split-estate lands (i.e., Federal minerals but private surface), the NGD/NSO, SSR/CSU, and 

TL stipulations would only be applied in relation to mineral exploration and development, such 

as with drilling for oil and gas. This is because the BLM may regulate aspects of these activities 

that occur on the surface as well as in the subsurface. The BLM does not regulate or manage 

other types of activities on split-estate lands (e.g., grazing, recreation, utilities rights-of-ways, 

etc.). 

In addition to the restrictions and limitations on surface uses and management activities outlined 

above, the BLM would require best management practices (BMPs) (see Appendix E). 

Examples include the required use of: 

 culverts at stream crossings; 

 special road design and/or dust suppression techniques designed to reduce impacts 

from aerial deposition of particulates on nearby streams and vegetation; 

 biodegradable erosion-control fabrics designed to ensure soil stability and enhance 

revegetation; 

 fences designed to exclude livestock from sensitive habitats; and 

 specialized revegetation that uses only native species and possibly requires woody 

plants (trees and shrubs) to be included in the seed mix and/or planted as containerized 

stock (“tubelings”). 

These measures, as well as the protective restrictions cited above, would be applied not just to 

oil and gas development and grazing, but also, as appropriate, to recreation, aquatic and 

riparian habitat enhancements, forest management activities (including timber harvesting and 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

265 

prescribed fires), and construction and/or routine maintenance in rights-of-way (ROWs) and 

easements. 

4.2. Resources and Resource Uses 

The following impact analysis includes evaluation of all resources and resources uses. Cultural 

resources, fluid minerals, rangeland, recreation, and transportation are the resources or 

resource uses that would have the most impact in the Monument; therefore, each is discussed 

in relation to each resource or resource use, as well as for each alternative. This arrangement 

may result in some repetition where management actions are similar for all alternatives; 

however, it allows the reader to better understand the impact of significant management actions 

across all resources and resource uses in the Monument. A summary of impacts is also 

provided for each resource or resource use. Each resource is discussed in the same order as it 

is presented in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. 

4.2.1. Air Quality 

The primary goal of air quality management is to protect air quality within, and outside of, the 

Monument. The management objectives related to this goal are to: 

 ensure that the air quality within the Monument meets State and Federal air quality 

standards and regulations; 

 protect visibility at scenic and important vistas located within the Monument; and 

 cooperate with the State of Colorado, the NPS, and the USFS regarding air quality 

issues at nearby Federal Class I (Clean Air Act) areas (Mesa Verde National Park and 

Weminuche Wilderness). 

Under the FLPMA and the Clean Air Act, the BLM cannot conduct or authorize any activity that 

does not conform to all applicable Federal, Native American Tribal, State, and local air quality 

laws, statutes, regulations, standards, policies, and implementation plans. Therefore, an 

extensive air quality impact assessment, based on atmospheric dispersion modeling, was 

conducted to analyze the potential impacts of the action alternatives. In comparison to oil and 

gas drilling and production (including CO2), other management actions considered throughout 

this analysis are expected to have extremely minor impacts. The modeled impacts, therefore, 

incorporate parameters for the maximum estimated oil and gas development (Alternative IV) 

over the 20-year planning period, as characterized in the RFD (BLM 2005c). 

Atmospheric dispersion models, including the one used for this environmental analysis, are 

computer programs designed to simulate how pollutants in the ambient atmosphere disperse 

and, in some cases, how they react in the atmosphere. The dispersion models are used to 

estimate or to predict the downwind concentration of air pollutants emitted that can impact 

ambient air quality. The dispersion models require the input of data that includes: 

 meteorological conditions, such as wind speed and direction; the amount of atmospheric 

turbulence; the ambient air temperature; and the height to the bottom of any inversion 

aloft that may be present; 

 emissions parameters, such as source location and height, source vent stack diameter 

and exit velocity, exit temperature, and mass-flow rate; 

 terrain elevations at the source location and at the receptor location; and 

 location, height, and width of any obstructions (such as buildings or other structures) in 

the path of the emitted gaseous plume. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

266 

AERMOD, the EPA-approved atmospheric dispersion model used in this analysis, is an 

integrated system that includes three modules: 

 a steady-state dispersion model designed for short-range (up to 50-kilometers) 

dispersion of air pollutant emissions from stationary industrial sources; 

 a meteorological data preprocessor (AERMET) that accepts surface meteorological 

data, upper air soundings and, optionally, data from onsite instrument towers (which 

then calculates atmospheric parameters needed by the dispersion model, such as 

atmospheric turbulence characteristics, mixing heights, friction velocity, etc.); and 

 a terrain preprocessor (AERMAP) whose main purpose is to provide a physical 

relationship between terrain features and the behavior of air pollution plumes (which 

generates location height data for each receptor location and provides information that 

allows the dispersion model to stimulate the effects of air flowing over hills or splitting to 

flow around hills). 

This analysis compares potential air quality impacts from Alternative IV to applicable air quality 

standards, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) increments, significant impact levels 

(SILs), and air quality related values (AQRVs). However, it does not represent a regulatory air 

quality permit analysis. Comparisons to the PSD Class I and Class II increments are intended 

to evaluate a “threshold of concern” for potentially significant direct project impacts, but do not 

represent a cumulative regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. Such a regulatory 

PSD increment analysis is the responsibility of the State air quality agency (under EPA 

oversight), and would be conducted during the permitting process. 

AERMOD was used to evaluate both direct project and cumulative Class I increment impacts 

and deposition AQRV analyses at Mesa Verde National Park (the closest Class I area). 

VISCREEN (a model that calculates the impact of specified emissions for specific transport and 

dispersion conditions) was used to evaluate visibility impacts. This air quality analysis is 

completely described in Appendix J, including all accepted criteria and parameters, complete 

methods, and results. 

All dispersion models, regardless of their level of complexity, are mathematical approximations 

of the behavior of the atmosphere. Therefore, especially given the uncertain nature of the 

number and potential location of sources under the analyzed alternatives, the results need to be 

appropriately viewed as estimates of possible future concentrations and not as exact predictions 

in time and space. 

Dispersion modeling is generally conducted using assumptions that ensure that the modeled 

results do not underestimate actual future impacts so that appropriate planning decisions can be 

made. For example, sources may be assumed to operate for longer periods or emit more 

pollutants than actual conditions to ensure that health-based standards are protected. On the 

other hand, analyses are not conducted assuming “worst-case” conditions across the board, 

because this typically leads to results that are unreasonable and unrealistic. Hence, dispersion 

modeling uses the best available information and methods (EPA-approved models, emission 

factors, etc.) when possible, combined with the best scientific and professional judgment in an 

attempt to ensure that projections of future air quality are neither under-predicted nor 

unrealistically over-predicted. 

4.2.1.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Potential air quality impacts were analyzed to determine maximum “near-field” (local or Class II) 

ambient air pollutant concentrations and hazardous air pollutant impacts, as well as to 

determine maximum “far-field” (regional or Class I) impacts on ambient air pollutant 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

267 

concentrations, visibility, and atmospheric deposition of sulfur and nitrogen (“acid rain” 

constituents). This section describes the results for modeling of near-field and far-field air 

quality in the Monument based on the maximum expected oil and gas development during the 

20-year period of analysis. 

Near-field and far-field air quality parameters, grouped by Class I and Class II analyses, were 

inventoried and analyzed and are described below. 

Near-Field (Class II)

 Criteria Pollutant Emissions (National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and PSD 

increments): NOx (including NO2), CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 

 Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs): formaldehyde 

Far-Field (Class I)

 Emissions of Criteria Pollutants (NAAQS and PSD increments): NOx (including NO2), 

CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 

 Visibility 

 Sulfur and nitrogen deposition 

For this analysis, it is assumed that all fluid mineral companies operating in the Monument are 

in compliance with current standards. (Some fluid mineral operations have been in existence 

for a long time; therefore, out-of-date equipment may not meet current standards. Monument 

staff continue to work with companies to bring them into compliance, which is an administrative 

issue outside the scope of this DRMP/DEIS.) 

For this DRMP/DEIS, two inventories of air emissions were developed. The project inventory 

considered foreseeable oil, natural gas, and CO2 development activities in the Monument, and 

includes air emissions from both construction and production operations. The cumulative 

inventory considered emissions from other existing sources and reasonably foreseeable future 

sources within the study area that are not already represented in the background air quality and 

AQRV data (i.e., sources that were not in operation as of the end date of the monitoring data, 

which was December 2004). The cumulative inventory area has been defined as the region 

within 50 km (31 miles) from the center of the Monument (approximate Universal Transverse 

Mercator [UTM] coordinates of 685 km E and 4145 km N, Zone 12, NAD83). 

The cumulative inventory also addressed existing production emission sources in the 

Monument. The maximum historical natural gas compression capacity in the Monument is 

known to be approximately 1,000 hp; therefore, emissions for three 350-hp compressors were 

modeled to conservatively represent existing natural gas production (along with one new 350-hp 

compressor to represent increased project natural gas production). The estimated project oil 

production rates are five times greater than current oil production rates and equal to the 

historical maximum annual production rates for the Monument. In addition, many of the new oil 

wells would replace exhausted wells that cease production during the 20-year period. 

Therefore, the project oil production emissions (including fugitive emissions from oil haul trucks 

and well servicing) effectively include existing oil production emissions. Finally, because 

existing CO2 compression is electrical (i.e., with power provided by the utility grid), there are no 

significant existing CO2 production emissions. 

The cumulative discussion of results concludes with a consideration of the role of this proposed 

development scenario in the context of global warming. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

268 

4.2.1.2. Alternative Analysis 

Air quality impacts under the action alternatives (Alternatives II through V) are discussed 

together, rather than separately, because the evaluation was based on the alternative with the 

most potential development (Alternative IV). Impacts from the other oil and gas development 

scenarios, represented by the other action alternatives, are assumed to be less than those 

modeled for Alternative IV. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Under Alternative I (the No Action Alternative), the existing air quality conditions described in 

Section 3.1.1, would continue, with regard to impacts to air quality, based on continuing current 

management. 

Action Alternatives

The following discussion summarizes air quality modeling results for maximum assumed oil and 

gas development (Alternative IV). Modeled direct and cumulative impacts are added to these 

background concentration values. The air quality impacts from the project and offsite 

cumulative impacts were compared to EPA Class I and II Area SILs, PSD Class II increments, 

and State of Colorado AAQSs and NAAQSs. 

The nearest Class I area to the Monument is Mesa Verde National Park, which is located 

approximately 40 km (25 miles) east of the locations in the Monument where development may 

occur. The next closest Class I area is the Weminuche Wilderness Area, which is located 

approximately 112 km (70 miles) from the Monument. Given the close proximity of Mesa Verde 

National Park, versus the other Class I areas, it is highly likely that the Class I impacts of the 

project will be the greatest at Mesa Verde National Park. Therefore, the Class I analyses was 

only performed for Mesa Verde National Park. 

Criteria Pollutants: Assessment of Class II Air Quality Impacts 

Table 4-2 summarizes air quality standards and increments, SILs and AQRV criteria against 

which modeled results are compared. A summary of total project emissions, which includes 

construction and production direct and indirect emissions for CO2 development and oil and gas 

development, is presented below in Table 4-3. 

The air quality analyses compare the predicted direct project and cumulative air impacts to the 

Class II SILs, PSD Class II increments, and to State AAQSs and NAAQSs. 

The EPA and the State of Colorado have established SILs in order to define a de minimus

impact level that is considered “insignificant” and that does not warrant further review. Under 

the PSD review process, a project that demonstrates, via modeling, that project-only emissions 

result in impacts that are less than the established SILs is exempt from additional modeling 

analyses for that pollutant. For this NEPA air quality analysis, the PSD review criteria are not 

directly applicable. However, the direct project impacts are compared to the Class II SILs in 

Table 4-4 in order to evaluate the relative magnitude of the impacts. The NO2, PM10, and SO2

impacts are greater than the Class II SILs. 

The direct project impacts (excluding temporary construction sources) were also evaluated in 

comparison to the Class II PSD increments, and these results are presented in Table 4-5. This 

increment analysis is for information purposes only, and does not represent a cumulative 

regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. Such a regulatory PSD increment analysis is 

the responsibility of the State air quality agency (under EPA oversight) and would be conducted 

during the permitting process. The impacts are all less than the Class II PSD increments. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

269 

Finally, the model-predicted direct project and cumulative impacts were added to the 

background data and then compared to the NAAQSs in Table 4-6. The impacts are all less than 

the applicable NAAQSs. 

Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Analysis Result 

The HAP analysis evaluated the formaldehyde direct project impacts for both short-term (acute) 

and long-term (chronic) exposure assessment, as well as evaluated formaldehyde cancer risks. 

Formaldehyde emissions for both the construction and production phases were modeled. The 

modeling methodology used the same near-field source layout and receptor configuration 

previously described in Section 3.4. The maximum modeled hourly formaldehyde concentration 

was 16.9 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

), and the maximum annual average concentration 

was 0.116 μg/m3

. 

The short-term analysis evaluated modeled impacts against the EPA Acute Exposure Guideline 

Level (AEGL) Level-1, 1-hour concentration threshold for formaldehyde of 0.90 ppm, which is 

equivalent to 1,107 μg/m3

. The maximum modeled 1-hour concentration is 1.5 percent of the 

AEGL concentration. 

The long-term analysis evaluated modeled annual impacts against a chronic threshold of 

concern. The EPA has not established a long-term reference concentration (or proper 

functioning condition [PFC]) for formaldehyde. However, the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) has established a chronic inhalation minimal risk level (MRL) of 

0.003 ppm, which is equivalent to 3.7 μg/m3

 (ATSDR 1997). The MRL is an estimate of the 

daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of 

adverse non-cancer health impacts over a specified duration of exposure. The maximum 

modeled annual concentration is 3.1 percent of the MRL concentration. 

The incremental risk analysis considered exposure over a 70-year lifetime, using EPA’s unit risk 

factor (ATSDR 1997b) for formaldehyde (1.3x10-5). The most likely exposure (MLE) scenario 

was considered. The duration of exposure for the MLE scenario is assumed to be 50 years, in 

order to represent the project (well field) lifetime, corresponding to an exposure adjustment 

factor of 50/70 = 0.71. A second adjustment can be made for time spent at home, versus time 

spent elsewhere; however, the MLE scenario assumes that the individual is at home 100 

percent of the time, for a final MLE adjustment factor of (0.71 x 1.0) = 0.71. To calculate the 

excess cancer risk, the maximum annual predicted formaldehyde concentration was multiplied 

by the adjustment factors, and then multiplied by the unit risk factor. The resulting estimated 

cancer risk is 1.07x10-6, which is at the very low end of the generally accepted cancer risk range 

of 1 x 10-6 to 100x10-6 as presented in the “Superfund” National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300). 

Criteria Pollutants: Assessment of Class I Air Quality Impacts 

The Class I air quality impact analyses compare the predicted direct and cumulative air impacts 

of the project to the Class I SILs, PSD Class I increments, and AQRV threshold values. 

The EPA and the State of Colorado have established Class I SILs in order to define a 

de minimus impact level for Class I areas that is considered “insignificant” and that does not 

warrant further review under the PSD permitting process. For this NEPA air quality analysis, the 

PSD review criteria are not directly applicable. However, the direct project impacts are 

compared to the Class I SILs in Table 4-7 in order to evaluate the relative magnitude of the 

impacts. The 24-hr PM10, 3-hr SO2, and annual NO2 impacts are greater than the Class I SILs. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

270 

Table 4-2 Air Quality Standards, Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs), and Air Quality Related Value (AQRV) Criteria 

Pollutant Averaging Interval 

EPA Class II 

SIL 

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

Class II 

PSD 

Increment 

(μg/m3) 

EPA 

Proposed 

Class I 

SIL 

(μg/m3) 

Class I 

PSD 

Increment

(μg/m3) 

AQRV 

Threshold 

NO2 Annual 1 100 25 0.1 2.5 – 

SO2

3-hour 

24-hour 

Annual 

25 

5 1 

1300 

365 

80 

512 

91 20 

1.0 0.2 0.1 

25 

5 2 

– – – 

PM10 24-hour Annual 5 1 150 50 30 17 0.3 0.2 10 5 – – 

PM2.5 24-hour Annual – – 65 15 – – – – – – – – 

CO 1-hour 8-hour 2,000 500 40,000 10,000 – – – – – – – – 

Ozone 8-hour 100 tpy VOC 0.08 ppm – – – – 

Lead Quarterly 0.1 1.5 – – – – 

Visibility 

(deciviews) 24-hour – – – – – 1.0 

Nitrogen Deposition 

(kg/ha-yr) Annual – – – – – 3.0 

Sulfur Deposition 

(kg/ha-yr) Annual – – – – – 5.0 

The State of Colorado has also established a 3-hour SO2 ambient air quality standard of 700 μg/m3, as well as a program similar to the Federal PSD increments 

limiting additional amounts of SO2 above baseline conditions. The Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) Guideline (FLAG 

2000) has established visibility AQRV thresholds. The FLAG “just noticeable change” 1.0-deciview threshold is used to assess the significance of potential visibility impacts. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service (USDA/USFS) has established cumulative deposition impact thresholds of concern (Fox et al. 1989). 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

271 

Table 4-3 Summary of Project Emissions 

Project Maximum Annual Emissions 

Constituent Construction Emissions (tpy) Production Emissions (tpy) Total Emissions (tpy)

NOX 215.3 144.7 360.0 

CO 48.7 183.9 232.6 

SO2 14.5 0.2 14.7 

PM10 41.8 55.0 96.8 

PM2.5 18.7 9.3 28.0 

VOC 22.4 1671.9 1694.3 

Formaldehyde 7.9 2.4 10.3 

Table 4-4 Comparison of Direct Project Impacts to Class II Significant Impact Levels 

(SILs) 

Pollutant 

(Averaging Interval) 

Project 

Near-Field Maximum

(μg/m3) 

Project 

Mid-Field Maximum

(μg/m3) 

Class II SIL 

(μg/m3) 

Greater than 

SIL? 

CO (1-hour) 357 802 2000 No 

CO (8-hour) 184 147 500 No 

NOx (Annual) 20.5 3.7 1 Yes 

PM10 (24-hour) 70.6 28.3 5 Yes 

PM10 (Annual) 12.6 3.9 1 Yes 

SO2 (3-hour) 94.5 12.5 5 Yes 

SO2 (24-hour) 26.9 2.7 25 Yes 

SO2 (Annual) 3.6 0.2 1 Yes 

Table 4-5 Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to Class II PSD Increments 

Pollutant 

(Averaging 

Interval) 

Project 

Near-Field 

Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Project 

Mid-Field 

Maximum

(μg/m3) 

Cumulative 

Mid-Field 

Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Overall 

Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Class II 

PSD 

Increment 

(μg/m3) 

Percent (%)

Increment 

NOx (Annual) 20.0 1.7 4.9 20.0 25 80% 

PM10 (24-hour) 0.47 28.0 29.5 29.5 30 98% 

PM10 (Annual) 0.11 3.6 4.0 4.0 17 23% 

SO2 (3-hour) 0.078 0.037 11.5 11.5 91 13% 

SO2 (24-hour) 0.025 0.0051 2.9 2.9 512 1% 

SO2 (Annual) 0.004 0.0005 0.3 0.3 20 1% 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

272 

Table 4-6 Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to NAAQS 

Pollutant 

(Averaging 

Interval) 

Project 

Near-Field 

Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Project 

Mid-Field 

Maximum

(μg/m3) 

Cumulative 

Mid-Field 

Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Overall 

Maximum 

Impact 

(μg/m3) 

Background 

Concentration

(μg/m3) 

Total 

Concentration

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS

(μg/m3)

Percent 

(%) of 

NAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

CO (1-hour) 357 802 1613 1612.8 2288 3901.2 40000 10% CO (8-hour) 184 147 300 300.5 1831 2131.1 10000 21% 

NOx (Annual) 20.5 3.7 6.8 20.5 16.9 37.4 100 37% 

PM10 (24-hour) 70.6 28.3 30.1 70.6 64.0 134.6 150 90% 

PM10 (Annual) 12.6 3.9 4.3 12.6 21.0 33.6 50 67% 

PM25 (24-hour) 29.7 5.9 6.7 29.7 22.5 52.2 65 80% 

PM25 (Annual) 4.3 0.8 0.9 4.3 6.9 11.2 15 75% 

SO2 (3-hour) 94.5 12.5 12.6 94.5 68 162 365 45% 

SO2 (24-hour) 26.9 2.7 2.9 26.9 21 48 1300 4% 

SO2 (Annual) 3.6 0.2 0.3 3.6 5 8.8 80 11% 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

273 

Table 4-7 Comparison of Direct Project Impacts to Class I Significant Impact Levels 

(SILs) 

Pollutant (Averaging Interval) Project 

Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Class I SILs 

(μg/m3) 

Greater than SIL? 

NOx (Annual) 0.15 0.1 Yes 

PM10 (24-hour) 1.1 0.3 Yes 

PM10 (Annual) 0.1 0.2 No 

SO2 (3-hour) 0.5 0.2 Yes 

SO2 (24-hour) 0.1 1.0 No 

SO2 (Annual) 0.01 0.1 No 

The direct project impacts (excluding temporary construction sources) were also evaluated in 

comparison to the Class I PSD increments, and these results are presented in Table 4-8. This 

increment analysis is for information purposes only, and does not represent a cumulative 

regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. The impacts are all substantially less than 

the Class I PSD increments. 

Table 4-8 Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to Class I PSD Increments 

Pollutant 

(Averaging 

Interval) 

Project 

Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Cumulative 

Maximum

(μg/m3) 

Overall 

Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Class I PSD 

Increment 

(μg/m3) 

Percent (%) 

Increment 

NOx (Annual) 0.034 0.360 0.360 3 14 

PM10 (24-hour) 1.02 1.020 1.020 10 10 

PM10 (Annual) 0.07 0.162 0.162 5 3 

SO2 (3-hour) 0.00061 0.967 0.967 5 19 

SO2 (24-hour) 0.00008 0.126 0.126 25 0.5 

SO2 (Annual) 0.00001 0.017 0.017 2 0.8 

Visibility: Assessment of Class I Air Quality Impacts 

Direct and cumulative visibility impacts were determined using VISCREEN Level 1 with a “virtual 

point source” approach to better account for the geographic separation of emissions. The total 

project emissions (peak construction plus full production) were input to VISCREEN in order to 

conservatively assess visibility impacts. Model results indicate that impacts are less than those 

for the screening criteria. (Refer to Appendix J for complete VISCREEN input and output results 

for the Monument analysis.) 

The cumulative visibility analysis also used VISCREEN in order to assess impacts for other 

cumulative sources (with distances adjusted, as necessary, in order to account for geographic 

separation of emission units at each source). The only cumulative source outside of the 

Monument was a project in the Monticello Field Office (Utah); therefore, that project was 

modeled using an actual distance of 85 km (53 miles) added to a virtual point source increase in 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

274 

downwind distance of 80 km (50 miles). These results indicate that impacts are less than the 

screening criteria (see Appendix J). Conservatively adding the Monument and the Monticello 

impacts together to estimate cumulative impacts still results in cumulative visibility impacts less 

than the screening criteria. 

Sulfur and Nitrogen Deposition: Assessment of Class I Air Quality Impacts 

Direct and cumulative Class I deposition impacts were determined using the Level 1 method 

described in Section 5.1.3 of the “Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) 

Phase 1 Recommendations” (1993). This method uses the maximum modeled project and 

cumulative PSD increment concentrations at Mesa Verde National Park, along with the 

conservative assumption that all SO2 and NOx are converted and deposited. Table 4-9 

compares deposition impacts to USFS levels of concern, which are defined as 5 kilograms per 

hectare per year (kg/ha-yr) for sulfur, and 3 kg/ha-yr for nitrogen. All direct project deposition 

impacts, and the cumulative sulfur deposition impacts, are less than the levels of concern. The 

cumulative nitrogen deposition impact is greater than the level of concern; however, this is likely 

the result of the extremely conservative methodology used in this deposition analysis. 

Table 4-9 Sulfur and Nitrogen Deposition Impacts 

Direct Project

Sulfur 

Deposition 

(μg/m3) 

Direct Project

Nitrogen 

Deposition 

(μg/m3) 

Cumulative 

Sulfur 

Deposition 

(μg/m3) 

Cumulative

Nitrogen 

Deposition 

(μg/m3) 

SO2 PSD Class I Annual Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

0.00971 NA 0.017 NA 

NO2 PSD Class I Annual Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NA 0.034 NA 0.360 

Mole Weight Adjustment Factor 0.5 0.30 0.5 0.30 

Number seconds/year (μ) 3.1536E(+)07 3.1536E(+)07 3.1536E(+)07 3.1536E(+)07

Deposition Velocity 0.005 0.05 0.005 0.05 

Dry Deposition (kg/ha-yr) 0.05 1.1 0.09 12.1 

Effects Threshold (kg/ha-yr) 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 

Global Climate Change 

The assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is in its formative phase; 

therefore, it is not yet possible to know with confidence the net impacts to climate. However, the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) recently concluded that “Warming of 

the climate system is unequivocal” and that “Most of the observed increase in globally average 

temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in 

anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gas concentrations.” 

The lack of scientific tools designed to predict climate change on regional or local scales limits 

the ability to quantify potential future impacts. However, potential impacts to air quality resulting 

from climate change are likely to be varied. For example, if global climate change results in a 

warmer and drier climate, increased particulate matter impacts would occur as a result of 

increased wind-blown dust from drier and less stable soils. Then cool season plant species’ 

ranges would be predicted to move north and to higher elevations, and extinction of endemic 

threatened/endangered plants would be potentially accelerated. In addition, due to the loss of 

habitat, and/or from competition from other species whose ranges shift northward, the 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

275 

population of some animal species could be reduced. Less snow at lower elevations would then 

be likely to affect the timing and quantity of snowmelt, which, in turn, may affect aquatic species. 

4.2.2. Cultural Resources 

The primary goals of cultural resources management in the Monument are to identify, preserve, 

and protect significant cultural resources to ensure long-term public benefits (i.e., from research, 

education, and preservation of cultural heritage [FLPMA Sections 103(C), 201 (A), 202 (C); 

NHPA Sections 106 and 110; the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, Section 

14(a); and the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Section 2)]. The management objectives related to this 

goal include: 

 allocate all cultural resources currently recorded, and/or projected to occur on the basis 

of existing data synthesis, to uses according to their nature and relative preservation 

value; 

 inventory, document, and evaluate cultural resources to facilitate proper management, 

protection, and research; and 

 cooperate with Hovenweep National Monument on protection and management of 

cultural resources. 

It is also the goal of cultural resources management to ensure that the objects of the Monument 

are protected at the landscape level, and that all multiple-use resource management and 

authorizations for land and resource uses are conducted in compliance with Sections 106 and 

Section 110 of the NHPA, as amended. The management objectives related to this goal 

include: 

 manage and protect cultural resources on a landscape level; 

 manage multiple-uses to ensure the protection of cultural resources, in compliance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA; 

 manage cultural resources for protection, preservation, and realization of BLM cultural 

use allocations (Section 110 of NHPA); 

 preserve the existing character of the cultural and physical landscape to the maximum 

extent possible; 

 encourage, foster, and conduct scientific research on cultural resources in the 

Monument; 

 manage all Monument/Anasazi Heritage Center (AHC) collections in compliance with 36 

CFR Part 79; U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) Departmental Manual, Part 411; 

and USDOI Museum Property Handbook, 411 DM, Vols. I-II; and 

 strive toward responsive and sensitive stewardship and management of traditional 

cultural heritage values associated with cultural resources and landscapes. 

Another goal of cultural resources management is to uphold Native American trust 

responsibilities and accommodate traditional uses in the Monument. The management 

objective related to this goal is to develop a policy in consultation with Native American tribes 

that specifies how the Monument will provide products for traditional cultural use. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts to cultural resources. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

276 

Beneficial impacts under the alternatives may include minimizing and/or preventing surface 

disturbance, avoiding archaeological sites, and/or taking measures to protect sites from 

disturbance. Adverse impacts generally result from ground-disturbing activities that damage 

archaeological sites and/or disrupt cultural landscapes, reducing their informational potential. 

Direct impacts to cultural resources may include, ground disturbance that disrupts or removes 

soil-containing artifacts and/or other cultural materials, disturbance of cultural features, and 

disturbance of aboveground structural remains and/or rock art. Impacts occur as a result of the 

public accessing areas with cultural resources, which may result in inadvertent damage, as well 

as in vandalism and looting. Erosion, due to livestock grazing, recreation, and/or other means 

of surface disturbances, can also result in adverse impacts. 

Cultural resources management in the Monument is dictated by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which requires Federal agencies to take into account the 

impacts of their actions on eligible historic properties. The Monument goes one step further, 

treating all sites as though they were eligible for management in accordance with the NHPA. 

Regardless of alternative, prior to any Federal action taken in the Monument, the BLM must 

consider impacts to cultural resources. Sites that have the potential of incurring direct impacts 

would be avoided or would be protected, when at all possible. If protection or avoidance is not 

possible, the adverse impacts would be mitigated through an appropriate method of scientific 

investigation. For the most part, isolated finds would not be afforded this level of protection. 

The impacts of livestock grazing on cultural resources vary due to the non-uniform grazing 

patterns that occur as a result of differences in terrain, forage abundance and preference, soil 

attributes, and/or cultural resource site distribution. Livestock cause impacts to cultural 

resources by trampling cultural deposits, creating trails, and rubbing against masonry walls. A 

recent cultural resource investigation in the Monument found that 40 percent of sites in the 

study area sustained minor damage from livestock (Hovezak et al. 2003). Livestock 

congregating in areas located at, or near, water sources, fence lines, and/or shaded areas that 

also contain cultural sites, are likely to result in localized heavy damage to sites. 

Recreational use of the Monument is likely to result in unintentional damage to cultural 

resources that, although individually minor, may create widespread, adverse impacts over time. 

Examples of such impacts include, but are not limited to, collecting rocks/stones from cultural 

sites to create fire rings; building campfires in cultural deposits; creating trails through sites 

(that, in turn, may accelerate erosion); sitting, standing, and/or climbing on walls; shooting rock 

art panels; and relocating artifacts by creating “collector’s piles”. 

Impacts from fire vary, depending upon the extent, intensity, and duration of the fire, as well as 

the type of resource(s) that are burned. Examples of such impacts include, but are not limited 

to, total loss of site elements that are flammable, spalling (which is the spontaneous chipping, 

fragmentation, and/or separation of a surface or surface coating) of rock faces, alteration of time 

dating potential, and post-fire erosion. Disturbance to cultural resource sites may also result 

from fire suppression activities, such as from ground disturbance associated with the creation of 

hand lines or the use of mechanized equipment. A particular site’s vulnerability to the impacts 

of fire can be ranked by the presence of specific attributes, as follows: 1) rock art; 2) historic 

structures; 3) above-ground prehistoric structures and/or features; 4) surface artifact scatters; 

and 5) subsurface sites. 

Cultural resources are finite and irreplaceable; therefore, adverse impacts are permanent. 

Beneficial impacts cannot reverse adverse impacts; therefore, every impact to a cultural 

resource site is considered cumulative. Even minor impacts accrue over time, resulting in 

deteriorating site condition and loss of important scientific data. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

277 

4.2.2.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

It is difficult and complicated to measure individual components of adverse impacts to cultural 

resources. Most direct impacts to cultural resources result from surface disturbances; therefore, 

areas with surface disturbances are the primary parameter for the discussion and comparison of 

this impact analysis. Areas otherwise improved or protected from ground disturbance are used 

to describe beneficial impacts. Estimates of surface disturbance areas associated with potential 

management actions were calculated using data from the AMS (BLM 2005b) and the RFD (BLM 

2005c), and are summarized in Table 4-1. Proposed surface-use restrictions are listed and 

summarized in Table 2-1. In some instances, when impacts cannot be quantified, a descriptive, 

qualitative analysis is used. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to cultural resources include the following: 

 The existing cultural resource database for the Monument consists of 4,939 known sites. 

This number and these known locations are referred to for analyses and discussion of 

impacts to known sites. 

 The potential total number of cultural sites in the Monument is estimated using the total 

number of sites recorded to date (5,157), which is averaged over the number of acres 

surveyed to date. The resulting average site density is 112 known sites per square mile 

(mi2) [one site per 5.72 acres], or a total of 28,671 sites. This assumption is used in the 

analysis, with the acknowledgment that cultural sites do not occur uniformly across the 

Monument. 

 Quantitative assessments for impacts to cultural resources from recreation management 

use Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) acreages and the average number 

of cultural resource sites per acre. 

 For the purpose of comparing alternatives, no distinction is made between motorized 

(paved and natural surface), mechanized, and non-motorized road width when it comes 

to calculating acres of disturbance and their impact on cultural resources. 

 Impacts on cultural resources from the transportation system are presented in the 

following three ways: 

− The first method includes the total length of all roads and the associated acres of 

disturbance multiplied by the average number of cultural resource sites per acre. 

Using the average for local roads, which is a 24’ road crown width and 48’ 

disturbance width, it was estimated that for every mile of road approximately 5.8 

acres of ground are disturbed (BLM 9113 Roads Manual, 1985). 

− The second method incorporates the Colorado BLM protocol regarding the NHPA 

Section 106 requirements for comprehensive travel and transportation management 

planning with regard to defining the area of potential effect (APE) of a road as a 100-

foot-wide corridor (i.e., 50 feet on each side of the centerline). 

− The third method incorporates the Colorado BLM transportation protocol assumption 

that cultural sites within 0.25 miles of a road are more subject to indirect impacts, 

including looting and/or vandalism, than are backcountry sites. This distance is used 

as a threshold for analyzing adverse impacts due to the documented association 

between vandalism and ease of road access (Nickens et al. 1981, Hovezak et al. 

2003). In order to apply this method, a 0.5-mile corridor along the total miles of 

roads for each alternative was converted to acres, and the number of cultural 

resource sites estimated to occur within that acreage was determined. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

278 

 Not all existing roads were surveyed for cultural resources prior to their construction; 

therefore, the number of cultural sites originally impacted by these roads cannot be 

known. The impact analysis includes the number of known sites on existing roads, 

along with the estimated number of sites on proposed new roads. 

 New surface disturbances (actions) must meet the requirements of the NHPA Section 

106 compliance by taking into account their historic properties. Potential disturbance 

attributed to new fluid minerals development may require application of specific cultural 

resource stipulations. Old disturbances, such as existing roads, were mostly in place 

prior to Section 106; therefore, impacts to cultural resources were likely to have 

occurred. Calculations for both new and old ground disturbances are only used in a 

relative sense, in order to compare alternatives. 

 It is assumed that all roads predicted for availability of acres for new oil and gas leases 

will be new roads. 

 It was not possible to determine the number of sites that could be impacted by livestock 

grazing and range management. Impacts were assumed to accrue in proportion to the 

relative number of active AUMs available under each analyzed alternative. 

 Potential impacts from fuels and fire management actions could not be quantified; 

therefore, they were compared on the basis of which action alternative provided greater 

or lesser degrees of protection to cultural resources. 

 Federal lands within the boundary of the Monument were used as the impacts analysis 

area. 

 Watersheds associated with the Monument were used as the cumulative impacts 

analysis area. 

4.2.2.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to cultural resources may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific 

management actions proposed under each alternative for different resource uses. The following 

sections describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management 

actions proposed for cultural resources, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and recreation and 

transportation. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, cultural resources would continue to be protected under the NHPA Section 

106 compliance requirements, and developed for visitation and interpretation. Five cultural sites 

are currently developed for public use. Although opening sites to public visitation may result in 

beneficial impacts (due to the fact that site interpretation may help educate the public about the 

importance of cultural resources), it may also create the potential for physical damage to cultural 

sites. Some of this visitor-caused damage may be prevented or lessened through management 

techniques, including rerouting or hardening roads, controlling access, as well as other 

methods. Two hundred and forty (240) sites are identified as needing stabilization and/or repair. 

Alternative I would allow research on cultural resources by qualified institutions and individuals. 

Development of research goals, research requirements, and the evaluation of investigationinitiated research would be conducted by Monument staff. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

279 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative I), currently unleased areas would continue to be 

unavailable for new fluid minerals leases; therefore, cultural sites on unleased areas would be 

protected from potential fluid mineral-related impacts. Development of current leased areas 

would continue, and cultural resources would continue to be protected under the NHPA Section 

106 compliance requirements. Guidelines for geophysical surveys would include the following 

additional protective measures for cultural resources: 1) explosives would be kept at least 500 

feet from standing walls and have a maximum of 20- to 40-pound charge to minimize impacts 

from concussion and vibration; and 2) bulldozers and other earthmoving equipment would be 

allowed, but would generally be limited to maintenance and/or repair of existing roads. No 

acres of lands would be available for new fluid minerals leases; therefore, no impacts to cultural 

resources are predicted. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, rangeland resources are based on 8,492 active Animal Unit Months 

(AUMs). In accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. CO-2002-029, Interim Historic 

Preservation Guidelines and Procedures for Evaluating the Effect of Rangeland Management 

Activities on Historic Properties, cultural resource inventories of livestock concentration areas 

would be conducted during the life of the grazing permit (BLM 2002b). Existing conditions 

would be analyzed and, when necessary, livestock grazing would be reduced and/or 

controlled/mitigated to protect cultural resources. Adverse impacts may occur at a small 

number of sites, where livestock concentrate, and a large number of sites may be impacted, to a 

smaller degree, by erosion and by trampling. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

The No Action Alternative would allow dispersed recreational camping throughout the 

Monument. This recreational use has the potential to impact all of the 28,671 cultural resource 

sites estimated to be present in the Monument. Although this is unlikely given the remote 

nature of much of the Monument and the level of dispersed camping that occurs. Few 

restrictions occur under the No Action Alternative in regard to camping, campfires, geocaching, 

and rock climbing. 

Under Alternative I, the transportation system would include 149 miles of roads. Using the three 

methods for determining impacts described under Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions above, 

there would be the potential for direct impacts to 151 cultural sites, direct and indirect impacts to 

315 cultural resource sites using the APE, and the potential for direct and indirect impacts to 

8,336 sites (these sites may be vulnerable to impacts due to the fact that they are within 0.25 

miles of a road). 

Furthermore, based on current levels of use and expected increased levels of use of the 

Monument, an increase in the numbers of user-created roads may also be anticipated, 

especially since no transportation plan would be established as part of this alternative. This 

may result in damage to many more cultural resource sites. 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, suppression of wildland fire would be guided by a number of fire 

management zones (FMZs), which offer varying degrees of protection to cultural resources. 

The focus on fire suppression is intended to protect cultural resources. However, indirect 

impacts of this fire suppression may result in a build-up of fuels, such as dead-and-down trees, 

which, in turn, may increase the risk of larger wildfires. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

280 

Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative I), mechanized equipment would be generally 

permitted during fire-suppression activities if a cultural resource monitor is present. Current 

management has few requirements regarding the proximity of mechanical fuels management or 

prescribed fires to cultural resources. Impacts to cultural resources from prescribed fire would 

be minimized through Section 106 compliance requirements, as well as by management taking 

into account the impacts of fire-suppression actions on historic properties. 

Alternative II

Cultural Resources Management 

Although cultural resources would continue to be managed under Section 106 compliance 

requirements, this alternative would emphasize the protection of cultural resource communities, 

sites, and/or isolated finds. Consequently, management would focus not only on individual 

cultural resource sites, but also on how the sites relate to one another. 

Alternative II would develop the outdoor museum concept, which involves a self-discovery 

visitor experience of cultural resources in their natural landscape. Approximately 13 sites would 

be developed for public use. The developed sites would have publicized locations, but only 

minimal stabilization and interpretive signage, infrastructure, and/or visitor services. Although 

opening sites to public visitation may result in long-term beneficial impacts to the resource base 

as a whole (due to the fact that site interpretation may help to educate the public about the 

importance of cultural resources), it may also create the potential for physical damage to the 

developed sites. Under this alternative, standing wall features would be thoroughly 

documented, then allowed to deteriorate through natural erosive forces, except at sites 

developed for public use. There may be exceptions, at the discretion of the Monument 

Manager. 

Under this alternative, Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) allowing visits to archaeological sites 

would be issued. These SRPs would require that experienced and knowledgeable supervisors 

guide groups to educate participants about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry 

site visitor etiquette, and stewardship. Permittees would be trained in site monitoring and would 

be required to complete monitoring inspections for each visit and to submit their written results 

to the BLM. These permit requirements may result in beneficial impacts to cultural resources. 

Development of research goals and research requirements, and the evaluation of investigatorinitiated research would be conducted by a Cultural Resources Advisory Panel. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Similar to all of the action alternatives, a Geographic Area Development Plan (GADP) would be 

used for all fluid minerals development within existing leases in the Monument. The GADP 

would take into account the potential impacts of fluid minerals development on cultural 

resources on a landscape scale. Development of currently leased areas would continue. Under 

Alternative II, up to 880 acres of lands currently unavailable for leasing could be leased, with an 

NSO stipulation that protects cultural resources. Based on the average site density, up to 154 

sites may be found during cultural resource inventory of these newly available lease areas. 

Some impacts to these resources may be expected, even with the NSO stipulation. 

Completion of GADP surveys and issuance of new leases with NSO stipulations may result in 

beneficial impacts to the cultural resources of the Monument. This is because the surveys 

would result in a clearer understanding of the Monument’s resources on a landscape scale, 

which would, in turn, allow for better protection and preservation, and the reduction of surface 

disturbance. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

281 

Under Alternative II, the use of explosives in geophysical operations would be prohibited, as 

would seismic operation-related work by bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment. 

These fluid minerals management actions may result in beneficial impacts, due to the fact they 

limit ground disturbance. In addition, geophysical operations using vibroseis would be no closer 

than 500 feet from any cultural resource site (including rock art), which may result in a beneficial 

impact to cultural resources. 

Under Alternative II, fluid minerals management would restrict fluid mineral-related activities for 

the protection of cultural resources and the cultural landscape of the Monument. The tighter 

restrictions and requirements on fluid minerals activities may result in substantial protection for 

cultural resources, when compared to current management. In spite of the estimated total 

ground disturbance (up to 18 acres) from new fluid minerals development for this alternative, 

impacts to cultural resource sites would be reduced or eliminated through the use of protective 

restrictions. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between 

livestock grazing and the Monument’s mandate to protect cultural resources. This would occur 

through such management techniques as reducing livestock AUMs and the number of livestock 

grazing allotments, managing season of use, and managing the percentage of forage utilization. 

Under Alternative II, livestock allocation would be 6,437 active AUMs. Five allotments (124 

AUMs) would be closed. In accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. CO-2002-029, 

a cultural resource inventory of livestock concentration areas would be conducted during the life 

of the grazing permit (BLM 2002b). Existing conditions would be analyzed and, when 

necessary, livestock grazing would be reduced and/or controlled to protect cultural resources. 

All sites would be assessed for livestock impacts and mitigated. The smaller numbers of AUMs 

allowed under Alternative II, the closing of five allotments where major sensitive cultural 

resources exist, the restrictions on livestock grazing, and the associated increase in ground 

cover and subsequent soil stability may result in beneficial impacts to cultural resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative II would identify and manage Recreation Management Zones (RMZs) and SRMAs. 

Under this alternative, minimal facilities and infrastructure would be developed to support 

recreation and transportation use. Camping, campfires, recreational shooting (target shooting), 

geocaching, and/or climbing (rock climbing, rappelling, and/or bouldering) would not be 

permitted within the Monument. All of these activities are allowed under current management. 

Due to their potential to damage a large number of sites (estimated at 28,671), the restrictions 

imposed under Alternative II would protect cultural resources throughout the Monument. 

Under Alternative II, a minimal number of access roads would be maintained, and establishment 

of a transportation enforcement plan would be required within one year of signing of the ROD. 

Most existing user-created roads would be closed and reclaimed. The transportation system 

would consist of 139 miles of roads. Using the three methods for determining impacts 

described under Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions above, there is the potential for direct 

impacts to 140 cultural sites, direct and indirect impacts to 295 cultural resource sites using the 

APE, and the potential for direct and indirect impacts to 7,776 sites, (which may also be 

considered vulnerable to impacts due to the fact they are located within 0.25 miles of a road). 

Other Resources Management 

As with all action alternatives, the entire Monument is designated as one FMZ. Natural fire is 

not desired and wildland fire suppression is emphasized. The focus on fire suppression is 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

282 

intended to protect cultural resources; however, indirect impacts of this fire suppression may 

result in a build-up of fuels, such as dead-and-down trees, which, in turn, may increase the risk 

of larger wildfires. 

Disturbance to cultural resource sites may also result from fire suppression activities, such as 

from ground disturbance associated with the creation of hand lines and/or the use of 

mechanized equipment. Under Alternative II, the use of mechanized equipment would generally 

be prohibited during fire-suppression activities. The use of ground-disturbing, mechanized 

equipment would be permitted if the fire is threatening life or property, and if a minimum of one 

permitted and fireline-qualified Cultural Resource Monitor (CRM) or agency CRM monitors the 

use of such equipment. Under Alternative II, prescribed fire would not be authorized within 150 

feet of sites, and mechanical fuels management or vegetation management treatment methods, 

including manual pulling and/or the use of hand tools (e.g., chainsaws, machetes, pruners), 

would not be authorized within 50 feet of cultural resources. The specificity of the requirements 

regarding proximity of ground-disturbing activities may result in beneficial impacts to cultural 

resources, due to the potential of decreased risk to Monument objects. 

Under Alternative II, in order to protect the cultural resources of the Monument, fuels and fire 

management would be highly restrictive regarding fire suppression and fuels reduction activities. 

These restrictions and requirements may better help protect cultural resources, when compared 

to current management. 

Alternative III

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative III emphasizes the protection of cultural resource communities and sites, and natural 

resource values while, at the same time, providing for resource use and development. Cultural 

resource management would focus not only on individual cultural resource sites themselves, but 

also on how the sites relate to one another across the landscape. As in Alternative II, this 

alternative would also develop the outdoor museum concept, which involves a self-discovery 

experience of cultural resources in their natural landscape. Thirteen cultural sites would be 

developed for public use, and interpretive signage would be installed. Up to 12 additional sites 

would be developed, based on a long-range interpretive plan. Although opening sites to public 

visitation may result in beneficial impacts to the resource base as a whole (due to the fact that 

site interpretation may help to educate the public about the importance of cultural resources), it 

may also create the potential for minor-to-moderate physical damage to the developed sites. 

Some visitor-caused damage may be prevented or mitigated through management techniques, 

including stabilizing sites, rerouting/hardening roads, controlling access, as well as through 

other methods. Standing wall features would be thoroughly documented, then allowed to 

deteriorate through natural erosive forces, except at sites developed for public use. There may 

be exceptions, at the discretion of the Monument Manager. 

Under this alternative, SRPs to visit archaeological sites would be issued and would require that 

experienced and knowledgeable supervisors be provided for groups in order to educate 

participants about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry site visitor etiquette, and 

stewardship. Permittees would be trained in site monitoring and would be required to complete 

monitoring inspections for each visit and to submit their written results to the BLM. These 

permit requirements may result in beneficial impacts to cultural resources. 

Under this alternative, the BLM would develop research goals and research requirements, with 

peer review. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

283 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Similar to all of the action alternatives, a GADP would be used for all fluid minerals development 

within existing leases in the Monument. The GADP would take into account the impacts of fluid 

minerals development on cultural resources on a landscape scale. Development of currently 

leased areas would continue. Under Alternative III, up to 3,021 acres of land currently 

unavailable for leasing could be leased with an NSO stipulation that protects cultural resources. 

Based on the average site density, 528 sites may be found during cultural resource inventory of 

these newly available lease areas. Some direct impacts to these resources may be expected, 

even with the protective measures outlined for this alternative. 

Completion of GADP surveys and issuance of new leases with NSO stipulations would provide 

protection for cultural resources of the Monument. This is because the surveys would result in a 

clearer understanding of the Monument’s resources on a landscape scale, which may, in turn, 

allow for better protection and preservation, and may result in the reduction of surface 

disturbance. 

Under Alternative III, the use of explosives in geophysical operations would be limited to at least 

500 feet from cultural resource sites (including rock art) and to a maximum of 20- to 40-pound 

charges. Bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment would be limited to maintenance 

and/or repair of BLM-designated roads during seismic operation-related work. These 

management actions are intended to avoid or minimize impacts to cultural resources, and may 

result in beneficial impacts. In comparison to Alternative II, however, these measures are less 

protective because they allow explosives and earth-moving activities to occur. Similar to 

Alternative II, geophysical operations using vibroseis would be allowed no closer than 500 feet 

from any cultural resource site (including rock art). 

Similar to Alternative II, the fluid minerals management under Alternative III would highly restrict 

fluid minerals-related activities in order to protect cultural resources and the cultural landscape 

of the Monument, when compared to current management. The level of restriction and 

regulation of fluid minerals activities is slightly less than that of Alternative II, and may result in 

beneficial impacts to cultural resources. Based on the estimated total ground disturbed from 

new fluid minerals development for this alternative (up to 73 acres), few if any impacts to 

cultural resource sites are predicted due to these protective restrictions. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between 

livestock grazing and the mandate to protect cultural resources. Under Alternative III, livestock 

capacity would be 8,368 active AUMs. Five allotments (124 AUMs) would be closed to grazing. 

The Monument would meet Public Land Health Standards (BLM 1997) through implementing 

the reduction of authorized use, adjusting duration and extent of spring livestock grazing, 

implementing rest-rotation grazing schedules, and managing the percent of forage utilization. 

In accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. CO-2002-029, a cultural resource 

inventory of livestock concentration areas would be conducted during the life of the grazing 

permit (BLM 2002b). Existing conditions would be analyzed and, when necessary, livestock 

grazing would be reduced and/or controlled to protect cultural resources. All sites would be 

assessed for livestock impacts and mitigated. Adverse impacts may be expected to occur at a 

small number of sites, where livestock concentrate, and a large number of sites may be 

impacted, to a lesser degree, by erosion and by trampling. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

284 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative III, RMZs and SRMAs would be identified and managed. Some facilities and 

infrastructure would be developed to support recreation and transportation use. Parking areas 

would be developed, accommodating up to 10 vehicles at the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon, and 

Rock Creek SRMAs, as well as for roads leading to National Park Service units within the 

Monument. Recreational shooting (target shooting), geocaching, and/or climbing (rock climbing, 

rappelling, and/or bouldering) would be prohibited anywhere in the Monument. Camping and 

campfires would be prohibited within the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon/Rock Creek, and/or the 

Anasazi Heritage Center (AHC) SRMAs, but would be allowed elsewhere. The 146,493 acres 

where unregulated camping is currently allowed have the potential to contain as many as 

25,610 cultural resource sites, based in the Monument’s average site density of one site per 

5.72 acres. Recreational use of the Monument may likely result in unintentional damage to 

these cultural resources that, although individually minor, may create widespread, adverse 

impacts through time. 

Under this alternative, the transportation system would include 189 miles of roads. Using the 

three methods for determining impacts described under Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

above, there is the potential for direct impacts to 192 cultural sites, direct and indirect impacts to 

40 cultural resource sites using the APE, and the potential for direct and indirect impacts to 

10,573 sites (which may also be considered vulnerable to impacts because they are located 

within 0.25 miles of a road). 

To estimate the total number of sites that could be directly impacted by the transportation 

system for this alternative, a total of 1,096 disturbed acres is divided by 5.72 acres per site, 

equaling 192 potentially impacted sites. Considering the BLM Handbook standards for NHPA 

Section 106 requirements, which define the APE of roads as a 100-foot-wide corridor, the 189 

miles of roads planned for this alternative have the potential to directly and indirectly impact 401 

cultural resource sites. 

Other Resources Management 

As with all of the action alternatives, the entire Monument is designated as one FMZ. Natural 

fire is not desired and wildland fire suppression is emphasized. The focus on fire suppression is 

intended to protect cultural resources; however, indirect impacts of this fire suppression may 

result in a build-up of fuels, such as dead-and down-trees, which, in turn, may increase the risk 

of larger, wildfires. 

Disturbance to cultural resource sites may also result from fire suppression activities, such as 

from ground disturbance associated with the creation of hand lines and/or the use of 

mechanized equipment. Under Alternative III, the use of ground-disturbing, mechanized 

equipment would be allowed during fire suppression activities if a minimum of one permitted and 

fireline-qualified CRM or agency CRM monitors the use of such equipment. Under Alternative 

III, prescribed fire would not be authorized within 150 feet of sites, and mechanical fuels 

management and/or vegetation management treatment methods, including manual pulling and 

the use of hand tools (e.g., chainsaws, machetes, pruners), would not be authorized within 50 

feet of cultural resources. The specificity of these requirements regarding the proximity of 

ground-disturbing activities may result in beneficial impacts to cultural resources. 

Similar to Alternative II, the management of fire under Alternative III would be more restrictive 

regarding fire suppression and fuels reduction activities designed to protect the cultural 

resources of the Monument, when compared to current management. The level of restriction 

and requirement is slightly less than those of Alternative II are and may result in moderate 

beneficial impacts to cultural resources. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

285 

Alternative IV

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative IV emphasizes the protection of cultural resource communities and sites, and natural 

resource values while, at the same time, encouraging resource use and development. 

Alternative IV emphasizes the protection of cultural resources on a landscape scale; therefore, 

the focus is not only on individual cultural resource sites, but also on how the sites relate to one 

another. Alternative IV would develop the “outdoor-museum” concept, which involves a selfdiscovery experience of cultural resources in their natural landscape. Up to 13 sites would be 

developed for public use, and 12 additional sites would be developed, based on a long-range 

interpretive plan. Interpretive signs would be provided at all developed sites. Although opening 

sites to public visitation may result in beneficial impacts (due to the fact that site interpretation 

may help to educate the public about the importance of cultural resources), it may also create 

the potential for minor-to-moderate physical damage to those sites. Some visitor-caused 

damage may be prevented or mitigated through management techniques, including an 

emphasis on stabilizing sites, rerouting/hardening roads, controlling access, as well as through 

other methods. 

Under this alternative, SRPs to visit archaeological sites would be issued. Permittees would be 

encouraged to provide experienced and knowledgeable supervisors for groups in order to 

educate participants about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry site visitor 

etiquette, and stewardship. Permittees would be trained in site monitoring and would be 

encouraged to complete monitoring inspections for each visit and to submit their written results 

to the BLM. These permit requirements may result in beneficial impacts to cultural resources, 

depending on the degree of compliance. 

Development of research goals and research requirements, as well as the evaluation of 

investigator-initiated research, would be conducted by Monument staff, who would seek out and 

consider input from knowledgeable outside researchers. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Similar to all of the action alternatives, a GADP would be used for all fluid minerals development 

within existing leases in the Monument. The GADP would take into account the impacts of fluid 

minerals development on cultural resources on a landscape scale. Under all of the alternatives, 

development of currently leased areas would continue. Under Alternative IV, up to 24,462 acres 

of lands currently unavailable for leasing could be leased with an NSO stipulation that protects 

cultural resources. Based on the average site density, 4,277 sites may be found during cultural 

resource inventory of these newly available lease areas. Impacts to these resources are 

expected to be reduced or eliminated as a result of protective restrictions. 

Unlike the other action alternatives, Alternative IV would place few explicit limits on the use of 

explosives, bulldozers, and/or other earthmoving equipment during geophysical operations. In 

addition, this alternative lacks a defined minimum distance from cultural resource sites during 

geophysical operations using vibroseis. The general lack of explicit limits increases the 

potential for inadvertent impacts to cultural resources, although the GADP process may reduce 

this potential. As with Alternatives I through III and Alternative V, the management actions for 

fluid minerals would remain focused on avoiding or minimizing impacts to cultural resources, 

and therefore, may result in indirect beneficial impacts. 

Unlike Alternatives II and III, the management of fluid minerals under Alternative IV would be 

less restrictive of fluid mineral-related activities than under current management. As such, it 

may result in adverse impacts to cultural resources. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

286 

Rangeland Resources Management 

As with the No Action Alternative (Alternative I), rangeland capacity under Alternative IV would 

be 8,492 AUMs. No allotments would be removed from availability, and the small number of 

acres outside current allotment boundaries could be grazed. 

In accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. CO-2002-029, cultural resource inventory 

of livestock concentration areas would be conducted during the life of the grazing permit (BLM 

2002b). Existing conditions would be analyzed and, when necessary, livestock grazing would 

be reduced and/or controlled to protect cultural resources. All sites would be assessed for 

livestock impacts, and impacts would be mitigated. As with the No Action Alternative, 

management of rangeland resources under Alternative IV may result in adverse impacts to 

cultural resources. Adverse impacts may be expected to occur at a small number of sites, 

where livestock concentrate, and a large number of sites may be impacted, to a lesser degree, 

by erosion and by trampling. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

RMZs and SRMAs would be identified and managed under Alternative IV. Development of 

destination points and facilities would be emphasized. Parking areas would be developed, 

accommodating up to 20 vehicles at the Pueblo Sites and at Sand Canyon/Rock Creek SRMAs, 

as well as for roads leading to NPS units within the Monument. Recreational shooting (target 

shooting), geocaching, and/or climbing (rock climbing, rappelling, and/or bouldering) would not 

be allowed anywhere within the Monument. Camping and campfires would be prohibited within 

the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon/Rock Creek, and/or the AHC SRMAs, except in designated 

sites with fire pits, grates, and/or firepans. Camping would be permitted within the Mockingbird 

Mesa-Rincon, Squaw-Cross Canyons, and Goodman Point SRMAs. The 118,279 acres where 

unregulated camping is currently allowed have the potential to contain as many as 20,678 

cultural resource sites, based in the Monument’s average site density of one site per 5.72 acres. 

Recreational use of the Monument may result in unintentional damage to these cultural 

resources that, although individually minor, may create widespread, adverse impacts through 

time. 

Under this alternative, most existing BLM roads would be maintained. No user-created roads 

would be closed or reclaimed. The recreation/transportation system would consist of 213 miles 

of roads. Using the three methods for determining impacts described under Evaluation Criteria 

and Assumptions above, there is the potential for direct impacts to 216 cultural sites, direct and 

indirect impacts to 451 cultural resource sites using the APE, and the potential for direct and 

indirect impacts to 11,972 sites (which may also be considered vulnerable to impacts due to the 

fact that they are located within 0.25 miles of a road). 

Alternative IV may result in somewhat fewer direct and indirect impacts to sites than the No 

Action Alternative, but would not offer the high degree of protection to sites that is afforded by 

the restrictions imposed under Alternative II. 

Other Resources Management 

As with all of the action alternatives, the entire Monument is designated as one FMZ. Natural 

fire is not desired and wildland fire suppression is emphasized. The focus on fire suppression is 

intended to protect cultural resources; however, indirect impacts of this fire suppression may 

result in a build-up of fuels, such as dead-and-down trees, which, in turn, may increase the risk 

of large wildfires. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

287 

Disturbance to cultural resource sites may also result from fire suppression activities, such as 

from ground disturbance associated with the creation of hand lines and/or the use of 

mechanized equipment. Under Alternative IV, the use of ground-disturbing, mechanized 

equipment would be allowed during fire suppression activities if a minimum of one permitted and 

fireline-qualified CRM or agency CRM monitors the use of such equipment. Under Alternative 

IV, the allowed proximity of prescribed fire, mechanical fuels management, and/or vegetation 

management treatment methods, including manual pulling and the use of hand tools (e.g., 

chainsaws, machetes, pruners), to cultural resources would be determined through the 

environmental review process. These requirements lack the specificity of those under 

Alternatives II and III, making them slightly less beneficial to cultural resources. The presence 

of these requirements would continue to offer a decreased risk of impact to cultural resources; 

however, it is considered to have only beneficial indirect impact to cultural resources. 

Similar to Alternative II, the fuels and fire management under Alternative IV would be more 

restrictive regarding fire suppression and fuels reduction activities that protect the cultural 

resources of the Monument, when compared to current management. The level of restriction 

and requirements is slightly less than those of Alternative II and may result in beneficial impacts 

to cultural resources. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Cultural Resources Management 

Although cultural resources would continue to be managed under Section 106 compliance 

requirements, this alternative would emphasize the protection of cultural resource communities 

and sites. This alternative would emphasize the protection of cultural resources on a landscape 

scale by focusing not only on individual cultural resource sites, but also on how the sites relate 

to one another. Alternative V would develop the “outdoor-museum” concept, which involves a 

self-discovery experience of cultural resources in their natural landscape. Thirteen sites would 

be developed for public use, and 12 additional sites would be developed, based on a long-range 

interpretive plan. The developed sites would have publicized locations, but minimal stabilization 

and interpretive signage, infrastructure, and/or visitor services. Although opening sites to public 

visitation may result in beneficial impacts to the resource base as a whole (due to the fact that 

site interpretation may help to educate the public about the importance of cultural resources), it 

may also create the potential for minor-to-moderate physical damage to the developed sites. 

Standing wall features would be thoroughly documented, then allowed to deteriorate through 

natural erosive forces, except at sites developed for public use. There may be exceptions, at 

the discretion of the Monument Manager. 

Under this alternative, SRPs to visit archaeological sites would be issued. These SRPs would 

require that experienced and knowledgeable supervisors be provided for groups in order to 

educate participants about the cultural history of the Monument, backcountry site visitor 

etiquette, and stewardship. Permittees would be trained in site monitoring and would be 

required to complete monitoring inspections for each visit and to submit their written results to 

the BLM. These permit requirements may result in beneficial impacts on cultural resources. 

The BLM would develop research goals and research requirements, with peer review. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Similar to all of the action alternatives, a GADP would be used for all fluid minerals development 

within existing leases in the Monument. The GADP would take into account the impacts of fluid 

minerals development on cultural resources on a landscape scale. Development of currently 

leased areas would continue. Under Alternative V, up to 880 acres of lands currently 

unavailable for leasing could be leased with an NSO stipulation that protects cultural resources. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

288 

Completion of GADP surveys and issuance of new leases with NSO stipulations may provide 

protection of cultural resources of the Monument because they result in a clearer understanding 

of the Monument’s resources on a landscape scale, which in turn, allow for better protection and 

preservation, and for the reduction of surface disturbance. Based on the average site density, 

up to 154 sites can be found during cultural resource inventory of these available lease areas. 

While more protective than Alternatives III and IV, some direct impacts may occur. However, 

these impacts would be reduced or eliminated as a result of protective restrictions. 

Under Alternative V, seismic operation-related work by bulldozers and/or other earthmoving 

equipment would be prohibited. Geophysical operations using vibroseis or explosives (with up 

to a maximum of 20- to 40-pound charges) would be allowed no closer than 500 feet from any 

cultural resource site (including rock art). These management actions may limit ground 

disturbance in the Monument and limit impacts to cultural resources 

Similar to Alternative II, the management of fluid minerals under Alternative V would restrict fluid 

mineral-related activities in order to protect cultural resources and the cultural landscape of the 

Monument. The increased restrictions and requirements on fluid minerals activities under 

Alternative V may result in substantial protections for cultural resources, when compared to 

current management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between 

livestock grazing, recreational activities, and the Monument’s mandate to protect cultural 

resources. Under Alternative V, livestock would be stocked at 6,437 active AUMs. Five 

allotments (124 AUMS) would be closed. In accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 

CO-2002-029, a cultural resource inventory of livestock concentration areas would be 

conducted during the life of the grazing permit (BLM 2002b). Existing conditions would be 

analyzed and, when necessary, livestock grazing would be reduced and/or controlled to protect 

cultural resources. All sites would be assessed for livestock impacts, and any impacts would be 

mitigated. The smaller numbers of AUMs allowed under Alternative V and the limitations on 

livestock grazing may result in greater protection of cultural resources, when compared to 

current management. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative V would identify and manage RMZs and SRMAs. Overall, minimal facilities and 

infrastructure would be developed to support recreation and transportation use. Recreational 

shooting (target shooting) and/or geocaching would be prohibited within the Monument. 

Camping and campfires would not be permitted within the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon/Rock 

Creek, and/or the AHC SRMAs (7,875 acres), but would be allowed within the Mockingbird 

Mesa-Rincon, Squaw-Cross Canyons, and Goodman Point SRMAs. Rock Climbing would be 

allowed in designated location(s) only. The 157,460 acres where dispersed camping would be 

allowed, would have the potential to contain as many as 27,529 cultural resource sites, based in 

the Monument’s average site density of one site per 5.72 acres. Recreational use of the 

Monument may result in unintentional damage to cultural resources that, although individually 

minor, may result in widespread, adverse impacts through time. 

Under Alternative V, the establishment of a transportation enforcement plan would be required 

within one year of signing of the ROD. Most existing user-created roads would be closed and 

reclaimed. The recreation/transportation system would consist of 169 miles of roads. Using the 

three methods for determining impacts described under Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

above, there is the potential for direct impacts to 171 cultural sites, direct and indirect impacts to 

362 cultural resource sites using the APE, and the potential for direct and indirect impacts to 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

289 

9,566 sites (which may also be considered vulnerable to impacts due to the fact they are 

located within 0.25 miles of a road). 

Other Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, the entire Monument is designated as one FMZ. Natural 

fire is not desired and wildland fire suppression is emphasized. The focus on fire suppression is 

intended to protect cultural resources; however, indirect impacts of this fire suppression may 

result in a build-up of fuels, such as dead-and-down trees, which, in turn, may increase the risk 

of large wildfires. 

Disturbance to cultural resource sites may also result from fire suppression activities, such as 

from ground disturbance associated with the creation of hand lines and/or the use of 

mechanized equipment. Under Alternative V, the use of ground-disturbing, mechanized 

equipment would be allowed during fire suppression activities if a minimum of one permitted and 

fireline-qualified CRM or agency CRM monitors the use of such equipment. Under Alternative 

V, the allowed proximity of prescribed fire, mechanical fuels management, and/or vegetation 

management treatment methods, including manual pulling and the use of hand tools (e.g., 

chainsaws, machetes, pruners), to cultural resources would be determined through the 

environmental review process. These requirements lack the specificity of those under 

Alternatives II and III, making them slightly less beneficial to cultural resources. 

Similar to Alternative II, fuels and fire management under Alternative V would be more 

restrictive regarding fire suppression and fuels reduction activities in order to protect the cultural 

resources, when compared to current management; however, the level of restriction and 

requirement is slightly less than that of Alternative II. 

4.2.2.3. Cultural Resources Management Impact Comparison 

The cultural resources impact comparison is shown in Table 4-10. It is important to keep in 

mind that it is the consequences of various resource management actions that are being 

compared. For example, the impacts of fire on cultural resources itself is not evaluated, rather 

the impacts of implementing the proposed fire management actions for each of the alternatives 

are analyzed. 

4.2.2.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Past actions that cumulatively contribute to impacts on cultural resources include livestock 

grazing, vegetation management, mineral development, looting and vandalism, and ongoing 

natural erosion. These adverse impacts are present outside, as well as inside the Monument. 

Prior to establishment of Section 106 of the NHPA, many activities occurred with no regard for 

the protection of cultural resources. Activities, such as vegetation treatments using chains or 

harrows, pulled large pieces of equipment across the ground surface in order to remove trees 

and shrubs. This, and other mechanical treatments, undoubtedly destroyed or impacted many 

archaeological sites within their path. In addition, many roads within the Monument were 

constructed prior to the establishment of Section 106 compliance requirements and destroyed 

or damaged cultural sites, which are still impacted by erosion. 

Cultural resources within the Monument are afforded a greater level of protection than those in 

the region surrounding the Monument. No laws protect cultural resources on private land, other 

than those relating to human burials. For example, a projected 870 cultural resource sites may 

exist on the 4,975 acres of private surface/private minerals within the Monument boundary 

currently leased for oil and gas development (see Section 3.2.5). These sites may likely be 

destroyed. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

290 

Cultural resources on Federal lands outside of the Monument are currently managed under 

Federal historical preservation legislation, most notably Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural 

resource inventories are conducted in advance of proposed development on Federal land. 

Sites determined to be eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

require avoidance of ground-disturbing impacts, excavation, and/or mitigation of adverse 

impacts. Sites determined to not be eligible for the NRHP, as well as isolated finds, are not 

afforded protection on Federal lands outside of the Monument. 

Due to increasing development pressure, including urban expansion; widespread drilling for oil 

and gas; construction of pipelines, transmission lines, and roads; as well as to increased 

visitation to cultural resources and continued livestock grazing, the trend is for increased 

destruction of cultural resources through time. These impacts may continue on a regional scale 

and may be in addition to impacts expected from land uses and resource management activities 

in the Monument. If adverse impacts to cultural resources continue to increase as expected, the 

preservation of cultural resources on public lands would become even more critical. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

291 

Table 4-10 Comparison of Impacts to Cultural Resources 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Cultural Resources 

Protect cultural 

resource sites. 

Stabilize up to 240 

sites. Develop new 

sites for controlled 

visitation. Allow 

scientific research. 

Identify no specific 

evaluation process. 

Protect cultural 

resource 

communities, sites, 

and isolated finds. 

Standing walls 

documented and 

allowed to 

deteriorate. Develop 

13 sites. Rely on 

broad-based standing 

committee of 

researchers to 

evaluate research 

proposals. 

Protect cultural 

resource 

communities and 

sites. Standing walls 

documented and 

allowed to 

deteriorate. Develop 

13 to 25 sites. Rely 

on an ad-hoc peer 

review committee of 

researchers to 

evaluate research 

proposals. 

Protect cultural 

resource 

communities and 

sites. Stabilize 

standing walls. 

Develop 

13 to 25 sites. Rely 

on Monument staff to 

evaluate research 

proposals, while 

seeking input from 

knowledgeable 

researchers. 

Protect cultural 

resource 

communities and 

sites. Standing walls 

documented and 

allowed to 

deteriorate. 

Stabilization allowed 

under discretion of 

Monument Manager. 

Develop 13 to 25 

sites. Rely on an adhoc peer review 

committee of 

researchers to 

evaluate research 

proposals. 

Fluid Minerals 

Lease 0 new acres. 

Disturb 0 acres. 

Impact 0 sites. 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

lease (with up to 

18 acres of 

disturbance, and up 

to 154 sites 

potentially impacted). 

Make up to 3,021 

new acres available 

for lease (with up to 

73 acres of 

disturbance, and up 

to 528 sites 

potentially impacted). 

Make up to 24,462 

new acres available 

for lease (with up to 

447 acres of 

disturbance, and up 

to 4,277 sites 

potentially impacted). 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

lease (with up to 18 

acres of disturbance, 

and up to 154 sites 

potentially impacted). 

Rangeland Resources Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. Permit 8,368 AUMs. Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,492 AUMs. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

864 acres of 

disturbance (with 151 

sites potentially 

806 acres of 

disturbance (with 140 

sites potentially 

1,096 acres of 

disturbance (with 192 

sites potentially 

1,235 acres of 

disturbance (with 216 

sites potentially 

980 acres of 

disturbance (with 171 

sites potentially 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

292 

Table 4-10 Comparison of Impacts to Cultural Resources 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

impacted). impacted). impacted). impacted). impacted). 

Other Resources: 

Fuels and Fire 

Manage Monument 

as combination of 

FMZs A, B, and C. 

Continue with current 

fire suppression 

requirements in order 

to protect cultural 

resources. 

Manage entire 

Monument as FMZ B. 

Increase fire 

suppression 

requirements in order 

to protect cultural 

resources. 

Manage entire 

Monument as FMZ B. 

Increase fire 

suppression 

requirements in order 

to protect cultural 

resources. 

Manage entire 

Monument as FMZ B. 

Increase fire 

suppression 

requirements in order 

to protect cultural 

resources. 

Manage entire 

Monument as FMZ B. 

Increase fire 

suppression 

requirements in order 

to protect cultural 

resources. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

293 

4.2.3. Fuels and Fire Management 

The primary goals for fuels and fire management in the Monument are to preserve and protect 

cultural and natural resources and public and private property while, at the same time, allowing 

fire to play a natural role in fire-dependent ecosystems. The management objectives related to 

this goal are to provide a basis for an appropriate management response for each reported 

wildland fire within the Monument by developing a Fire Management Plan (FMP) that integrates 

with the San Juan Public Lands 2003 FMP (SJPL FMP) and the Montezuma County and 

Dolores County Community Fire Plans. The FMP would be based on Fire Management Zones 

(FMZs), associated restrictions on fire management activities, and appropriate post-fire 

management. Fire management tactics and strategies would maximize firefighter and public 

safety; minimize suppression costs, resource loss, and damage; and use prescribed fire in order 

to realize resource benefits, such as improving landscape diversity in the Monument's 

vegetation mosaic. 

Additional goals for fuels and fire management are the application of fuels and vegetation 

management treatments in order to reduce the likelihood of resource damage caused by 

wildfire, improve firefighter and public safety, and achieve vegetation resource management 

objectives. The management objectives related to this goal include: 

 reducing hazardous fuels in and around sensitive cultural resources, critical 

infrastructure, and designated wildland-urban interface (WUI) boundary areas; and 

 utilizing prescribed fire treatment methods in order to improve vegetation conditions in 

fire-adapted ecosystems. 

Another goal for fuels and fire management is to use a collaborative approach to achieve fuels 

and fire management goals and objectives. The management objectives related to this goal 

include: 

 continuing to develop and improve the Monument’s fire program in partnership with 

relevant governments, agencies, and private landowners; and 

 integrating fire management strategies with the SJPL FMP and the Montezuma County 

and Dolores County Community Fire Plans. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts to fuels and fire management. 

Beneficial impacts to fuels and fire under the alternatives may include, but are not limited to, 

manual and/or mechanical vegetation treatments that reduce fuels and return the ecosystem to 

a natural fire cycle. Adverse impacts to fuels and fire may include, but are not limited to, 

conflicting objectives between fuels and fire management objectives and those of other 

resources, the potential for increased risk of impacts to Monument resources due to wildfire, 

and compromised public and firefighter safety. 

4.2.3.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Due to the unpredictable nature of fire, and to the general lack of long-term quantitative data, 

assessment of potential impacts from the management of other resources on the management 

of fuels and fire is difficult to quantify. However, if a location is developed for public use, it is 

more likely to have less fuel and, therefore, greater protection from fire. These sites can be 

quantified. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to fuels and fire resources include the following: 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

294 

 Wildfires pose a significant threat to all cultural resources. 

 A number of converging factors that increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire within the 

Monument include a documented density increase in pinyon-juniper stands, consecutive 

growing seasons stressed by severe drought conditions, regional IPS beetle infestations 

and widespread tree mortality, and a deterioration of the natural understory to now favor 

invasive weeds, such as cheatgrass. 

 There is a 90 percent risk of very high to extreme fire danger within the Monument and 

the greatest impact may be on the ecology of pinyon-juniper woodlands and big 

sagebrush habitat types, which cover close to 75 percent of the Monument area. 

 Federal lands within the boundary of the Monument were used as the impacts analysis 

area. 

 Cumulative impacts include the urban-interface zones that border the Monument for 

potential landscape-scale impacts from catastrophic wildfire and/or long-range smoke 

dispersion. 

4.2.3.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to fuels and fire may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific management 

actions proposed under each alternative for different resource uses. The following sections 

describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions 

proposed for the management of fuels and fire, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and 

recreation and transportation. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Fuels and Fire Management 

Under Alternative I, the BLM would maintain existing fuels and fire management practices. The 

current plan identifies three fire management polygon zones, each with specific management 

strategies, parameters, and constraints. Alternative I would designate 317 acres of the Yellow 

Jacket Canyon Riparian Zone as FMP A, with an emphasis on preservation of the habitat. Six 

areas, totaling up to 7,666 acres, would be designated FMP B, where natural fire would be 

actively suppressed and hazardous fuel mitigation emphasized. FMP B includes three 

significant cultural resource sites and three existing communication infrastructure sites. The 

remainder of the Monument, 95 percent of the management area (157,258 acres), would be 

designated as FMP C, where under specific conditions and constraints, natural fire would be 

allowed to burn in order to achieve other resource management objectives. Alternative I would 

further identify a number of fire management strategies, burned area rehabilitation guidelines, 

fuels treatment parameters, and general conditions that are common across all management 

polygons (zones). Alternative I would incorporate the fuels and fire management objectives of 

the National Fire Plan and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. 

Alternative I would provide fire managers the opportunity to use fire as a resource management 

tool for areas of up to 1,000 acres, or greater, if conditions warrant. Smoke dispersion from 

such fires may pose a public relations issue with potential adverse public health and safety 

implications. Alternative I would propose no strategies for addressing the surrounding wildlandurban interface hazards. In addition, Alternative I may set up conflicting objectives among the 

various resources, which may, in turn, result in adverse impacts. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

295 

Cultural Resources Management 

Ongoing cultural resource inventory, site assessment, development, and preservation are 

primary objectives under Alternative I. Alternative I would identify specific sites for inclusion in 

FMP B for hazard assessment and mitigation. New discoveries are likely in FMP C, where 

cultural resource preservation objectives conflict with the utilization of resource-benefit fires. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative I, there would be no expansion of current fluid minerals leases. 

Approximately 80 percent of the Monument lands are currently being leased. Under Alternative 

I, the remaining 20 percent would not be leased and no new wells would be drilled (new wells 

would be drilled within existing leased areas). No impacts to fuels and fire resources would be 

expected from Alternative I fluid minerals management, because no new development would 

occur. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland management provides livestock access to specific allotments within the Monument 

for livestock grazing. Livestock grazing generally reduces the amount of available grassy 

surface fuels in the short-term and may benefit fire-suppression efforts by reducing the potential 

surface fire behavior intensity in these allotments. However, cheatgrass typically spreads and 

encroaches in areas where natural grasses have been removed. This invasive annual grass 

burns with greater intensity and contributes to a greater potential rate of spread in the event of a 

wildfire. The majority of livestock grazing allotments are located in FMP C, where the presence 

of cheatgrass is likely to complicate efforts to manage naturally-occurring fire regimes for 

resources benefit. Maintaining current livestock grazing levels, in spite of the fact that surface 

fuels are temporarily reduced as a result, may promote the proliferation of cheatgrass and may, 

in turn, create long-term adverse impacts to fuels and fire management. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

With the exception of the Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon Pueblos, dispersed, lowimpact recreational opportunities are emphasized throughout the Monument. Low-impact 

recreation, such as hunting, dispersed camping, and backpacking, has little to no impact on 

current fuels and fire management. The presence of campfires may increase the risk of a 

wildfire. Developed sites, such as the up to 240 cultural resource sites and 7 transportation 

support facilities, would have onsite fuels reduction. 

Under Alternative I, the Monument travel system would include 149 miles of roads (on 864 

acres). The transportation network may present an immediate and long-term benefit to fuels 

and fire management in that it may provide local and backcountry access roads for faster 

incident response, as well as anchor points for fire lines and burnout operations. Additionally, 

roads would facilitate the use of Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) that target 

existing transportation networks for tactical use during indirect attack. 

Alternative II

Fuels and Fire Management 

Under Alternative II, FMPs would be redesignated as FMZs. Under Alternative II, the entire 

Monument would be designated as FMZ B, which would reclassify all 157,258 acres of FMP C, 

and 317 acres of FMP A. The riparian fire-exclusion zone in Yellow Jacket Canyon would be 

eliminated, as would the utilization of resource-benefit fire as a large-area fuels treatment 

option. Alternative II would prioritize cultural site preservation over efforts to restore fireadapted ecosystems to historical conditions, which may eliminate potential conflict between 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

296 

cultural resources and fuels and fire management objectives. All significant current and future 

cultural, industrial, and recreational resource sites would be recognized as areas of concern that 

warrant specific suppression constraints and fire management guidelines, as well as 

consideration for hazard assessment site surveys and potential fuel reduction treatments. 

Alternative II would recognize the surrounding wildland-urban interface as a dynamic fuels- and 

fire-management area that impacts treatment projects in the Monument and thus, would require 

annual review and collaboration with the Montezuma and Dolores County FMPs. Using 

prescribed fire as a localized resource management treatment would be authorized under 

certain conditions and constraints. 

Alternative II would provide clear and consistent directives from which to guide fire incident 

management decisions. The scope of addressable resources would be comprehensive and 

consistent with other Monument resource objectives, as well as with the FMPs of surrounding 

jurisdictions. The impacts to fuels and fire management may be long-term and beneficial, due 

to the fact that Alternative II may eliminate the conflict between cultural resource preservation 

and the utilization of natural fire as a desired resource management tool. Resolving this conflict 

may help to simplify potentially complex incident management assignments and ultimately 

create a safer environment for firefighters. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative II would enhance public access to cultural sites through the development of 13 sites. 

This would emphasize site protection and visitation and would define appropriate levels of 

resource maintenance at highly visible sites. Supporting infrastructure development would be 

minimal. Consistent and cohesive tactical incident objectives throughout the Monument would 

provide all sites the same potential level of assessment, mitigation, and protection. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative II, up to 880 of the 24,462 acres would be available for leasing to protect 

against drainage. The associated infrastructure expansion may have a minor impact on fuels 

and fire management. Temporary drilling facilities may pose short-term impacts; permanent 

structures may pose long-term impacts. Both new and existing fluid minerals facilities would be 

designated as FMZ B-5, and would require hazardous fuels assessment, possible mitigation 

work, and may be considered for hazardous fuel-reduction treatment. Expansion of industrial 

infrastructure in the Monument may adversely impact fuels and fire management by increasing 

the number of facilities needing protection and by potentially diluting available resources for 

incident response. Modified suppression tactics would be required in the vicinity of all current 

and future facility sites. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative II would authorize reductions in livestock grazing use, delineate the extent and 

duration of spring livestock grazing, and implement rest-rotation grazing schedules. Rangeland 

would be managed to increase rangeland health and to ultimately improve soil and vegetation 

conditions in the areas under consideration. Although a reduction in cheatgrass is unlikely, 

improved range health may reduce its spread, which may then, in turn, provide a direct 

beneficial impact to fuels and fire management. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative II, RMZs and SRMAs would be established to promote a “destination 

management strategy” for recreation and site visitation. These areas would be supported with 

minimal facilities and infrastructure (7 facilities). All facilities would be considered for wildfire 

hazard assessment and hazardous fuels treatment projects. Additional infrastructure and the 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

297 

installation of permanent features may increase the need for site-specific hazardous fuels 

assessment and treatment, and impact fire suppression tactics, possibly diluting available 

resources for incident response. 

Under Alternative II, the Monument travel system would include 139 miles of roads (on 806 

acres). The transportation network may be a beneficial resource for fuels and fire management 

in that it would provide rapid access roads for faster incident response, as well as anchor points 

for fire lines and burnout operations. Additionally, roads would facilitate the utilization of MIST 

that target existing road and trail networks for tactical use during indirect attack. The expanded 

road network may also support fuel break extensions that aid in fragmenting forest continuity. 

Alternative III

Fuels and Fire Management 

Under Alternative III, FMPs would be redesignated as FMZs. Under Alternative III, the entire 

Monument would be designated as FMZ B, which would reclassify all 157,258 acres of FMP C 

and 317 acres of FMP A. The riparian fire exclusion zone in Yellow Jacket Canyon would be 

eliminated, as would the utilization of resource-benefit fire as a large-area fuels treatment 

method. Alternative III would prioritize cultural site preservation over efforts to restore fireadapted ecosystems to historical conditions, which may eliminate potential conflict between 

cultural resources and fuels and fire management objectives. All significant current and future 

cultural, industrial, and recreational resource sites would be recognized as areas of concern that 

warrant specific suppression constraints and fire management guidelines, as well as 

consideration for hazard assessment site surveys and potential fuel-reduction treatments. 

Alternative III would recognize the surrounding wildland-urban interface as a dynamic fuels and 

fire management area that impacts treatment projects in the Monument and would require 

annual review and collaboration with the Montezuma and Dolores County FMPs. Using 

prescribed fire as a localized resource management treatment would be authorized under 

certain conditions and constraints. Suppression guidelines would allow the use of mechanized 

equipment, with constraints. Several Alternative III incident oversight requirements would be 

made less restrictive. 

Alternative III would provide clear and consistent directives from which to guide fire incident 

management decisions. The scope of addressable resources would be comprehensive and 

consistent with other Monument resource objectives, as well as with the FMPs of surrounding 

jurisdictions. The impacts to fuels and fire management may be long-term and beneficial, due 

to the fact that Alternative III may eliminate the conflict between the objectives of cultural 

resource preservation and the use of natural fire as a desired resource management tool. 

Resolving this conflict may help to simplify potentially complex incident management 

assignments and may ultimately create a safer environment for firefighters. Less restrictive 

oversight requirements may simplify incident management protocols. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative III would enhance public access to cultural sites through the development of 13 to 25 

sites. This would emphasize site protection and visitation and define appropriate levels of 

resource maintenance at highly visible sites. Supporting infrastructure development would be 

minimal. Consistent and cohesive tactical incident objectives throughout the Monument would 

provide all sites the same potential level of assessment, mitigation, and protection. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative III, up to 3,021 acres would be available for leasing. Temporary drilling 

facilities may pose short-term impacts; permanent structures may pose long-term impacts. Both 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

298 

new and existing fluid minerals facilities would be designated as FMZ B-5 under Alternative III, 

and would be considered for wildfire hazard assessment and hazardous fuel reduction 

treatment. Expansion of industrial infrastructure in the Monument may adversely impact fuels 

and fire management by increasing the number of defensible facilities and by potentially diluting 

available resources for incident response. New facilities would also require hazardous fuels 

assessment and possible mitigation work. Modified suppression tactics would be required in the 

vicinity of all current and future facility sites. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative III would authorize minor reductions in livestock grazing use, delineate the extent 

and duration of spring livestock grazing, and implement rest-rotation grazing schedules. 

Rangelands would be managed to increase land health and ultimately improve soil and 

vegetation conditions. Although a reduction in cheatgrass is unlikely, improved land health may 

slow its invasion, which may provide a beneficial impact to fuels and fire management. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative III, RMZs and SRMAs would be established to promote a destination 

management strategy for recreation and site visitation. These areas would be supported with 

minimal facilities and infrastructure (13 facilities). All facilities would be considered for wildfire 

hazard assessment and hazardous fuels treatment projects under Alternative III. Additional 

infrastructure and the installation of permanent features may increase the need for site-specific 

hazardous fuels assessment and treatment, and impact fire suppression tactics, possibly 

diluting available resources for incident response. 

Under Alternative III, the Monument travel system would include 189 miles of roads (on 1,096 

acres). The transportation network may be a beneficial resource for fuels and fire management 

in that it would provide rapid access roads for faster incident response, as well as anchor points 

for fire lines and burnout operations. Additionally, roads would facilitate the utilization of MIST 

that target existing road and trail networks for tactical use during indirect attack. An expanded 

road network would provide for tactical incident and suppression support, as well as fuel break 

extensions that aid in fragmenting forest continuity. 

Alternative IV

Fuels and Fire Management 

Under Alternative IV, FMPs would be redesignated as FMZs. Under Alternative IV, the entire 

Monument would be designated as FMZ B, which would reclassify all 157,258 acres of FMP C 

and 317 acres of FMP A. The riparian fire exclusion zone in Yellow Jacket Canyon would be 

eliminated, as would the utilization of resource-benefit fire as a large-area fuels treatment 

method. Alternative IV would prioritize cultural site preservation over efforts to restore fireadapted ecosystems to historical conditions, which may eliminate potential conflict between 

cultural resources and fuels and fire management objectives. All significant current and future 

cultural, industrial, and recreational resource sites would be recognized as areas of concern that 

warrant specific suppression constraints and fire management guidelines, as well as 

consideration for hazard assessment site surveys and potential fuel reduction treatments. 

Alternative IV would recognize the surrounding wildland-urban interface as a dynamic fuels and 

fire management area that impacts treatment projects in the Monument and would require 

annual review and collaboration with the Montezuma and Dolores County FMPs. Using 

prescribed fire as a localized resource management treatment would be authorized under 

certain less restrictive conditions and constraints than in Alternative III. Suppression guidelines 

would allow the use of mechanized equipment, with constraints, and several Alternative IV 

incident oversight requirements would be made less restrictive. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

299 

Alternative IV would provide clear and consistent directives from which to guide fire incident 

management decisions. The scope of addressable resources would be comprehensive and 

consistent with other Monument resource objectives as well as with the FMPs of surrounding 

jurisdictions. The impacts to fuels and fire management may be long-term and beneficial in that 

Alternative IV may eliminate the conflict between the objectives of cultural resource preservation 

and the use of natural fire as a desired resource management tool. Resolving this conflict may 

help to simplify potentially complex incident management assignments and may ultimately 

create a safer environment for firefighters. Less restrictive oversight requirements would 

simplify incident management protocols. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative IV would enhance public access to cultural sites through the development of 13 to 25 

sites. This would emphasize site protection and visitation and define appropriate levels of 

resource maintenance at highly visible sites. Supporting infrastructure development would be 

minimal. Consistent and cohesive tactical incident objectives throughout the Monument would 

provide all sites the same potential level of assessment, mitigation, and protection. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Infrastructure expansion under Alternative IV may have a major impact on fuels and fire 

management. Under Alternative IV, up to 24,462 acres would be available for leasing. 

Temporary drilling facilities may pose short-term impacts; permanent structures may pose longterm impacts. Both new and existing fluid minerals facilities would be designated as FMZ B-5 

under Alternative IV, and would be considered for wildfire hazard assessment and hazardous 

fuel reduction treatment. Expansion of industrial infrastructure in the Monument may adversely 

impact fuels and fire management by increasing the number of defensible facilities and by 

potentially diluting available resources for incident response. New facilities would also require 

hazardous fuels assessment and possible mitigation work. Modified suppression tactics would 

be required in the vicinity of all current and future facility sites. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Stocking capacity, in terms of active AUMs, would remain the same under Alternative IV as 

under Alternative I. This alternative would reduce the extent and duration of spring livestock 

grazing and implement rest-rotation grazing schedules. Rangeland would be managed to 

increase rangeland health and to ultimately decrease the presence of invasive weeds and 

improve soil conditions in the areas under consideration. The reduction of cheatgrass as an 

available surface fuel may lower the intensity of expected fire behavior, which may provide a 

direct beneficial impact to fuels and fire management. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative IV, RMZs and SRMAs would be established to promote a destination 

management strategy for recreation and site visitation. These areas would be supported with 

facilities and infrastructure (20 facilities). All facilities would be considered for wildfire hazard 

assessment and hazardous fuels treatment projects under Alternative IV. Additional 

infrastructure and the installation of permanent features would increase the need for sitespecific hazardous fuels assessment and treatment, and impact fire suppression tactics, 

possibly diluting available resources for incident response. 

Under Alternative IV, the Monument travel system would include 213 miles of roads (on 1,235 

acres). The transportation network may be a beneficial resource for fuels and fire management 

in that it would provide rapid access roads for faster incident response, as well as anchor points 

for fire lines and burnout operations. Additionally, roads would facilitate the utilization of MIST 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

300 

that target existing road and trail networks for tactical use during indirect attack. Beneficial 

indirect impacts may include an expanded road network for tactical incident and suppression 

support, as well as fuel break extensions that aid in fragmenting forest continuity. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Fuels and Fire Management 

Alternative V would eliminate multiple FMZ categories for the Monument, and designate the 

entire area as FMZ B, where natural fire is not desired under current conditions and suppression 

is emphasized. Alternative V would significantly broaden the scope and flexibility of potential 

wildfire hazard assessment and hazardous fuels treatment sites within the Monument and 

incorporate the surrounding wildland-urban interface into strategic planning actions. From a 

tactical incident support perspective, Alternative V would provide Fire Management Officers with 

constant and cohesive guidelines for mitigation and suppression across the Monument, 

emphasizing firefighter safety while, at the same time, prioritizing the protection and 

preservation of all cultural sites, as well as industrial and public infrastructure. 

Alternative V would provide clear and consistent directives from which to guide fire incident 

management decisions. The scope of addressable resources would be comprehensive and 

consistent with other Monument resource objectives as well as with the FMPs of surrounding 

jurisdictions. Alternative V may eliminate the conflict between cultural site protection and 

preservation and the utilization of natural fire as a potential resource management tool. 

Resolving this conflict and creating cohesive and constant incident management protocols and 

oversight requirements for the entire Monument may help to simplify potentially complex 

incident management assignments, which may ultimately create a safer environment for 

firefighters. Conterminous wildland-urban interface factors would also be taken into 

consideration under Alternative V. These factors would include incident preplanning with 

surrounding jurisdictions, identification of offsite risks and hazards, and the development of 

potential emergency resources. The impacts to the fuels and fire management plan may be 

long-term and beneficial. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative V would enhance public access to cultural sites through the development of up to 13 

to 25 sites. This would emphasize site protection and visitation and define appropriate levels of 

resource maintenance at highly visible sites. Supporting infrastructure development would be 

minimal. Consistent and cohesive tactical incident objectives throughout the Monument would 

provide all sites the same potential level of assessment, mitigation, and protection. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative V, up to 880 acres of the available 24,462 acres would be available for 

leasing to protect against drainage. Infrastructure expansion under Alternative V may have a 

minor impact on fuels and fire management. Temporary drilling facilities may have short-term 

impacts; permanent structures may have long-term impacts. Both new and existing fluid 

minerals facilities would be designated as FMZ B-5 under Alternative V, and would 

automatically be considered for wildfire hazard assessment and hazardous fuel reduction 

treatment. Any significant expansion of industrial infrastructure in the Monument may adversely 

impact fuels and fire management by increasing the number of defensible facilities and by 

potentially diluting available resources for incident response. New facilities would also require 

hazardous fuels assessment and possible mitigation work. Modified suppression tactics would 

be required in the vicinity of all current and future facility sites. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

301 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative V would authorize reductions in livestock grazing use, delineate the extent and 

duration of spring livestock grazing, and implement rest-rotation grazing schedules. Rangeland 

would be managed to increase land health and ultimately improve soil and vegetation 

conditions. Although a reduction in cheatgrass is not likely, a reduction in its spread may result 

from improved range conditions. This may provide a beneficial impact to fuels and fire 

management. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative V, RMZs and SRMAs would be established to promote a destination 

management strategy for recreation and site visitation. These areas would be supported with 

minimal facilities and infrastructure. All facilities would be considered for wildfire hazard 

assessment and hazardous fuels treatment. Adversely, any additional infrastructure would 

increase the number of potential defensible sites and impact suppression tactics, possibly 

diluting available resources during incident response. 

Under Alternative V, there would be 169 miles of roads (on 980 acres). The transportation 

network may benefit tactical incident response and suppression support in that it would provide 

faster access and more fuel breaks that aid in fragmenting forest continuity. 

4.2.3.3. Fuels and Fire Management Impact Comparison 

The fuels and fire impact comparison is shown in Table 4-11. This table compares the 

consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on fuels and fire. 

4.2.3.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to fuels and fire management may include smoke dispersion (adverse, 

event-based/temporary), escaped fire from private lands and the surrounding wildland-urban 

interface (adverse, event-based/temporary, localized, with long-term implications), and potential 

flash flooding into Monument streams from destabilized burned areas on private lands (adverse, 

event-based/temporary, localized, with long-term implications). Current conditions in areas 

adjacent to the Monument, including pinyon-juniper woodland tree density, cheatgrass invasion, 

insect infestation mortality, poor soil conditions and long-term drought, may increase the 

likelihood of high-intensity, stand-replacement wildfires. The impacts of unchecked fuels buildup may complicate suppression and control efforts, and possibly compromise firefighter safety. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

302 

Table 4-11 Comparison of Impacts to Fuels and Fire Management 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Fuels and Fire 

Conflicting objectives 

increased risk of 

damage to Monument 

resources; 

compromised public 

and firefighter safety. 

Eliminate conflicts 

between cultural 

resource preservation and use of natural fire 

as a resource 

management tool. 

Eliminate conflicts 

between cultural 

resource preservation and use of natural fire 

as a resource 

management tool. 

Eliminate conflicts 

between cultural 

resource preservation and use of natural fire 

as a resource 

management tool. 

Eliminate conflicts 

between cultural 

resource preservation and use of natural fire 

as a resource 

management tool. 

Cultural Resources 

Propose no specific 

hazardous fuel 

reduction. 

Reduce hazardous 

fuel at 13 developed 

sites. 

Reduce hazardous 

fuel at 13 to 25 

developed sites. 

Reduce hazardous 

fuel at 13 to 25 

developed sites. 

Reduce hazardous 

fuel at 13 to 25 

developed sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make up to 880 acres 

available for new 

mineral leasing. 

Require hazardous 

fuel assessment, 

mitigation work, and 

fuel reduction 

treatment. 

Make up to 3,021 

acres available for 

new mineral leasing. 

Require hazardous 

fuel assessment, 

mitigation work, and 

fuel reduction 

treatment. 

Make up to 24,462 

acres available for 

new mineral leasing. 

Require hazardous 

fuel assessment, 

mitigation work, and 

fuel reduction 

treatment. 

Make up to 880 acres 

available for new 

mineral leasing. 

Require hazardous 

fuel assessment, 

mitigation work, and 

fuel reduction 

treatment. 

Rangeland Resources Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. Permit 8,368 AUMs. Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles of 

roads. Develop 

7 facilities. 

Manage 139 miles of 

roads. Decrease 

access for fire 

suppression. 

Develop 7 facilities. 

Manage 189 miles of 

roads. Increase 

access for fire 

suppression. 

Develop 13 facilities. 

Manage 213 miles of 

roads. Increase 

access for fire 

suppression. 

Develop 20 facilities. 

Manage 169 miles of 

road. Increase 

access for fire 

suppression. 

Develop 11 facilities. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

303 

4.2.4. Geologic Resources 

The primary goal for geologic resources in the Monument is to manage multiple-use activities in 

a manner that preserves and protects geologic objects protected under the Proclamation. The 

management objectives related to this goal include: 

 manage uses to prevent damage to sensitive geologic and geomorphologic features; 

and 

 facilitate appropriate geologic research to improve understanding of geological 

resources and processes. 

An additional goal for geologic resources management is to protect visitors from geologic 

hazards. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short- and long-term impacts to geologic resources. 

Direct beneficial impacts to geologic resources under the alternatives may include, but are not 

limited to, reduced erosion and the preservation of geologic features, including outstanding 

examples of rock formations (e.g., scenic outcrops, type sections, faults, ripple marks, crossbedding, lithified mudcracks, unconformities, and geomorphic features). Direct adverse impacts 

to geologic resources may include those actions that would physically disturb and/or destroy 

geologic features. Additional direct adverse impacts may include increased rockfalls, 

landslides, flash floods, and erosion; as well, those from human-caused actions, including those 

that mar the surface of rocks, break and/or erode rock surfaces, and/or those that result in 

unstable rock outcrops or rock falls. 

4.2.4.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Quantifying individual impacts to geologic resources is difficult because the location and extent 

of potential impacts cannot be determined. The location and extent of human-caused 

disturbance from Monument visitors cannot be predicted; neither can the location and extent of 

disturbance from oil and gas exploration and production. However, comparing disturbance 

factors in terms of miles, AUMs, and acres can provide a relative risk from each alternative. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to geologic resources include the following: 

 Estimates of disturbance were compiled from the AMS (BLM 2005b) and the RFD (BLM 

2005c). 

 Approximately 3,078 acres, or 2 percent of Monument land, is rock outcrop. 

 The number of roads predicted for construction based on new acres leased for mineral 

development, would all be new roads. 

 Federal lands within the boundary of the Monument were used as the impact analysis 

area for both individual and cumulative impacts. 

4.2.4.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to geologic resources may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific 

management actions proposed under each alternative for different resource uses. The following 

sections describe the impacts under each alternative resulting from the management of geologic 

resources, as well as those anticipated to result from the management actions proposed for 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

304 

cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and recreation and transportation 

management. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Geologic Resources Management 

Alternative I, the No Action Alternative, would continue current Monument management goals 

and objectives, including managing multiple-use activities to preserve and to protect geologic 

objects, and minimizing activities in geologic high-hazard areas. No specific management 

actions would be identified and no impacts are anticipated. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to protect geologic resources. This is 

because Alternative I protects sites from all activities except scientific, archaeological, and 

historical investigations (where surface disturbance is required to be minimal). Some impacts 

may occur because of cultural resource stabilization of 240 sites. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Approximately 80 percent of Monument lands are currently being leased. Under Alternative I, 

the remaining 20 percent would not be leased and no new wells would be drilled; therefore, no 

impacts to geologic resources would be expected from new fluid minerals management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources management, including managing to Public Land Health Standards, may 

not impact geologic resources. This is because viable forage is not generally available on 

exposed geologic resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative I, recreation management would include developing facilities on an as-needed 

basis, as well as maintaining developed sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon 

Pueblos. No new SRPs would be issued. No restrictions on rock climbing in the Monument 

exist for this alternative. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 149 miles of roads (on 864 

acres) for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. Cross-country motorized and 

mechanized travel would be prohibited. Erosion may occur as a result of road closures and 

development. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil SSR/CSU would be applied for slopes greater than 40 percent on 

1,889 acres of rock outcrop where fossils may be present. The SSR/CSU would require an 

engineering/reclamation plan that demonstrates how site productivity would be restored, surface 

runoff would be controlled, and offsite areas would be protected from accelerated erosion. 

Additionally, surface-disturbing activities would not be allowed during extended wet periods. 

This restriction may result in beneficial impacts to geologic resources. 

Alternative II

Geologic Resources Management 

Geologic resources management under Alternative II would include restricting access to 

sensitive geologic features, encouraging interdisciplinary projects, identifying high-hazard areas 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

305 

(landslides and rockfalls), and requiring a geologic hazard analysis prior to construction 

projects. These management actions may result in beneficial impacts to geologic resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Preservation of Monument cultural resource communities, sites, and isolated finds would serve 

to protect geologic resources. This is because Alternative II would protect large blocks of land 

from all activities, except scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations (where surface 

disturbance is required to be minimal). Some impacts may occur because of the development 

of 13 sites. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

The overall goal for fluid minerals management is to ensure the proper care and management of 

the objects protected under the Proclamation prior to authorizing continued exploration, 

development, production, and reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, and CO2) in 

the Monument. Under Alternative II, no direct impacts to cultural resource communities, sites, 

and/or to isolated finds would be allowed. New leases would have NGD/NSO stipulations that 

protect cultural, natural, and scenic resources, and Monument objects. New leases would only 

be allowed for the purposes of promoting conservation of oil and gas resources and/or to protect 

against drainage in existing reservoirs under production. Under Alternative II, up to 880 acres 

would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. A total of up to 18 acres of new 

ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. 

Temporary access roads would require reclamation. If water is present in washes, alluvial 

valleys, and/or in perennial water features, geophysical vehicles would only be allowed to cross 

channels on BLM-designated roads. Additionally, in areas where riparian vegetation is present, 

geophysical vehicles could only cross on BLM-designated roads. Seismic operations requiring 

bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource 

NGD/NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of where fossils may 

be present) would apply, and BMPs would be included in condition of approval (COAs) for new 

leases. 

Based on these restrictions, and on the small amount of new oil and gas development, few or 

no impacts to geologic resources would be expected from new fluid minerals management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources management, including managing to Public Land Health Standards, may 

not impact geologic resources because viable forage is not generally available on exposed 

geologic resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative II, recreation management would include managing for custodial purposes, 

user conflicts, visitor safety, and resource protection. Developed sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, 

and Sand Canyon Pueblos would be maintained. Approximately 8,211 acres would be 

managed as visitation areas, and 157,124 acres would be managed as backcountry areas. No 

new SRPs would be issued, and existing SRPs would be allowed to expire. Rock climbing 

would not be allowed in the Monument. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 139 miles of roads (on 806 

acres) for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. There would be no roads 

specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, and/or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel 

would be allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized 

and mechanized travel would be prohibited. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

306 

Recreation and transportation management may result in beneficial impacts to geologic 

resources in that they may reduce road development in the Monument. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of 

rock outcrop where fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be required for all 

ground-disturbing activities. This restriction, along with the BMPs, may result in beneficial 

impacts to geologic resources. 

Alternative III

Geologic Resources Management 

Geologic resources management under Alternative III would include restricting access to 

sensitive geologic features, encouraging interdisciplinary projects, identifying high-hazard areas 

(landslides and rockfalls), and requiring a geologic hazard analysis prior to construction 

projects. These management actions may result in beneficial impacts to geologic resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Preservation of Monument cultural resource communities and sites would serve to protect 

geologic resources. This is because Alternative III would protect large blocks of land from all 

ground-disturbing activities, except scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations 

(where surface disturbance is required to be minimal). Some impacts may occur as a result of 

cultural resource development of 13 to 25 sites; however, development would likely be small 

scale and site specific. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

The overall goal for fluid minerals management is to ensure the proper care and management of 

the objects protected under the Proclamation prior to authorizing continued exploration, 

development, production, and reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, and CO2) in 

the Monument. Under Alternative III, no direct impacts to cultural resource communities and 

sites would be allowed. New leases would have NGD/NSO stipulations that protect cultural, 

natural, and scenic resources, and Monument objects. Under Alternative III, up to 3,021 acres 

would be available for leasing. A total of 73 acres of new ground disturbance would be possible 

under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. 

Temporary access roads would require reclamation. If water is present in washes, alluvial 

valleys, and/or in perennial water features, geophysical vehicles would only be allowed to cross 

channels on BLM-designated roads. Additionally, in areas where riparian vegetation is present, 

geophysical vehicles could only cross on BLM-designated roads. Seismic operations requiring 

bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource 

NGD/NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of rock outcrop where 

fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. 

Based on these restrictions, few impacts to geologic resources would be expected from new 

fluid minerals management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources management, including managing to Public Land Health Standards, may 

not impact geologic resources because viable forage is not generally available on exposed 

geologic resources. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

307 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative III, recreation management would include a destination management strategy, 

including establishing destinations for regional visitors, actively marketing communities in the 

Four Corners area, and providing specific public access points and appropriate support 

facilities. Up to approximately 18,875 acres would be managed as visitation areas and 146,460 

acres would be managed as backcountry areas. No new SRPs would be issued, but existing 

SRPs could be renewed. Rock climbing would not be allowed in the Monument. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 189 miles of roads (on 1,096 

acres) for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. There would be roads specifically 

designated for OHV, mountain bike, and/or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would be 

allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and 

mechanized travel would be prohibited. 

Recreation and transportation management may result in beneficial impacts to geologic 

resources, in that they may reduce erosion by prohibiting rock climbing in the Monument. 

However, the increase in road mileage and in the associated ground disturbance may be an 

adverse impact. 

Other Resources Management 

A soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of rock outcrop where 

fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing 

activities. This restriction, along with the BMPs, may result in beneficial impacts to geologic 

resources. 

Alternative IV

Geologic Resources Management 

Geologic resources management under Alternative IV would include restricting access to 

sensitive geologic features, encouraging interdisciplinary projects, identifying high-hazard areas 

(landslides and rockfalls), and requiring a geologic hazard analysis prior to construction 

projects. These management actions may result in beneficial impacts to geologic resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Preservation of Monument cultural resource communities and sites would serve to protect 

geologic resources. This is because Alternative IV would protect large blocks of land from all 

ground-disturbing activities, except scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations 

(where surface disturbance is required to be minimal). Some impacts may occur as the result of 

cultural resource development of 13 to 25 sites; however, development would likely include 

stabilization and/or be small scale and site specific. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

The overall goal for fluid minerals management is to ensure the proper care and management of 

the objects protected under the Proclamation prior to authorizing continued exploration, 

development, production, and reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, and CO2) in 

the Monument. Under Alternative IV, no direct impacts to cultural resource communities and 

sites would be allowed. New leases would have NGD/NSO stipulations that protect cultural, 

natural, and scenic resources, and Monument objects. Under Alternative IV, up to 24,462 acres 

would be available for leasing. A total of up to 447 acres of new ground disturbance would be 

possible under this alternative. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

308 

In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, seismic operation-related work using 

bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment, as necessary, would be allowed to mitigate 

impacts to objects identified in the Proclamation. If water is visible in the channel at washes, 

alluvial valleys, and/or in perennial water features, or where riparian vegetation is present, 

Alternative IV would require that all vehicles associated with geophysical operations cross only 

at authorized locations following field-based exemption. Soil resource NGD/NSO stipulations 

for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of rock outcrop where fossils may be 

present) would apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. 

Based on these restrictions, and on the number of new well pads, adverse impacts to geologic 

resources, including surface marring and erosion, may be expected from fluid minerals 

management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources management, including managing to Public Land Health Standards, may 

not impact geologic resources due to the fact that viable forage is not generally available on 

exposed geologic resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative IV, recreation management would include a destination management 

strategy, including establishing destinations for national and international visitors, and providing 

specific public access points, visitor facilities, access, and appropriate support facilities. 

Approximately 47,056 acres would be managed as visitation areas and 118,279 acres would be 

managed as backcountry areas. New SRPs would be issued on a case-by-case basis. Rock 

climbing would not be allowed in the Monument. 

The Monument travel system would include 213 miles of roads (on 1,235 acres) for motorized, 

mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. There would be roads specifically designated for OHV, 

mountain bike, and/or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would only be allowed on roads 

designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and mechanized travel 

would be prohibited. 

Recreation management may result in beneficial impacts to geologic resources in that it would 

prohibit rock climbing and reduce erosion in the Monument. However, management may 

increase erosion as a result of increased road development. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of 

rock outcrop where fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be required for all 

ground-disturbing activities. This restriction, along with the BMPs, may result in beneficial 

impacts to geologic resources. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Geologic Resources Management 

Geologic resources management under Alternative V would include restricting access to 

sensitive geologic features, encouraging interdisciplinary projects, identifying high-hazard areas 

(landslides and rockfalls), and requiring a geologic hazard analysis prior to construction 

projects. These management actions may result in beneficial impacts to geologic resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to protect geologic resources. This is 

because Alternative V would protect cultural resource communities and sites from all ground-
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

309 

disturbing activities, except scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations (where 

surface disturbance is required to be minimal). Some impacts may occur as a result of the 

development of 13 to 25 cultural resource sites; however, development would likely include 

stabilization and/or be small scale and site specific. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative V, no direct impacts to cultural resource communities and sites would be 

allowed. New leases would have NGD/NSO stipulations that protect cultural, natural, and 

scenic resources, and Monument objects. New leases would only be allowed for the purposes 

of promoting conservation of oil and gas resources and/or to protect against drainage in existing 

reservoirs under production. Under Alternative V, up to 880 acres would be available for leasing 

to protect against drainage. A total of up to 18 acres of new ground disturbance would be 

possible under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. 

Temporary access roads would require reclamation. If water is present in washes, alluvial 

valleys, and/or in perennial water features, geophysical vehicles would only be allowed to cross 

channels on BLM-designated roads. Additionally, in areas where riparian vegetation is present, 

geophysical vehicles could only cross on BLM-designated roads. Seismic operations requiring 

bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource 

NGD/NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of rock outcrop where 

fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. 

Based on these restrictions, little or no impacts to geologic resources would be expected from 

fluid minerals management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources management, including managing to Public Land Health Standards, may 

not impact geologic resources. This is because viable forage is not generally available on 

exposed geologic resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative V, recreation management would include a combination of strategies. 

Undeveloped areas with minimal facilities would be combined with destination management 

strategies for Painted Hand and Sand Canyon Pueblos, the AHC, and Lowry Pueblo RMZs. 

Approximately 7,875 acres would be managed as visitation areas and 157,460 acres would be 

managed as backcountry areas. Up to 10 SRPs would be issued. Rock climbing would be 

allowed in the Monument in designated sites only. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 169 miles of roads (on 980 

acres) for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. There would be roads specifically 

designated for OHV, mountain bike, and/or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would only be 

allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and 

mechanized travel would be prohibited. 

Recreation management may result in adverse impacts to geologic resources in that it allows 

rock climbing in the Monument; however, this activity would be restricted to a very few specific 

sites. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of 

rock outcrop where fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be required for all 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

310 

ground-disturbing activities. This restriction, along with the BMPs, may result in beneficial 

impacts to geologic resources. 

4.2.4.3. Geologic Resources Management Impact Comparison 

The geologic resources impact comparison is shown in Table 4-12. This table compares the 

consequences of resource management actions from each alternative on geologic resources. 

4.2.4.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Mineral development on private lands within the Monument may result in cumulative impacts, 

including increased erosion and potential rockfall or landslide hazards. Ground disturbance 

occurs when additional well pads, pipelines, compressor stations, roads and/or other facilities 

are built. Mineral development on private land is not subject to the BLM BMPs or to other 

mitigation measures. 

New wells would be drilled within existing leased areas on Federal lands within the Monument, 

which may result in up to 883 acres of disturbance. Existing stipulations would be enforced, 

including NGDs/NSOs that protect scenic, natural, cultural, and/or archaeological values, and 

that protect rare flora and fauna species habitats. SSRs/CSUs would be established for surface 

disturbance on slopes greater than 40 percent, protection of perennial water impoundments and 

streams, and riparian/wetland vegetation zones. COAs would be included in all new leases. 

Additional restrictions would apply to geophysical operations. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

311 

Table 4-12 Comparison of Impacts to Geologic Resources 

Type of Resource 

Use or Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Geologic Resources Take no specific management actions. 

Restrict access to 

sensitive sites. 

Restrict public 

activities in highhazard areas. 

Restrict access to 

sensitive sites. 

Restrict public 

activities in highhazard areas. 

Restrict access to 

sensitive sites. 

Restrict public 

activities in highhazard areas. 

Restrict access to 

sensitive sites. 

Restricts public 

activities in highhazard areas sites. 

Cultural Resources Develop new sites for controlled visitation. Develop 13 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop up to 13 to 25 sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make 880 new acres 

available for lease 

(with up to 18 acres 

of disturbance). 

Apply 

NGD/NSO, 

CSU/SSR, TL, and 

COA restrictions. 

Make up to 3,021 

new acres available 

for lease (with up to 

73 acres of 

disturbance). Apply 

NGD/NSO, 

CSU/SSR, TL, and 

COA restrictions. 

Make up to 24,462 

new acres available 

for lease (with up to 

447 acres of 

disturbance). Apply 

NGD/NSO, 

CSU/SSR, TL, and 

COA restrictions. 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

lease (with up to 18 

acres of disturbance). 

Apply NGD/NSO, 

CSU/SSR, TL, and 

COA restrictions. 

Rangeland Resources No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Manage 

149 miles of roads 

(with 864 acres of disturbance.). No 

restrictions on rock 

climbing. 

Manage 

139 miles of roads 

(with 806 acres of 

disturbance). 

Prohibit rock 

climbing. 

Manage 189 miles of 

roads (with 1,096 

acres of disturbance). 

Prohibit rock 

climbing. 

Manage 213 miles of 

roads (with 1,235 

acres of disturbance). 

Prohibit rock 

climbing. 

Manage 169 miles of 

roads (with 980 acres 

of disturbance). Allow 

rock climbing at 

specific sites. 

Other Resources: Apply SSR/CSU to protect slopes greater Apply NGD/NSO for slopes steeper than Apply NGD/NSO for slopes steeper than Apply NGD/NSO for slopes steeper than Apply NGD/NSO for slopes steeper than 30 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

312 

Table 4-12 Comparison of Impacts to Geologic Resources 

Type of Resource 

Use or Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Soil Resources than 40 percent 

(21,036 acres, with 

1,889 acres of rock 

outcrop), 

30 percent (36,504 

acres, with 2,319 

acres of rock 

outcrop). 

30 percent (36,504 

acres, with 2,319 

acres of rock 

outcrop). 

30 percent (36,504 

acres, with 2,319 

acres of rock 

outcrop). 

percent (36,504 acres, 

with 2,319 acres of 

rock outcrop). 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

313 

4.2.5. Paleontological Resources 

The primary goals for paleontological resources management in the Monument are to preserve 

and protect scientifically important paleontological resources, and to ensure that they are 

available for appropriate uses by present and future generations. The management objectives 

related to this goal include: 

 identify areas and geological units containing paleontological resources and evaluate the 

potential of such areas to contain vertebrate fossils and/or noteworthy occurrences of 

invertebrate or plant fossils; 

 develop management recommendations (including mitigation measures in specific 

locations) to promote scientific research and other uses of fossils; 

 protect and preserve important paleontological localities from natural and human-caused 

impacts; and 

 monitor areas where important paleontological localities have been identified. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short- and long-term impacts to paleontological resources. 

Direct adverse impacts to paleontological resources under the alternatives may include, but are 

not limited to, those that would physically disturb and/or destroy fossils and fossil localities. 

Erosion may have an adverse impact on fossils by downcutting strata and by exposing fossils to 

degradation, weathering, theft, and/or vandalism. Direct impacts are caused by human activity, 

in general, and may directly or indirectly result in the loss and/or damage to paleontological 

resources as a result of erosion, trampling, ground disturbance, and/or vandalism and illegal 

collecting. Beneficial impacts occur when fossil resources are protected. 

4.2.5.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Quantifying individual adverse impacts to paleontological resources is difficult because the 

location and extent of potential impacts cannot be determined. The location and extent of 

human-caused disturbance from Monument visitors cannot be predicted; neither can the 

location and extent of disturbance from oil and gas exploration and production. However, the 

risk to paleontological resources can be comparatively measured by quantifying disturbance 

factors in terms of miles or acres. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to paleontological resources include the following: 

 Approximately 3,078 acres, or 2 percent of Monument land, is rock outcrop. 

 Approximately 1,016 acres, or 33 percent of Monument outcrop, are likely to contain 

fossils. 

 Federal lands within the boundary of the Monument were used as the impacts analysis 

area. 

 The number of roads predicted for construction, based on new acres leased for mineral 

development, would all be new roads. 

4.2.5.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to paleontological resources may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific 

management actions proposed under each alternative for different resource uses. The following 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

314 

sections describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management 

actions proposed for paleontological resources, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and 

recreation and transportation. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Paleontological Resources Management 

Alternative I, the No Action Alternative, would continue current Monument management goals, 

objectives, and actions, including completing the ongoing compilation and analysis of available 

paleontological resource data; restricting paleontological collecting to scientific purposes (and 

only then through use of valid BLM Paleontological Resources Use Permits); and prohibiting 

recreational fossil collecting, regardless of type (vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, and trace 

fossils). The beneficial impacts resulting from these management actions are the preservation 

of fossils and fossil localities. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to protect paleontological resources. 

This is because Alternative I would protect sites from all activities, except scientific, 

archaeological, and historical investigations (where surface disturbance is required to be 

minimal). Some adverse impacts may occur as a result of cultural resource stabilization of up to 

240 sites; however, management techniques used to stabilize cultural resources may also 

stabilize erosive and/or unstable paleontological resources as well. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Approximately 80 percent of the Monument lands are currently being leased. Under Alternative 

I, the remaining 20 percent would not be leased and no new wells would be drilled; therefore, no 

impacts to paleontological resources would be expected from fluid minerals management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources management may not impact paleontological resources because viable 

forage is not generally available on exposed rock outcrops. Areas where livestock may have 

the most impact on fossils are in the limited riparian areas where springs or streams have cut 

into fossiliferous strata, or in overhangs and/or rock shelters. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative I, recreation management would include developing facilities on an as-needed 

basis, as well as maintaining developed sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon 

Pueblos. No new SRPs would be issued. No restrictions exist for rock climbing in the 

Monument. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 149 miles of roads (on 864 

acres) for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. Cross-country motorized and 

mechanized travel would be prohibited. 

The existing conditions for transportation and recreation allow for access to remote areas in the 

Monument. Although there are no fossil localities reported in remote areas, some outcrops may 

potentially contain fossils. Adverse impacts due to erosion and increased access (which may, in 

turn, result in vandalism and/or unauthorized fossil collecting) may occur. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil SSR/CSU would be applied for slopes greater than 40 percent, 

including approximately 1,889 acres of rock outcrop where fossils may be present. The 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

315 

SSR/CSU would require an engineering/reclamation plan that demonstrates how site 

productivity would be restored, surface runoff would be controlled, and offsite areas would be 

protected from accelerated erosion. Additionally, surface-disturbing activities would not be 

allowed during extended wet periods. This restriction may result in beneficial impacts to 

paleontological resources in that it may reduce erosion. 

Alternative II

Paleontological Resources Management 

The proposed management actions under Alternative II may provide beneficial impacts to 

paleontology and fossil management in the Monument. Implementing a program for evaluating 

and monitoring fossil localities, establishing a paleontological research standard for the 

Monument, and requiring paleontological clearances and/or mitigation prior to surface 

disturbance may benefit paleontological resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, cultural resource development would be marketed as an “outdoormuseum,” allowing visitors to experience Monument resources through self-discovery. This 

may have adverse impacts on paleontological resources due to erosion and/or unauthorized 

fossil collecting. The preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to protect 

paleontological resources. This is because Alternative II would protect sites from all activities, 

except scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations (where surface disturbance is 

required to be minimal). 

Fluid Minerals Management 

The overall goal for fluid minerals management in the Monument is to ensure the proper care 

and management of the objects protected under the Proclamation prior to authorizing continued 

exploration, development, production, and/or reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, 

and CO2). Under Alternative II, no direct impacts to cultural resource communities, sites, and/or 

isolated finds would be allowed. New leases would have NGD/NSO stipulations that protect 

cultural, natural, and scenic resources, and Monument objects. New leases would only be 

allowed for the purposes of promoting conservation of oil and gas resources and/or to protect 

against drainage in existing reservoirs under production. Under Alternative II, up to 880 acres 

would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. A total of up to 18 acres of new 

ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. 

Temporary access roads would require reclamation. If water is present in washes, alluvial 

valleys, and/or in perennial water features, geophysical vehicles would only be allowed to cross 

channels on BLM-designated roads. Additionally, in areas where riparian vegetation is present, 

geophysical vehicles could only cross on BLM-designated roads. Seismic operations requiring 

bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource 

NGD/NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of rock outcrop where 

fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. 

Overall, with the limited lease area and protective measures in place, little or no impacts to 

paleontological resources for Alternative II would be expected from fluid minerals management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources management actions for Alternative II may provide beneficial measures 

for paleontological resources. Livestock may have the most impact on fossils in the limited 

riparian areas where springs or streams cut into fossiliferous strata, or in overhangs and rock 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

316 

shelters. Reducing the number of AUMs, especially those with riparian areas, may reduce 

erosion. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative II, recreation management would include managing for custodial purposes, 

user conflicts, visitor safety, and resource protection. Developed sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, 

and Sand Canyon Pueblos would be maintained. Approximately 8,211 acres would be 

managed as visitation areas, and 157,124 acres would be managed as backcountry areas. No 

new SRPs would be issued, and existing SRPs would be allowed to expire. Rock climbing 

would not be allowed in the Monument. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 139 miles of roads (on 806 

acres) for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. There would be no roads 

specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, and/or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel 

would only be allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country 

motorized and mechanized travel would be prohibited. 

Alternative II transportation and recreation management may provide beneficial impacts to 

paleontological resources in that it reduces road mileage. Limiting public access may reduce 

the threat of vandalism and/or unauthorized fossil collecting. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of 

rock outcrop where fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be required for all 

ground-disturbing activities. This restriction, along with the BMPs, may result in beneficial 

impacts to paleontological resources. 

Alternative III

Paleontological Resources Management 

The proposed management actions under Alternative III may provide a beneficial impact to 

paleontology and fossil management in the Monument. Implementing a program for evaluating 

and monitoring fossil localities, establishing a paleontological research standard for the 

Monument, and requiring paleontological clearances and/or mitigation prior to surface 

disturbance may benefit paleontological resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, cultural resource development would be marketed as an “outdoormuseum,” allowing visitors to experience Monument resources through self-discovery. This 

may have adverse impacts on paleontological resources due to erosion and/or unauthorized 

fossil collecting. Preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to protect 

paleontological resources. This is due to the fact that Alternative III would protect sites from all 

activities, except scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations (where surface 

disturbance is required to be minimal). 

Fluid Minerals Management 

The overall goal for fluid minerals management is to ensure the proper care and management of 

the objects protected under the Proclamation prior to authorizing continued exploration, 

development, production, and reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, and CO2) in 

the Monument. Under Alternative III, no direct impacts to cultural resource communities and 

sites would be allowed. New leases would have NGD/NSO stipulations to protect cultural, 

natural, and scenic resources, and Monument objects. Under Alternative III, up to 3,021 acres 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

317 

would be available for leasing. A total of up to 73 acres of new ground disturbance would be 

possible under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. 

Temporary access roads would require reclamation. If water is present in washes, alluvial 

valleys, and/or in perennial water features, geophysical vehicles would only be allowed to cross 

channels on BLM-designated roads. Additionally, in areas where riparian vegetation is present, 

geophysical vehicles could only cross on BLM-designated roads. Seismic operations requiring 

bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource 

NGD/NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of rock outcrop where 

fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. 

With the limited lease area and protective measures in place, little or no impacts to 

paleontological resources would be expected for fluid minerals management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources management actions for Alternative III may provide beneficial measures 

for paleontological resources. Livestock may have the most impact on fossils in the limited 

riparian areas where springs or streams cut into fossiliferous strata, or in overhangs and rock 

shelters. Reducing the number of AUMs, especially those with riparian areas, would reduce 

erosion. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative III, recreation management would include a destination management strategy 

for regional visitors, actively marketing communities in the Four Corners area, and providing 

specific public access points and appropriate support facilities. Approximately 18,875 acres 

would be managed as visitation areas, and 146,460 acres would be managed as backcountry 

areas. No new SRPs would be issued, and existing SRPs could be renewed. Rock climbing 

would not be allowed in the Monument. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 189 miles of roads (on 1,096 

acres) for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. There would be roads specifically 

designated for OHV, mountain bike, and/or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would only be 

allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and 

mechanized travel would be prohibited. 

Transportation and recreation management for Alternative III may result in potential adverse 

impacts to paleontological resources due to the increase in road mileage. Increased recreation 

and transportation opportunities may increase erosion as a result of more ground disturbance 

from a greater number of developed sites, and from new road development. The amount of 

paleontological resources potentially impacted would likely be very small. Expanding public 

access may increase the threat of vandalism and/or unauthorized fossil collecting. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of 

rock outcrop where fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be required for all 

ground-disturbing activities. These restrictions may result in beneficial impacts to 

paleontological resources. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

318 

Alternative IV

Paleontological Resources Management 

The proposed management actions under Alternative IV would provide a beneficial impact to 

paleontology and fossil management in the Monument. Implementing a program for evaluating 

and monitoring fossil localities, establishing a paleontological research standard for the 

Monument, and requiring paleontological clearances and/or mitigation prior to surface 

disturbance may benefit paleontological resource use. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, cultural resource development would be marketed as an “outdoormuseum,” allowing visitors to experience Monument resources through self-discovery. This 

may have potential adverse impacts on paleontological resources due to erosion and/or to 

unauthorized fossil collecting. The preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to 

protect paleontological resources. This is because Alternative IV would protect sites from all 

activities, except scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations (where surface 

disturbance is required to be minimal). 

Fluid Minerals Management 

The overall goal for fluid minerals management is to ensure the proper care and management of 

the objects protected under the Proclamation prior to authorizing continued exploration, 

development, production, and reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, and CO2) in 

the Monument. Under Alternative IV, no direct impacts to cultural resource communities and 

sites would be allowed. New leases would have NGD/NSO stipulations that protect cultural, 

natural, and scenic resources, and Monument objects. Under Alternative IV, up to 24,462 acres 

would be available for leasing. A total of up to 447 acres of new ground disturbance would be 

possible under this alternative. 

In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, seismic operation-related work using 

bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment, as necessary, would be allowed to mitigate 

impacts to objects identified in the Proclamation. If water is visible in the channel at washes, 

alluvial valleys, and/or in perennial water features, or where riparian vegetation is present, 

Alternative IV would require that all vehicles associated with geophysical operations cross only 

at authorized locations following field-based exemption. Soil resource NGD/NSO stipulations 

for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of rock outcrop where fossils may be 

present) would apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. Although proactive 

measures would be in place, the large area of disturbance associated with this alternative may 

increase the possibility of disturbance to paleontological resources. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources management may not impact paleontological resources due to the fact 

that viable forage is not generally available on exposed rock outcrops. Areas where livestock 

may have the most impact on fossils are in the limited riparian areas where springs or streams 

have cut into fossiliferous strata, or in overhangs or rock shelters. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative IV, recreation management would include a destination management 

strategy, including establishing destinations for national and international visitors, and providing 

specific public access points, visitor facilities, access, and appropriate support facilities. 

Approximately 47,056 acres would be managed as visitation areas, and 118,279 acres would be 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

319 

managed as backcountry areas. New SRPs would be issued on a case-by-case basis. Rock 

climbing would not be allowed in the Monument. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 213 miles of roads (on 1,235 

acres) for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. There would be no roads 

specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, and/or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel 

would only be allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country 

motorized and mechanized travel would be prohibited. 

Transportation and recreation management for Alternative IV may result in potential adverse 

impacts to paleontological resources due to the increase in road mileage. Increased recreation 

and transportation opportunities may increase erosion as a result of more ground disturbance 

from a greater number of developed sites, as well as from new road development. The amount 

of paleontological resources potentially impacted would likely be very small. Expanding public 

access may increase the threat of vandalism and/or unauthorized fossil collecting. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of 

rock outcrop where fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be required for all 

ground-disturbing activities. These restrictions may result in beneficial impacts to 

paleontological resources. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Paleontological Resources Management 

The proposed management actions under Alternative V would provide a beneficial impact to 

paleontology and fossil management in the Monument. Implementing a program for evaluating 

and monitoring fossil localities, establishing a paleontological research standard for the 

Monument, and requiring paleontological clearances and/or mitigation prior to surface 

disturbance may benefit paleontological resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, cultural resource development would be marketed as an “outdoor 

museum,” allowing visitors to experience Monument resources through self-discovery. This 

may have potential adverse impacts on paleontological resources due to erosion and/or 

unauthorized fossil collecting. The preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to 

protect paleontological resources. Alternative V would protect sites from all activities, except 

scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations (where surface disturbance is required to 

be minimal). 

Fluid Minerals Management 

The overall goal for fluid minerals management is to ensure the proper care and management of 

the objects protected under the Proclamation prior to authorizing continued exploration, 

development, production, and reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, and CO2) in 

the Monument. Under Alternative V, no direct impacts to cultural resource communities and 

sites would be allowed. New leases would have NGD/NSO stipulations that protect cultural, 

natural, and scenic resources, and Monument objects. New leases would only be allowed for 

the purposes of promoting conservation of oil and gas resources and/or to protect against 

drainage in existing reservoirs under production. Under Alternative V, up to 880 acres would be 

available for leasing to protect against drainage. A total of up to 18 acres of new ground 

disturbance would be possible under this alternative. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

320 

Under this alternative, geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. 

Temporary access roads would require reclamation. If water is present in washes, alluvial 

valleys, and/or in perennial water features, geophysical vehicles would only be allowed to cross 

channels on BLM-designated roads. Additionally, in areas where riparian vegetation is present, 

geophysical vehicles could only cross on BLM-designated roads. Seismic operations requiring 

bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource 

NGD/NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of rock outcrop where 

fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. 

With the limited lease area and protective measures in place, little or no impacts to 

paleontological resources would be expected from fluid minerals management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources management actions for Alternative V would provide beneficial measures 

for paleontological resources. Livestock may have the most impact on fossils in the limited 

riparian areas where springs or streams cut into fossiliferous strata, or in overhangs and rock 

shelters. Reducing the number of AUMs, especially those with riparian areas, may reduce 

erosion. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative V, recreation management would include a combination of strategies. 

Undeveloped areas with minimal facilities would be combined with destination management 

strategies for Painted Hand and Sand Canyon Pueblos, the AHC, and Lowry Pueblo RMZs. 

Approximately 7,875 acres would be managed as visitation areas, and 157,460 acres would be 

managed as backcountry areas. Up to 10 new SRPs would be issued. Rock climbing would be 

allowed in designated sites only. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 169 miles of roads (on 980 

acres) for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. There would be roads specifically 

designated for OHV, mountain bike, and/or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would only be 

allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and 

mechanized travel would be prohibited. 

Transportation and recreation management for Alternative V may result in potential adverse 

impacts to paleontological resources due to the increase in road mileage. Increased recreation 

and transportation opportunities may increase erosion as a result of more ground disturbance 

from a greater number of developed sites, as well as from new road development. The amount 

of paleontological resources potentially impacted would likely be very small. Expanding public 

access may increase the threat of vandalism and/or unauthorized fossil collecting. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (on 2,319 acres of 

rock outcrop where fossils may be present) would apply, and BMPs would be required for all 

ground-disturbing activities. These restrictions may result in beneficial impacts to 

paleontological resources. 

4.2.5.3. Paleontological Resources Management Impact Comparison 

The paleontological resource impact comparison is shown in Table 4-13. This table compares 

the consequences of resource management actions from each alternative on paleontological 

resources. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

321 

Paleontological resources are protected, in part, by all alternatives through the prohibition on 

recreational (non-permitted) collecting of fossils. However, rock and fossil enthusiasts have 

traditionally collected in the area. Overall, any increase in public access, livestock grazing, road 

development, and/or fluid minerals development may impact paleontological resources 

adversely due to vandalism and/or increased erosion. However, in addition to paleontological 

resources management, other resource management actions may minimize these adverse 

impacts by controlling public access through a variety of road designations, implementing 

protective stipulations and BMPs, and limiting the numbers of AUMs. 

4.2.5.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Mineral development on private lands within and around the Monument may result in cumulative 

impacts, including, increased erosion and fossil collecting associated with ground disturbance 

when additional well pads, pipelines, compressor stations, roads and/or other facilities are built. 

Mineral development on private land is not subject to the BLM BMPs or to other mitigation 

measures. 

New wells would be drilled within existing leased areas in the Monument, which may result in 

880 acres of disturbance. Existing stipulations would be enforced, including NGDs/NSOs that 

protect scenic, natural, cultural, and archaeological values, and that protect rare flora and fauna 

species habitats, where they apply. SSRs/CSUs would be established for surface disturbance 

on slopes greater than 40 percent, to protection of perennial water impoundments and streams, 

and to protect riparian/wetland vegetation zones. COAs would be included in all new leases. 

Additional restrictions would apply to geophysical operations. 

Collecting fossils is not restricted on private land. Regionally, the area is known for its fossil 

resources and attracts collectors from around the world. As long as there is a commercial 

demand for these resources, pressure to collect and sell would continue. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

322 

Table 4-13 Comparison of Impacts to Paleontological Resources 

Type of Land Use 

or Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Paleontological 

Resources 

Prohibit recreational 

fossil collecting. 

Prohibit recreational 

fossil collecting. 

Require clearances 

and/or mitigation. 

Prohibit recreational 

fossil collecting. 

Require clearances 

and/or mitigation. 

Prohibit recreational 

fossil collecting. 

Require clearances 

and/or mitigation. 

Prohibit recreational 

fossil collecting. 

Require clearances 

and/or mitigation 

required. 

Cultural Resources Develop new sites for controlled visitation. Develop 13 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites.

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make 880 new acres 

available for lease. 

Allow 2 new well 

pads; 

1 mile of new road 

(with 18 total acres of 

disturbance). Apply

NGD/NSO, 

CSU/SSR, TL, and 

COA restrictions. 

Make 3,021 new acres 

available for lease. 

Allow 8 new well pads; 

3 miles of new roads 

(with 73 total acres of 

disturbance). Apply 

NGD/NSO, CSU/SSR, 

TL, and COA 

restrictions. 

Make 24,462 new acres 

available for lease. 

Allow 59 new well pads; 

19 miles of new roads 

(with 

447 total acres of 

disturbance). Apply 

NGD/NSO, CSU/SSR, 

TL, and COA 

restrictions. 

Make 880 new acres 

available for lease. 

Allow 2 new well pads; 

1 mile of new road 

(with 18 total acres of 

disturbance). Apply 

NGD/NSO, CSU/SSR, 

TL, and COA 

restrictions. 

Rangeland Resources Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. Permit 8,368 AUMs. Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles of 

roads (with 864 acres 

of disturbance). 

Develop 7 facilities. 

Manage 139 miles of 

roads (with 806 acres 

of disturbance). 

Develop 7 facilities. 

Manage 189 miles of 

roads (with 1,096 acres 

of disturbance). 

Develop 13 sites. 

Manage 213 miles of 

roads (with 1,235 acres 

of disturbance). 

Develop 20 facilities. 

Manage 169 miles of 

roads (with 980 acres 

of disturbance). 

Develop 11 facilities. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

323 

Table 4-13 Comparison of Impacts to Paleontological Resources 

Type of Land Use 

or Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Other Resources: 

Soil Resources 

Apply SSR/CSU to 

protect slopes greater 

than 40 percent 

(21,036 acres, with 

1,899 acres of rock 

outcrop). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulation for slopes 

steeper than 30 

percent (36,504 

acres, with 2,319 

acres of rock 

outcrop). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulation for slopes 

steeper than 30 

percent (36,504 acres, 

with 2,319 acres of 

rock outcrop). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulation for slopes 

steeper than 30 percent 

(36,504 acres, with 

2,319 acres of rock 

outcrop). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulation for slopes 

steeper than 30 

percent (36,504 acres, 

with 2,319 acres of 

rock outcrop). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

324 

4.2.6. Soil Resources 

The primary goal for soil resources in the Monument is to manage soil resources in a manner 

that sustains multiple-uses, and preserves and/or enhances existing ecological integrity and 

function. The management objectives related to this goal include: 

 manage to ensure that the Public Land Health Standard for upland soils is met, or that 

significant progress is being made toward meeting this standard; 

 manage uses to prevent damage to soil resources by protecting them from surface 

disturbance and by maintaining vegetation cover on slopes greater than 30 percent, as 

well as in other areas with high erosion potential; and 

 manage soil resource to support other resource management objectives. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts to soil resources. 

Beneficial impacts to soil resources under the alternatives may include, but are not limited to, 

increased soil productivity and/or soil stabilization, increased plant and litter cover, and reduced 

soil disturbance. Adverse impacts to soil resources may include, but are not limited to, the 

removal of topsoil, loss of vegetative cover, disruption of soil stability, compaction, 

contamination, reduction of soil organic matter and soil productivity, reduction and/or loss of 

litter cover, and/or loss of diversity in plant communities. 

Direct impacts to soil resources are typically caused by surface-disturbing actions that remove 

vegetative cover, loosen surface soil, result in compacted soil layers, and expose soil to wind 

and water erosion. Indirect impacts from soil disturbance may include, but are not limited to, 

reduced soil productivity, increased sedimentation, reduced infiltration, decreased air quality (as 

a result of wind erosion), and increased ground-surface runoff. 

In general, the Colorado Public Land Health Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management (BLM 1997) (Public Land Health Standards) and the livestock management 

actions delineated in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD (BLM 1985) have guided 

management of the Monument’s soil resources. In arid and semi-arid environments, livestock 

spend a disproportionate amount of time in riparian habitats; consequently, they concentrate 

much of their impacts on these ecosystems. Because soils are damp, compaction can easily 

occur. Impacts may affect riparian vegetation, stream morphology, and, eventually, water 

quality through increased erosion, compaction and/or streambank trampling. Livestock grazing 

impacts in upland areas may include, but are not limited to, reduced litter and/or vegetative 

cover, loss of native species that protect soil, and soil compaction. Once soil is exposed, both 

wind and water erosion may occur. Upland soils can wash downhill into dry, ephemeral 

canyon/gully systems and eventually reach major drainages. 

Soil resources may be impacted by many management actions. Restricted access and 

prohibitions on ground-disturbing activities at, and near, cultural resources, along with soil 

stabilization in some areas, may result in beneficial impacts to soil resources. Managing for 

Public Land Health Standards and closing livestock grazing allotments may result in reduced 

erosion and, thus, in localized beneficial impacts. Fluid minerals management may directly 

impact soil resources as a result of ground-disturbing activities, including seismic operations 

and the construction of roads, well pads, pipelines, and/or other facilities. Recreation and 

transportation management may result in increased erosion as the number of roads increases; 

however, prohibitions on cross-country motorized and/or mechanized travel may result in 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

325 

beneficial impacts. Fire may impact soil resources through the removal of plant cover, the 

destruction of surface organic matter, the alteration of soil temperature and moisture regimes 

(by altering the amount and type of plant overstory), the alteration in patterns of snow 

accumulation and snowmelt, and (if they are sufficiently hot) the modification of soil infiltration 

rates (by creating a hydrophobic or “water-repellent” surface soil). Benefits from cool surface 

fires may include the improvement of nutrient cycling (by releasing minerals from burned litter 

and duff), and the reduction of ground fuels that increase the potential for catastrophic wildfires. 

Soil resource management actions include ground-disturbance restrictions on soil disturbances; 

reclamation activities tied to fluid minerals development; closure and/or rehabilitation of roads, 

and campsites; and intensive management of livestock, such as reduction in use, better 

distribution of livestock, and/or construction of livestock exclosures. 

4.2.6.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Although it is difficult to measure individual adverse impact components in relation to soil 

resources, the number of acres of ground disturbance can be used as a relative comparison 

factor under all of the alternatives. Estimates of disturbance were compiled from the AMS (BLM 

2005b) and the RFD (BLM 2005c). The number of acres reclaimed or improved through 

increased vegetative cover and/or other methods of soil stabilization may be used to measure 

beneficial impacts. In some instances, when impacts cannot be quantified, a descriptive 

analysis is used. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to soil resources include the following: 

 Erosion can be expected from the majority of soil types present in the Monument, most 

of which are characterized as having severe water erosion and high runoff properties. 

 BMPs are required for all ground-disturbing activities. 

 Approximately 3,078 acres, or 2 percent of Monument land, is rock outcrop and not 

subject to erosion. 

 It is assumed that the number of roads predicted for construction, based on new acres 

leased for mineral development, would all be new roads. 

 Federal lands within the boundary of the Monument were used as the impacts analysis 

area. 

 Watersheds associated with the Monument were used as the cumulative impacts 

analysis area. 

4.2.6.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to soil resources may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific management 

actions proposed under each alternative for different resource uses. The following sections 

describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from management actions 

proposed for soil resources, as well as those anticipated to result from the management actions 

proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, recreation and 

transportation, and other resources. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Soil Resources Management 

Alternative I, the No Action Alternative, would continue current soil resource management 

activities. This includes reporting soil disturbing activities off Monument lands that are causing, 

or may cause, soil degradation, water-quality deterioration, and/or other damage to Monument 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

326 

resources. Management actions for this alternative would include maintaining site-specific 

erosion control measures in Cultural Resource Management Plans, maintaining soil productivity, 

minimizing erosion, minimizing human-caused soil erosion in Emphasis Areas (A – Livestock 

Management, C – Recreation Resources, H – Public Land Disposal, and L – ACECs), and 

stabilizing and rehabilitating areas with severe human-caused soil erosion. However, based on 

current conditions and trends, Public Land Health Standards are not being achieved. 

Under this alternative, a soil SSR/CSU requirement would apply for slopes greater than 40 

percent, protecting approximately 21,036 acres. Short-term impacts would be allowed on 

mineral development sites (well pads, roads, etc.); however, operating plans would need to 

demonstrate how site productivity would be restored, how surface runoff would be controlled, 

and how offsite areas would be protected from accelerated erosion. Additionally, no surfacedisturbing activities would be allowed during extended wet periods, and construction activities 

would be prohibited when soils are frozen. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to protect soil resources. This is 

because Alternative I would protect sites from all activities, except scientific, archaeological, and 

historical investigations (where surface disturbance is required to be minimal). Some impacts 

may occur as a result of cultural resource stabilization and excavation; however, techniques 

used to stabilize cultural resources typically stabilize erosive soils as well. More stabilization 

efforts would take place under this alternative than under any of the other alternatives. Impacts 

from cultural resource activities on soil resources may be isolated and short-term, with greater 

benefits realized over the long-term. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Approximately 80 percent of Monument lands are currently leased for mineral development. 

The remaining 20 percent, under Alternative I, would not be leased; therefore, no new wells 

would be drilled. No new ground disturbance is anticipated as a result of this alternative 

because there would be no new fluid minerals leases. 

Under this alternative, wells would continue to be drilled on existing leases. Existing stipulations 

would be enforced, including NSOs that protect scenic, natural, cultural, and archaeological 

values, and that protect rare flora and fauna habitats. TLs would be applied for big-game winter 

range. SSRs/CSUs would be established for surface disturbance on slopes greater than 40 

percent, perennial water impoundments and streams, and riparian/wetland vegetation zones. 

Additional restrictions would apply to geophysical operations. No impacts are anticipated from 

fluid minerals management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

A total of 8,492 active preference AUMs are currently permitted, with livestock grazing occurring 

on 95 percent of the Monument’s 165,000 acres. Alternative I would continue this current level 

of use. 

A Rangeland Health Evaluation and Ecological Site Inventory (BLM 2001i) were conducted in 

the Monument during summer 2001. The inventory identified 15 livestock grazing allotments, 

covering 141,000 acres, in need of intensive management (as described in the AMS, BLM 

2005b). As part of this inventory, the condition of the upland soil, in many areas of the 

Monument, was generally considered “at risk with a reversible loss in productive capability and 

increased vulnerability to irreversible degradation.” This condition is likely due to more than 100 

years of heavy livestock grazing on Monument land (Horn 2004). There are currently 28 

livestock grazing allotments in the Monument. Each allotment has been identified as: 1) having 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

327 

achieved; 2) making progress toward achieving; or 3) having not achieved soil standards 

(although not every acre within a given allotment falls within a single category). Tallying acres 

for each category provides an overview of soil conditions within the Monument. Specifically, five 

grazing allotments have achieved upland soil standards (10,056 acres), one allotment is making 

progress toward achieving soil standards (247 acres), and 22 allotments have not achieved 

standards (149,393 acres). 

The results of these evaluations indicate that managing for rangeland health under Alternative I 

(the No Action Alternative), has either not been successful or has been extremely slow in 

moving soil resources toward achieving Public Land Health Standards. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative I, most existing user-created roads would be allowed to reclaim naturally or 

would be actively closed and reclaimed. Reclamation of roads would disturb soils on a 

temporary basis until vegetation became established. The transportation system would include 

149 miles of roads, including 131 miles of roads open to the public for all forms of travel. No 

roads would be specifically designated for bicycle or OHV travel. A total of 864 acres may be 

disturbed as a result of roads for this alternative. 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, more than 95 percent of the Monument would remain classified as FMP C, 

with management strategies intended to ensure that wildland fire is contained within natural or 

human-made barriers/firebreaks. FMZ C areas have a lower suppression priority in multiple 

wildland fire situations than do FMZs A or B; however, the same goal of no more than 50 

percent of the unit burning over a 10-year period applies. The remaining five percent of the 

Monument includes specific cultural resource, natural resource, and/or industrial infrastructure 

locations designated as FMP B or FMP A, under which fire management and mitigation 

strategies are more aggressive. Prescribed fires may be used as forest and vegetation 

management strategies in any FMZ. 

Management of water resources under Alternative I would consist mainly of mitigation for 

disturbance to riparian corridors. Soil erosion is more likely to occur once disturbance has 

occurred, in spite of mitigation measures, than it would be if no disturbance occurred to begin 

with. The primary sources of soil erosion occurring in riparian areas are from road crossings 

and livestock grazing. This alternative targets the protection of 2,415 acres of riparian 

vegetation, and may result in beneficial impacts. 

Alternative II

Soil Resources Management 

Soil management activities are the same for Alternatives II through V. BMPs are mandatory as 

COAs for all new mineral leases and permits with NGD/NSO restrictions for areas with highly 

erosive soils and/or soils on slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres), or soils with higherosion potential. A zero-level accelerated erosion standard would be maintained, and 

rangeland use would not be allowed to reduce the protective attributes of vegetation. This is in 

order to bring attributes of vegetation to less than a Site Conservation Threshold (SCT), which is 

the kind, amount, and/or pattern of vegetation needed as a minimum on a given site to prevent 

accelerated erosion. This may help the Monument achieve Public Land Health Standards. This 

alternative actively manages soil resources through the stabilization and rehabilitation of eroded 

areas. 

There is a high potential for soil erosion on oil and gas development sites, as well as in other 

areas where localized construction occurs. However, a NGD/NSO stipulation for slopes steeper 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

328 

than 30 percent (36,504 acres) or other erosive soil may help reduce erosion. Additionally, soil 

erosion BMPs would be used during roads construction and/or other ground-disturbing 

activities, which may minimize impacts. There may be localized beneficial impacts from 

stabilization and restoration of eroded areas. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to protect soil resources. Alternative 

II would protect cultural resource communities, sites, and/or isolated finds from all activities, 

except scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations (where surface disturbance is 

required to be minimal). Some impacts may occur as a result of the development of 13 sites 

and from excavation; however, development would likely be isolated and short-term. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under the Proclamation, the overall goal for fluid minerals is to ensure the proper care and 

protection of the objects of the Monument prior to authorizing continued exploration, 

development, production, and reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, and CO2). In 

order to accomplish this, Alternative II allows for no direct impacts to cultural resource 

communities, sites, and/or to isolated finds. This would apply to both new and existing leases, 

and would provide a level of protection that greatly limits the amount of ground disturbance 

allowed. New leases would have NSO stipulations that protect cultural, natural, and scenic 

resources, and Monument objects. New leases would only be allowed for the purposes of 

promoting conservation of oil and gas resources, and/or to protect against drainage in existing 

reservoirs under production. Under this alternative, up to 880 acres could be leased to protect 

against drainage. Even if additional lands were acquired, no more than 880 acres would be 

leased. A total of up to 18 acres of new ground disturbance is anticipated as a result of new 

fluid minerals leases. 

Under this alternative, geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. 

Temporary access roads would require reclamation. If water is present in washes, alluvial 

valleys, and/or in perennial water features, geophysical vehicles would only be allowed to cross 

channels at BLM-defined roads. Additionally, in areas where riparian vegetation is present, 

geophysical vehicles could only cross on BLM-designated roads. Seismic operations requiring 

bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource NSO 

stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would apply, and soil BMPs would 

be included in COAs for new leases. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, rangeland would be managed to meet Public Land Health Standards. This 

alternative contains management actions that include closing the East and West Sand Canyon, 

Rock Creek, Goodman Gulch, and Trail Canyon allotments to grazing (6,059 acres), reducing 

the number of active AUMs to 6,437, limiting spring livestock grazing, fencing streams and 

riparian areas where other management actions do not result in achieving PFC and Public Land 

Health Standards, and considering “resting” allotments. Livestock grazing in the McElmo RNA 

(approximately 427 acres) would not be allowed. 

As a result of reduced AUMs, the closing of five allotments, and other intensive livestock 

management measures, soil conditions under Alternative II may improve as a result of 

increased vegetative cover, reduced soil compaction, and reduced impacts in riparian areas. 

These improvements may occur more rapidly under this alternative than under other 

alternatives where livestock management is less restrictive (Alternatives I, III, IV). 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

329 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

The transportation network would include motorized, mechanized, and non-motorized roads. All 

roads in the Monument have a gravel or natural surface, except County Road 10, which is chipsealed. The BLM roads provide public and administrative (agency and permittee) access to 

public lands and to inholdings of private land in the Monument. 

Under Alternative II, the Monument would be closed to cross-country travel by motorized and 

mechanized vehicles to reduce inadvertent damage to cultural resources. Established roads, as 

shown on Map 5, would be open to designated uses. No upgrades (widening, passing lanes, 

and/or other surface upgrades) would be allowed. Administrative roads would be maintained at 

a minimum level. Most existing user-created roads would be closed and reclaimed. Closed 

roads would be reclaimed within 10 years. 

Under this alternative, the transportation system would include 139 miles of roads, including 50 

miles of roads open to the public for all forms of travel. There would be no roads specifically 

designated for bicycle or OHV travel. A total of 806 acres may be disturbed as a result of roads 

for this alternative. 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, the entire Monument would be designated as FMZ B, under which fire 

management and mitigation strategies are aggressive. Prescribed fires may be used as forest 

and vegetation management strategies. As a result of the reduction in the potential for soil 

erosion, this management may be beneficial to soil resources. 

Water resources management under Alternative II is the most protective of soil resources, when 

compared to all of the other alternatives. This alternative would allow for the least amount of 

ground disturbance. This is because water resources management would consist of actively 

protecting canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains (5,312 acres). Because soil erosion 

is less likely to occur when ground disturbance is avoided, water resources management may 

result in beneficial impacts to soil resources. 

Alternative III

Soil Resources Management 

Soil management activities are the same under Alternatives II through V. BMPs are mandatory 

as COAs for all new mineral leases and permits with NGD/NSO restrictions for areas with highly 

erosive soils and/or soils on slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres). A zero-level 

accelerated erosion standard would be maintained, and rangeland use would not be allowed to 

reduce the protective attributes of vegetation. This alternative would actively manage soil 

resources through stabilization and rehabilitation. This alternative may be beneficial, may help 

reduce erosion, and may help the Monument achieve Public Land Health Standards. 

There is a high potential for soil erosion on oil and gas development sites, as well as in other 

areas where localized construction occurs. However, a NGD/NSO stipulation for slopes steeper 

than 30 percent and/or for other erosive soil may help to reduce erosion. Additionally, soil 

erosion BMPs would be used during road construction and other ground-disturbing activities, 

which may minimize impacts. There may be localized beneficial impacts from the stabilization 

and restoration of eroded areas. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to protect soil resources. This is 

because Alternative III would protect cultural resource communities and sites from all activities 

except scientific, archaeological, and historical investigations (where surface disturbance is 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

330 

required to be minimal). Some impacts may occur as a result of the development of 13 to 25 

cultural resource sites, and from excavation; however, development would likely be isolated and 

short-term. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Management of fluid minerals may directly impact soil resources as a result of seismic 

operations and other ground-disturbing activities, including the construction of roads, well pads, 

pipelines, and/or other facilities. Approximately 80 percent of Monument lands are currently 

leased. 

Under the Proclamation, the overall goal for fluid minerals is to ensure the proper care and 

protection of the Monument objects prior to authorizing continued exploration, development, 

production, and reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, and CO2). Alternative III 

would allow no direct impacts to cultural resource communities and/or to sites. This would apply 

to both new and existing leases, and would provide a level of protection that greatly limits the 

amount of ground disturbance allowed. However, this alternative would allow for more ground 

disturbance than that allowed under Alternative II, because under this alternative isolated finds 

would not be protected. Up to 3,021 acres would be leased. A total of up to 73 acres of new 

ground disturbance is anticipated as a result of new fluid minerals leases. 

Under this alternative, new leases would have NSO stipulations that protect cultural, natural, 

and scenic resources, and Monument objects. New leases would only be allowed in existing 

McElmo Dome reservoirs currently under production. Geophysical operations would be 

permitted on BLM-authorized and/or user-developed roads, as authorized on a case-by-case 

basis. Alternative III would require that all vehicles associated with geophysical operations 

cross only on BLM-authorized roads. Seismic operations requiring bulldozers and/or other 

earthmoving equipment would be restricted to legally designated roads. Soil resource NSO 

stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would apply, and soil BMPs would 

be included in COAs for new leases. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, rangeland would be managed to meet Public Land Health Standards. This 

alternative contains management actions that include closing the East and West Sand Canyon, 

Rock Creek, Goodman Gulch, and Trail Canyon allotments to grazing (6,059 acres); reducing 

the numbers of active AUMs to 8,368; limiting utilization levels; and restricting spring grazing. 

Livestock grazing in the McElmo RNA (approximately 420 acres) would be limited to winter 

months. 

As a result of reduced AUMs and closing five allotments, soil conditions under Alternative III 

may improve as a result of increased vegetative cover, reduced soil compaction, and reduced 

impacts in riparian areas. Progress may be made toward achieving Public Land Health 

Standards. These improvements may be slower to occur than under Alternative II. Under 

Alternative III, AUM levels would be greater, utilization levels would not be reduced to the same 

extent as under Alternative II, and grazing would be allowed in the RNA. This may result in an 

adverse impact to the soil resource. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under this alternative, the transportation network would include motorized, mechanized, and 

non-motorized roads. All roads in the Monument have a gravel or natural surface, except 

County Road 10, which is chip-sealed. The BLM roads provide public and administrative 

(agency and permittee) access to public lands and to inholdings of private land in the 

Monument. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

331 

Under Alternative III, the Monument would be closed to cross-country travel by motorized 

vehicles to reduce inadvertent damage to cultural resources. Established roads, as shown on 

Map 5, would be open to designated uses. No upgrades (widening, passing lanes, and/or other 

surface upgrades) would be allowed. Administrative roads would be maintained at a minimum 

level. 

Under Alternative III, many existing user-created roads would be closed and reclaimed, while 

others would remain open. Closed roads would be reclaimed within 10 years. Reclamation of 

roads would disturb soils on a temporary basis until vegetation became established. The 

transportation system would include 189 miles of roads, including 60 miles of roads open to the 

public for all forms of travel. There would be roads designated for bicycle and/or OHV travel. A 

total of 1,096 acres of ground may be disturbed as a result of this alternative. 

Other Resources Management 

Wildland fire management under Alternative III would be focused on protecting cultural 

resources, improving forest and range health, and reducing risk of damage to private property, 

crucial habitats, watershed stability, and mineral facilities. Under Alternative III, the entire 

Monument would be designated as FMZ B, under which fire management and mitigation 

strategies are aggressive. Prescribed fires may be used as forest and vegetation management 

strategies. As a result of the reduction in the potential for soil erosion, this management may 

result in beneficial impacts to soil resources. 

Water resources management under Alternative III would consist of actively protecting 5,312 

acres of canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains. Due to the fact that soil erosion is less 

likely to occur when ground disturbance is avoided, water resources management may result in 

beneficial impacts to soil resources. 

Alternative IV

Soil Resources Management 

Soil management activities are the same under Alternatives II through V. Alternative IV 

management would include reporting activities on non-Monument lands that are causing, or 

may cause, soil degradation, water-quality deterioration, and/or other damage to Monument 

lands. Management actions for this alternative include maintaining site-specific erosion control 

measures in Cultural Resource Management Plans, maintaining soil productivity, minimizing 

erosion, and minimizing human-caused soil erosion. Soil resources management actions would 

include requiring soil BMPs as COAs for all new oil and gas leases and permits, establishing an 

NGD/NSO restriction for areas with slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) and/or for 

soils with high-erosion potential, maintaining a zero-level accelerated erosion standard, not 

allowing rangeland use to reduce the protective attributes of vegetation, identifying areas for 

stabilization and rehabilitation, beginning restoration, and stabilizing and rehabilitating areas 

with severe human-caused soil erosion. 

NGD/NSO restrictions for slopes steeper than 30 percent and/or other erosive soils may help 

protect soil, but may not totally prevent erosion resulting from road and well pad construction 

and/or other from ground-disturbing activities. Short-term impacts may be allowed on mineral 

development sites (well pads, roads, etc.); however, operating plans would need to demonstrate 

how site productivity would be restored, how surface runoff would be controlled, and how offsite 

areas would be protected from accelerated erosion. Additionally, no surface-disturbing activities 

would be allowed during extended wet periods, and construction activities would be prohibited 

when soils are frozen. Due to the fact that erosion may be moderated through BMPs, NSO 

stipulations, and the zero tolerance policy, impacts may be beneficial to soil resources. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

332 

Cultural Resources Management 

Preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to protect soil resources. Alternative 

IV would protect cultural resource communities and sites from all activities, except scientific, 

archaeological, and historical investigations (where surface disturbance is required to be 

minimal). Some impacts may occur as a result of the development and stabilization of 13 to 25 

cultural resource sites, and from excavation. Impacts from cultural resource activities on soil 

resources may be isolated and short-term, with greater benefits realized over the long-term. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Management of fluid minerals may directly impact soil resources as a result of seismic 

operations and/or other ground-disturbing activities, including the construction of roads, well 

pads, pipelines, and/or other facilities. Approximately 80 percent of Monument lands are 

currently leased. 

Under the Proclamation, the overall goal for fluid minerals is to ensure the proper care and 

protection of the objects of the Monument prior to authorizing continued exploration, 

development, production, and reclamation activity for fluid minerals (i.e., oil, gas, and CO2). 

However, this alternative would allow for more ground disturbance than Alternative II. This is 

due to the fact that isolated finds are not protected under this alternative. 

Up to 24,462 acres would be available for lease under Alternative IV. The BLM would expect 

that the majority of new wells would be drilled within or near existing producing areas. New 

leases would have NSO stipulations that protect cultural, natural, and scenic resources, and 

Monument objects. Geophysical operations would be permitted on BLM-authorized or userdeveloped roads. Seismic operations requiring bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment 

would be restricted to BLM-designated roads. Soil resource NSO stipulations for slopes greater 

than 30 percent would apply, and soil BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. The 

number of acres of potential disturbance would be greater under this alternative than under any 

other alternative. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

A total of 8,492 active preference AUMs are currently permitted in the Monument, with livestock 

grazing occurring on 95 percent of the Monument’s 165,000 acres. Alternative IV would 

continue this current level of use. 

A Rangeland Health Evaluation and Ecological Site Inventory (BLM 2001i) were conducted in 

the Monument during summer 2001. As part of this inventory, the condition of the upland soil 

was generally considered “at risk with a reversible loss in productive capability and increased 

vulnerability to irreversible degradation.” This condition is likely due to more than 100 years of 

heavy livestock grazing on Monument land (Horn 2004). There are currently 28 livestock 

grazing allotments within the Monument. Each allotment has been identified as: 1) having 

achieved; 2) making progress toward achieving; or 3) having not achieved soil standards 

(although not every acre within a given allotment falls within a single category). Tallying acres 

for each category gives us an over-view of soil conditions within the Monument. Specifically, 

five grazing allotments have achieved upland soil standards (10,056 acres), one allotment is 

making progress toward achieving standards (247 acres), and 22 allotments have not achieved 

standards (149,393 acres). 

As summarized in the AMS (BLM 2005b), 15 livestock grazing allotments, covering 141,000 

acres, are in need of intensive management. The results of these evaluations indicate that 

managing for Public Land Health Standards under the No Action Alternative (Alternative I) has 

either not been successful, or has been extremely slow in moving Monument soil resources 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

333 

toward meeting Public Land Health Standards. Alternative IV requirements for livestock grazing 

are very similar to Alternative I. Some improvement may be seen as a result of adjusted spring 

grazing and utilization levels. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under this alternative, the transportation network would include motorized, mechanized, and 

non-motorized roads. All roads in the Monument have a gravel or natural surface, except 

County Road 10, which is chip-sealed. The BLM roads provide public and administrative 

(agency and permittee) access to public lands and to inholdings of private land in the 

Monument. Reasonable access may be made available to persons engaged in valid uses, 

including movement of equipment and materials associated with oil and natural gas and CO2

extraction. 

Under Alternative IV, the Monument would be closed to cross-country travel by motorized 

vehicles to reduce inadvertent damage to cultural resources. Established roads, as shown on 

Map 5, would be open to designated uses. No widening or passing lanes would be constructed. 

Surface upgrades would be allowed for public safety and/or for the protection of Monument 

resources. Administrative roads would be maintained at a minimum level. Closed roads would 

be reclaimed. 

Additional road construction for fluid minerals exploration and production may result in direct 

localized major, short-term adverse impacts. However, an NGD/NSO for slopes steeper than 

30 percent and/or other erosive soil may help to protect the resource from erosion. Additionally, 

soil erosion BMPs would be used during road construction and/or during other ground-disturbing 

activities. There may be direct adverse impacts to soil resources from transportation 

management as a result of the construction of several new roads (see Map 5) and road 

improvements. 

Under Alternative IV, most existing user-created roads would remain open. The transportation 

system would include 213 miles of roads, including 102 miles of roads open to the public for all 

forms of travel. There would be designated bicycle and/or OHV roads. A total of 1,235 acres of 

ground may be disturbed as a result of this alternative. 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, the entire Monument would be designated as FMZ B, under which fire 

management and mitigation strategies are aggressive. Prescribed fires may be used as forest 

and vegetation management strategies. Fuels and fire management actions may result in 

beneficial impacts to soil resources. 

Under Alternative IV, water resources management would consist of actively protecting 3,217 

acres of riparian areas and floodplains. Because soil erosion is less likely to occur when ground 

disturbance is avoided, water resources management may result in beneficial impacts to soil 

resources. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Soil Resources Management 

Soil resource management actions for Alternative V would include requiring soil BMPs as COAs 

for all new oil and gas leases and permits, establishing a NGD/NSO for areas with slopes 

greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) and/or for soils with high-erosion potential, maintaining a 

zero-level accelerated erosion standard, not allowing rangeland use to reduce the protective 

attributes of vegetation, identifying areas for stabilization and rehabilitation, beginning 

restoration, and stabilizing and rehabilitating areas with severe human-caused soil erosion. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

334 

There is a high potential for soil erosion on oil and gas development sites, as well as in other 

areas where localized construction occurs. However, a NGD/NSO restriction for slopes steeper 

than 30 percent and/or other erosive soil may protect the resource from excessive erosion. 

Additionally, soil erosion BMPs would be used during road construction and during other 

ground-disturbing activities, which may minimize impacts. There may be localized beneficial 

impacts from the stabilization and restoration of eroded areas. Soil resources management 

may result in beneficial impacts, because erosion may be reduced and progress toward 

achieving Public Land Health Standards may be made. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Preservation of Monument cultural resources would serve to protect soil resources. Alternative 

V would protect cultural resource communities and sites from all activities, except scientific, 

archaeological, and historical investigations (where surface disturbance is required to be 

minimal). Some impacts may occur as a result of the development of 13 to 25 cultural resource 

sites, and from excavation. Impacts from cultural resource activities on soil resources may be 

isolated and short-term, with greater benefits realized over the long-term. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative V, up to 880 of the 24,462 acres available for leasing could be leased to 

protect against drainage. Even if additional lands were acquired, no more than 880 acres would 

be leased. A total of up to 18 acres of new ground disturbance is anticipated as a result of new 

fluid minerals leases. New leases would have NSO stipulations that protect cultural, natural, 

and scenic resources, and Monument objects. New leases would only be allowed for the 

purposes of promoting conservation of oil and gas resources and/or to protect against drainage 

in existing reservoirs under production. 

Under this alterative, geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. 

Temporary access roads would require reclamation. If water is present in washes, alluvial 

valleys, and/or in perennial water features, geophysical vehicles would only be allowed to cross 

channels at BLM-defined roads. Additionally, in areas where riparian vegetation is present, 

geophysical vehicles could only cross on legally designated roads. Seismic operations requiring 

bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource NSO 

stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent would apply, and soil BMPs would be included in 

COAs for new leases. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, rangeland would be managed to meet Public Land Health Standards. This 

alternative contains management actions that include closing the East and West Sand Canyon, 

Rock Creek, Goodman Gulch, and Trail Canyon allotments to grazing (6,059 acres), reducing 

the numbers of active AUMs to 6,437, limiting spring livestock grazing, fencing streams and 

riparian areas where other management actions do not result in achieving PFC and Public Land 

Health Standards, and considering “resting” allotments. Livestock grazing in the McElmo RNA 

(427 acres) would be limited to winter months. 

As a result of the reduced AUMs and closing five allotments, soil conditions under Alternative V 

may improve as a result of increased vegetative cover, reduced soil compaction, and reduced 

impacts in riparian areas. These improvements may occur more rapidly in this alternative than 

under other alternatives where reductions in livestock impacts are not as prominent 

(Alternatives III and IV). 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

335 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under this alternative, the transportation network would include motorized, non-motorized, and 

mechanized roads. All roads in the Monument have a gravel or natural surface except County 

Road 10, which is chip-sealed. The BLM roads provide public and administrative (agency and 

permittee) access to public lands and to inholdings of private land in the Monument. 

Under Alternative V, the Monument would be closed to cross-country travel by motorized and 

mechanized vehicles to reduce inadvertent damage to cultural resources. Established roads, as 

shown on Map 5, would be open to designated uses. No upgrades (widening, passing lanes, 

and/or other surface upgrades) would be allowed. Administrative roads would be maintained at 

a minimum level. Most user-created roads would be closed and reclaimed. Closed roads would 

be reclaimed within 10 years. Reclamation of roads would disturb soils on a temporary basis 

until vegetation became established. The transportation system would include 169 miles of 

roads, including 74 miles of roads open to the public for all forms of travel. There would be 

designated bicycle and/or OHV roads. A total of 980 acres of ground may be disturbed as a 

result of roads. 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, the entire Monument would be designated as FMZ B, under which fire 

management and mitigation strategies are aggressive. Prescribed fires may be used as forest 

and vegetation management strategies. 

Water resources management under Alternative V would consist of actively protecting 5,312 

acres if canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains. Due to the fact that soil erosion is less 

likely to occur when ground disturbance is avoided, water resources management may result in 

beneficial impacts to soil resources. 

4.2.6.3. Soil Resources Management Impact Comparison 

The soil resources impact comparison is presented in Table 4-14. This table compares the 

consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on soil resources. 

4.2.6.4. Cumulative Impacts 

There are three primary activities occurring offsite and adjacent to the Monument that may 

cumulatively impact soil resources. Historic and current livestock grazing on neighboring private 

lands are not required to operate under Public Land Health Standards; therefore, ground cover, 

plant diversity, and riparian health on these lands often do not meet Public Land Health 

Standards. Mineral development on existing leased lands within the Monument, as well as on 

private lands, may cause considerable ground disturbance when considering well pads, 

pipelines, compressor stations, roads, and/or other facilities. Mineral development on private 

land is not subject to BMPs or other mitigation measures. Reclamation of abandoned well pads 

has not been consistently successful. These areas continue to erode and provide conditions for 

the invasion of noxious weeds. Noxious weeds and other invasive species often prohibit the 

return of native vegetation, which is often better suited to hold soils in place. Urban expansion, 

and the associated construction of buildings and roads, is occurring throughout Montezuma and 

Dolores Counties, and is resulting in long-term ground disturbance. These activities may 

indirectly impact the Monument as a result of promoting offsite soil erosion that can then move 

onsite or down drainages during high intensity rainstorms and/or during snowmelt. Sediment 

may enter perennial streams (Yellow Jacket Canyon, McElmo Creek, and Cross Canyon) and 

may eventually be transported downstream from the Monument to the San Juan River (a major 

tributary of the Colorado River). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

336 

Table 4-14 Comparison of Impacts to Soil Resources 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Soil Resources 

Not meeting Public 

Land Health 

Standards. Apply no 

accelerated erosion 

standard. Apply 

SSR/CSU to protect 

slopes greater than 

40 percent (21,036 

acres). 

Take specific actions 

to rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 

Standards. Apply 

zero-level 

accelerated erosion 

standard. Apply 

NGD/NSO stipulation 

to protect slopes 

steeper than 30 

percent (36,504 

acres). 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Apply zero-level 

accelerated erosion 

standard. Apply 

NGD/NSO stipulation 

to protect slopes 

steeper than 30 

percent (36,504 

acres). 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Apply zero-level 

accelerated erosion 

standard. Apply 

NGD/NSO stipulation 

to protect slopes 

steeper than 30 

percent 

(36,504 acres). 

Take specific actions 

to rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 

Standards. Apply 

zero-level 

accelerated erosion 

standard. Apply 

NGD/NSO stipulation 

to protect slopes 

steeper than 30 

percent 

(36,504 acres). 

Cultural Resources Develop new sites for controlled visitation Develop 13 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make 880 new acres 

available for lease 

(with up to 18 acres 

of new disturbance). 

Make 3,021 new 

acres available for 

lease (with up to 

73 acres of new 

disturbance). 

Make 24,462 new 

acres available for 

lease (with up to 

447 acres of new 

disturbance). 

Make 880 new acres 

available for lease 

(with up to 18 acres 

of new disturbance). 

Rangeland Resources 

Not meeting Public 

Land Health 

Standards. Manage 

28 allotments, 

8,492 AUMs. 

Take specific actions 

to rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 

Standards. Manage 

23 allotments, 

6,437 AUMs. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Manage 23 

allotments, 

8,368 AUMs. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Manage 28 

allotments, 

8,492 AUMs. 

Take specific actions 

to rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 

Standards. Manage 

23 allotments, 

6,437 AUMs. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

337 

Table 4-14 Comparison of Impacts to Soil Resources 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles of 

roads (with 864 acres 

of disturbance). 

Manage 139 miles of 

roads (with 806 acres 

of disturbance). 

Manage 189 miles of 

roads (with 1,096 

acres of disturbance). 

Manage 213 miles of 

roads (with 1,235 

acres of disturbance). 

Manage169 miles of 

roads (with 980 acres 

of disturbance). 

Other Resources: 

Fuels and Fire 

Manage 155,800 

acres (95%) with no 

specific fire 

suppression 

requirements. 

Manage entire 

Monument as FMZ B, 

with specific fire 

suppression 

requirements. 

Manage entire 

Monument as FMZ B, 

with specific fire 

suppression 

requirements. 

Manage entire 

Monument as FMZ B, 

with specific fire 

suppression 

requirements. 

Manage entire 

Monument as FMZ B, 

with specific fire 

suppression 

requirements. 

Other Resources: 

Water Resources 

Protect 2,415 riparian 

acres. 

Protect 5,312 acres 

of canyon bottoms, 

riparian, and 

floodplain. 

Protect 5,312 acres 

of canyon bottoms, 

riparian, and 

floodplain. 

Protect 3,217 acres 

of riparian and 

floodplain. 

Protect 5,312 acres 

of canyon bottoms, 

riparian, and 

floodplain. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

338 

4.2.7. Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife 

The primary goal for wildlife resources in the Monument is to optimize biological diversity by 

managing for a variety of healthy habitat types in support of native fish and wildlife populations. 

The management actions associated with this goal would aim to improve habitat conditions and 

reduce disturbance to terrestrial and aquatic resources (wildlife). The occurrence, abundance, 

and distribution of wildlife are most strongly affected by habitat type, quality, and accessibility. 

All of these habitat characteristics could be severely altered as a result of increased human 

activity and resource development to the detriment of wildlife. The management objectives 

related to this goal include: 

 contribute to the maintenance or recovery of Federally listed threatened, endangered, 

proposed and candidate species; State listed species; and BLM sensitive species; 

 contribute to the recovery of the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow 

flycatchers (SWWF); 

 protect nesting sites and winter concentration areas for bald and golden eagles; 

 protect active nest sites for raptors other than Mexican spotted owls and eagles, and for 

bald and golden eagles; 

 manage, conserve, and enhance habitat for neotropical migrant birds (which includes 

the SWWF) and sensitive reptiles; 

 manage, conserve, and enhance habitat for sensitive reptile species; 

 protect breeding habitat for amphibians; 

 reintroduce bighorn sheep; 

 restore sagebrush grasslands to support populations of Gunnison sage-grouse on their 

historical range; 

 maintain and restore stable populations of BLM-sensitive fish species (flannelmouth 

sucker and bluehead sucker); 

 improve tributaries that would contribute to restoring threatened and endangered fish 

populations within the San Juan River (Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail chub, humpback 

chub, and razorback sucker); 

 improve forage and cover conditions for mule deer; 

 manage and control wildlife species that have, or may have, detrimental impacts to other 

resources or land uses; and 

 maintain and/or enhance habitats capable of sustaining existing or increasing wildlife 

and fish populations. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. Under all 

alternatives, the general management goal is to ensure against actions that would jeopardize 

population viability, particularly as it pertains to currently listed, proposed, or candidate 

threatened or endangered species or contribute to the listing of additional species. 

Potential impacts to special status fish and wildlife fall into one or more of the categories 

described below, including habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, disturbance, interference with 

movement patterns, and direct mortality. These impacts may reduce the numbers of one or 

more species (potentially to the point of local extirpation), disrupt community composition and 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

339 

function (through changes in the distribution, relative abundance, and habitat use of various 

species, in that reduced prey abundance may affect predator abundance), and make 

populations and communities overly vulnerable to other perturbations. For example, increases 

in roads may result in habitat fragmentation. This, in turn, may result in habitat-specialist 

species being more vulnerable to disturbance as a result of the reduction of patch size, an 

increase in the amount of edge, and an increase in accessibility to predators or nest parasitism 

by brown-headed cowbirds (in the case of songbirds). The gray vireo, the Mesa Verde 

nightsnake, and the six species of bats listed in Table 3-14 are species that depend on pinyonjuniper woodlands and, as a result, they may suffer adverse impacts from the fragmentation of 

this habitat resulting because the addition of roads. 

As described above for general wildlife, impacts associated with changes in management, 

human use, and/or resource development may have direct and indirect impacts on special 

status species as well. For wide-ranging or migratory species, such as migratory songbirds, 

onsite impacts may also impact community composition and function in the southern portion of 

the species’ range (where they overwinter). In addition, project impacts may combine with nonproject impacts and result in cumulative impacts. 

Although these impact categories are applied in a general sense to all special status species, 

including Federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered species, 

interagency consultation with the USFWS, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) would address potential adverse impacts on these species during the preparation of a 

Biological Assessment (BA) and the issuance of a Biological Opinion (BO) for the selected 

alternative. For the purposes of expediency, the analysis below addresses generalized impacts 

for all special status species as a group. Occasionally, when particular potential impacts are 

noteworthy, specific mention is made of one or more species. 

The following alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect 

impacts, as well as short-term and long-term impacts to wildlife resources. Terrestrial and 

aquatic wildlife may benefit from resource management actions, including, protective measures 

for special status species, proactive implementation of a recovery plan, and public education. 

Other actions aimed at preserving and/or enhancing wildlife resources include TLs on 

disturbance activities during the breeding season and/or stipulations in buffer areas around 

certain wildlife species. Adverse impacts may include, but are not limited to, those resulting 

management actions, including fluid minerals development (as a result of ground disturbance, 

traffic, and human encroachment) or livestock management (as a result of vegetation being over 

utilized and riparian health being diminished). 

Direct impacts to wildlife are often associated with direct mortality, including that which results 

from poaching or vehicle accidents. Broad-scale impacts, however, may occur indirectly, 

including those resulting from the loss or fragmentation of habitat, the disturbance of habitat 

security, and from movement patterns. 

For the purpose of this analysis, short-term or temporary impacts are those that most often are 

associated with a period of initial habitat loss or modification and with intensive human activity. 

In the context of future management and development scenarios for the Monument, short-term 

impacts are mostly associated with oil and gas development, during which activity at a specific 

well site may last for several weeks or months. These impacts may be reduced in severity as 

that part of the field enters the production phase. This already occurs, to some extent, on 

existing fluid minerals leases. 

Short-term impacts are those that last from five to ten years, or less. Long-term impacts are 

those that last longer than 10 years, with most of these extending throughout or potentially 

beyond the period of the management action or development activity. Examples include 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

340 

impacts associated with the continued presence of elevated levels of human activity throughout 

the life of the oil and gas field (40 years or longer), as well as with the protracted period needed 

for final reclamation of disturbed areas. Permanent impacts are those with a likely duration of 

more than 50 years. 

Major types of impacts on wildlife associated with humans are discussed below. 

Direct Habitat Loss

Direct habitat loss occurs when required life-sustaining conditions are lost (e.g., through the 

removal of vegetation, the draining of pond). In terms of future land use and management 

actions, vegetation impacts may be the most significant. Removal of vegetation may impact 

wildlife, as a result of the reduction in the extent and/or quality of habitat (in terms of food, cover, 

and structure) for nesting as well as for other uses. By comparing the amount of habitat lost to 

the amount preserved, these impacts are relatively simple to quantify. For example, removal of 

vegetation during construction of a road or a well pad essentially strips the affected area of any 

wildlife value. Although the closure and reclamation of temporarily disturbed areas may 

eventually restore lost habitat values, the disturbance may have a long duration (20 or more 

years for a well) and/or require years or decades for recovery of pre-disturbance structure and 

function (e.g., pipeline corridors and reclaimed roads). 

Habitat Modification

Changes in habitat are generally less obvious, and less severe, than losses of habitat; however, 

they may be significant. This is especially true if small impacts accumulate across large areas. 

Examples include the removal of forage by domestic livestock, the trampling of soil by domestic 

livestock, the invasion of weeds in areas where native plant vigor and/or cover is reduced, the 

chaining of pinyon-juniper woodlands, and/or the removal of tree cover during timber harvesting. 

Habitat modification may also be beneficial and may serve as an important tool in wildlife 

management. Examples include the use of prescribed fires to stimulate new growth on 

senescent (older) woody vegetation, the thinning of overly dense shrubs to enhance forage 

production, the control of noxious weeds, the construction of protective fencing along riparian 

areas, and/or the creation of alternative watering features to reduce the need for cattle to 

access streams. 

Habitat Fragmentation 

This type of impact on wildlife is increasingly recognized as related to human population growth 

and associated development. Impacts of habitat fragmentation relate to the loss of large habitat 

blocks and to the increased percentage of “edge” on smaller blocks, when compared to larger 

blocks. Species adversely impacted by fragmentation consist of “habitat-interior” species and 

most “habitat-specialist” species. Habitat-interior species are those that breed in a particular 

habitat type, rather than at the transition area (ecotone) between two habitat types. Habitatinterior species are most often associated with dense forest vegetation types. In the Monument, 

the concern for habitat-interior species may apply to wildlife tied specifically to pinyon-juniper 

woodlands or to sagebrush shrublands. These vegetation communities, however, are naturally 

fragmented, and have a diverse mix of trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Most species 

occupying these vegetation types are not there for the monoculture of a certain vegetation type, 

but rather for the diversity of the mix of vegetation type. 

Roads may cause habitat fragmentation. Many species exhibit a decline in use of areas 

adjacent to roads. Habitat-interior birds may avoid habitat within 150 meters (less than a mile) 

of roads (Forman and Alexander 1998, Forman 2000, Ingelfinger 2001). In one study, use by 

mule deer was reduced within 200 meters of a road (the “road-effect zone” or the area over 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

341 

which a road exerts its ecological influence, is 200 meters, or 0.125 mile) (Knight et al. 2000). 

Impacts have also been described in terms of road density (length of roads per unit area). 

Although research has demonstrated impacts of roads and road density, the density of roads in 

the Monument is far less than the thresholds discussed in the literature. In addition, use of 

roads varies, which alters the type and/or extent of impact on wildlife. For example, a seldomused two-track dirt road (considered a tertiary, or secondary, road) may likely have less impact 

on wildlife than would a heavily traveled paved road (considered a primary road). The degree of 

disturbance may vary according to the type of road, the level of use, the mode of travel, the 

season of travel, and/or to the wildlife species being impacted. 

Small mammals in sagebrush-steppe landscapes, like that occurring in the Monument, have 

been studied. Their species richness has decreased with the increasing isolation of habitat 

patches, and these sagebrush-obligate species may be at risk of extirpation as sagebrush 

becomes even more fragmented (Hanser and Huntly 2006). The presence of cheatgrass may 

further add to the decrease in diversity. Small mammals do not like to cross roadways, due to 

the lack of protective cover. Although roadways may sever populations of small mammals, 

roads in the Monument may be more likely to reduce movement, to a small degree. Some of 

the small mammal species with relatively limited distributions in Colorado that inhabit semidesert shrubland, pinyon-juniper woodland, and/or grassland include the canyon mouse, the 

pinyon mouse, the northern grasshopper mouse, and the white-throated woodrat. 

The size of an undisturbed block of land may also affect the number of bird species present. 

Larger habitat blocks (325 acres or more) support a vastly larger number of birds and have 

greater species diversity than do small blocks of 8 acres or less (McIntyre 1995). Although 

these studies were not conducted in pinyon-juniper woodlands, it is not unreasonable to assume 

that the same concept applies. Similarly, small mammals are sensitive to fragmentation in 

sagebrush shrublands (Hanser and Huntly 2006). 

Disturbance 

Disturbance impacts generally overlap with habitat fragmentation. This is due to the fact that 

many of the more common and important types of fragmentation (e.g., roads) also include 

increased levels of human activity. Although some species are more tolerant of human activity 

than others, virtually all species have some threshold of disturbance, above which they will 

abandon or avoid an area. The result is a de facto loss of habitat because avoided areas 

cannot meet survival needs. The amount of habitat actually available to wildlife is called 

“effective habitat”, and reductions in the amount of effective habitat can greatly exceed any 

direct habitat loss. For example, Reed et al. (1996) estimated that the effective habitat loss of 

roads was 2.5 to 3.5 times as great as actual habitat loss. Construction of a mile-long straight 

road 30 feet wide (a typical width for an oil and gas access road) would represent 3.6 acres of 

direct habitat loss. Multiplying this figure by 3.5, (the upper end of the range reported by Reed) 

yields an effective habitat loss of approximately 23 acres per mile of road. 

Roads are not the only cause of disturbance impacts. Archaeological excavation and outdoor 

recreation may also have impacts on wildlife (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). Many more species 

may be adversely impacted due to hiking, camping, wildlife viewing/photography, OHV use, 

and/or rock climbing than were either unaffected or benefited (Boyle and Samson 1985). OHVs 

can cause flight, stress, and/or redistribution of wildlife. Humans hiking, backpacking, riding, 

and mountain biking may cause deer to move away at distances of 200 m (Freddy et al. 1986). 

Rock climbers may cause disturbance of preferred raptor perching and nesting sites. Mountain 

biking and OHV use have increased in the past two decades, a trend recognized in 1995 

(Knight and Gutzwiller 1995), which may also result in disturbance impacts. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

342 

In terms of potential oil and gas development in currently undeveloped portions of the 

Monument, the degree of avoidance due to disturbance is difficult to predict because it would 

depend on the dispersion of disturbance areas, specific vehicular travel roads, and the number 

of trips. Wildlife would be expected to avoid buffer zones up to 0.5 mile around the individual 

areas of human activity, such as around well construction sites and main access roads, but they 

may continue to use the remaining available habitat. Construction disturbances may have a 

greater impact, although they may be temporary. Well-operating disturbances may likely be a 

lower-level disturbance and of longer term. Many species, including deer, can habituate to low 

levels of predictable human activity. 

Interference with Movement Patterns 

Habitat loss or modification, habitat fragmentation, and disturbance impacts may also impact 

wildlife by altering important daily or seasonal movement patterns. These patterns may be 

altered as a result of shifts to avoid human activity or to avoid crossing open areas that provide 

inadequate protective cover. In the Monument, large open areas remain relatively intact and 

there is likely little interference with wildlife movement patterns. 

Direct Mortality 

Direct mortality may result in areas experiencing increasing human use. This may be due to 

collisions with (or being run over by) vehicles, electrocution of raptors on utility lines, increased 

likelihood of illegal hunting, and/or inadvertent trampling of nests. The most likely cause of 

direct mortality in the Monument is roads. Amphibians and reptiles are particularly vulnerable to 

this because they cross roads between hibernation, breeding, and foraging sites; because they 

enjoy the warmth and stay on roads; and because they often do not move very quickly. 

4.2.7.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Although it is difficult to measure adverse impacts to individual fish or wildlife species or 

populations, the number of acres of ground disturbance, livestock numbers, and road density 

can be used to compare impacts to wildlife habitat among the alternatives. Management 

actions that result in protective measures for wildlife or wildlife habitat are considered beneficial 

impacts. Another factor considered when determining impacts from recreation on wildlife was 

visitation. Human presence is known to disturb wildlife, particularly during sensitive times of the 

year, such as during nesting, breeding, or during preparation for winter. Recreation strategies 

that promote visitation may likely result in greater impacts to wildlife. In some instances, when 

impacts cannot be quantified, a descriptive analysis is used. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to wildlife resources include the following: 

 Application of appropriate BMPs and standardized reclamation practices would be 

required as COAs for all new leases, permits, and surface disturbance areas (see 

Appendix E). 

 For the impact analysis of oil and gas development, the BLM will follow the stipulations 

from the San Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD (BLM 1985) and Amendment (BLM 1991b), 

including standard restrictions and limitations that also provide a measure of protection. 

 The number of roads predicted for construction, based on new acres leased for mineral 

development, would all be new roads. 

 While a variety of scenarios for bighorn sheep reintroduction are presented in the 

alternatives, details are not known at this time. The Colorado Division of Wildlife 

(CDOW is responsible for managing wildlife and, ultimately, for making the decision 

regarding wildlife reintroductions. Given these circumstances, analysis at the 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

343 

DRMP/DEIS level can only focus in the Monument’s willingness to coordinate with the 

CDOW throughout the process. 

 While special status species are discussed below, potential impacts to general fish and 

wildlife can also be considered as potential impacts to special status species. 

 Federal lands within the boundary of the Monument were used as the impacts analysis 

area. 

 Watersheds associated with the Monument were used as the cumulative impacts 

analysis area. 

4.2.7.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to wildlife resources may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific 

management actions proposed under each alternative for different resource uses. The following 

sections describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management 

actions proposed for wildlife resources, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and 

recreation and transportation. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Wildlife Management 

Protective measures, such as TLs and stipulations for wildlife in general, may also benefit 

special status species. A number of existing protective measures would be in place under 

Alternative I. These are listed in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD (BLM 1985) and include 

the prohibition of activities that would result in direct harm to threatened and endangered or 

sensitive species; the application of seasonal restrictions, where appropriate; the development 

of Habitat Management Plans (HMPs); the maintenance of riparian habitat; the evaluation of 

potential native fish reintroductions; and the maintenance of deer and elk habitat and herd size 

management. Other actions target special status species and include: 

 provide inventories of special status species in association with public land disposal; 

 manage important habitat for special status species in ACECs; 

 invest funds for habitat improvements in Cross, Cow, Cahone, Hovenweep, and Bridge 

Canyons riparian areas; 

 apply seasonal restrictions, where appropriate; 

 develop habitat management plans, especially for special status species; 

 maintain or improve riparian habitat; and 

 evaluate potential native fish reintroductions. 

All of these actions may serve to protect wildlife; therefore, Alternative I may provide benefits for 

wildlife and special status species. 

This alternative calls for the modification of agreements with Wildlife Services, a section of the 

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), to specify conditions for predator 

control. However, this alternative is not specific as to what those modifications may be; 

therefore, impacts cannot be determined. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

344 

Cultural Resources Management 

The strategy for managing cultural resources over most of the Monument is called the “outdoormuseum” concept, in which visitors make their own discoveries of the nearly 30,000 cultural 

sites. Under this alternative, sites are being assessed, and new sites are being developed for 

controlled visitation. This alternative allows for 240 sites to be stabilized and in some cases 

developed. The additional access and greater level of overall visitor use that could result from 

cultural resource development may have adverse impacts, especially if songbirds are breeding 

and/or deer are wintering in the same areas. Impacts may be localized at developed sites 

because this is where individuals and large groups would be directed. The impacts on special 

status species may depend on the location of their habitat, especially during times of 

occupancy, in relation to developed sites. Under this alternative, scientific excavation would be 

timed to avoid special status species impacts. The impact on special status species as a result 

of visitations to these cultural sites may be expected to be minimal. This is because visitation is 

not heavy, because there are currently very few developed sites, and because restrictions can 

be administered to avoid conflicts (i.e., site closure). 

Fluid Minerals Management 

A large portion of the Monument is currently leased for oil and gas development (334 leases). 

The Proclamation allows for continued development on existing leases. However, no new 

leases would be issued under this alternative; therefore, no new acres would be disturbed. 

Stipulations in place from the San Juan/San Miguel RMP/ROD Amendment (1991a) include 

NSO stipulations on areas of natural value and Bridge Canyon RNA (for rare flora and fauna); 

TLs on big-game crucial winter ranges (December 1 through April 30); and SSR/CSU 

stipulations on slopes equal to, or greater than, 40 percent and on riparian vegetation. TLs may 

reduce impact to big game while they occupy crucial winter habitat. Stipulations also apply to 

the McElmo RNA, for the habitat protection for rare species and reptiles, in particular. 

For areas currently leased, the drainages and canyons may likely be protected from mineral 

development, due to their lack of easy access and to the SSRs/CSUs on riparian vegetation and 

steep slopes. It is anticipated that most of the extraction activity would occur on the mesa tops 

above the canyons, and that those species favoring riparian areas and canyons may not be 

disturbed. However, those species favoring upland communities, such as pinyon-juniper 

woodlands, sagebrush and saltbush shrubland, and shrub-grasslands, may be impacted. The 

longnose leopard lizard, a BLM sensitive species, is an example of a species favoring these 

upland areas. These impacts are ongoing, based on current management of fluid minerals 

within existing leases in the Monument. 

Although fluid minerals development has many aspects that are detrimental to wildlife 

populations, it is often the associated transportation infrastructure that causes disturbance, 

interference with movement, and/or habitat fragmentation. These are discussed below, under 

Recreation and Transportation Management. In addition, the use of roads may bring more 

people to otherwise isolated areas, along with associated human disturbances. Examples 

include an increase in recreational shooting (in areas that often include nearby wildlife), and an 

increase in recreational use by cyclists and OHV-users that occur when roads open up in 

otherwise inaccessible area (Reeve and Vosburgh 2006). 

Alternative I would adhere to the San Juan/San Miguel RMP ROD (BLM 1985) and 1991 

Amendment (BLM 1991a), which specify that no activities would be permitted in special status 

species’ habitat that would jeopardize their continued existence. Alternative I also specifies that 

habitat management plans may be developed for winter raptor concentration areas and for 

threatened and endangered species’ habitat, with a priority on the latter. Stipulations that are 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

345 

appended to fluid minerals leases include protection of natural resources (Stipulation Code 

SJ-1) and of rare fauna in Bridge Canyon (McElmo) RNA (Stipulation Code: SJ-4). 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, 28 allotments would be available for livestock grazing, with 8,492 active 

preference AUMs. Rangeland monitoring would continue to occur in order to determine whether 

or not livestock grazing goals and objectives were being obtained. During critical livestock 

grazing periods, less than 30 percent of active preference and less than 50 percent utilization of 

current year growth of key species would be allowed. Spring livestock grazing in all allotments 

would not occur on native ranges during the critical period of early forage growth, unless a 

system is implemented that would provide a critical rest period every 3 years. Alternative I 

would have the largest number of allotments and active AUMs and, in that regard, is most 

similar to Alternative IV. Although meeting Public Land Health Standards and Livestock Grazing 

Guidelines is required under Alternative I (the No Action Alternative), current conditions indicate 

that, to date, standards have not been met. 

Livestock grazing impacts to wildlife under this alternative may include loss of forage and/or 

impacts to riparian habitats favored by many species of wildlife. Livestock grazing may lead to 

conversion of native vegetation to invasive weeds, such as to cheatgrass. Due to the limitation 

of current noxious weed management, noxious weed populations may be expected to increase 

in frequency, density, and diversity under this alternative. This may have the potential to impact 

special status species, especially the longnose leopard lizard. Dense stands of cheatgrass 

under sagebrush and semi-desert shrublands may adversely impact longnose leopard lizards. 

This is because dense grass hinders their ability to find prey (Hammerson 1999). 

Alternative I does not contain any active steps for the protection of riparian systems, biological 

crust communities, or stubble height. Livestock grazing impacts to special status species under 

this alternative may be potentially severe and may include habitat alteration of native sagebrush 

shrublands, which may, in turn, result in adverse impacts to the special status species that use 

these native habitats, such as the ferruginous hawk, the burrowing owl, and the longnose 

leopard lizard. Any impacts to riparian vegetation from weed infestations may also be serious 

due to the potential for damage to the riparian community (which supports a variety of 

Neotropical migrant small birds, as well as raptors and other species). Of particular concern 

would be impacts to riparian vegetation that may impact instream habitat quality (e.g., 

decreased bank stability, decreased vegetation cover, and/or increased sedimentation) in 

reaches that support flannelmouth suckers and bluehead suckers. Impacts to riparian habitats 

that result in habitat alteration may also impact potential habitat for the western yellow-billed 

cuckoo and the SWWF (species that depend on well-developed riparian vegetation). 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

A primary factor to consider when determining impacts from recreation on wildlife is visitation. 

Human presence is known to disturb wildlife, particularly during sensitive times of the year, such 

as during nesting, breeding, and/or during preparation for winter. Recreation strategies that 

promote visitation may likely result in greater impacts to wildlife; however, this alternative has no 

promotion strategy and would only develop facilities on an as-needed basis. 

Based on projected regional population growth and the increasing popularity of outdoor 

recreation, recreation use continues to grow (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). The resulting 

potential for damage to vegetation and the potential for increased disturbance of wildlife may 

likely increase the size and severity of road-effect zones along commonly used roads. This may 

reduce effective or secure habitat for wildlife, increase habitat fragmentation, and potentially 

disrupt important movement patterns. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

346 

As discussed earlier, roads result in direct habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, spread of noxious 

weeds, disturbance, interference with movement patterns, and direct mortality. There are two 

measures of transportation that can be evaluated, these are: 1) road length, and its associated 

area of ground disturbance; and 2) road density involving the number of miles of roads per 

square mile. Although there are numerous variables to consider when determining impacts, the 

comparison of road length and density under the five different alternatives may be used as a 

comparison, and is presented in Table 4-1. 

The total length of roads for this alternative would be 149 miles. Road density is relatively low 

(0.58 miles per square mile), and the literature does not report reduced usage by elk and deer 

at these low densities, other than the avoidance of roads in general. Many of these roads are 

likely used for OHV recreation and, although narrow, represent potentially severe disturbance 

due to noise, dust, speed, and the potential of users to travel onto adjacent off-road lands. Due 

to the length of roads that would be added for this alternative, habitat fragmentation remains 

small, and large blocks of undisturbed land, including designated WSAs, would be maintained. 

Direct habitat loss from ground disturbance from the transportation system proposed under this 

alternative is 864 acres. 

Other Resources Management 

Perhaps the most important resource for wildlife, particularly in arid regions, is water. Riparian 

and wetland areas show the greatest diversity in vegetation and wildlife species. Alternative I 

protects 2,415 acres of riparian system; however, there are no restrictions on groundwater and 

new water developments. Of the five alternatives, Alternative I is the least protective of water 

resources. 

This alternative would also protect large blocks of land, which may benefit wildlife. In particular, 

25,549 acres would be managed as WSAs, and 427 acres would be managed as an RNA. 

Alternative II

Wildlife Management 

Several strict protective measures would exist for wildlife under Alternative II, and would include 

the following: 

 TLs implemented under this alternative for special status species may benefit wildlife in 

general; 

 the prohibition on ground-disturbing activity during the raptor breeding season may 

benefit several bird species; 

 the avoidance of vegetation removal or treatment from mid-April to mid-July may protect 

nesting migratory birds and other wildlife; 

 predator control would prohibit APHIS from culling or shooting individual animals or 

destroying their dens, except when individual animals pose a safety risk to humans or to 

for specific reasons, as agreed upon ahead of time; 

 the protection or improvement of habitat through: 

− the establishment of native grasses and forbs; 

− the maintenance or improvement of habitat; 

− the prohibition of ground-disturbance activities within 150 feet of bodies of water that 

support native amphibian breeding; 

− the consideration of habitat management for deer; 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

347 

− prescribed fires; 

− changes in livestock grazing; and 

− the implementation of weed control and revegetation. 

These actions may provide greater benefit to wildlife than those delineated under Alternative I. 

Alternative II would allow the beneficial measures for special status species outlined in 

Alternative I, and would add the following: 

 the establishment of a TL within 0.5 mile of documented (occupied or historic) Mexican 

Spotted Owl nests in order to prohibit ground-disturbing activities within 0.5 mile from 

March 15 to September 1, with permitted activities within this area limited to mesa tops 

and rims; 

 the establishment of a 0.5-mile restriction from any active bald eagle or golden eagle 

nests from March 1 through July 15, and from winter roost or concentration areas from 

November 16 through April 15; 

 the prohibition of ground-disturbing activities within 0.5 mile of bald or golden eagle 

nests site, or bald eagle winter roost sites (active or historic), with a lease notice for oil 

and gas activities; 

 the prohibition of tree removal and/or ground-disturbing activity during the raptor nesting 

season from March 1 through July 15; 

 the implementation of recovery actions for the SWWF; 

 the preparation of a HMP for sensitive lizard species; 

 the prioritization of the management of cheatgrass and other noxious weeds in 

vegetation communities that support sensitive reptiles and reestablishment of native 

vegetation; 

 the fencing of suitable SWWF habitat to exclude livestock grazing; and 

 the establishment of an NGD/NSO restriction within SWWF habitat, and a 0.25-mile 

buffer of habitat patches, which would disallow any activities that may result in ground 

disturbances. 

Based on its proactive plans for recovery; its numerous stipulations relating to timing, ground 

disturbance, and buffer zones; its requirement for the creation of HMPs for sensitive lizard 

species; and its prioritization of weed management in habitats with a high potential to support 

sensitive reptile species, this alternative may result in a large amount of protection for special 

status species. These measures may protect habitat; reduce disturbance; and reduce habitat 

alteration and fragmentation for bald eagles, ferruginous hawks, burrowing owls, both species of 

lizard, common kingsnakes, and Mesa Verde nightsnakes. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, 13 sites would be developed for public use. Development of each site, and 

the attendant studies and visitor presence, may represent a small footprint in the Monument. 

The additional access and greater level of overall visitor use may have adverse impacts on 

wildlife, particularly during sensitive times of the year (i.e., during breeding and wintering). 

Considering the relatively small surface area involved, it would most likely be a minor impact. 

Where special status-species habitat occurs within the vicinity of developed sites, disturbance to 

their habitat would be avoided. If a special status species were present, protective measures 

would be in place to avoid impacts while they occupy the site. Protecting cultural resources, 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

348 

including communities, sites, and isolated finds, may help to protect large blocks of wildlife 

habitat from ground disturbance. Given these mitigation measures, adverse impacts to special 

status species may be minimal under Alternative II. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative II, new fluid minerals leases would be allowed on up to 880 acres over the 

next 20 years in order to protect against drainage of fluid minerals. NSO stipulations would be 

included for areas of cultural and natural value. An environmental assessment (EA) or an EIS 

would be required for seismic operations. Geophysical operations could only use BLM-defined 

roads, and would have to avoid biological crust communities. 

With the potential for new leases limited to up to 880 acres, there may be surface disturbances 

totaling up to 18 acres for well pads, associated structures, and for access roads. This would 

cover a relatively small portion of the Monument, and would be mitigated by the NGD/NSO 

stipulations associated with it. 

Much of the Monument is available to fluid minerals development under existing leases. For 

areas currently leased, the drainages and canyons may likely be protected from mineral 

development due to their lack of easy access and to the SSRs/CSUs on riparian vegetation and 

steep slopes. It is anticipated that most of the extraction activity would occur on the mesa tops 

above the canyons, and that those species favoring riparian areas and canyons may not be 

disturbed. However, those species favoring pinyon-juniper woodlands, sagebrush and saltbush 

shrubland, and shrub-grass communities, may be impacted. The longnose leopard lizard, a 

BLM sensitive species, is an example of a species favoring these upland areas. These impacts 

are ongoing, based on current management of fluid minerals within existing leases in the 

Monument. The NGD/NSO for the protection of cultural resources under this alternative may 

also reduce the potential for impacts to wildlife. Protecting cultural resources at the landscape 

level, including communities, sites, and isolated finds, may help to protect large blocks of habitat 

from ground disturbance. This action, along with the protection of canyon bottoms, riparian 

areas and flood plains planned under this alternative, may provide large areas of undisturbed 

habitat for wildlife. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, 23 allotments would be available for livestock grazing, which would 

encompass 157,941 acres. There would be 6,437 active AUMs and five livestock grazing 

allotments would be closed (124 AUMs), including Sand Canyon East, Sand Canyon West, 

Rock Creek, Goodman Gulch, and Trail Canyon allotments. These allotments occur in the 

southeastern part of the Monument and total 6,059 acres. 

Monitoring for Public Land Health Standards would continue, and goals may be achieved 

expeditiously as the result of reducing authorized allotment use, adjusting spring livestock 

grazing duration and extent of use, and implementing a rest-rotation grazing system. 

Permittees and interested public would be invited to participate in monitoring. Existing grazing 

permits would be reviewed on a regular schedule and revised, as necessary, to address current 

allotment conditions and permittee needs in the context of achieving Public Land Health 

Standards and other resource management objectives. 

The impact of livestock grazing under Alternative II may have the least impact of all of the 

alternatives. This is because it has the lowest number of allowed allotments and AUMs. This 

may reduce competition for forage and may minimize impacts on riparian vegetation, leaving 

more native vegetation communities intact. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

349 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

A primary factor to consider when determining impacts from recreation on wildlife is visitation. 

Human presence is known to disturb wildlife, particularly during sensitive times of the year, such 

as during nesting, breeding, and/or during preparation for winter. Recreation strategies that 

promote visitation may likely result in greater impacts to wildlife. This alternative would promote 

an undeveloped recreation strategy with minimum facilities. The target visitation for this 

alternative is local residents and incidental visitors. This marketing strategy would maintain use 

at its lowest level, and would be the most protective of special status species. 

There would be a total of 139 miles of roads designated under this alternative. Road density 

would be 0.54 miles per square mile, representing a reduction from Alternative I, in terms of the 

potential for disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and/or loss of habitat security. Out of all of the 

alternatives, this alternative may provide the greatest benefit to wildlife. Direct habitat loss from 

ground disturbance from the transportation system proposed under this alternative is 806 acres. 

Other Resources Management 

Perhaps the most important resource for wildlife, particularly in arid regions, is water. Riparian 

and wetland areas show the greatest diversity in vegetation and wildlife species. Alternative II 

protects 5,312 acres of riparian system, including canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Under this alternative, groundwater and new water developments would be 

discouraged. This alternative, along with Alternative V, is the most protective of water 

resources and, consequently, of wildlife. 

This alternative would maximize the protection of large blocks of land for a variety of resource 

purposes; therefore, it may result in the most benefits for wildlife. In particular, 25,549 acres 

would be managed as WSAs, 5,223 acres would be managed for wilderness character, and 

7,826 acres would be managed as RNAs. 

Alternative III

Wildlife Management 

For wildlife in general, management under Alternative III would be very similar to that proposed 

under Alternative II, except for a few less restrictive protective measures. Predator control may 

limit techniques and uses in specifically designated areas, rather than Monument-wide. For 

special status species in general, the management strategy for Alternative III would be very 

similar to Alternative II. One beneficial difference in Alternative III would be the incorporation of 

a TL for activities within 0.25 mile of SWWF habitat, which may benefit this special status 

species if, or when, it is located in the Monument. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative III would allow for the development of 13 to 25 sites for public access and 

interpretation. The additional access and greater level of overall visitor use may have adverse 

impacts on wildlife, especially during sensitive times of the year (i.e., during breeding and 

wintering). For example, adverse impacts on special status species may occur should 

promotion of a site coincide with species occupancy. However, due to the fact that there would 

only be a few, if any, of these locations, sites could be closed to avoid impacts, and scientific 

excavation could be timed to avoid special status species. Impacts may likely be minimal or 

non-existent. Protection of cultural resource communities and sites may assist in protecting 

large blocks of wildlife habitat from ground disturbance. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

350 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Alternative III would make up to an additional 3,021 acres available for new fluid minerals 

leasing. Associated with this potential development would be up to an additional 73 acres of 

access road, well pad, and associated structures. Some activities that differ from Alternative II 

that may disturb and/or displace wildlife, especially special status species, include: 

 not protecting against disturbance on the basis of isolated cultural resource finds; 

 less stringent requirements for the coverage of cultural resource inventories; 

 geophysical operations permitted on illegal roads, as authorized on a case-by-case 

basis; 

 new leases in the McElmo Dome Unit; 

 use of earthmoving equipment for maintenance and repair during seismic operationrelated work; and 

 use of explosives 500 feet away from cultural resource sites with 20- to 40-pound 

charges. 

Under Alternative III, fluid minerals management may result in adverse impacts to wildlife due to 

its less stringent restrictions on development activities. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

The number of AUMs allowed under Alternative III (8,368) may be less than the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative I) by 124 AUMs, which is accounted for by closing five allotments. This 

alternative may reduce livestock competition with wildlife for forage and may reduce the use of 

riparian areas in those five allotments. Removing livestock grazing from these areas in the 

southeastern part of the Monument may benefit the longnose leopard lizard, where it is known 

to occur. 

This alternative maintains the same number of AUMs on all allotments as that proposed under 

Alternative I, except for allotments planned for closing. Due to the fact that the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative I) has shown little progress in achieving Public Land Health Standards, 

this alternative may also show little progress. Utilization and seasonal grazing restrictions may 

help to move rangelands toward standards; however, it would likely be at a slower pace than 

under Alternatives II and V. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

A primary factor to consider when determining impacts from recreation to wildlife is visitation. 

Human presence is known to disturb wildlife, particularly during sensitive times of the year, such 

as during nesting, breeding, and/or during preparation for winter. Recreation strategies that 

promote visitation may likely result in greater impacts to wildlife. This alternative would promote 

a recreation destination strategy for regional visitors, along with appropriate support facilities. 

Transportation activities outlined in Alternative III that may impact wildlife include the 

enlargement of parking areas, the potential upgrading of travel surfaces, the lack of a timetable 

for road-closure strategy and enforcement of a transportation management system, and the 

increase in road miles and density. This alternative would include 189 miles of roads, with a 

road density of 0.73 miles per square mile. Roads have a major impact on wildlife, and these 

increases may result in direct habitat loss (1,096 acres), habitat fragmentation, interference with 

movement patterns, spread of noxious weeds, and direct disturbance and mortality. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

351 

Other Resources Management 

Perhaps the most important resource for wildlife, particularly in arid regions, is water. Riparian 

and wetland areas show the greatest diversity in vegetation and wildlife species. Alternative III 

would protect 5,312 acres of riparian system, including canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Under this alternative, groundwater and new water developments would be 

allowed. These management actions may not be as beneficial as those proposed under 

Alternative II. 

This alternative would protect large blocks of land, which may benefit wildlife. In particular, 

25,549 acres would be managed as WSAs, and 427 acres would be managed as RNA. Fewer 

acres of special designation areas are protected under this alternative. 

Alternative IV

Wildlife Management 

This alternative provides the least protective measures for wildlife of all of the action 

alternatives. Under Alternative IV, there would be no protection for amphibian breeding habitat 

from ground-disturbing activities. Some vegetation treatment for forage improvement would be 

allowed, but would not be promoted as much as under some of the other alternatives. 

Modification of agreements with Wildlife Services to specify conditions for predator control 

would be made. However, this alternative is not specific as to what those modifications may be. 

This alternative would provide only some of the benefits to wildlife that Alternatives II, III, and V 

would provide. 

The only difference for special status species under this alternative is that USFWS-approved 

SWWF surveys would be conducted for activities within 0.25 mile of nesting habitat. If birds are 

found, then TLs would apply for the breeding season. This differs from Alternative III, under 

which there would be a TL for activities within 0.25 mile during the breeding season. Protective 

measures for Mexican spotted owls, bald eagles, SWWF habitat, and roundtail chubs would be 

in place under this alternative. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative IV would allow for the development of 13 to 25 sites for public access and 

interpretation. Stabilization of cultural resource sites would be emphasized. The additional 

access and greater level of overall visitor use may have adverse impacts on wildlife. The 

development of additional sites for public access and interpretation may have adverse impacts 

on special status species, especially if promotion of a site coincides with special status species 

habitat primarily during occupancy. However, due to the fact that there would only be a few, if 

any, of these locations, sites could be closed to avoid impacts, and scientific excavation could 

be timed to avoid special status species impacts. Impacts may be minimal or non-existent. 

Protection of cultural resource communities and sites may assist in protecting wildlife habitat 

from ground disturbance. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Alternative IV would make up to 24,462 acres available for new-fluid minerals development, 

including up to 12 new oil and gas wells, and up to 38 new CO2 wells. Associated with this 

development would be up to an additional 447 acres of ground disturbance, as a result of 

access road, well pad, and associated structure development. Alternative IV would allow 

increased activity over that proposed under Alternative III, including the following: 

 the distance between explosives and cultural resources would be determined on a caseby-case basis; 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

352 

 geophysical operations would be allowed throughout the Monument, with authorization 

on a case-by-case basis; 

 limitations on disturbance to biological crust communities would not be specified; and 

 passage through washes, alluvial valleys, and/or through perennial water features with 

riparian vegetation would have fewer restrictions. 

In addition, the only NGD/NSO stipulations would be on areas of natural value and for slopes 

greater than 30 percent. There would be no TLs on crucial winter range. Fluid minerals 

development may have significant impacts on special status species, and their habitat, if 

development occurred in, or immediately adjacent to, suitable habitat, especially during 

occupation. 

If the Squaw-Cross Canyons area were to be leased, there may be an impact to elk and mule 

deer due to the fact that this is part of the winter range for both species (see Map 11). The deer 

and elk in the Monument are part of Game Management Unit (GMU) 72. This is a very large 

unit, encompassing the western half of Montezuma County and the southwestern portion of 

Dolores County. Winter range is crucial habitat for these ungulates, because winter is their 

most vulnerable time of year. Impacts to winter range may impact herd numbers. In the 

Monument, mule deer winter range is approximately 24,307 acres and elk winter range is 

approximately 17,553 acres; this is 13 percent and 9.5 percent of the entire Monument, 

respectively. The greatest protection afforded wildlife in the Squaw-Cross Canyon area, under 

this alternative, would be the maintenance of much of the area as a WSA. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, 28 allotments and 8,492 active AUMs would be available for livestock 

grazing, the same as under current management. Under Alternative IV, the remaining acres 

outside of designated livestock grazing allotments capable of supporting livestock grazing would 

be allocated. As with all of the alternatives, Alternative IV would require compliance with Public 

Land Health Standards and Livestock Grazing Guidelines. However, this alternative would 

maintain the same number of AUMs on all allotments as would Alternative I. Due to the fact that 

the No Action Alternative (Alternative I) has shown little progress in achieving Public Land 

Health Standards, this alternative may also show little progress. Progress may be made 

through utilization and seasonal grazing restrictions; however, it may occur at a slower pace 

than under Alternatives II and V. Compared with Alternative I, Alternative IV would address 

forage utilization levels, and would be protective of riparian systems and stubble height. 

Compared with Alternative I, Alternative IV would establish minimum stubble height standards; 

require fencing of riparian areas, where needed, to achieve PFC and Public Land Health 

Standards; require coordination with the CDOW; and require protection of biological crusts – all 

actions that may be beneficial to wildlife and special status species. Alternative IV would place 

no restrictions on livestock grazing in the McElmo Dome Unit, whereas Alternative I would 

require intensive livestock management. Unlike Alternative III, there would be no removal of 

livestock grazing from five southeastern allotments. Although there would be some 

improvements in management compared with Alternative I, overall livestock grazing under 

Alternative IV may result in impacts to special status species, in the form of habitat modification, 

due to a reduction in native vegetation. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

A primary factor to consider when determining impacts from recreation on wildlife is visitation. 

Human presence is known to disturb wildlife, particularly during sensitive times of the year, such 

as during nesting, breeding, and/or during in preparation for winter. Recreation strategies that 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

353 

promote visitation may result in greater impacts to wildlife. This alternative would promote a 

recreation destination strategy for national and international visitors, and would have a greater 

need for facility development. 

Many of the potential impacts listed for Alternative III may also occur under Alternative IV. In 

addition, Alternative IV would include the enlargement of parking areas, potential upgrades to 

travel surfaces, lack of a timetable for road closure strategies and enforcement of a 

transportation management system, and an increase in road miles and density. Alternative IV 

would increase the length of roads to 213 miles, and a road density of 0.83 miles per square 

mile. Roads can have a major impact on wildlife, and these increases may result in direct 

habitat loss (1,235 acres), habitat fragmentation, interference with movement patterns, spread 

of noxious weeds, disturbance, and direct mortality. 

Other Resources Management 

Perhaps the most important resource for wildlife, particularly in arid regions, is water. Riparian 

and wetland areas show the greatest diversity in vegetation and wildlife species. Alternative IV 

protects 3,217 acres of riparian system, including riparian areas and floodplains (not canyon 

bottoms). Under this alternative, groundwater and new water developments would be 

encouraged to support expanded resource development. 

This alternative would protect large blocks of land, which may benefit wildlife. In particular, 

25,549 acres would be managed as WSAs, and 427 acres would be managed as RNA. 

Although protective, less protection would be afforded special designation areas than those 

proposed under Alternative II. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Wildlife Management 

Alternative V is similar to Alternative II, in terms of wildlife management, with the following 

actions: 

 TLs would be implemented for special status species that may also benefit wildlife in 

general. Tree removal, fuel reduction, and ground-disturbing activity during the raptor 

breeding season would be prohibited, which may benefit several bird species; 

 the avoidance of vegetation removal or treatment from mid-April to mid-July, when 

practicable, may protect nesting migratory birds and other wildlife; 

 several steps that would protect or improve habitat for wildlife include the following: 

− the maintenance or improvement of habitat; 

− the establishment of native grasses and forbs; 

− the prohibition of ground-disturbing activities within 150 feet of bodies of water that 

support native amphibian breeding; 

− the consideration of habitat management for deer; 

− the use of prescribed fire as a management tool; 

− changes in livestock grazing; 

− implementation of weed control; and 

− revegetation. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

354 

 predator control would prohibit APHIS from culling or shooting individual animals or 

destroying their dens, except when individual animals pose a safety risk to humans or for 

specific reasons, as agreed upon ahead of time. 

This alternative is basically the same as Alternative II, in terms of being the most protective of 

wildlife. 

Alternative V would follow restrictions for wildlife outlined in Alternative I, and would add 

additional beneficial measures for special status species, including the prohibition of activities 

that would result in direct harm to threatened and endangered or sensitive species. These 

protective measures include: 

 the establishment of a TL within 0.5 mile of documented (occupied or historic) Mexican 

spotted owl nests to prohibit ground-disturbing activities within 0.5 mile from March 15 to 

September 1, with permitted activities within this area limited to mesa tops and rims; 

 the establishment of a 0.5 mile restriction from active bald eagle or golden eagle nests 

from March 1 through July 15, and from winter roost or concentration areas from 

November 16 through April 15; 

 the prohibition of ground-disturbing activities within 0.5 mile of bald or golden eagle nest 

site, or bald eagle winter roost sites (active or historic) with a lease notice for oil and gas 

activities; 

 the prohibition of tree removal and/or of ground-disturbing activity during the raptor 

nesting season (March 1 through July 15); 

 the implementation of the recovery plan for the SWWF, 

 the preparation of a HMP for sensitive lizard species; 

 the prioritization of the management of cheatgrass and other noxious weeds in 

vegetation communities that support sensitive reptiles and the re-establishment of native 

vegetation; 

 the fencing of suitable SWWF habitat to exclude livestock grazing; and 

 the establishment of a NGD restriction within SWWF habitat and a 0.25-mile buffer of 

habitat patches. 

This alternative would present the greatest amount of protection for special status species with 

its proactive plans for recovery of the SWWF; its numerous stipulations relating to timing, 

ground disturbance, and buffer zones; its requirements for the creation of plans; and its 

prioritization of issues. These measures may protect habitat, lessen disturbance, and reduce 

habitat alteration and fragmentation for bats, peregrine falcons, bald eagles, ferruginous hawks, 

burrowing owls, SWWF, both species of lizard, common kingsnakes, Mesa Verde nightsnakes, 

and special status fish species that occur in the Monument and in the San Juan River. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative V allows for the development of 13 to 25 sites for public access and interpretation. 

Stabilization would be allowed at the Monument Manager’s discretion, primarily to address 

human impacts. Development of each site, the attendant studies, visitor presence, the 

additional access, and the greater level of overall visitor use may cause disturbance impacts to 

wildlife, especially to special status species and their habitat. However, the impacts may be 

minor, considering the relatively small surface area and the few number of sites involved. 

Under this alternative, scientific excavation would be timed to avoid special status species 

impacts, and sites could be closed during critical periods of occupancy. This alternative would 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

355 

protect cultural resource communities and sites, preventing large areas of land from being 

disturbed, which may benefit wildlife. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Fluid minerals management under Alternative V would use the same management activities as 

those proposed under Alternatives II, III, and I. However, the majority would follow Alternative 

II, including the number of acres available for lease. New fluid minerals leases would be 

allowed on up to 880 acres for the protection of drainage. This may result in 18 acres of ground 

disturbance. NSO stipulations would be included for areas of cultural and natural value. An EA 

or an EIS would be required for a seismic operation. Geophysical operations would only be 

allowed to use BLM-defined roads, and would be required to avoid biological crust communities. 

COAs (e.g., stipulations) would be applied to operational approvals, such as APDs. These 

actions may benefit wildlife and may help to protect special status species. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, the Monument would be stocked at 6,437 active AUMs. This would be a 

substantial decrease from the current 8,492 AUMs. Five livestock grazing allotments would be 

closed. The allowable utilization level would be limited to 50 percent of the current year’s 

production of desired perennial grass species, where Public Land Health Standards are being 

met. An allowable utilization level of 35 percent, on a by-pasture basis, would be implemented 

where Public Land Health Standards are not being met. Term livestock grazing permits would 

be modified to meet Public Land Health Standards. 

Compliance with Public Land Health Standards may be achieved expeditiously as the result of 

reducing authorized use, adjusting spring livestock grazing duration and extent of use, and 

implementing a rest-rotation grazing system. Existing term livestock grazing permits would be 

reviewed on a regular schedule and revised, as necessary, in order to address current allotment 

conditions and permittee needs, in the context of achieving the Public Land Health Standards. 

Land health monitoring would continue. 

This alternative may improve land health as rapidly as possible while, at the same time, 

maintaining use by livestock, reducing competition for forage, and improving habitats for a 

variety of wildlife species. Increased vegetation, coming as a result of this alternative, may 

benefit special status species by enhancing cover and forage for their prey. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

A primary factor to consider when determining impacts from recreation on wildlife is visitation. 

Human presence is known to disturb wildlife, particularly during sensitive times of the year, such 

as during nesting, breeding, and/or during preparation for winter. Recreation strategies that 

promote visitation may result in greater impacts to wildlife. This alternative would contain a mix 

of promotion strategies. The BLM would manage an undeveloped strategy, with minimal 

facilities, for local visitors on 163,666 acres; a destination strategy, with appropriate support 

facilities, for regional visitors on 160 acres; and a destination strategy, with additional facilities, 

for national and international visitors on 174 acres. 

Transportation management under Alternative V would involve a total of 169 miles of roads, 

which equates to 980 acres of ground disturbance. Road density under this alternative would 

be 0.66 miles per square mile. Although these activities may have the potential to cause wildlife 

disturbance, limitations on location and extent of recreation and transportation actions may help 

to minimize impacts. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

356 

Other Resources Management 

Perhaps the most important resource for wildlife, particularly in arid regions, is water. Riparian 

and wetland areas show the greatest diversity in vegetation and wildlife species. Alternative V 

would protect 5,312 acres of riparian system, including canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Under this alternative, groundwater and new water developments would be 

discouraged. This alternative, along with Alternative II, is the most protective of water resources 

and wildlife. 

This alternative maximizes the protection of large blocks of land for a variety of resource 

purposes. As a result, wildlife may benefit from these actions. In particular, 25,549 acres would 

be managed as WSAs, 5,223 acres would be managed for wilderness character, and 7,826 

acres would be managed as RNA. 

4.2.7.3. Wildlife and Special Status Species Management Impact Comparison 

The wildlife and special status species impact comparison is presented in Table 4-15. This 

table compares the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on 

wildlife. 

4.2.7.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Oil and gas development on private lands in the Monument, as well as on adjacent areas, would 

be expected to be similar in nature and extent to the impacts on the BLM portions of the 

Monument. The total surface area of private lands within the boundary of the Monument is 

nearly 18,000 acres. These areas, in particular, may result in cumulative impacts to wildlife due 

to changes in native vegetation, big-game winter range, and/or to other habitat changes. 

Moreover, impacts on private lands may be significantly greater than on BLM lands if 

reclamation of disturbed areas, avoidance of riparian areas, and maintenance of vegetation 

health is not performed to the same standards as that required by the BLM. Similarly, protective 

stipulations, such as NGDs/NSOs, would not be required of private landowners. 

Cumulative impacts may occur if there were increased development and recreational use on 

adjacent private lands, as well as on other BLM lands and Native American tribal lands to the 

south and west of the Monument. Many of the adjacent farmlands are converting to 

subdivisions, which may reduce their wildlife habitat potential and increase the potential for 

disturbance. This development sets the Monument up to be an oasis of wildlife habitat. 

Impacts to wildlife, and to special status species in particular, may result from increasing levels 

of human use and from development throughout the region, regardless of management actions 

taken in the Monument. The anticipated increase in recreational use and/or other vehiclerelated disturbance offsite, as a consequence of continued human population growth, may 

further add to adverse impacts. However, beneficial impacts, such as those from road closures, 

reduced livestock grazing, and from the maintenance of large undisturbed land blocks may help 

to offset these impacts. For larger, more wide-ranging species, such as mountain lion or black 

bear, the combined impact of smaller-scale impacts may become disproportionately large and 

result in population declines. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

357 

Table 4-15 Comparison of Impacts to Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Wildlife Resources 

Continue existing 

protective measures. 

Control by APHIS 

targets for individual 

animals anywhere on 

Monument. 

Apply many strict 

protective measures. 

Control by 

APHIS targets on 

individual animals 

Monument-wide, 

when human safety is 

an issue. 

Apply some strict 

protective measures. 

Designate some areas 

for animal control by 

APHIS, only when 

human safety is an 

issue. 

Apply some strict 

protective measures. 

Control by APHIS 

targets on individual 

animals anywhere in 

the Monument. 

Apply many strict 

protective measures. 

Control by APHIS 

targets on individual 

animals. 

Monument-wide, only 

when human safety is 

an issue. 

Special Status 

Species 

Apply no speciesspecific restrictions. Apply species- specific restrictions. Apply species-specific restrictions. Apply species-specific restrictions. Apply species- specific restrictions. 

Cultural Resources 

Develop new sites for 

controlled visitation. 

Protect cultural sites. 

Identify 13 sites for 

development and 

visitation. Protect 

cultural resource 

communities, sites, 

and isolated finds. 

Identify 13 to 25 sites 

for development and 

visitation. Protect 

cultural resource 

communities and sites. 

Identify 13 to 25 sites 

for development and 

visitation. Protect 

cultural resource 

communities and 

sites. 

Identify 13 to 25 sites 

for development and 

visitation. Protect 

cultural resource 

communities and 

sites. 

Fluid Minerals No impact. 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

leasing (with up to 18 

acres of disturbance). 

Make up to 3,021 new 

acres available for 

leasing (with up to 73 

acres of disturbance). 

Make up to 24,462 

new acres available 

for leasing (with up to 

447 acres of 

disturbance). 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

leasing (with up to 18 

acres of disturbance). 

Rangeland Resources 

Permit 8,492 AUMs, 

28 allotments. 

Not achieving Public 

Land Health 

Standards. 

Permit 6,437 AUMs, 

23 allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 

Permit 8,368 AUMs, 

23 allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Permit 8,492 AUMs, 

28 allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Permit 6,437 AUMs, 

23 allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

358 

Table 4-15 Comparison of Impacts to Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Standards. Health Standards. Health Standards. Standards. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Promote no specific 

recreation strategy 

(with facility 

development as 

needed). Maintain 

developed recreation 

sites. Manage 149 

miles of roads (864 

acres of disturbance). 

Promote 

undeveloped strategy 

(with minimum 

facilities). Manage 

8,211 acres for public 

visitation. Manage 

157,124 acres for 

backcountry use. 

Manage 139 miles of 

roads (806 acres of 

disturbance). 

Promote destination 

strategy (with support 

facilities). Manage 

18,875 acres for public 

visitation. Manage 

146,460 acres for 

backcountry use. 

Manage 189 miles of 

roads (1,096 acres of 

disturbance). 

Promote destination 

strategy (with more 

facilities). Manage 

47,056 acres for 

public visitation. 

Manage 118,279 

acres for backcountry 

use. Manage 213 

miles of roads (1,235 

acres of disturbance). 

Promote a 

combination of 

strategies. Manage 

7,875 acres for public 

visitation. Manage 

157,460 acres for 

backcountry use. 

Manage 169 miles of 

roads (980 acres of 

disturbance). 

Other Resources: 

Water Resources 

Protect 2,415 acres 

of riparian system. 

Apply no restrictions 

on groundwater and 

new water 

developments. 

Protect 5,312 acres 

of canyon bottoms; 

riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Discourage 

groundwater 

developments. 

Protect 5,312 acres of 

canyon bottoms; 

riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Allow 

groundwater 

developments. 

Protect 3,217 acres of 

riparian areas and 

floodplains. 

Encourage 

groundwater 

developments. 

Protect 5,312 acres 

of canyon bottoms; 

riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Discourage 

groundwater 

developments. 

Other Resources: 

Special Designations 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA. Designate 

no WSR. Manage 

427 acres as RNA. 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA. Manage 

5,223 acres for 

wilderness character. 

Designate all eligible 

river segments 

suitable as WSRs 

(25.3 miles). Manage 

7,826 acres as RNA. 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA. Designate 

no river segments 

suitable as WSR. 

Manage 427 acres as 

RNA. 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA. Designate 

no river segments 

suitable as WSR. 

Manage 427 acres as 

RNA. 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA. Manage 

5,223 acres for 

wilderness character. 

Designate no river 

segments suitable as 

WSR. Manage 7,826 

acres as RNA. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

359 

4.2.8. Vegetation Resources 

The primary goal for vegetation resource management in the Monument is to sustain a 

biologically diverse landscape that supports a variety of habitats and native plant and animal 

species. The management objectives related to this goal include: 

 protect and/or enhance upland vegetation communities to ensure that the Public Land 

Health Standards for healthy, productive plant and animal communities is met, or that 

significant progress is being made toward achieving it; 

 reclaim and rehabilitate disturbed areas impacted by wildland fire and other surfacedisturbing activities (e.g., well pad sites, pipeline roads, closed roads) to protect soil, 

water, and vegetation resources; 

 protect and/or enhance aquatic, wetland, and riparian areas to ensure that the Public 

Land Health Standards for riparian systems is met, or that significant progress is being 

made toward achieving it; and 

 cooperate with other agencies and landowners in the prevention, control, or eradication 

of invasive pests that threaten the health of the ecosystem. 

Another goal for vegetation resource management is to control existing noxious weed 

populations and prevent new infestations. The management objectives related to this goal 

include: 

 inventory and map existing noxious weed populations; 

 develop and implement an integrated weed management program, in cooperation with 

adjacent landowners (i.e., counties, private landowners, Hovenweep National 

Monument, the Navajo Nation, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe), which includes 

mechanical, biological, and chemical control techniques, and which emphasizes 

prevention, inventory, detection and monitoring, and project actions; and 

 prevent the establishment of new infestations of noxious weeds and the spread of 

existing populations. 

Listed, proposed or candidate threatened or endangered plant species would be managed to 

comply with provisions of the ESA, including the need for listing proposed or candidate species. 

The management goal for special status plants and significant plant communities, and their 

habitat, is to reach a point where special status recognition is no longer warranted. 

Native vegetation in the Monument is conceptually subdivided into the general community types 

described and quantified by area in Section 3.1.8. A distinction is made between upland 

vegetation and those areas classified as riparian/wetland areas. Additionally, noxious weeds 

are considered a separate vegetation management category, as are special status-plant 

species and significant plant communities. These distinctions are carried through the following 

discussion. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short- and long-term impacts to vegetation resources. 

A number of management actions proposed under the alternatives have the potential to impact 

native vegetation. For this discussion, adverse direct impacts to upland vegetation may include, 

but are not limited to, disruption and/or removal of rooted vegetation resulting in a reduction in 

areas of native plant communities, reduction of total numbers of plant species (species 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

360 

richness) within an area, and/or reduction or loss of total area, diversity, structure, or function of 

wildlife habitat. Adverse direct impacts to riparian/wetland areas may include, but are not 

limited to, those expressed for upland vegetation, as well as increased sedimentation due to 

local surface disturbance, soil and bank erosion, and changes to channel morphology. 

Beneficial direct impacts to vegetation resources may include, but are not limited to, an increase 

in areas of native plant communities, a decrease in the size of noxious weed populations, and 

an increase in species diversity and/or structure within these native plant communities. 

A number of indirect impacts to vegetation resources may also be possible as a result of 

proposed management actions. Most indirect adverse impacts are assumed to result from 

direct impacts, in proportion to the relative amount of associated surface disturbance. Adverse 

indirect impacts may include, but are not limited to, the disruption and/or reduction of pollinator 

populations; the loss of habitat suitable for colonization, due to surface disturbance; the 

introduction of noxious weeds by various vectors or conditions that enhance the spread of 

weeds; and the general loss of habitat, due to surface occupancy, surface compaction, and/or 

trampling. Physical disruption may result in sedimentation into occupied habitat and/or potential 

habitat. Failed reclamation or mitigation may also result in indirect impacts to these resources. 

Indirect impacts to riparian/wetland areas may also include disruption of hydrological processes, 

decreased ability to trap sediments and nutrients and to moderate surface flow, decreased 

infiltration for groundwater recharge, increased runoff, and focused livestock grazing pressure or 

wildlife use in less impacted riparian/wetland areas. Additional indirect impacts from increased 

erosion and sedimentation may occur to riparian/wetland areas located near surface 

disturbances, even if the resource itself may be purposely avoided to reduce direct impacts. 

Beneficial indirect impacts may result from minimizing or preventing surface disturbance (and, 

therefore, disturbance to vegetation) as a result of protection of other resources. 

4.2.8.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

The most adverse direct impacts to vegetation result from surface disturbances; therefore, these 

areas are the primary parameter for discussion and comparison of impact analysis for 

vegetation resources. Areas reclaimed, otherwise improved, and/or protected from ground 

disturbance are used to describe beneficial impacts. Estimates of surface disturbance areas 

associated with potential management actions were calculated using data from the AMS (BLM 

2005b) and from the RFD (BLM 2005c), and are summarized in Table 4-1. Proposed surfaceuse restrictions are listed and summarized in Table 2-1. When quantitative analysis is not 

possible, categories are based upon the potential physical impacts in relation to Colorado Public 

Land Health Standards. 

Assumptions included in the analysis of impacts to vegetation resources include the following: 

 Estimated disturbance areas are distributed among upland and riparian/wetland 

communities in proportion to their relative area throughout the Monument, unless 

otherwise limited by applicable surface-use restrictions. 

 Application of appropriate BMPs and standardized reclamation practices would be 

required as COAs for all new leases, permits, and surface disturbance areas (see 

Appendix E). 

 Federal lands within the Monument boundary are the subject of the impact analysis. 

 The entire vicinity that comprises the Colorado Plateau Semi-desert ecoregion (Bailey 

1995) is the subject of the cumulative impacts analysis. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

361 

4.2.8.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to vegetation resources may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific 

management actions proposed under each alternative for different resource uses. The following 

sections describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from management 

actions proposed for vegetation resources, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland, and recreation 

and transportation. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Vegetation Resources Management 

This analysis assumes that current vegetation resource conditions and trends described in 

Section 3.1.8 would continue into the future under this alternative. Therefore, under Alternative 

I (the No Action Alternative), the condition of the three dominant native upland communities may 

be expected to continue generally in a stable degraded state or downward trend. 

Alternative I would contain several specific management actions intended to protectively 

manage riparian and wetland areas (including springs). Nevertheless, based on current 

conditions and trends, most of these vegetation communities would be expected to remain in 

Functional At-Risk (53 percent) or Non-Functional (27 percent) categories. Over time, this trend 

may continue to result in adverse impacts to most of these communities, as well as in failure to 

meet Public Land Health Standards. 

Noxious weed management would be included under Alternative I, but in a very general sense. 

No specific plan would be called for, and no specific actions for inventory or prioritized 

integrated management would be specified. Under this continuing management (Section 3.1.8), 

noxious weed populations may be expected to increase in frequency, density, and diversity over 

the time period of this analysis. This may result in an increase in the existing adverse impacts 

to vegetation resources as noxious weed populations continue to invade and expand into native 

plant communities, as well as in subsequent failure to meet Public Land Health Standards. 

Other than stipulations discussed in Fluid Minerals Management (below), Alternative I does not 

include any specific management actions for special status plant species and/or for significant 

plant communities. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few of the cultural resources management actions would impact 

vegetation, either directly or indirectly; therefore, continuing management may be expected to 

result in few impacts to vegetation resources. However, to some degree, development and 

stabilization, testing, and/or other activities that result in surface clearance of vegetation may 

result in highly localized, adverse impacts. The degree to which these become long-term 

disturbance areas would be dependant upon the care that is originally taken to minimize 

vegetation disturbance, as well as on the degree to which appropriate reclamation techniques 

are implemented. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative I (the No Action Alternative), currently unleased acres would continue to be 

unavailable for new fluid minerals leases. However, development of currently leased areas 

would continue. In addition to direct impacts of surface disturbance, other ongoing 

management actions associated with fluid minerals exploration and development have been 

noted as a factor in the observed downward trend in upland plant communities. This is due to 

incomplete or failed reclamation of closed and abandoned well pads, as well as to associated 

roads and other infrastructure. Many of these sites support little vegetation and are often 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

362 

dominated by noxious weeds. These areas then serve as centers of disturbance from which 

weeds and other undesirable plants spread into native vegetation. These factors are expected 

to continue to result in adverse impacts to vegetation resources. 

Alternative I would include a CSU stipulation for riparian/wetland vegetation zones. This may 

provide beneficial impacts because these resources would then be avoided during development 

activities. There are no stipulations under Alternative I, for the specific protection of special 

status plant species and/or for significant plant communities from ground disturbance as a result 

of oil and gas lease development activities. Adverse impacts may result from disturbance to 

habitat or direct removal of these resources. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative I would include a total of 8,492 active AUMs and 28 allotments. The impact of 

livestock grazing on native plant species’ community structure, cover, and diversity is variable. 

This is due to initial conditions and non-uniform grazing patterns that reflect differences in 

terrain, forage abundance and preference, and/or soil attributes. Nonetheless, management of 

rangeland resources in many allotments may be considered part of the reason for such 

allotments not meeting the Public Land Health Standards for healthy, productive plant and 

animal communities and for the downward trend observed in much of the native upland 

vegetation in the Monument. Likewise, livestock grazing is considered part of the reason the 

majority of riparian/wetland areas are not currently achieving PFC. The current management of 

rangeland resources, including active AUMs and allotments, is important factor in these trends 

and, over time, may contribute to adverse impacts to most of these vegetation communities, as 

well as continued failure to meet Public Land Health Standards. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Due to the restriction on new oil and gas leases, Alternative I would result in relatively low 

surface impacts from road development. Under this alternative 149 miles of roads would be 

open to all forms of travel (including travel for administrative purposes and travel necessary to 

support existing oil and gas leases). This may result in 864 acres of surface disturbance, and 

the second-lowest road density (0.58 miles per square mile) of any of the alternatives. 

These factors may contribute to beneficial direct impacts to all native vegetation over the longterm, as fragmentation of habitat and chances of disturbance to special status plant species and 

significant plant communities would be relatively limited, and existing roads would be returned to 

native vegetation through reclamation. Indirectly, opportunities for noxious weed infestations 

occurring along roadsides may be reduced in proportion to the reduction in total miles of roads. 

Other Resources Management 

At present, 25,549 acres of the Monument surface are managed as three WSAs using existing 

non-impairment standards and practices, in accordance with Interim Management Policy, until 

the areas are designated as wilderness, or until they are released by Congress (BLM 1995). 

The continued restrictions on permanent structures, facilities, and/or on surface disturbing 

activities may continue to result in indirect beneficial impacts to native vegetation in these areas. 

This is especially the case for mature pinyon-juniper woodlands. This is because the largest 

continuous stands in the Monument occur in these areas (see Map 13). Several large areas of 

biological crust communities may also benefit from surface restrictions in the WSAs. Under the 

No Action Alternative, should these areas be released from WSA status, they would be 

managed for wilderness characteristics, which is a distinction that may result in some limited 

adverse impacts to these resources. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

363 

Under this alternative, the 427 acre McElmo RNA would continue to be managed with special 

management prescriptions for herpetological research and habitat protection. Likewise, this 

area would be protected from surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development by 

an NSO. This management may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources in this 

area. 

Alternative II

Vegetation Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative II would emphasize management of 

vegetation resources with several specific management actions not included under Alternative I. 

These actions focus on vegetation as a resource with specific intrinsic value, instead of only in 

terms of rangeland or forestry values. In general, this may result in beneficial impacts to 

vegetation resources. Actions include implementing restoration/revegetation activities on a 

predetermined and prioritized schedule in areas where management changes alone would not 

improve resource conditions; extending livestock exclusion periods in areas following vegetation 

management treatments for at least two years; requiring reduced livestock stocking levels and 

the most limited livestock utilization (no more than 35 percent of current year’s herbaceous 

production); and requiring certified weed-free native plant species for reclamation seeding and 

planting. Implementation of these actions may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation 

resources, and may help the Monument progress toward meeting Public Land Health 

Standards. 

Management of riparian and wetland areas under all of the action alternatives (II through V) 

would occur; however, management under Alternative II would be more specific and standarddriven (achieving PFC) than it would be under Alternative I. This may eventually result in 

beneficial impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation. 

In addition, Alternative II is the only alternative with a stated emphasis on systematic noxious 

weed inventory, mapping, and monitoring. These management actions may allow for a far more 

focused and effective application of the current weed-management program in that they would 

provide data and information upon which to base a number of important decisions, such as 

incipient population locations, priority-to-control strategies, and the efficacy of different 

integrated methods for particular species and locations. Over time, this combination of 

management actions may indirectly result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources. 

Unlike Alternative II, all of the action alternatives would direct a number of focused management 

actions toward special status plant species and/or significant plant communities. These would 

include developing inventory and monitoring plans; and specifying avoidance of long-term 

ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of known populations, community locations, and/or 

potential habitat. Road relocation and/or realignment would be called for, if monitoring results 

indicate damage or disturbance is occurring. An NGD/NSO restriction would protect occupied 

and potential habitat for sensitive species. Under Alternative II, several of these actions would 

be strengthened. This would include requirements for specific protective TLs for livestock 

grazing in areas where biological soil crust communities occur, as well as requirements for 

locating new roads away from biological crust communities with a 100-foot buffer, and the 

removal of the source of disturbance to these resources when detected during monitoring. It is 

expected that these may result in beneficial impacts to special status plant species and/or 

significant plant communities, and may help the Monument make progress toward achieving 

Public Land Health Standards. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

364 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions impact vegetation, either 

directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development, testing, and/or other activities 

that result in surface clearance of vegetation may result in highly localized adverse impacts. 

The degree to which these become long-term disturbance areas would be dependant upon the 

care that is originally taken to minimize vegetation disturbance, as well as on the degree to 

which appropriate reclamation techniques are implemented. 

Under Alternative II, indirect beneficial impact to vegetation may result due to the fact that the 

Monument is mandated to protect cultural resource communities, sites, and/or isolated finds. 

This would result in more numerous, larger areas in the Monument where no direct surface 

disturbing impacts would be allowed. This may result in the indirect protection of the vegetation 

resources within these areas and may provide widespread beneficial impacts to these 

resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative II, up to 880 acres of lands currently unavailable for leasing could be leased. 

This may result in the development of up to 2 well pads, with up to 12 acres (less than 0.01 

percent of the total public lands in the Monument) of long-term disturbance (see Table 4-1). 

The result of leasing these areas under Alternative II may be limited adverse impacts to 

vegetation resources. Many of these may be mitigated by the application of appropriate BMPs, 

and by the use of standardized reclamation practices, such as COAs on the new leases. 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative II includes stipulations that may protect 

vegetation resources, including NSOs for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special 

status plant species, and/or for riparian zone/wetland habitat. Lease notices would be used to 

alert potential lessees to these stipulations. These protections may result in more beneficial 

impacts to these resources than those expected under Alternative I. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative II emphasizes rangeland management 

actions that may improve rangeland conditions, and may help the Monument make progress 

toward meeting Public Land Health Standards for upland and riparian/wetland vegetation 

communities, for special status plant species, and/or for significant plant communities. The 

number of active AUMs allowed under Alternative II (6,437) is 24 percent less than those 

allowed under the No Action Alternative (8,492). Active allotments would be reduced from 28 to 

23. Although the impacts of livestock grazing on native plant species’ community structure, 

cover, and diversity is variable (due to initial conditions and non-uniform grazing patterns that 

reflect differences in terrain, forage abundance and preference, and soil attributes), this large 

reduction in AUMs may result in a substantial beneficial impact to vegetation communities. This 

is because under this alternative, pressure from livestock grazing would be considerably 

reduced in proportion to the total AUMs. Alternative II is expected to result in the most rapid 

movement toward achieving Public Land Health Standards for both upland and riparian/wetland 

vegetation than any of the other alternatives. 

In addition, in comparison to the other action alternatives, only Alternative II consists of a 

number of management actions that may result in larger and/or more comprehensive beneficial 

impacts to vegetation. These include: 

 not allowing livestock supplemental feeding or temporary range improvement structures; 

 using specific adjustments when utilization or stubble height standards are not met; 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

365 

 applying specific protective TLs for livestock grazing in areas where biological soil crust 

communities occur; 

 limiting spring grazing to no more than one year in a three-year period per grazing unit; 

 requiring a regular schedule for Allotment Management Plan (AMP) reviews and 

revisions; and 

 limiting allowable utilization levels to no more than 35 percent of current year’s growth of 

desired perennial grass species. 

Implementation of these actions under Alternative II may result in more beneficial impacts to 

vegetation resources than under any of the other alternatives. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative II, in terms of transportation management, is the most restrictive of all of the 

alternatives. Under this alternative, 139 miles of roads would be open to forms of travel 

(including travel for administrative purposes and travel necessary to support new and existing oil 

and gas leases). This may result in 806 acres of surface disturbance, as well as the lowest road 

density (0.54 miles per square mile) of any of the alternatives. 

These factors may contribute to beneficial direct impacts to all native vegetation over the longterm, as fragmentation of habitat and chances of disturbance impacts to special status plant 

species and/or significant plant communities would be relatively limited, and existing roads 

would be returned to native vegetation through reclamation. Indirectly, opportunities for noxious 

weed infestations occurring along roads may be reduced in proportion to the reduction in total 

miles of roads (Harris and Silvea-Lopez 1992, Zink et al. 1995). 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, management of the 25,549 acres of the Monument surface designated as 

WSAs would continue using existing non-impairment standards and practices, in accordance 

with Interim Management Policy, until the areas are designated as wilderness or until they are 

released by Congress (BLM 1995). The continued restrictions on permanent structures, 

facilities, and surface disturbing activities may continue to result in indirect beneficial impacts to 

native vegetation in these areas. This is especially the case for mature pinyon-juniper 

woodlands because the largest continuous stands in the Monument occur in these areas (see 

Map 13). Several large areas of biological crust communities may also benefit from surface 

restrictions in the WSAs. Under Alternative II, these areas would also be designated as 

NGD/NSO. Therefore, should these areas be released from WSA status, they would still be 

protected from surface-disturbing activities because they would still be managed for wilderness 

characteristics. All of the action alternatives also include management actions intended to 

protect and enhance the wilderness characteristics of the WSA areas. An additional 5,223 

acres of citizen-proposed areas with wilderness character would be managed as such under 

Alternative II. All of these actions may result in greater beneficial impacts to vegetation 

resources than those expected under Alternative I (the No Action Alternative). 

Under this alternative, the existing McElmo RNA would be considerably expanded, when 

compared with Alternative II (from 427 to 7,826 acres), with special management prescriptions 

put in place for herpetological research and habitat protection. This area would also be 

protected from surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development by an NSO. This 

management may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources in this area. 

Alternative II also would include management of 25.3 miles of river reaches as suitable for Wild 

and Scenic River (WSR) designation. This may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation 

resources in existence throughout these reaches. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

366 

Alternative III

Vegetation Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative III emphasizes management of vegetation 

resources that includes several specific management actions not included under Alternative I. 

However, the specifics of many of these actions are not as proactive in terms of protecting and 

fostering native vegetation as they are under Alternative II. Implementation of these actions 

may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources, and may help the Monument progress 

toward meeting Public Land Health Standards, although for smaller areas and over a longer 

period of time than under Alternative II. 

Management of riparian and wetland areas under all of the action alternatives (II through V) 

would occur under actions more specific and standard-driven (achieving PFC) than under 

Alternative I. This may eventually result in beneficial impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation. 

Although Alternatives III and IV would specifically address noxious weed management, they do 

not include the stated emphasis on systematic noxious weed inventory, mapping, and 

monitoring as that included under Alternative II. Therefore, over time, this combination of 

management actions may indirectly result in some beneficial impacts on vegetation resources. 

Unlike Alternative I, all of the action alternatives would direct a number of focused management 

actions toward special status plant species and/or significant plant communities. These would 

include developing inventory and monitoring plans; and specifying avoidance of long-term 

ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of known populations, community locations, and/or 

potential habitat. Road relocation or realignment would be called for, if monitoring results 

indicate damage or disturbance is occurring. An NGD/NSO restriction may protect occupied 

and potential habitat for sensitive species. Although Alternative III includes somewhat less 

stringent timing and specifications for these actions than those proposed under Alternatives II 

and V, it is expected that these may result in beneficial impacts to special status plant species 

and/or to significant plant communities, and may help the Monument make progress toward 

achieving Public Land Health Standards. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions would impact vegetation, 

either directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development, testing, and/or other 

activities that result in surface clearance of vegetation may result in highly localized adverse 

impacts. The degree to which these become long-term disturbance areas would be dependant 

upon the care that is originally taken to minimize vegetation disturbance, as well as on the 

degree to which appropriate reclamation techniques are implemented. 

Under Alternative III, indirect beneficial impacts to vegetation may result due to the fact that the 

Monument is mandated to protect cultural resource communities and/or sites. This would result 

in more numerous, larger areas in the Monument where no direct surface-disturbing impacts 

would be allowed. This may result in the indirect protection of the vegetation resources within 

these areas and provide widespread beneficial impacts to these resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative III, up to 3,021 acres of lands currently unavailable for leasing could be 

leased. This may result in up to eight well pads being developed, with up to 57 acres of longterm disturbance. The result of leasing these areas under Alternative III may be more direct 

adverse impacts to vegetation resources than under Alternatives I, II, and V, but less than under 

Alternative IV. Many of these may be mitigated by the application of appropriate BMPs and by 

standardized reclamation practices, such as COAs on the new leases. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

367 

Similar to the action alternatives, Alternative III includes stipulations that may protect vegetation 

resources, including NSOs for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant 

species, and/or for riparian zone/wetland habitat. Lease notices would be issued to alert 

potential lessees to these stipulations. These protections may result in more beneficial impacts 

to these resources than those expected under Alternative I. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative III emphasizes rangeland management actions that may improve rangeland 

conditions, and may help the Monument make progress toward meeting Public Land Health 

Standards for upland and riparian/wetland vegetation communities, as well as for special status 

plant species and/or for significant plant communities. However, the number of active AUMs 

under Alternative III is only slightly less than the highest number allowed under the No Action 

Alternative (8,368 versus 8,492), and can be accounted for in closing five allotments. 

Management of rangeland resources in many allotments may be considered one of the reasons 

for such allotments not meeting the Public Land Health Standards for healthy, productive plant 

and animal communities, and for the downward trend observed in much of the native upland 

vegetation in the Monument. Likewise, livestock grazing is considered one of the reasons the 

majority of riparian/wetland areas are not currently achieving PFC. The current management of 

rangeland resources, including active AUMs and allotments, is an important factor in these 

trends and, over time, may contribute to adverse impacts to most of these vegetation 

communities, as well as continued failure to meet Public Land Health Standards. 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative III includes rangeland management actions 

that may improve rangeland conditions, and may help the Monument make progress toward 

meeting Public Land Health Standards for upland and riparian/wetland vegetation communities, 

as well as for special status plant species and/or for significant plant communities. In general, 

these may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources. However, they are expected to 

be less than those expected under Alternative II, which consists of a number of management 

actions that may result in larger and/or more comprehensive beneficial impacts to vegetation. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative III, in terms of transportation management, would be the second least restrictive of 

all of the alternatives. Under this alternative 189 miles of roads would be open to all forms of 

travel (including travel for administrative purposes and travel necessary to support new and 

existing oil and gas leases). This may result in 1,096 acres of surface disturbance, as well as 

the second highest road density (0.73 miles/square mile) of any of the alternatives. 

These factors may contribute to adverse direct impacts to all native vegetation over the longterm due to increased fragmentation of habitat and to disturbance impacts to special status 

plant species and/or to significant plant communities. Relatively few existing roads would be 

returned to native vegetation through reclamation under this alternative. Indirectly, opportunities 

for noxious weed infestations may increase in proportion to the increased numbers of roads 

(Harris and Silvea-Lopez 1992, Zink et al. 1995). 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, management of the 25,549 acres of the Monument surface designated as 

WSAs would continue, using existing non-impairment standards and practices, in accordance 

with Interim Management Policy, until they are designated as wilderness or until they are 

released by Congress (BLM 1995). The continued restrictions on permanent structures, 

facilities, and surface-disturbing activities may continue to result in indirect beneficial impacts to 

native vegetation in these areas. This is especially the case for mature pinyon-juniper 

woodlands because the largest continuous stands in the Monument occur in these areas (see 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

368 

Map 13). Several large areas of biological crust communities may also benefit from these 

surface restrictions in the WSAs. As under all of the action alternatives, these areas would also 

be designated as NGD/NSO. Therefore, should these areas be released from WSA status, they 

would still be protected from surface-disturbing activities because they would still be managed 

for wilderness characteristics. All of the action alternatives also include management actions 

intended to protect and enhance the wilderness characteristics of the WSA areas. These 

actions may result in greater beneficial impacts to vegetation resources than those expected 

under Alternative I. 

Under this alternative, the 427 acre McElmo RNA would continue to be managed with special 

management prescriptions for herpetological research and habitat protection. Likewise, this 

area would be protected from surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development by 

an NSO. This management may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources in this 

area. 

Alternative IV

Vegetation Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative IV emphasizes management of vegetation 

resources that include several specific management actions not included under Alternative I. 

However, the specifics of many of these actions are not as proactive in terms of protecting and 

fostering native vegetation as they are under Alternative II. Implementation of these actions 

may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources, and may help the Monument make 

progress toward meeting Public Land Health Standards, although in smaller areas and over a 

longer period of time than under Alternative II. 

Management of riparian and wetland areas under all of the action alternatives (II through V) 

would occur under actions more specific and standard-driven (achieving PFC) than under 

Alternative I. This may eventually result in beneficial impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation. 

While Alternatives III and IV would specifically address noxious weed management, they do not 

include the stated emphasis on systematic noxious weed inventory, mapping, and monitoring 

included under Alternative II. Therefore, over time, this combination of management actions 

may indirectly result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources. 

Unlike Alternative I, all of the action alternatives would direct a number of focused management 

actions toward special status plant species and/or significant plant communities. These would 

include developing inventory and monitoring plans; and specify avoidance of long-term grounddisturbing activities in the vicinity of known populations, community locations, and/or potential 

habitat. Road relocation or realignment would be called for, if monitoring results indicate that 

damage or disturbance is occurring. An NGD/NSO restriction would protect occupied and 

potential habitat for sensitive species. Although Alternative IV includes somewhat less stringent 

timing and specifications for these actions than those proposed under Alternatives II and V, it is 

expected that these may result in beneficial impacts to special status plant species and/or to 

significant plant communities, and may help the Monument make progress toward meeting 

Public Land Health Standards. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions would impact vegetation, 

either directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development and stabilization, testing, 

and/or other activities that result in surface clearance of vegetation may result in highly localized 

adverse impacts. The degree to which these become long-term disturbance areas would be 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

369 

dependant upon the care that is originally taken to minimize vegetation disturbance, as well as 

on the degree to which appropriate reclamation techniques are implemented. 

Under Alternative IV, an indirect beneficial impact to vegetation may result due to the restriction 

of any direct impacts to cultural resource communities or sites. This restriction could be 

expected to eventually result in more numerous, larger areas in the Monument where no direct 

impacts would be allowed. This may result in the indirect protection of the vegetation resources 

within these areas and eventually provide beneficial impacts to these resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative IV, a notably larger number of acres (up to 24,462) currently unavailable for 

leasing could be leased. This may result in up to 59 well pads being developed, with up to 338 

acres of long-term disturbance. Although these disturbances may be mitigated by application of 

appropriate BMPs and by standardized reclamation practices (such as COAs on the new 

leases), leasing these areas may result in considerably more direct adverse impacts to 

vegetation resources than under any other alternative. 

Similar to all of the action alternatives, Alternative IV includes stipulations that would protect 

vegetation resources, including NSOs for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special 

status plant species, and for riparian zone/wetland habitat. Lease notices would be used to 

alert potential lessees to these stipulations. However, the areas included in the defined riparian 

zones are relatively smaller under Alternative IV than under any of the other action alternatives. 

Therefore, the beneficial impacts that may result from these would be proportionally smaller 

under Alternative IV. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative IV would emphasize rangeland management actions with the stated purpose of 

improving rangeland conditions for achievement of Public Land Health Standards for upland and 

riparian/wetland vegetation communities, as well as for special status plant species and/or 

significant plant communities. However, the number of active AUMs under Alternative IV is the 

same as the No Action Alternative (8,492) with the same total of allotments (28). Management 

of rangeland resources in many allotments is considered one of the reasons for such allotments 

not meeting the Public Land Health Standards for healthy, productive plant and animal 

communities and for the downward trend observed in much of the native upland vegetation in 

the Monument. Likewise, livestock grazing is considered one of the reasons the majority of 

riparian/wetland areas are not currently achieving PFC. The current management of rangeland 

resources, including active AUMs and allotments, would continue to be an important factor in 

these trends and, over time, may contribute to adverse impacts to most of these vegetation 

communities, as well as continued failure to meet Public Land Health Standards. 

Nevertheless, similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative IV would emphasize rangeland 

management actions with the stated purpose of improving rangeland conditions for achievement 

of Public Land Health Standards for upland and riparian/wetland vegetation communities, as 

well as for special status plant species and/or significant plant communities. In general, these 

may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources. However, they are expected to be less 

than those under Alternative II, which consists of a number of management actions that may 

result in more comprehensive beneficial impacts to vegetation. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative IV, in terms of transportation management, would be the least restrictive of all of the 

alternatives. Under this alternative, 213 miles of roads would be open to all forms of travel 

(including travel for administrative purposes and travel necessary to support new and existing oil 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

370 

and gas leases). This may result in 1,235 acres of surface disturbance, as well as in the highest 

road density (0.83 miles per square mile) of any of the alternatives. 

These factors may contribute to some adverse direct impacts to all native vegetation over the 

long-term due to increased fragmentation of habitat and to disturbance impacts to special status 

plant species and/or to significant plant communities. Relatively few existing roads would be 

returned to native vegetation through reclamation under this alternative. Indirectly, opportunities 

for noxious weed infestations may increase in proportion to the increased numbers of roads 

(Harris and Silvea-Lopez 1992, Zink et al. 1995). 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, management of the 25,549 acres of the Monument surface designated as 

WSAs would continue, using existing non-impairment standards and practices, in accordance 

with Interim Management Policy, until they are designated as wilderness or until they are 

released by Congress (BLM 1995). The continued restrictions on permanent structures, 

facilities, and/or on surface-disturbing activities may continue to result in indirect beneficial 

impacts to native vegetation in these areas. This is especially the case for mature pinyonjuniper woodlands because the largest continuous stands in the Monument occur in these areas 

(see Map 13). Several large areas of biological crust communities may also benefit from 

surface restrictions in the WSAs. As under all of the action alternatives, these areas would also 

be designated as NGD/NSO. Therefore, should these areas be released from WSA status, they 

would still be protected from surface-disturbing activities because they would still be managed 

for wilderness characteristics. All of the action alternatives also include management actions 

intended to protect and enhance the wilderness characteristics of the WSA areas. These 

actions may result in greater beneficial impacts to vegetation resources than those expected 

under Alternative I. 

Under this alternative, the 427 acre McElmo RNA would continue to be managed with special 

management prescriptions for herpetological research and habitat protection. This area would 

be protected from surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development by an NSO. 

This management may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources in this area. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Vegetation Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative V (the Preferred Alternative) emphasizes 

management of vegetation resources that would include several specific management actions 

not included in Alternative I. In general, these may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation 

resources. In terms of several vegetation management actions, Alternative V represents a 

middle-ground scenario between the most protective aspects of Alternative II, and the less 

stringent actions proposed under Alternatives III and IV. 

Management of riparian and wetland areas under all of the action alternatives (II through V) 

would occur under actions more specific and standard-driven (achieving PFC) than under 

Alternative I. This may eventually result in beneficial impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation. 

Alternatives II and V would include a stated emphasis on systematic noxious weed inventory, 

mapping, detection, and monitoring. These management actions may allow for a far more 

focused and effective application of the current weed management program by providing data 

and information upon which to base a number of important decisions, such as incipient 

population locations, priority-to-control strategies, and the efficacy of different integrated 

methods for particular species and locations. Over time, this combination of management 

actions may indirectly result in beneficial impacts on vegetation resources. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

371 

Unlike Alternative I, all of the action alternatives would direct a number of focused management 

actions toward special status plant species and/or significant plant communities. These would 

include developing an inventory and monitoring plan; and specifying avoidance of long-term 

ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of known populations, community locations, and/or 

potential habitat. Road relocation or realignment would be called for, if monitoring results 

indicate that damage and/or disturbance is occurring. An NGD/NSO restriction would protect 

occupied and potential habitat for sensitive species. Similar to Alternative II, under Alternative V 

several of these actions would be strengthened in terms of protective management of these 

resources, including a requirement for specific protective TLs for livestock grazing in areas 

where biological soil crust communities occur, as well as requirements for locating new roads 

away from biological crust communities with a 100-foot buffer and the removal of the source of 

disturbance to these resources when detected during monitoring. The result may be beneficial 

impacts to special status plant species and/or to significant plant communities, and the 

achievement of Public Land Health Standards. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions would impact vegetation, 

either directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development and stabilization, testing, 

and/or other activities that result in surface clearance of vegetation may result in highly localized 

adverse impacts. The degree to which these become long-term disturbance areas would be 

dependant upon the care that is originally taken to minimize vegetation disturbance, as well as 

on the degree to which appropriate reclamation techniques are implemented. 

Under Alternative V, indirect beneficial impacts to vegetation may result from the restriction of 

any direct impacts to cultural resource communities and/or sites. This restriction may eventually 

result in more numerous, larger areas in the Monument where no direct impacts would be 

allowed. This may result in the indirect protection of the vegetation resources within these 

areas, and eventually provide beneficial impacts to these resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative V, up to 880 acres of lands currently unavailable for leasing could be leased. 

This may result in the development of up to two well pads, with up to 12 acres of long-term 

disturbance. The result of leasing these areas under Alternative V may be limited adverse 

impacts to vegetation resources. Many of these may be mitigated by application of appropriate 

BMPs and by standardized reclamation practices, such as COAs on the new leases. 

Similar to all of the action alternatives, Alternative V would include stipulations that would 

protect vegetation resources, including NSOs for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other 

special status plant species, and for riparian zone/wetland habitat. Lease notices would be 

used to alert potential lessees to these stipulations. These protections may result in more 

beneficial impacts to these resources than those expected under Alternative I. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative V would emphasize rangeland management 

actions with the stated purpose of improving rangeland conditions for achievement of Public 

Land Health Standards for upland and riparian/wetland vegetation communities, as well as for 

special status plant species and/or for significant plant communities. Similar to Alternative II, 

the number of active AUMs under Alternative V would be reduced by 24 percent (6,437) from 

the No Action Alternative (8,492). Active allotments would be reduced from 28 to 23. Although 

the impacts of livestock grazing on native plant species’ community structure, cover, and 

diversity is variable (due to initial conditions and non-uniform grazing patterns that reflect 

differences in terrain, forage abundance and preference, and soil attributes), this reduction in 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

372 

AUMs may result in a substantial beneficial impacts to vegetation communities because 

pressure from livestock grazing would be considerably reduced in proportion to the total AUMs. 

This may result in the most rapid movement toward achieving Public Land Health Standards for 

both upland and riparian/wetland vegetation than for any of the alternatives. 

Alternative V would emphasize rangeland management actions with the stated purpose of 

improving rangeland conditions for achievement of Public Land Health Standards for upland and 

riparian/wetland vegetation communities, as well as for special status plant species and/or 

significant plant communities. In general, these may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation 

resources. However, these benefits are expected to be less than those under Alternative II. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

In terms of transportation management, Alternative V falls in the middle of all of the alternatives. 

Under this alternative 169 miles of roads would be open to all forms of travel (including travel for 

administrative purposes and travel necessary to support new and existing oil and gas leases). 

This may result in 980 acres of surface disturbance, as well as a road density of 0.66 miles per 

square mile. 

These factors may contribute to adverse direct impacts to all native vegetation over the longterm, due to increased fragmentation of habitat and disturbance impacts to special status plant 

species and/or significant plant communities. Relatively few existing roads would be returned to 

native vegetation through reclamation under this alternative. Indirectly, opportunities for noxious 

weed infestations may increase in proportion to the increased numbers of roads (Harris and 

Silvea-Lopez 1992, Zink et al. 1995). 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, management of the 25,549 acres of the Monument surface designated as 

WSAs would continue, using existing non-impairment standards and practices, in accordance 

with Interim Management Policy, until they are designated as wilderness or until they are 

released by Congress (BLM 1995). The continued restrictions on permanent structures, 

facilities, and/or on surface-disturbing activities may continue to result in indirect beneficial 

impacts to native vegetation in these areas. This is especially the case for mature pinyonjuniper woodlands because the largest continuous stands in the Monument occur in these areas 

(see Map 13). Several large areas of biological crust communities may also benefit from 

surface restrictions in the WSAs. Under Alternative V, these areas would also be designated as 

NGD/NSO. Therefore, should these areas be released from WSA status, they would still be 

protected from surface-disturbing activities because they would still be managed for wilderness 

characteristics. All of the action alternatives also include management actions intended to 

protect and enhance the wilderness characteristics of the WSA areas. An additional 5,223 

acres of citizen-proposed areas with wilderness character would be managed as such under 

Alternative V. All of these actions may result in far greater beneficial impacts to vegetation 

resources than those expected under Alternative I. 

Under this alternative, the existing McElmo RNA would be considerably expanded under 

Alternative V (from 427 to 7,826 acres), and would continue to be managed with special 

management prescriptions for herpetological research and habitat protection. This area would 

be protected from surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development by an NSO. 

This management may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources in this area. 

4.2.8.3. Vegetation Resources Management Impact Comparison 

Table 4-16 compares impacts to upland and riparian/wetland vegetation, noxious weeds, and 

special status plant species and/or significant plant communities under the five alternatives. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

373 

This table compares the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative 

on fuels and fire. 

4.2.8.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts are discussed in terms of: 1) past, present, and future actions in non-BLM 

portions of the Monument and the surrounding region; 2) the impacts resulting from ongoing 

actions on BLM lands, not included in this DRMP/DEIS; and 3) the additive and synergistic 

impacts of multiple management actions on vegetation resources. For this discussion, the 

region is considered to include the areas immediately adjacent to the Monument, as well as the 

entire vicinity that comprises the Colorado Plateau Semi-desert ecoregion (Bailey 1995). 

Areas adjacent to the Monument are experiencing noxious weed conditions similar to the 

Monument. Sources of weeds at the Monument boundary include abandoned farmlands, 

access roads, and field edges. All areas of disturbance without management actions that 

discourage weeds are especially vulnerable. This is especially true where human traffic and/or 

wildlife movement transfer weed seeds into new sites. 

All of the potential adverse impacts discussed for riparian/wetland areas in the Monument are 

cumulative, with prior degradation of these areas resulting from livestock grazing, unregulated 

stream crossings, noxious weed proliferation, and/or drought impacts (Section 3.1.8). These 

adverse factors are assumed to be present and unmitigated in many riparian/wetland areas in 

the surrounding region as well. Therefore, adverse impacts that may result from management 

actions proposed under this DRMP/DEIS have the potential to be cumulatively greater than 

when assessed in isolation. 

Regardless of management actions in the Monument, direct adverse impacts to native 

vegetation may result from ongoing human development throughout the general region, which 

would also bring new roads, new fluid minerals development, new housing, new commercial 

development, and new and increasing recreational use of wildlands. The same indirect impacts 

to native vegetation discussed above may also result. In many cases, the loss and/or 

fragmentation of native plant communities would be highly visible. These impacts may continue 

on a regional scale, and would be in addition to impacts expected from land uses and resource 

management activities in the Monument. If adverse impacts to these resources continue to 

increase, as expected, their condition on public lands may become even more important due to 

their intrinsic value, the biodiversity they represent, and the continuation of the ecological values 

they support. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the currently unleased acres would continue to be unavailable 

for new fluid minerals leases. However, continued development of areas currently leased may 

result in up to 121 new well pads over the next 20 years, with up to nine new associated 

treatment facilities, up to 53 miles of pipeline, and up to 67 miles of roads. The expected 

commensurate surface disturbance from these developments is expected to total up to 883 

acres of short-term disturbance, or up to 428 acres of long-term impacts to vegetation (after 

reclamation of abandoned and non-productive well pads). 

Future development of fluid minerals on currently leased and private surface lands within the 

Monument, as well as on adjacent lands, may result in impacts similar to those expected from 

development on BLM lands. These cumulative impacts may be greater if reclamation of shortand long-term disturbances and avoidance of riparian areas are not performed to any 

standards. Reclamation on private lands is negotiated between the landowner and the oil and 

gas operators, and may, therefore, be less stringent in terms of plant species composition, 

cover, and/or structure. Failure to perform adequate reclamation or to avoid riparian/wetland 

areas may result in indirect impacts to BLM lands through creating a seed source for noxious 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

374 

weed infestations and/or through contributions to sedimentation in riparian areas. Degradation 

of these areas may also result in a decrease in the area occupied by native vegetation 

communities, and in the quality of wildlife habitat and human recreation experience throughout 

the area. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

375 

Table 4-16 Comparison of Impacts to Vegetation Resources 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Upland Vegetation 

Not meeting Public 

Land Health 

Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 

Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 

Standards. 

Riparian/Wetland 

Vegetation 

Not meeting Public 

Land Health 

Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 

Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 

Standards. 

Noxious Weeds 

Continued trend of 

increased frequency, 

diversity, and density. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Special Status Plant 

Species and 

Significant Plant 

Communities 

Continued stable 

degraded or downward 

trends for habitat 

quality. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Cultural Resources Protect cultural sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities, site, 

and isolated finds. 

Protect cultural 

communities and 

sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities and 

sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities and 

sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. Make up to 880 acres available for Make up to 3,021 acres available for Make up to 24,462 acres available for Make up to 880 acres available for 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

376 

Table 4-16 Comparison of Impacts to Vegetation Resources 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

new leases. Allow 

up to 2 new well 

pads (with up to 18 

acres of 

disturbance). 

Apply NSO: special 

status plants, 

riparian 

zone/wetland 

habitat. 

new leases. Allow 

up to 8 new well 

pads (with up to 73 

acres of 

disturbance). 

Apply NSO: special 

status plants, 

riparian 

zone/wetland 

habitat. 

new leases. Allow 

up to 59 new well 

pads (with up to 447 

acres of 

disturbance). 

Apply NSO: special 

status plants, 

riparian 

zone/wetland 

habitat. 

new leases. Allow 

up 2 new well pads 

(with up to 18 acres 

of disturbance). 

Apply NSO: special 

status plants, 

riparian 

zone/wetland 

habitat. 

Rangeland Resources 

Permit 8,492 active 

AUMs; 28 allotments. 

Not meeting Public 

Land Health 

Standards. 

Permit 6,437 active 

AUMs; 23 

allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 

Standards. 

Permit 8,368 active 

AUMs; 23 

allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Permit 8,492 active 

AUMs; 28 

allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Permit 6,437 active 

AUMs; 23 

allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

rapidly progress 

toward meeting 

Public Land Health 

Standards. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles 

road miles 

(864 acres of 

disturbance). 

Manage 139 miles 

road miles 

(806 acres of 

disturbance). 

Manage 189 miles 

road miles 

(1,096 acres of 

disturbance). 

Manage 213 miles 

road miles 

(1,235 acres of 

disturbance). 

Manage 169 miles 

road miles 

(980 acres of 

disturbance). 

Other Resources: 

Special Designations 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA. 

Manage 427 acres as 

RNA. Manage 0 acres 

Manage 25,549 

acres as WSA. 

Manage 5,223 acres 

for wilderness 

Manage 25,549 

acres as WSA. 

Manage 427 acres 

as RNA. Manage 

Manage 25,549 

acres as WSA. 

Manage 427 acres 

as RNA. Manage 

Manage 25,549 

acres as WSA. 

Manage 5,223 acres 

for wilderness 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

377 

Table 4-16 Comparison of Impacts to Vegetation Resources 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

as WSR. character. Manage 

7,826 acres as RNA. 

Manage 25.3 miles 

as WSR (suitable). 

0 acres as WSR. 0 acres as WSR. character. Manage 

7,826 acres as RNA. 

Manage 0 acres as 

WSR. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

378 

4.2.9. Visual Resources 

The primary goal for visual resources management in the Monument is to manage all activities 

in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances the Monument’s scenic resources, 

including extraordinary cultural resources, topography, geology, and biology. The management 

objectives related to this goal include: 

 designate Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes throughout the Monument, 

based on an inventory of visual resources and management considerations for other 

uses; and 

 manage activities within the Monument to adhere to the VRM Class objectives. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts to visual resources. 

Direct beneficial impacts to visual resources may include, but are not limited to, those that 

enhance visual quality through actions that protect resources. Direct adverse impacts may 

include, but are not limited to, short- or long-term changes to current viewsheds. 

4.2.9.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Assessment of potential impacts on visual resources may be quantified by comparing possible 

impairment actions or acres of VRM classes. Where this is not possible, impacts are described 

in qualitative terms. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to visual resources include the following: 

 All WSAs are managed as VRM Class I, until such time that Congress makes a 

determination on their permanent status. 

 All units of Hovenweep National Monument within the boundary of the Monument are 

assigned as VRM Class II 0.5-mile buffer. 

 The McElmo Resource Natural Area (RNA) is assigned as VRM Class I. 

 The Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway is assigned as VRM Class II, with a 

0.5-mile buffer. 

 Federal lands within the boundary of the Monument were used as the impacts analysis 

area for individual and cumulative impacts. 

4.2.9.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to visual resources may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific 

management actions under each alternative for different resource uses. The following sections 

describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions 

directly proposed for visual resources, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, 

recreation and transportation, air quality, fuels and fire, vegetation, and lands and realty. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Visual Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, WSAs and the McElmo RNA (38,598 acres) would be managed in 

accordance with VRM Class I standards. All other areas would be designated as VRM Class II 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

379 

(126,643 acres). The visual resources of all areas within the Monument boundary would be 

managed to preserve natural scenic quality. Surface construction projects would be designed to 

have low to moderate visual contrast standards. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, there would be an NGD/NSO restriction in place around Hackberry/Holly 

House. Cultural Resource Management Plans would be developed for cultural sites, and would 

address visual resources. Permanent intrusions, such as canyon-rim cutting (disturbing canyon 

rims for placement of roads or pipelines, etc.), would be discouraged. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Approximately 80 percent of Monument lands are currently leased for fluid minerals 

development. Under Alternative I, the remaining 20 percent would not be leased and no new 

wells would be drilled; therefore, there would be no impacts. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, there would be 28 livestock grazing allotments, covering 159,676 acres of 

the Monument, with a stocking rate of 8,492 AUMs. No new grazing allotments would be 

authorized. Alternative I may have an adverse impact on visual resources due to the fact that 

livestock grazing may impact archaeological sites, stream channels, vegetation, and/or other 

natural resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative I would provide a broad range of recreation settings and activities. Specific visual 

quality objectives and design guidelines would be established for recreation areas. Cross, 

Cahone, and Squaw/Papoose Canyons would be closed to OHV use. Dispersed recreational 

camping would be allowed. 

Under this alternative, in terms of transportation, grading and surfacing roads would be held to 

the minimum needed for user-safety. There would be 149 miles of roads open to mechanized, 

motorized, and/or non-motorized travel. There may be beneficial impacts to visual resources 

under Alternative I, in relation to recreation and transportation management, due to road 

closures. 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, the Monument would comply with State and Federal air quality standards; 

therefore, there would be no impacts to visual resources. 

Under Alternative I, fire would be allowed in specific areas, based on desirability and feasibility 

of fire management strategies. Prescribed fire would be allowed in some instances to promote 

resource values and to protect cultural resources. All burned areas would be evaluated to 

determine the need for fire rehabilitation. Direct impacts to visual resources under Alternative I 

may be adverse on both the landscape and on the site-specific scale. These impacts may be 

considered short-term in most cases, with vegetation expected to return shortly after the burn. 

Under Alternative I, in terms of reclamation, native plant species would be emphasized. 

Measures would be taken to improve vegetation in springs and riparian areas, and efforts to 

control noxious weed species would continue. Impacts to visual resources under Alternative I, 

in relation to vegetation resources management, may be beneficial. 

Under Alternative I, visual resources would not be a major evaluation factor for landownership 

adjustments. Major utility corridors would be allowed with stipulations; however, operators 

would be encouraged to use existing corridors. Existing ROWs would be used as much as 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

380 

possible, and unused ROWs would be reclaimed. Blasting and/or cutting of canyon rim edges 

(for the placement of pipelines and/or roads), would be avoided, when possible. Adverse 

impacts may be expected from site disturbance associated with lands and realty management 

under Alternative I. 

Alternative II

Visual Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, WSAs and the McElmo RNA, as well as the proposed RNA expansion, 

would be managed in accordance with VRM Class I standards (38,598 acres). All other areas 

would be designated as VRM Class II (126,643 acres). During the performance of any 

environmental analysis for projects, the visual resource contrast rating system would be used as 

a guide for analyzing potential visual impacts of the proposal. Projects would be designed to 

mitigate impacts and would conform to the assigned VRM Class objectives. This alternative 

may result in direct beneficial impacts to visual resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

This alternative would manage for the protection of cultural resource communities, sites, and/or 

isolated finds, and would protect large blocks of ground from disturbance. Under Alternative II, 

Cultural Resource Management Plans would be developed for cultural sites, and would address 

visual resources. Alternative II would allocate 13 sites to Public Use D (Developed). Although 

this may potentially offer increased opportunities for appreciation of visual resources, it may also 

result in more ground disturbance as a result of visitor facilities. The areas, however, would be 

small and facilities would be kept to a minimum; therefore, the overall long-term impact may be 

beneficial. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative II, 880 acres would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. A 

total of up to 18 acres of new ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative. All 

temporary access roads for fluid minerals development would be reclaimed. Environmental 

impact analyses would be required for seismic operations, and the use of bulldozers would be 

prohibited in seismic operations-related work. Geophysical operations would be limited to BLMdefined roads. New leases would have NGD/NSO, CSU/SSR, TL, and lease notice (LN) 

stipulations that protect cultural, natural, and scenic resources, and Monument objects. Shortterm adverse visual resource impacts associated with fluid minerals development under 

Alternative II may be mitigated by such restrictions. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, there would be 23 grazing allotments, with a stocking rate of 6,437 AUMs. 

Common reserve allotments would be established to provide more rest periods for existing 

allotments. Five livestock grazing allotments would be closed and the McElmo RNA closed to 

livestock grazing. Where Public Land Health Standards are not being met, streams and riparian 

areas would be fenced to exclude livestock. Spring grazing would be prohibited. The reduction 

in AUMS under Alternative II may result in a direct beneficial impact to visual resources due to 

the restoration of land health. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative II, in terms of recreation management, would promote an undeveloped management 

strategy, with no additional roads or parking provided. Infrastructure and visitor facilities would 

be minimized. In Alternative II, all unused roads would be closed and restored within 10 years 

of the signing of the ROD. There would be 139 miles of roads open to mechanized, motorized, 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

381 

and/or non-motorized travel. A strategy for enforcing the transportation plan would be 

developed within 1 year of the signing of the ROD. Both the undeveloped recreation 

management strategy, and the decrease in available roads, may result in beneficial impacts to 

visual resources. 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force recommendations would be 

implemented. New and/or replaced wellhead engines and large compressor stations would 

have emission controls. Measures would be implemented to reduce small particulate matter 

pollution (i.e., dust) on construction projects. Management actions would be designed in a 

manner that avoids impacts to scenic vistas in the Monument, and to comply with State 

requirements for protection of scenic and important vistas. Impacts to visual resources under 

Alternative II, in relation to air quality, may be beneficial. 

Under Alternative II, the entire Monument would be designated as an area where fire is not 

desired and suppression is emphasized. Fire may, however, be allowed, depending on 

resource management objectives. Emphasis would be placed on fuel-hazard reduction at 

prominent cultural resource sites, existing and future major oil and gas facilities, communication 

sites, and/or all existing and future WUI areas. These activities may result in adverse impacts to 

visual resources at the individual site scale and at the landscape scale. 

Under Alternative II, vegetation would be managed to promote the health of native plant 

communities. Native vegetation restoration projects would be prioritized and implemented. 

Weeds would be controlled and seeding would be performed in pinyon-juniper areas that were 

previously chained. Reclamation plans would be required for all proposed vegetation 

management projects. Vegetation in riparian areas would be improved and livestock exclusions 

would be implemented, if necessary. Pine bark beetles would be treated in high-visibility 

administrative areas to prevent tree mortality. Wildland fire disturbance areas greater than 0.5 

acre would be monitored and treated. User-created roads in high-use areas containing 

biological crust communities would be closed and restored. Direct impacts to visual resources 

under Alternative II, in relation to vegetation management, may be beneficial. 

Under Alternative II, new ROWs would not be permitted in RMZ 5. Only one road would be 

authorized to access each parcel of private property. Major new utility ROWs, renewable 

energy facilities, and/or communication sites would be prohibited, and existing ROWs would be 

used during the construction of new facilities. All new and reconstructed utility lines and/or 

pipelines would be buried, where possible. Powerlines and towers would be constructed of nonreflective materials, and located away from visual high points. Strobe lights would be prohibited. 

All new ROW facilities would be required to meet visual resource objectives. Blasting and/or 

cutting of canyon rim edges (for the placement of pipelines and/or roads) would be avoided, 

when possible. Stipulations would be put in place for road widths and for reclamation of 

temporary access roads. Impacts to visual resources under Alternative II, in terms of lands and 

realty management, may be beneficial. 

Alternative III

Visual Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, WSAs and the McElmo RNA would be managed in accordance with VRM 

Class I standards (25,976 acres). The Painted Hand Pueblo, Rock Creek, Sand Canyon 

Pueblo, Sand Canyon, Goodman Point, Lowry Pueblo RMZs, and lower portions of the Squaw 

Cross Canyons RMZ would be assigned as VRM Class II. The McElmo RNA and all units of 

Hovenweep National Monument within the boundary of the Monument would have a 0.5-mile 

buffer of VRM Class II. The Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway would be assigned 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

382 

a 0.5-mile buffer of VRM Class II. The total VRM Class II acreage would be up to 41,867 acres. 

All other areas would be designated as VRM Class III (up to 104,605 acres). This alternative 

may result in adverse impacts to visual resources because fewer acres would be assigned to 

VRM Classes I and II. 

Cultural Resources Management 

This alternative would manage for the protection of cultural resource communities and sites, and 

would protect large blocks of ground from disturbance. Under Alternative III, Cultural Resource 

Management Plans would be developed for cultural sites, and would address visual resources. 

Alternative III would allocate 13 to 25 sites to Public Use D (Developed). Although this may 

potentially offer increased opportunities for appreciation of visual resources, it may also result in 

more ground disturbance as a result of visitor facilities. Developed sites would be small in size, 

with unobtrusive facilities. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative III, up to 3,021 acres would be available for new fluid minerals development. 

Acreage disturbed for new access roads and drill pads would be up to 73 acres. All temporary 

access roads for fluid minerals development would be reclaimed. Environmental impact 

analyses would be required for seismic operations. Geophysical operations would be limited to 

BLM-defined roads in riparian areas only. New leases would have NGD/NSO, CSU/SSR, TL, 

and LN stipulations that protect cultural, natural, and scenic resources, and Monument objects. 

Short-term adverse visual resource impacts associated with fluid minerals development under 

Alternative III may be mitigated by such restrictions. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, common reserve allotments would be established to provide more rest 

periods for existing grasslands. Streams and riparian areas where Public Land Health 

Standards are not being met would be fenced to exclude livestock. Spring grazing stipulations 

would be less strict than those proposed under Alternative II. Five grazing allotments would be 

closed. The McElmo RNA would be closed to livestock grazing between November 15 and 

March 15. The stocking rate for the Monument would be 8,368 AUMs. Alternative III may result 

in some beneficial impacts to visual resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative III, in terms of recreation management, would promote a destination management 

strategy, with six new parking areas developed. Under Alternative III, all unused roads would 

be closed, with no defined timetable for restoration. The Lower Sand Canyon parking area 

would be expanded. There would be 189 miles of roads open to mechanized, motorized, and/or 

non-motorized travel. There would not be a defined timetable for developing a strategy to 

enforce the transportation plan. Alternative III, in relation to recreation and transportation 

management, may result in adverse impacts to visual resources due to the increase in parking 

areas and road miles. 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force recommendations would be 

implemented. New or replaced wellhead engines and large compressor stations would have 

emission controls. Measures would be implemented to reduce small particulate matter pollution 

(i.e., dust) on construction projects. Management actions would be designed in a manner that 

avoids impacts to scenic vistas in the Monument, and would comply with State requirements for 

the protection of scenic and important vistas. Impacts to visual resources under Alternative III, 

in relation to air quality, may be beneficial. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

383 

Under Alternative III, the entire Monument would be designated as an area where fire is not 

desired and suppression is emphasized. Fire may, however, be allowed in each area, 

depending on resource management objectives. Impacts to visual resources under Alternative 

III, in relation to fuels and fire management, may be adverse, but considered short-term. 

Under Alternative III, vegetation would be managed to promote the health of native plant 

communities. Native vegetation restoration would be conducted on a project level. Weeds 

would be controlled and seeding would be performed in pinyon-juniper areas that were 

previously chained. Reclamation plans would be required for all proposed vegetation 

management projects. Vegetation in riparian areas would be improved and livestock exclusions 

would be implemented, if necessary. Pine bark beetles would be treated in high-visibility 

administrative areas to prevent tree mortality. User-created roads in high-use areas containing 

biological crust communities would be closed and restored. Direct impacts to visual resources 

under Alternative III, in relation to vegetation management, may be beneficial. 

Major new utility ROWs would be allowed only within, or adjacent to, the existing aerial 

powerline in the southwestern corner of the Monument. Renewable energy facilities and/or 

communication sites would be located based on the determinations of a feasibility study, and 

communication providers would be required to share towers. Existing ROWs would be used 

during the construction of new facilities. All new and reconstructed utility lines and/or pipelines 

would be buried, where possible. Powerlines and towers would be constructed of non-reflective 

materials, and located away from visual high points. Strobe lights would be prohibited. All new 

ROW facilities would be required to meet visual resource objectives. Blasting and/or cutting of 

canyon rim edges (for the purpose of pipeline and/or road placement) would be avoided, when 

possible. Stipulations would be put in place for widths and reclamation on temporary access 

roads. Impacts to visual resources under Alternative III, in relation to lands and realty 

management, may be beneficial. 

Alternative IV

Visual Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, WSAs and the McElmo RNA would be managed in accordance with VRM 

Class I standards (25,976 acres). The Lowry Pueblo, Squaw Cross Canyons, Painted Hand 

Pueblo, and Sand Canyon Pueblo RMZs would be assigned as VRM Class II. The McElmo 

RNA and all units of Hovenweep National Monument within the boundary of the Monument 

would have a 0.5-mile buffer of VRM Class II. The Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic 

Byway would be assigned a 0.5-mile buffer of VRM Class II. Total Class II acreage would be 

27,535 acres. Mockingbird Mesa, Rock Creek, Sand Canyon, and Goodman Point RMZs would 

be designated as VRM Class III (94,327 acres). Rincon RMZ would be VRM Class IV (17,497 

acres). This alternative may result in direct adverse impacts to visual resources due to the less 

stringent Class III and Class IV requirements. 

Cultural Resources Management 

This alternative would manage for the protection of cultural resource communities and sites, and 

would protect large blocks of ground from disturbance. Under Alternative IV, Cultural Resource 

Management Plans would be developed for cultural sites, and would address visual resources. 

Alternative IV would allocate 13 to 25 sites to Public Use D (Developed). Although this may 

potentially offer increased opportunities for appreciation of visual resources, it may also result in 

more ground disturbance as a result of visitor facilities. This impact may be minor, however, 

given the few number of proposed sites and the unobtrusive nature of the development. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

384 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative IV, up to 24,462 acres would be available for leasing. A total of up to 447 

acres of new ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative. All temporary access 

roads for fluid minerals development would be reclaimed. Environmental impact analyses 

would be required for seismic operations. Geophysical operations would be permitted to travel 

throughout the Monument, but could cross riparian areas only in authorized locations. New 

leases would have NGD/NSO, CSU/SSR, TL, and LN stipulations that protect cultural, natural, 

and scenic resources, and Monument objects. Short-term adverse visual resource impacts 

associated with fluid minerals development under Alternative IV may be mitigated by 

restrictions. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, common reserve allotments would be established to provide more rest 

periods for existing grasslands. Streams and riparian areas where Public Land Health 

Standards are not being met would be fenced to exclude livestock. Spring livestock grazing 

stipulations would be less strict than those proposed under Alternative II would. There would be 

no livestock grazing restrictions in the McElmo RNA. More acres of the Monument may be 

available for livestock grazing, and the stocking rate would be 8,492 AUMs. Alternative IV may 

improve visual quality through improved land health; however, it may occur very slowly, if at all. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative IV, in terms of recreation management, would promote a destination management 

strategy, with more visitors expected and existing parking areas enlarged. Under Alternative IV, 

most user-created roads would remain open. There would be 213 miles of roads open to 

mechanized, motorized, and/or non-motorized travel. There would not be a defined timetable 

for the development of a strategy to enforce the transportation plan. Alternative IV, in relation to 

recreation and transportation management, may result in adverse impacts to visual resources 

due to the increase in facilities and roads. 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force recommendations would be 

implemented. New or replaced wellhead engines and large compressor stations would have 

emission controls. Measures would be implemented to reduce small particulate matter pollution 

(i.e., dust) on construction projects. Management actions would be designed in a manner that 

avoids impacts to scenic vistas in the Monument and would comply with State requirements for 

the protection of scenic and important vistas. Impacts to visual resources under Alternative IV, 

in relation to air quality, may be beneficial. 

Under Alternative IV, the entire Monument would be designated as an area where fire is not 

desired and suppression is emphasized. Fire may be allowed, depending on resource 

management objectives. Impacts to visual resources under Alternative IV, in relation to fire 

management, may be adverse; however, they may be considered short-term, until vegetation 

returns. 

Under Alternative IV, vegetation would be managed to promote the health of native plant 

communities. Native vegetation restoration would be conducted on a project level. Weeds 

would be controlled and seeding would be performed in pinyon-juniper areas that were 

previously chained. Reclamation plans would be required for all proposed vegetation 

management projects. Vegetation in riparian areas would be improved and livestock exclusions 

would be implemented, if necessary. Bark beetle infestations would be treated at a rate of 

1,000 acres per year. User-created roads in high-use areas containing biological crust 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

385 

communities would be closed and restored. Direct impacts to visual resources under 

Alternative IV, in relation to vegetation management, may be beneficial. 

Major new utility ROWs would be allowed only within or adjacent to, the existing aerial powerline 

in the southwest corner of the Monument. Renewable energy facilities and/or communication 

sites would be located based on the determinations of a feasibility study, and communication 

providers would be required to share towers. Existing ROWs would be used during the 

construction of new facilities. All new and reconstructed utility lines and/or pipelines would be 

buried, where possible. Powerlines and towers would be constructed of non-reflective 

materials, and located away from visual high points. Strobe lights would be prohibited. All new 

ROW facilities would be required to meet visual resource objectives. Blasting and/or cutting of 

canyon rim edges (for the purpose of road and/or pipeline construction) would be avoided, when 

possible. Stipulations would be put in place for widths and reclamation on temporary access 

roads. Impacts to visual resources under Alternative IV, in terms of lands and realty 

management, may be beneficial. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Visual Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, WSAs and the McElmo RNA (38,598 acres) would be managed according 

to VRM Class I standards. All other areas would be designated as VRM Class II (126,643 

acres), except for 94 acres in VRM Class III. The visual resources of the Monument would be 

managed to preserve natural scenic quality. While surface construction projects would be 

allowed, their design would be required to have no more than low to moderate visual contrast. 

This may result in direct beneficial impacts to visual resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

This alternative would manage for the protection of cultural resource communities and sites, and 

would protect large blocks of ground from disturbance. In Alternative V, Cultural Resource 

Management Plans would be developed for cultural sites and would address visual resources. 

Permanent intrusions, such as canyon rim cutting, would be prohibited. Alternative V would 

allocate 13 to 25 sites to Public Use D (Developed). Although this may potentially offer 

increased opportunities for appreciation of visual resources, it may also result in more ground 

disturbance as a result of visitor facilities. These sites, however, would be small and 

unobtrusive; therefore, impacts may be minor. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative V, up to 880 acres would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. 

A total of up to 18 acres of new ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative. All 

new lease offerings would include NSO stipulations that protect cultural and scenic resources. 

There would be no leasing in WSAs. All temporary access roads for seismic exploration would 

be reclaimed. Environmental impact analyses would be required for seismic operations, and the 

use of bulldozers would be prohibited in seismic operations-related work. New leases would 

have NSO, CSU, TL, and LN stipulations that protect cultural, natural, and scenic resources, 

and Monument objects. Short-term adverse visual resource impacts associated fluid minerals 

development under Alternative may be mitigated by such restrictions. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, common reserve allotments would be established to provide more rest 

periods for existing grasslands. Streams and riparian areas where Public Land Health 

Standards are not being met would be fenced to exclude livestock. Five livestock grazing 

allotments would be closed: East Sand Canyon, West Sand Canyon, Rock Creek, Goodman 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

386 

Gulch, and Trail Canyon. Livestock grazing in the McElmo RNA would be limited to November 

15 through March 15. The stocking rate would be 6,437 AUMs. Alternative V may result in a 

direct moderate beneficial impact to visual resources due to restoration of land health. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative V would have day-use as the primary recreational focus. Five RMZs would have an 

undeveloped management strategy. Three RMZs would have a regional destination 

management strategy, and two RMZs would have a national and international destination 

management strategy. Camping and campfires would not be permitted in four RMZs, but would 

be allowed in four other RMZs. Rock climbing would be allowed in designated sites. Although 

Alternative V recreation management may potentially offer increased opportunities for 

appreciation of visual resources, it may also result in more ground disturbance as a result of 

visitor facilities. 

Under Alternative V, most user-created roads would be closed and restored within 10 years of 

the signing of the ROD. A strategy for enforcing the transportation plan would be developed 

within 1 year of the signing of the ROD. New travel roads would be prohibited in Squaw and 

Cross Canyons and within the McElmo RNA. There would be 169 miles of roads designated for 

mechanized, motorized, and/or non-motorized travel. 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force recommendations would be 

implemented. New or replaced wellhead engines and large compressor stations would have 

emission controls. Measures would be implemented to reduce small particulate matter pollution 

(i.e., dust) on construction projects. Management actions would be designed in a manner that 

avoids impacts to scenic vistas in the Monument and would comply with State requirements for 

the protection of scenic and important vistas. Impacts to visual resources from Alternative V, in 

relation to air quality, may be beneficial. 

Under Alternative V, the entire Monument would be designated as an area where fire is not 

desired and suppression is emphasized. These activities may result in adverse impacts to 

visual resources at the individual site scale and at the landscape scale, but may be considered 

short-term, until vegetation returns. 

Under Alternative V, vegetation would be managed to promote the health of native plant 

communities. Native vegetation restoration projects would occur mainly on a project basis. 

Weeds would be controlled and seeding would be conducted in pinyon-juniper areas that were 

previously chained. Vegetation in riparian areas would be improved and livestock exclusions 

would be implemented, if necessary. Bark beetles would be treated in high-visibility 

administrative areas to prevent tree mortality. Impacts to visual resources under Alternative V, 

in terms of vegetation management, may be beneficial. 

Under Alternative V, only one road would be authorized to access each parcel of private 

property. Major new utility ROWs would be prohibited. Existing ROWs would be used during 

the construction of new facilities. Communications providers would be encouraged to share 

existing facilities. All new ROW facilities would be required to meet visual resource objectives. 

Blasting and/or cutting of canyon rim edges (to place roads and/or pipelines) would be 

prohibited. Indirect impacts to visual resources under Alternative V, in terms of lands and realty 

management, may be beneficial. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

387 

4.2.9.3. Visual Resources Management Impact Comparison 

The visual resources impact comparison is presented in Table 4-17. This table compares the 

consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on visual resources. 

4.2.9.4. Cumulative Impacts 

The greatest threat to visual quality within the Monument is fluid minerals development on 

private lands, as well as on existing leases on Federal lands in and around the Monument. 

Increased development may include well pads, pipelines, compressor stations, roads, and/or 

other facilities, and may result in ground disturbance. Mineral development may impact air 

quality as the result of substances being released into the atmosphere. On private land, mineral 

development is not subject to the BLM BMPs, or to other mitigation measures. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

388 

Table 4-17 Comparison of Impacts to Visual Resources 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Visual Resources 

Manage 25,976 acres 

as VRM Class I. 

Manage 139,359 acres 

as VRM Class II. 

Manage 38,598 

acres as VRM 

Class I. Manage 

126,643 acres as 

VRM Class II. 

Manage 94 acres 

as VRM Class III. 

Manage 25,976 acres 

as VRM Class I. 

Manage 41,867 acres 

as VRM Class II. 

Manage 104,605 

acres as VRM Class 

III. 

Manage 25,976 acres 

as VRM Class I. 

Manage 27,535 acres 

as VRM Class II. 

Manage 94,327 acres 

as VRM Class III. 

Manage 17,497 acres 

as VRM Class IV. 

Manage 38,598 acres 

as VRM Class I. 

Manage 126,643 

acres as VRM 

Class II. 

Manage 94 acres as 

VRM Class III. 

Cultural Resources 

Develop new sites for 

controlled visitation. 

Protect cultural sites. 

Develop 13 sites. 

Protect cultural 

resource 

communities, sites, 

and isolated finds. 

Develop 13 to 25 

sites. Protect cultural 

resource 

communities and 

sites. 

Develop 13 to 25 

sites. Protect cultural 

resource 

communities and 

sites. 

Develop 13 to 25 

sites. Protect cultural 

resource communities 

and sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make up to 880 

new acres available 

for lease. Allow up 

to 2 new well pads, 

1 mile road. Apply 

NGD/NSO, 

CSU/SSR, TL, and 

COA restrictions. 

Make up to 3,021 

new acres available 

for lease. Allow up to 

8 new well pads, 3 

miles road. Apply 

NGD/NSO, 

CSU/SSR, TL, and 

COA restrictions. 

Make up to 24,462 

new acres available 

for lease. Allow up to 

59 new well pads, 

19 miles road. Apply 

NGD/NSO, 

CSU/SSR, TL, and 

COA restrictions. 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

lease. Allow up to 2 

new well pads, 

1 mile road. Apply 

NGD/NSO, CSU/SSR, 

TL, and COA 

restrictions. 

Rangeland Resources 

Not meeting Land 

Health Standards. 

Permit 8,492 AUMs. 

Take specific 

actions to rapidly 

progress toward 

meeting Public 

Land Health 

Standards. Permit 

6,437 AUMs. 

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Permit 8,368 AUMs.

Take specific actions 

to progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Permit 8,492 AUMs. 

Take specific actions 

to rapidly progress 

toward meeting Public 

Land Health 

Standards. Permit 

6,437 AUMs. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

389 

Table 4-17 Comparison of Impacts to Visual Resources 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles of 

roads. 

Manage 139 miles 

roads. 

Manage 189 miles of 

roads. 

Manage 213 miles of 

roads. 

Manage 169 miles of 

roads. 

Other Resources: 

Air Quality 

Comply with State and 

Federal air quality 

standards. 

Comply with State 

and Federal air 

quality standards; 

additional 

requirements and 

protective 

measures. 

Comply with State 

and Federal air 

quality standards; 

additional 

requirements and 

protective measures. 

Comply with State 

and Federal air 

quality standards; 

additional 

requirements and 

protective measures. 

Comply with State and 

Federal air quality 

standards; 

additional 

requirements and 

protective measures. 

Other Resources: 

Fuels and Fire 

More likely to have 

large-scale fires. 

Fires generally sitespecific and shortterm. Fires generally site- specific and short- term. Fires generally site- specific and short- term. Fires generally site- specific and short- term. 

Other Resources: 

Vegetation Resources 

Restore native plant 

species. 

Restore native 

plant species. 

Allow 

proactive noxious 

weed management. 

Restore native plant 

species. Manage 

noxious weeds as 

encountered. 

Allow use of nonnative plant species 

for revegetation. 

Manage noxious 

weeds as 

encountered. 

Restore native plant 

species. Allow 

proactive noxious 

weed management. 

Other Resources: 

Lands and Realty 

Allow major utility 

corridors, with 

protective stipulations. 

Prohibit major utility 

ROW corridors. 

Allow major utility 

ROW corridors only 

within or adjacent to 

existing ROWs. 

Allow major utility 

corridors, with 

protective 

stipulations. 

Prohibit major utility 

ROW corridors. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

390 

4.2.10. Water Resources 

The primary goal for water resources management is to ensure that an appropriate quality and 

quantity of water are available to support the proper functioning of ecological processes, 

consistent with applicable standards (e.g., water quality). The management objectives related 

to this goal include: 

 protect and restore water resources from physical disturbances and adverse impacts 

associated with land management activities; 

 ensure continued availability of water to adequately manage resources and multipleuses (multiple-uses include both consumptive uses of water, such as livestock, wildlife 

watering, recreation, and fire suppression, as well as non-consumptive uses, such as 

flow in streams sufficient to support riparian and fisheries values); 

 protect water quality within and downstream from the Monument; and 

 identify and quantify hydrologic processes and relationships, and monitor changes in 

both water quality and quantity to ensure proper management of resources, as well as 

the multiple-uses that depend on them. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts to water resources. 

Beneficial impacts that improve water quality may include actions that reduce and/or eliminate 

sedimentation and contamination factors. Beneficial indirect impacts may include increased 

vegetative cover, reduced soil compaction, and reduced disturbance to the soil’s biological crust 

(which may result in less soil erosion and surface runoff and in greater water absorption and 

infiltration). Water quantity may be enhanced by irrigation inflow upstream. Beneficial impacts 

may also be described in terms of protective measures, such as the designation of wild and 

scenic rivers. Adverse impacts to water quality include sedimentation (which can be a result of 

ground disturbance as well as with associated runoff). Water contamination may result from 

direct deposition of fecal material and/or chemicals, such as from pesticides and/or herbicides. 

Water quantity may be reduced from stream diversions for irrigation, culinary, and/or other uses. 

Direct impacts to water may involve the introduction of pollution directly into the water or at the 

water source. Indirect impacts may result from a loss of vegetation (which reduces water 

infiltration into the ground). 

Potential impacts to surface waters from fluid minerals extraction may include soil disturbance 

resulting in sediments washing and/or blowing into nearby streams; contaminated runoff from 

project wells entering streams and/or groundwater; and contaminants spilling, leaking, and/or 

being washed off vehicles and equipment and into streams at road crossings. In addition, the 

depletion of surface water may result from drilling and cross-connection of water-bearing zones 

that may be tributary to surface water. 

Potential impacts to groundwater from the management of fluid minerals may include, but are 

not limited to, the cross-contamination of aquifers across geologic strata due to the improper 

sealing of aquifers encountered by the well bore, the contamination of shallow water aquifers 

due to surface spills and/or accidental releases, and the leakage of fluids during the transfer 

and/or transportation of produced water. 

The actual impacts on surface water and groundwater quality may depend on the proximity of 

roads, pads, and/or of support facilities to water sources; the magnitude, duration, and intensity 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

391 

of precipitation events (which can influence the volume of contaminated runoff reaching 

streams); well completion techniques; and the BMPs used for stormwater pollution control. 

Wells sited away from actively flowing surface water may have a lower risk of impacting water 

resources. Potential impacts may be greatest during project construction. Long-term impacts, 

such as surface water depletion, may occur during well operations. 

With appropriate mitigation measures in place, the risk of contaminating surface water and/or 

groundwater during the management of fluid minerals may be low. When proper procedures 

are followed, accidental spills may be rare and usually may be contained. Implementing BMPs, 

such as inspecting vehicles frequently for leaks and lining reserve pits, may greatly reduce the 

risk of potential contaminants reaching water resources. 

Livestock may impact water quality due to increasing sedimentation in streams and to direct 

contamination at springs. Livestock may increase the amount of sediment entering surface 

water due to the removal of riparian vegetation and the disturbance of stream banks. 

Sedimentation may alter the levels of dissolved oxygen, pH, and nitrite concentration in the 

stream. The impact of continued livestock management on sedimentation may be localized and 

long-term. Water quality contamination from direct contact of livestock with streams and springs 

may have a short- to long-term impact, depending on the quantity and the nature of the 

contaminants. Primary contaminants obtained from direct contact may include bacteria and/or 

ammonia. Contaminated water from livestock may extend downstream into mainstem streams 

during peak flow events. Restricting the access of livestock to surface water may greatly reduce 

the risk of direct contamination. 

Livestock grazing may indirectly impact water quality and stream channel conditions due to the 

removal of upland vegetation, the compaction of soil, and/or the disturbance of biological soil 

crust. The removal of vegetation and/or biological soil crust in upland areas may increase the 

potential for soil erosion due to the exposure of soil to wind and water. Additionally, removing 

vegetation may increase the volume and/or velocity of surface runoff due to the reduction of 

friction on the ground surface. Friction may be further reduced due to soil compaction. An 

intact biological soil crust may help to reduce soil erosion (by covering the soil and binding soil 

particles together) and aid in the infiltration and absorption of rainfall. Consequently, areas that 

are heavily grazed may quickly transport soil sediment downhill into adjacent streams. The 

potential for sedimentation from upland livestock grazing may depend on the frequency, 

magnitude, and/or the timing of runoff events; watershed condition; number of livestock; 

proximity of livestock to surface water; season of use; and/or the duration of grazing. The 

indirect impacts of sedimentation on water resources, under the current regime, may be 

moderate and long-term. 

Livestock watering may reduce base flows at the watering source. The amount of water 

withdrawn would depend on the number of cattle, the grazing season, and the method of 

extraction. A large amount of livestock receive water from small artificial ponds fed by storm 

flow and snowmelt. Livestock grazing may also alter stream channel shape due to an increase 

in the volume and rate of surface water reaching the stream (which can scour stream banks), an 

increase in the amount of sediment being deposited into the stream, the collapse of stream 

banks to access water, and the removal of stabilizing riparian vegetation adjacent to water 

sources. These processes tend to increase stream width, decrease its depth, and decrease its 

sinuosity (curvature). A straight, shallow stream is more likely to increase in water temperature. 

Temperature increases may be compounded by the removal of riparian vegetation (which 

shades the stream). Warming streams may create adverse habitat conditions for aquatic 

vegetation and/or wildlife. These physical changes are already occurring on some streams in 

the Monument. Continued livestock grazing would likely continue this trend, producing a longterm change in stream channel function and/or habitat. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

392 

Differing types of recreation may have varying levels of impacts on water resources. 

Temporary, localized impacts to water quality may occur during visitor facility construction due 

to soil disturbance and increased equipment traffic. Long-term impacts may result from the 

installation of some permanent features, such as parking lots. This may increase the amount of 

surface runoff reaching adjacent streams. Water usage for facilities, such as for drinking water 

pipelines, restrooms, and/or for kitchen use, may have a minor impact on water quantity. The 

impacts of facilities on water resources may diminish with distance from the water source. 

Dispersed foot traffic may have a minimal impact on water resources, unless visitors waded 

directly into stream channels. The amount of expected foot traffic at any given time in the 

Monument would likely be too low to produce measurable impacts on stream channels. OHV 

use may have a large impact on water resources, especially if designated OHV roads cross 

stream valleys. OHVs may displace large amounts of soil and create soil ruts, which, in turn, 

can funnel runoff and sediment into nearby streams. Soil loss due to rainfall and/or runoff is 

increased when cyanobacteria connections in the soil crust are broken. This may be particularly 

problematic when the impact is in a continuous strip, such as in vehicle tracks. This is because 

channels for water flow are quickly formed, especially on slopes. Depending on their proximity 

and surfacing, high-traffic roads may contribute substantial amounts of sediment into streams. 

Traffic along natural surfaced roads may continue to displace sediment, both during active use 

and while not in use. If the road surface is hardened (rocked or paved), then the risk of 

sedimentation may be greatly reduced; however, the risk of surface runoff may increase slightly. 

Road construction activities may displace topsoil that could then, potentially, enter nearby 

streams during runoff events. Depending on their proximity to surface water, the construction of 

new roads may have a long-term impact on water resources. 

4.2.10.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Quantifying impacts to water resources, specifically for water quality, is difficult due to a lack of 

long-term data for water resources in the Monument. The number of acres of ground 

disturbance may be used as a relative comparison of alternatives, as an indication of potential 

for water quality deterioration due to sedimentation. In the case of analyzing impacts from 

livestock grazing, the number of AUMs may be used to compare alternatives and the potential 

for impacts from ground disturbance and direct water contamination. Impacts are sometimes 

described in qualitative terms, if appropriate. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to water resources include the following: 

 Application of appropriate BMPs and standardized reclamation practices would be 

required as COAs for all new leases, permits, and surface disturbance areas (see 

Appendix E). 

 The analysis assumed the implementation of all possible management actions under 

each alternative (representing a “worst-case scenario”). Therefore, the actual impacts of 

implementing each alternative are likely to be less and within the scope of the analysis 

presented below. 

 It is assumed that the number of roads predicted for construction, based on new acres 

leased for fluid minerals development, would all be new roads. 

 Erosion can be expected from the majority of soil types present in the Monument, most 

of which are characterized as having severe water erosion and high runoff properties. 

 The spatial scales considered for direct and indirect impacts include the site of the 

proposed management actions, the general vicinity of proposed management actions 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

393 

(including the nearest water bodies), and the catchment scale (the impacted stream 

valley or basin). 

 Cumulative impacts are considered in the Monument and at the fifth-field watershed 

scale. The Monument makes up 56 percent of the Yellow Jacket Canyon fifth-field 

watershed, 30 percent of the Middle McElmo Creek watershed, 24 percent of the Cross 

Canyon watershed, 21 percent of the Lower McElmo Creek watershed, and only 3 

percent of the Upper McElmo watershed. Consequently, the Yellow Jacket Canyon 

watershed would most likely be impacted by management direction in the Monument; 

whereas, the Upper McElmo watershed is more likely to be impacted by the activities of 

other landowners in the watershed. The temporal scale of impacts ranges from minutes 

to decades or longer. 

4.2.10.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to visual resources may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific 

management actions under each alternative for different resource uses. The following sections 

describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions 

directly proposed for water resources, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, 

recreation and transportation, and other resources. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Water Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, the BLM would honor existing water rights in the Monument. New water 

rights may be secured to provide for recreation, livestock, and/or for the protection of riparian 

zones or springs associated with cultural sites. The Dolores Water Conservancy District 

(DWCD), the Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company (MVIC), and other entities that import water 

to the watersheds in which the Monument is located are increasing the water flow in the 

Monument. If the current trend of returning irrigation flows continues, the surface water and 

near-surface water features in the Monument should continue to have larger flows over natural 

conditions. These augmented water features may continue to provide riparian habitats and 

water for other uses, such as for wildlife, livestock, and/or for recreation. 

Alternative I would protect 2,415 acres of riparian system and would implement projects 

designed to improve riparian and alluvial floodplain habitat. Active channel edges would be 

protected from non-restoration projects, unless appropriate mitigation measures were in place to 

reduce or eliminate impacts to streams. There are no restrictions on groundwater and/or new 

water developments. 

Under Alternative I, existing stream crossings would be assessed, and replaced or repaired, if 

needed, to maintain water quality and stream function. Road crossings of intermittent or 

perennial streams would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Removing or improving stream 

crossings may have a long-term beneficial impact on water resources in that such actions may 

reduce potential sedimentation and may help to maintain or restore channel condition and 

function. 

Cultural Resources Management 

The continued management of cultural resource sites for visiting, interpretation, and/or research 

may have a negligible impact on water resources. Sediment produced as a result of grounddisturbing activities (e.g., facility construction or traffic) may be short-term, minor, and localized. 

The majority of known cultural sites are located on uplands, away from perennial streams, and 

visitation to these sites may have minimal to no measurable impact on streams or groundwater 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

394 

resources. Alternative I identifies 240 sites for stabilization, several of which would be 

developed for visitation and may increase the potential for disturbance. 

In order to help protect existing spring riparian areas that are associated with cultural sites, the 

BLM would obtain water rights for these areas. This may have a long-term beneficial impact on 

these special habitats in that these actions may help maintain flows sufficient for sustaining 

riparian-dependent species. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative I, no new fluid minerals leases would be allowed; therefore, no new ground 

disturbance would occur associated with new mineral leases. Existing leases would continue. 

Fluid minerals management is not anticipated to have impacts to water resources under 

Alternative I. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

The continued management of 8,492 active livestock AUMs in the Monument may impact water 

quantity and quality. Under Alternative I, the BLM would secure sufficient water rights to provide 

for livestock management needs. Livestock watering would slightly reduce base flows at the 

watering source. The amount of water withdrawn would depend on the number of cattle, the 

grazing season, and/or the method of extraction. Therefore, the impact of livestock on water 

quantity may be minor because flows in the Monument are currently augmented by irrigation 

returns. 

Alternative I, the No Action Alternative, has failed to meet Public Land Health Standards to date. 

Livestock grazing is a key component of that failure. Not maintaining rangeland health would 

continue to impact water sources due to the lack of ground cover, healthy vegetation, and 

associated erosion and sedimentation into local streams. In addition, this alternative does not 

protect water sources to the same extent they would be protected under the other alternatives; 

therefore, impacts to riparian areas, floodplains, and/or canyon bottoms may continue. 

Livestock management under this alternative has the greatest potential to adversely impact 

water resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

This alternative does not have a recreation promotion strategy. Facility development would be 

on an as-needed basis. The actual level of impact would depend on the maintenance and 

construction of visitor facilities, the proximity of these facilities to water bodies, the types of 

recreation use, and the number of visitors. In addition, differing types of recreation would have 

varying levels of impacts on water resources. Dispersed foot and horseback traffic may have a 

minimal impact on water resources, unless visitors waded directly into stream channels. The 

amount of expected foot and horseback traffic at any given time in the Monument may be too 

low to produce measurable impacts to channels. This would not be the case with dispersed 

traffic. However, cross-country OHV travel would be prohibited in the Monument and there may 

be no impact. 

Traffic along the 149 miles of roads (both motorized, non-motorized, and/or mechanized) may 

result in localized, long-term soil disturbance and displacement (864 acres). This alternative 

does not incorporate official travel management designations; therefore, it may not manage 

traffic to the same extent as the other alternatives, in order to minimize impacts to water 

resources. The low density of roads in the Monument and the expected volume of visitor traffic 

may likely have minor impacts on water resources. 

The closing of roads may have a long-term beneficial impact on water resources as a result of 

reducing the volume of traffic and returning the land to a more natural surface. Although 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

395 

residual road compaction may persist for decades, former roads that are reclaimed by 

vegetation may regain some of their infiltration and runoff dispersal functions following a single 

growing season. Decompacting and/or recontouring roads may greatly accelerate their 

recovery. 

Alternative II

Water Resources Management 

Alternative II may have a long-term beneficial impact on water quantity and quality in the 

Monument. Under Alternative II, the BLM would acquire water rights to support all water uses in 

the Monument (both consumptive and non-consumptive). Existing water rights would be 

honored and new surface water and groundwater developments would only be issued to 

mitigate environmental impacts, restore native habitats and/or populations, support visitor 

facilities, and/or to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. New developments would only be 

implemented following a NEPA analysis of potential impacts, and then only when the 

development would not dewater springs or streams. Groundwater developments would be 

discouraged, and would only be implemented following a full impact analysis of the proposal on 

water resources. 

Under Alternative II, the BLM would work with the owners of existing water infrastructure to 

reduce the facilities’ impacts on riparian habitat. Additionally, new diversions through existing 

facilities would only be allowed where NEPA analysis demonstrates an overall benefit to 

Monument resources. The BLM would also work closely with the Colorado Water Conservation 

Board to establish instream flow rights for suitable perennial and seasonal streams in the 

Monument. On unprotected reaches, the BLM would only authorize new land uses that would 

ensure sufficient flows remained to support water-dependent values. Additionally, the BLM 

would increase water flows by removing noxious weeds in and around seeps, springs, and 

streams when projects are performed at water sources. 

With these management actions in place, and assuming the current trend of returning irrigation 

flows continues, the surface water and near-surface water features in the Monument may 

continue to have larger flows over natural conditions. These augmented water features may 

continue to sustain riparian habitats and provide water for other uses, such as wildlife, livestock, 

and/or for recreation. 

Alternative II would have a greater long-term beneficial impact on riparian systems in that it 

would protect 5,312 acres of canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains. Under this 

alternative, the BLM would apply an NGD/NSO restriction to riparian and wetland habitat, 

including springs, canyon bottoms, and floodplains associated with all stream types. These 

restrictions may help maintain and enhance riparian areas, which, in turn, may help filter 

sediment, encourage the infiltration of surface runoff, help stabilize stream banks, and provide 

shade to regulate stream temperature, among other functions. Additional information regarding 

impacts to riparian areas is provided in Subsection 3.1.8, Vegetation Resources. 

Water contamination at road and trail crossings typically results from sediment being dislodged 

from the road surface or the vehicle, and, to a lesser extent, from the leakage or spill of fluids 

and chemicals from vehicles and equipment. Under Alternative II, designated road crossings 

would be permitted in the NGD/NSO riparian areas only if an analysis demonstrated that the 

crossing would not contribute to a stream segment either not achieving, or not making progress 

toward achieving PFC. This management action may help to minimize the risk of water quality 

contamination at stream crossings. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

396 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative II would identify the development of 13 cultural sites for public use, interpretive 

signage, infrastructure, and/or visitor services. Sediment produced by ground-disturbing 

activities (facility construction and traffic) would be short-term, minor, and localized. The 

majority of known cultural sites are located on uplands, away from perennial streams, and 

visitation to these sites may have minimal to no measurable impact on streams or groundwater 

resources. 

In order to help protect existing spring riparian areas that are associated with cultural sites, the 

BLM would obtain water rights for these areas. This may have a long-term beneficial impact on 

these special habitats in that these actions may help maintain flows sufficient for sustaining 

riparian-dependent species. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

The management of fluid minerals may have long-term impacts on water resources. Under 

Alternative II, up to 880 acres would be available for new leases, but only to accommodate 

drainage issues. This may result in up to an estimated 18 acres of ground disturbance 

associated with new leases. Existing leases would continue and would not be affected. This 

level of development may likely have minor adverse impacts, if managed properly. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative II may have a long-term, beneficial impact on water resources in the Monument. 

Emphasizing a reduction of authorized livestock use to 6,437 active AUMs, adjusting the 

duration and extent of spring livestock grazing, and implementing rest-rotation grazing 

schedules may help to improve water and riparian resources throughout the Monument. The 

benefits of these management actions may include increased vegetative cover, reduced soil 

compaction, and/or reduced disturbance to the soil’s biological crust. This may result in less soil 

erosion and surface runoff and in greater water absorption and infiltration. As a result, less 

sediment would be deposited into streams, resulting in additional benefits to water quality, such 

as increased dissolved oxygen and decreased nitrite concentrations. If livestock are restricted 

from direct access to surface water, direct water contamination and the loss of riparian 

vegetation (and the resulting channel changes) may be minimal to none. 

Livestock watering may slightly reduce base flows at the watering source. The amount of water 

withdrawn would depend on the number of cattle, the grazing season, and/or the method of 

extraction. A large number of livestock receive water from small artificial ponds fed by storm 

flow and snowmelt. Under Alternative II, new water developments would only be allowed if they 

resulted in no adverse impacts to water resources, and if they would not dewater streams or 

springs. Therefore, the impact of livestock on water quantity may be minor due to the fact that 

flows would be maintained through water resource management. 

Implementing the management actions under Alternative II may also have a beneficial impact 

on stream channel shape in that such actions may eliminate or reduce the processes that are 

altering stream channels in the Monument. By protecting upland vegetation (and thereby 

decreasing surface runoff and sedimentation), excluding livestock from stream banks (when 

movement toward achieving PFC has not been realized using other methods), and protecting 

riparian vegetation, Alternative II may help to reverse adverse processes and may allow for the 

recovery of channels toward achieving PFC. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

This alternative designates RMZs and SRMAs, and has a strategy of promoting undeveloped 

recreation opportunities, with minimal facilities and infrastructure, primarily for local visitors. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

397 

Under this alternative, water usage for a limited number of facilities may have a minor impact on 

water quantity, and the impacts of facilities on water resources may diminish with distance from 

the water source. This alternative would minimize facility construction; therefore, it may benefit 

water resources more than the other alternatives. 

Differing types of recreation would have varying levels of impacts on water resources. 

Dispersed foot traffic may have a negligible impact on water resources, unless visitors waded 

directly into stream channels. The amount of expected foot traffic at any given time in the 

Monument may be too low to produce measurable impacts to channels. Off-road OHV traffic 

would be prohibited in the Monument; therefore, the OHV contribution to sedimentation would 

be combined with that of other road use. 

Traffic along the 139 miles of roads (both motorized, non-motorized, and/or mechanized) may 

result in localized, long-term soil compaction and displacement (806 acres). Under Alternative 

II, most existing user-created roads would be closed and reclaimed and less than half of the 

existing miles of roads would be open to public use. A lower density of roads in the Monument, 

with the expected volume of visitor traffic, may likely have very few adverse impacts on water 

resources. 

Depending on their proximity to surface water, the construction of new roads may have a shortterm, localized impact on water resources. However, because no new road construction is 

proposed under Alternative II, and only minor rerouting may occur, the impacts of road 

construction on water resources may be negligible. 

Road closures may have a long-term beneficial impact on water resources, in that such actions 

may reduce the volume of traffic and return the land to a more natural surface. Although 

residual road compaction may persist for decades, former roads that are reclaimed by 

vegetation may regain some of their infiltration and runoff dispersal functions following a single 

growing season. Decompacting and/or recontouring roads may greatly accelerate their 

recovery. 

Alternative III

Water Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, new surface and/or groundwater developments would be encouraged to 

meet livestock and wildlife management objectives, or redeveloped to reduce impacts to cultural 

resources. Recreation water developments may be restricted to high-usage areas. After 

completion of a thorough impact analysis, groundwater development would be allowed in areas 

of inadequate surface water supplies to meet livestock and wildlife needs. Existing facilities 

would continue to operate under their historic authorizations, and increased diversions through 

existing facilities would be allowed under appropriate authorizations. Limited dewatering of 

water sources may be allowed, if developments assisted in meeting livestock, wildlife, and/or 

recreation objectives. The greatest impact on water resources may occur where water 

development would be high enough in the watershed to result in dewatering of the resource. 

Dewatering at a site may impact local soil conditions and may impact surrounding vegetation 

(thereby limiting riparian species and favoring more upland species). The duration of the impact 

would depend on the duration of the dewatering. 

Under this alternative, the BLM would work closely with the Colorado Water Conservation Board 

to establish instream flow rights for perennial streams in the Monument. On unprotected 

reaches, the BLM would only authorize new land uses that would ensure sufficient flows 

remained to support water-dependent values. Additionally, the BLM would seek to increase 

water flows by prioritizing noxious weed removal in and around seeps, springs, and streams 

within two years of signing of the ROD. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

398 

With site-specific analyses for water development projects (in which projects are designed to 

minimally impact water-dependent resources), and assuming the current trend of returning 

irrigation flows continues, the surface water and near-surface water features in the Monument 

may continue to have larger flows over natural conditions. These augmented water features 

may continue to provide water for uses, such as wildlife, livestock, and/or for recreation. 

Alternative III may have a long-term beneficial impact on 5,312 acres of riparian systems. 

Under this alternative, the BLM would apply an NGD/NSO restriction to riparian zones, including 

springs and combinations of canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains associated with all 

stream types. These restrictions may help maintain and enhance riparian areas, which, in turn, 

may help filter sediment, encourage the infiltration of surface runoff, help stabilize stream banks, 

and/or provide shade to regulate stream temperature. 

Water contamination at road and trail crossings typically results from sediment being dislodged 

from the road surface or the vehicle, and, to a lesser extent, from the leakage or spill of fluids 

and chemicals from vehicles and equipment. Under Alternative III, designated road crossings 

would be permitted in the NGD/NSO riparian areas only if an analysis demonstrates that the 

crossing would not contribute to a stream segment either not achieving, or not making progress 

toward achieving PFC. This management action may help to minimize the risk of water quality 

contamination at stream crossings. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative III identifies the development of 13 to 25 cultural sites for public use, interpretive 

signage, infrastructure, and/or visitor services that may have negligible impact on water 

resources. Sediment produced by ground-disturbing activities (facility construction, and traffic) 

may be short-term, minor, and localized. The majority of known cultural sites are located on 

uplands, away from perennial streams, and visitation to these sites may have no measurable 

impact on streams or groundwater resources. 

In order to help protect existing spring riparian areas that are associated with cultural sites, the 

BLM would obtain water rights for these areas. This may have a long-term beneficial impact on 

these special habitats in that such actions may help maintain flows sufficient for sustaining 

riparian-dependent species. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Fluid minerals management may have long-term impacts on water resources. Under Alternative 

III, up to 3,021 acres would be available for new leases, which would equate to 73 acres of 

ground disturbance. Existing leases would continue to be developed and not be affected. The 

increase in acres of fluid mineral development may equate to an increase in risk of impacts to 

water resources from erosion of sediment into streams. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative III may have a long-term, beneficial impact on water resources in the Monument. 

The rangeland capacity would be reduced from current conditions to 8,368 active AUMs by 

closing five allotments. Adjusting the duration and extent of spring grazing and implementing 

rest-rotation grazing schedules may help to improve water and riparian resources throughout 

the Monument. The benefits of these management actions may include increased vegetative 

cover, less disturbance to the biological soil crust, and reduced soil compaction, resulting in less 

soil erosion and surface runoff. As a result, less sediment may be deposited into streams, 

resulting in additional benefits to water quality, such as increased dissolved oxygen and 

decreased nitrite concentrations. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

399 

Under Alternative III, new water developments would be allowed to support livestock, and a 

limited dewatering of streams or springs may occur. Therefore, the impact of livestock on water 

quantity may be the greatest at these sites, and less over the entire Monument due to the fact 

that most flows would be maintained through water resource management. Under the 

management actions of Alternative III, livestock would not be fully excluded from riparian areas. 

However, areas known to not be meeting PFC would be periodically rested. 

The potential for sedimentation from upland livestock grazing may be reduced under Alternative 

III as a result of adjusting the duration and extent of spring grazing, and implementing restrotation grazing schedules. Management actions under Alternative III, however, may impact 

stream channel shape; in that such actions may continue the processes that are altering stream 

channels in the Monument. By continuing livestock impacts on upland vegetation and the soil 

biological crust, and providing access to riparian areas, Alternative III may retard the recovery of 

some water resources toward achieving PFC. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

This alternative designates RMZs and SRMAs, and has a strategy of promoting destination 

recreation opportunities, with appropriate facilities and infrastructure, primarily for regional 

visitors. The actual level of impact would depend on the maintenance and construction of these 

facilities, the proximity of facilities to water bodies, the types of recreation use, and/or to the 

number of visitors. The expansion of the Lower Sand Canyon road parking area may increase 

surface runoff and contamination into McElmo Creek. However, the installation of proper 

mitigation measures may greatly minimize this impact. Water usage for a limited number of 

facilities may have a minor impact on water quantity. The impacts of facilities on water 

resources may diminish with distance from the water body. 

Differing types of recreation would have varying levels of impacts on water resources. 

Dispersed foot traffic may have a minimal impact on water resources, unless visitors waded 

directly into stream channels. The amount of expected foot traffic at any given time in the 

Monument may be too low to produce measurable impacts on stream channels. OHV use may 

have a large impact on water resources, especially if designated OHV roads cross stream 

valleys. OHVs may displace large amounts of soil and create soil ruts, which, in turn, may 

funnel runoff and sediment into nearby streams. Under Alternative III, nine miles of roads would 

be designated for OHVs, but 60 miles of roads would be open to all forms of travel. If these 

roads are well maintained, and sited away from water bodies, and OHV drivers remain on these 

roads, then adverse impacts to water resources may be mitigated. 

Traffic along the 189 miles of roads (both motorized, non-motorized, and/or mechanized) may 

result in localized, long-term soil compaction and displacement (1,096 acres). The closing of 

roads may have a long-term beneficial impact on water resources, in that such actions may 

reduce the volume of traffic and return the land to a more natural surface. Although residual 

road compaction may persist for decades, former roads that are reclaimed by vegetation may 

regain some of their infiltration and runoff dispersal functions following a single growing season. 

Decompacting and/or recontouring roads may greatly accelerate their recovery. Given current 

levels of visitation, and with public traffic constrained to fewer areas, the proposed 

transportation scenario may have beneficial impacts on water resources, when compared with 

current management. 

Alternative IV

Water Resources Management 

Under this alternative, new surface water and/or groundwater developments would be 

encouraged to meet livestock and wildlife management objectives, or redeveloped to reduce 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

400 

impacts to cultural resources. After completion of a thorough impact analysis, groundwater 

development would be encouraged for the purposes of meeting water supply needs for energy 

and mineral development projects. Existing facilities would continue to operate under their 

historic authorizations, and increased diversions through existing facilities would be allowed 

under appropriate authorizations. The BLM would also allow for the conversion of water 

facilities from traditional uses (such as irrigation and livestock) to industrial and commercial 

uses. 

Although the BLM would work closely with the Colorado Water Conservation Board to establish 

instream flow rights for perennial streams in the Monument, any water not protected by instream 

flow rights would be available for appropriation for industrial, commercial, and/or traditional 

uses. In areas of intense resource development, priority for use of limited water supplies would 

be given to resource-development purposes over water-dependent natural resource values. 

The dewatering of water sources could be allowed if such developments assisted in meeting 

other management objectives. The greatest impact on water resources may occur where water 

development would be high enough to result in dewatering of the resource. Dewatering at a site 

may impact local soil conditions and impact surrounding vegetation (thereby limiting riparian 

species and favoring more upland species). The duration of the impact would depend on the 

duration of the dewatering. Although the BLM would seek to increase flows by treating highpriority seeps, springs, and streams for noxious weeds, as time and funding permit, intense 

demands on these resources may likely result in decreased base flows. With increased 

demands on existing water resources, current return flows from upland irrigation may not be 

enough to sustain flows at some sites. 

Alternative IV may have a long-term beneficial impact on 3,217 acres of riparian systems. 

Under this alternative, the BLM would emphasize management activities that would benefit 

some riparian areas and floodplains by applying an NGD/NSO restriction. The restriction would 

apply to riparian zones, including springs and combinations of riparian areas and floodplains 

associated with all stream types. These restrictions may help maintain and enhance riparian 

areas, which, in turn, may help filter sediment, encourage the infiltration of surface runoff, help 

stabilize stream banks, and provide shade to regulate stream temperature, among other 

functions. 

Water contamination at road and trail crossings typically results from sediment being dislodged 

from the road surface or the vehicle, and, to a lesser extent, from the leakage or spill of fluids 

and chemicals from vehicles and equipment. Under Alternative IV, designated road crossings 

would be permitted in the NGD/NSO riparian areas only if an analysis demonstrated that the 

crossing would not contribute to a stream segment either not achieving, or not making progress 

toward achieving PFC. This management action may help to minimize the risk of water quality 

contamination at stream crossings. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative IV identifies the development of 13 to 25 cultural sites for public use, with 

stabilization, interpretive signage, infrastructure, and/or visitor services, which may have 

negligible impact on water resources. Sediment produced by ground-disturbing activities 

(facility construction and traffic) may be short-term, minor, and localized. The majority of known 

cultural sites are located on uplands, away from perennial streams, and visitation to these sites 

may have minimal to no measurable impact on streams and/or groundwater resources. 

In order to help protect existing spring riparian areas that are associated with cultural sites, the 

BLM would obtain water rights for these areas. This may have a long-term beneficial impact on 

these special habitats in that such actions may help maintain flows sufficient for sustaining 

riparian-dependent species. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

401 

Fluid Minerals Management 

The management of fluid minerals may have long-term impacts on water resources. Under 

Alternative IV, 24,462 acres would be available for new leases, which would equate to 447 

acres of ground disturbance tied to new leases. Existing leases would continue and would not 

be affected. Due to the greater potential for mineral development under Alternative IV, the 

potential adverse impact on water resources may be greater than under current conditions. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative IV may have long-term impacts on water quantity and water quality in the Monument. 

Extensive livestock watering may reduce base flows at watering sources. Under Alternative IV, 

new water developments would be prioritized to support livestock over preserving base flows. 

Therefore, the impact of livestock on water quantity may possibly be major at heavily developed 

and utilized sites. 

Although the Monument would continue to be managed with the current capacity of 8,492 active 

AUMs, adjusting the duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementing restrotation grazing schedules may improve water resources. Adjusting the duration and extent of 

spring grazing and implementing rest-rotation grazing schedules may increase vegetative cover 

and reduce soil compaction, resulting in less soil erosion and surface runoff. Excluding 

livestock from some riparian areas may also benefit riparian function. The potential for 

sedimentation from upland livestock grazing may be slightly reduced under Alternative IV as a 

result of livestock management. The overall impact of these limited improvements may be 

minor on water quality and may result in a slow response.

Recreation and Transportation Management 

This alternative designates RMZs and SRMAs, and has a strategy of promoting destination 

recreation opportunities, with more facilities and infrastructure, primarily for national and 

international visitors. Areas of water would likely be targeted for recreation facilities and 

infrastructure. The actual level of impact would depend on the maintenance and construction of 

visitor facilities, the proximity of these facilities to water bodies, the types of recreation use, and 

the number of visitors. Temporary, localized impacts to water quality may occur during visitor 

facility construction due to soil disturbance and increased equipment traffic. Long-term impacts 

may result from the installation and/or expansion of permanent features, such as parking lots, 

which may increase surface runoff into adjacent streams. The impacts of facilities on return 

flows may diminish with distance from the water body. The expansion of the Lower Sand 

Canyon road parking area may increase surface runoff and contamination into McElmo Creek. 

If proper mitigation measures are put into place, this impact may be minimized. 

Facilities that require water withdrawals (e.g., restrooms, kitchens, laundry) may have a greater 

impact than more primitive sites without developed water sources. Water development would 

be prioritized for recreational use over water resource values; therefore, some facilities could 

potentially reduce base flows enough to dewater sites. Water bodies that experience 

substantially diminished flows may no longer be able to support some water-dependent species. 

Under Alternative IV, 19 miles of roads would be designated for OHV use and 102 miles of 

roads would be available for all means of transportation. If these roads are well maintained and 

sited away from water bodies, and OHV drivers remain on these roads, then adverse impacts to 

water resources may be minimized. 

Traffic along the 213 miles of roads (both motorized, non-motorized, and/or mechanized) may 

result in localized, long-term soil compaction and displacement (1,235 acres). Under Alternative 

IV, no existing user-created roads would be closed or reclaimed, increasing the potential impact 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

402 

from sedimentation over the other alternatives. However, the total number of road miles 

available to the public for all travel means would still be less than that under the current 

transportation system (Alternative I). Therefore, the risk of potential adverse impacts from road 

use on water resources may be less than that under current conditions, but greater than that 

expected under all of the other alternatives. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Water Resources Management 

Alternative V may have a long-term beneficial impact on water quantity and quality in the 

Monument. Under Alternative V, the BLM would acquire water rights on point sources, such as 

reservoirs, wells, and springs, to support all water uses in the Monument. Existing water rights 

would be honored and new surface water and groundwater developments would only be issued 

to mitigate environmental impacts, restore native habitats or populations, support visitor 

facilities, and/or to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. New developments would only be 

implemented following a NEPA analysis of potential impacts, and only when the development 

would not dewater springs or streams. Groundwater development would be discouraged, and 

would only be implemented following a full impact analysis of the proposal on water resources. 

Under Alternative V, the BLM would work with the owners of existing water infrastructure to 

reduce the facilities’ impacts on riparian habitat. Additionally, new diversions through existing 

facilities would only be allowed where NEPA analysis demonstrates an overall benefit to 

Monument resources. The BLM would also work closely with the Colorado Water Conservation 

Board to establish instream flow rights for suitable perennial and seasonal streams in the 

Monument. On unprotected reaches, the BLM would only authorize new land uses that would 

ensure sufficient flows remained to support water-dependent values. Additionally, the BLM 

would potentially increase water flows by developing a list of high priority water sources for 

noxious weed control and by beginning treatment on these sites within three years of the 

signing of the ROD. 

With these management actions in place, and assuming the current trend of returning irrigation 

flows continues, the surface water and near-surface water features in the Monument may 

continue to have larger flows over natural conditions. These augmented water features may 

continue to sustain riparian habitats and may provide water for other uses, such as wildlife, 

livestock, and/or for recreation. 

Alternative V may also have a greater long-term beneficial impact on riparian systems. Under 

this alternative, the BLM would protect 5,312 acres of riparian systems by applying an 

NGD/NSO restriction. This restriction may help maintain and enhance riparian areas, which, in 

turn, may help filter sediment, encourage the infiltration of surface runoff, help stabilize stream 

banks, and provide shade to regulate stream temperature, among other functions. This 

alternative would strive to protect not only riparian areas and floodplains, but canyon bottoms as 

well. Additional information regarding impacts to riparian areas is provided in Subsection 3.1.8, 

Vegetation Resources. 

Water contamination at road and trail crossings typically results from sediment being dislodged 

from the road surface or the vehicle, and, to a lesser extent, from the leakage or spill of fluids 

and chemicals from vehicles and equipment. Under Alternative V, designated road crossings 

would be permitted in the NGD/NSO riparian areas only if an analysis demonstrated that the 

crossing would not contribute to a stream segment either not achieving, or not making progress 

toward achieving PFC. This management action may help minimize the risk of water quality 

contamination at stream crossings. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

403 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative V identifies the development of 13 to 25 cultural sites for public use, with minimal 

stabilization, interpretive signage, infrastructure, and/or visitor services, and may have negligible 

impact on water resources. Sediment produced by ground-disturbing activities (facility 

construction and traffic) may be short-term, minor, and localized. The majority of known cultural 

sites are located on uplands, away from perennial streams, and visitation to these sites may 

have little measurable impact on streams and/or groundwater resources. 

In order to help protect existing spring riparian areas that are associated with cultural sites, the 

BLM would obtain water rights for these areas. This may have long-term beneficial impacts on 

these special habitats in that such actions may help maintain flows sufficient for sustaining 

riparian-dependent species. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

The management of fluid minerals may have long-term impacts on water resources. Under 

Alternative V, up to 880 acres would be available for new leases, equating to up to 18 acres of 

potential ground disturbance. Existing leases would continue and would not be affected. This 

level of development may likely have few adverse impacts, if managed properly. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative V may have a long-term, beneficial impact on water resources in the Monument. 

Emphasizing a reduction of authorized livestock use to 6,437 active AUMs, adjusting the 

duration and extent of spring grazing, and implementing rest-rotation grazing schedules may 

help improve water and riparian resources throughout the Monument. The benefits of these 

management actions may include increased vegetative cover and reduced soil compaction, 

resulting in less soil erosion and surface runoff. As a result, less sediment may be deposited 

into streams, resulting in additional benefits to water quality, such as increased dissolved 

oxygen and decreased nitrite concentrations. If livestock are restricted from direct access to 

surface water, direct water contamination and the loss of riparian vegetation (and resulting 

channel changes) may be minimal to none. 

Under the management actions of Alternative V, direct sedimentation may be minor in that 

riparian areas would be excluded from livestock use where Public Land Health Standards are 

not being met. Given that livestock may have limited access to surface water under Alternative 

V, the impact of direct contamination may be possible at the site scale. The potential for 

sedimentation from upland livestock grazing may be reduced under Alternative V by reducing 

the number of authorized uses, adjusting the duration and extent of spring grazing, and 

implementing rest-rotation grazing schedules. Consequently, the indirect impacts of 

sedimentation on water resources may be minor over the long-term. 

Implementing the management actions under Alternative V may also have a beneficial impact 

on stream channel shape in that such actions may eliminate or reduce the processes that are 

altering stream channels in the Monument. By protecting upland vegetation (thereby 

decreasing surface runoff and sedimentation), excluding livestock from stream banks, and 

protecting essential riparian vegetation, Alternative V may help to reverse adverse processes 

and allow for the recovery of channels toward achieving PFC. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

This alternative designates RMZs and SRMAs, and contains a mix of promotion strategies. Up 

to 157,460 acres within the Monument would be managed for the primitive, undeveloped 

recreation experience, with minimum facilities and infrastructure. These areas would be 

primarily used by local visitors. Approximately 7,875 acres would be managed under a 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

404 

destination strategy, with appropriate support facilities, to meet the needs of regional visitors. 

The amount of recreational development would vary among sites, with some having only 

minimal structures (signs), and others having more substantial structures (parking lots). The 

actual level of impact would depend on the maintenance and construction of visitor facilities, the 

proximity of these facilities to water bodies, the types of recreation use, and/or the number of 

visitors. Temporary, localized impacts to water quality may occur during visitor facility 

construction due to soil disturbance and increased equipment traffic. Long-term impacts may 

result from the installation of permanent features, such as parking lots, which may, in turn, 

increase surface runoff into adjacent streams. Water usage for a limited number of facilities 

may have a minor impact on water quantity. The impacts of facilities on water resources may 

diminish with distance from the water source. 

Differing types of recreation would have varying levels of impacts on water resources. 

Dispersed foot traffic may have a negligible impact on water resources, unless visitors waded 

directly into stream channels. The amount of expected foot traffic at any given time in the 

Monument may be too low to produce measurable impacts to channels. Eight miles of roads 

would be designated for OHV traffic, while 74 miles would be open to all forms of traffic. If these 

roads are well maintained and sited away from water bodies, and OHV drivers remain on these 

roads, then adverse impacts to water resources may be minimized. Cross-country OHV use is 

prohibited in the Monument; consequently, there would be no impact from dispersed OHV 

travel. 

Traffic along the 169 miles of roads (both motorized, non-motorized, and/or mechanized) may 

result in localized, long-term soil compaction and displacement (980 acres). Under Alternative 

V, most existing user-created roads would be closed and reclaimed, and fewer roads would be 

open to public use. A lower density of roads in the Monument, with the expected volume of 

visitor traffic, may likely have minor impacts on water resources. Because no new road 

construction and no rerouting are proposed under Alternative V, the impacts of road 

construction on water resources may be negligible. 

The closing of roads may have a long-term beneficial impact on water resources, in that such 

actions may reduce the volume of traffic and return the land to a more natural surface. Although 

residual road compaction may persist for decades, former roads that are reclaimed by 

vegetation may regain some of their infiltration and runoff dispersal functions following a single 

growing season. Decompacting and/or recontouring roads may greatly accelerate their 

recovery. 

4.2.10.3. Water Resources Management Impact Comparison 

The water resources impact comparison is presented in Table 4-18. This table compares the 

consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on water resources. 

4.2.10.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to Monument water resources and watersheds may include flow 

augmentation and water contamination (including sedimentation). The cumulative impacts of 

extracting water for cultural and visitor facilities, fluid minerals operations, and livestock watering 

may likely be compensated by offsite irrigation returns; therefore, they may be negligible. 

Irrigation upstream in the watersheds may continue to return a greater volume of water to 

Monument streams than under natural conditions. Due to these irrigation returns, otherwise 

intermittent and ephemeral streams now flow year-round. This change in flow regime may allow 

for the establishment and maintenance of riparian zones along these reaches. Protecting 

existing spring riparian areas that are associated with cultural sites by obtaining water rights for 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

405 

these areas may provide a long-term benefit to the local resource, and to other resources 

dependent on that water, such as downstreams, offsite streams, and/or migrating wildlife. 

The continued management of fluid minerals associated with existing leases in the Monument, 

as well as those occurring offsite, may cumulatively impact water resources. Potential impacts 

to surface waters from fluid minerals extraction may include soil disturbance resulting in 

sediments washing and/or blowing into nearby streams; contaminated runoff from project wells 

entering streams and/or groundwater; and contaminants spilling, leaking, and/or being washed 

off of vehicles and equipment into streams at road crossings. In addition, the depletion of 

surface water may result from drilling and cross-connection of water-bearing zones that may be 

tributary to surface water. 

Potential impacts to groundwater from the management of fluid minerals may include crosscontamination of aquifers across geologic strata due to improper sealing of aquifers 

encountered by the well bore; possible contamination of shallow-water aquifers due to surface 

spills, accidental releases, and/or by the leakage of fluids during the transfer and/or 

transportation of produced water; and contaminated surfaces coming into contact with 

groundwater resulting from improperly sealed surface casing, well bore stimulation activities, 

mineral production, and/or abandonment activities. These impacts may occur on or off the 

Monument, and may have widespread impacts. However, actual impacts may depend on the 

proximity of roads, pads, and/or support facilities to water sources; the magnitude, duration, and 

intensity of precipitation events (which can influence the volume of contaminated runoff reaching 

streams); well completion techniques; and the BMPs used for stormwater pollution control. 

Wells sited away from actively flowing surface waters may have a lower risk of impacting water 

resources. 

With appropriate mitigation measures in place, the risk of contaminating surface water and/or 

groundwater during the management of fluid minerals may be low. When proper procedures 

are followed, accidental spills are rare and are usually contained. Implementing BMPs, such as 

inspecting vehicles frequently for leaks and lining reserve pits, may greatly reduce the risk of 

potential contaminants reaching water resources. 

Contaminants in upstream offsite irrigation flows, and to a lesser extent, livestock in or near 

surface waters, may continue to impact water quality in Monument watersheds. Cumulative 

sources of excess sediment in streams may include erosion of channels and stream banks (due 

to peak flow events scouring the stream); livestock removing vegetation and collapsing stream 

banks and roads (particularly at stream crossings); and soil-disturbing construction, recreation, 

and/or cultural activities. These impacts may occur both above and on Monument lands and 

may cumulatively impact water resources on and below the Monument. 

Several management actions under Alternatives II and V may likely reduce the amount of 

sediment currently reaching stream channels on and below the Monument. These activities 

include removing livestock from stream channels, maintaining riparian vegetation, reducing 

surface runoff from upland livestock grazing, closing roads, restricting road crossings, and/or 

minimizing cultural and recreational facilities. Several management actions under Alternative III 

may also reduce the impact of sediment on and below the Monument by reducing surface runoff 

from upland livestock grazing, closing roads, restricting road crossings, and minimizing cultural 

and recreational facilities. Livestock access to stream channels and riparian areas may 

continue to impair these resources and may result in sedimentation into streams. With an 

emphasis on further development under Alternative IV, excess sedimentation may likely 

continue to impact streams on and below the Monument. 

Regionally, and nationally, recreation is on the increase. As more and more people find 

themselves living in urban environments, the demand to recreate on public lands may become 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

406 

more intense. Limiting the number of developed recreation sites within the Monument could 

concentrate visitors at these facilities or in areas outside of the Monument that are not as 

intensively managed. Depending on the type, intensity, and duration of this use, there may be 

adverse impacts to water resources within and adjacent to the Monument. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

407 

Table 4-18 Comparison of Impacts to Water Resources 

Types of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Water Resources 

Protect 2,415 acres 

of riparian system. 

Apply no restrictions 

on groundwater and 

new water 

developments. 

Protect 5,312 acres 

of canyon bottoms, 

riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Discourage 

 groundwater and 

new water 

developments. 

Protect 5,312 acres 

of canyon bottoms, 

riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Allow 

groundwater and new 

water developments. 

Protect 3,217 acres 

of riparian areas and 

floodplains. 

Encourage 

groundwater and new 

water developments 

to support expanded 

resource 

development. 

Protect 5,312 acres of 

canyon bottoms, 

riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Discourage 

groundwater and new 

water developments. 

Cultural Resources 

Develop new sites 

for controlled 

visitation. 

Develop 13 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Allow up to 18 acres 

of disturbance under 

new leases. 

Allow up to 73 acres 

of disturbance under 

new leases. 

Allow up to 447 acres 

of disturbance under 

new leases. 

Allow up to 18 acres 

of disturbance under 

new leases. 

Rangeland Resources Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. Permit 8,368 AUMs. Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Allow 149 miles of 

roads (with 864 

acres of 

disturbance). 

Promote no specific 

recreation strategy 

(with 

facility development 

as needed). 

Allow 139 miles of 

roads (with 806 acres 

of disturbance). 

Promote 

undeveloped strategy 

with minimum 

facilities. 

Allow 189 miles of 

roads (with 1,096 

acres of disturbance). 

Promote destination 

strategy with 

appropriate support 

facilities. 

Allow 213 miles of 

roads (with 1,235 

acres of disturbance). 

Promote destination 

strategy with more 

facilities. 

Allow 169 miles of 

roads (with 980 acres 

of disturbance). 

Promote undeveloped 

strategy, minimal 

facilities and 

destination strategy 

with support facilities. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

408 

4.2.11. Education and Interpretation 

The primary goal for education and interpretation in the Monument is to increase appreciation of 

the objects identified in the Proclamation by creating opportunities for visitors and other users to 

learn about the Monument landscape and about its multiple-uses, as well as about the needs for 

protection and stewardship. Another goal is to ensure long-term benefits from research, 

education, and cultural heritage while, at the same time, balancing other uses and considering 

the impacts on the local economy. The management objectives related to these goals include: 

 develop and implement a comprehensive Interpretation and Education Plan for the 

Monument; 

 make available significant resources and areas for interpretation and education 

activities, including those identified within the Proclamation (e.g., the entire cultural 

landscape, the geology of McElmo Dome, the various species of wildlife, and the unique 

herpetological resources). 

Public education and interpretation, as well as heritage tourism, are critical for long-term 

protection of Monument resources. Current strategies include encouraging all visitors to first 

visit the AHC, which is where the Monument is headquartered; promoting the “leave no trace” 

concept; supporting education efforts with partners; incorporating strong preservation and 

advocacy messages in all exhibits, programs, and curriculum; and working with heritage tourism 

organizations in the Four Corners area to emphasize preservation messages during every 

visitor contact. It is also considered critical to incorporate information from current research into 

visitor programs, so that the values of cultural and natural resources is understood. 

Currently, visitors are directed to Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon Pueblos, and to the 

Sand Canyon Trail. Maps, brochures, and on-site information are available for these locations. 

AHC staff endeavor to match each visitor with the type and quality of experience they are 

seeking, with an emphasis on visitor safety. Although the entire Monument is open to the 

public, no other sites in the Monument are currently prepared for visitation. The Monument is 

managed as an outdoor-museum, where visitors are encouraged to experience the area 

through self-discovery. There are no services, restaurants, gas stations, ranger guided tours, or 

developed campgrounds. Continued research, education, interpretation, and heritage tourism 

may raise the awareness of the values of the Monument’s resources, as well as the sensitivities 

necessary to protect and preserve the resources. Developing these programs, in conjunction 

with specific site improvements, may increase visitors’ sense of value and respect, enhance 

their experiences and, may increase site preservation and public support. Interpretation and 

education programs are also used as part of an undeveloped backcountry visitor program. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to education and interpretation. 

Beneficial impacts to the education and interpretation program include opportunities that 

enhance interpretive opportunities and access to facilities. Direct adverse impacts include 

insufficient interpretive opportunities, facilities, and/or materials to meet public demand. Indirect 

beneficial impacts may include, increased law enforcement efforts that would help deter 

vandalism of Monument resources. 

4.2.11.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Impacts to education and interpretation resources can be both quantitative and qualitative. 

Opportunities for information and education can be measured in terms of the number of sites 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

409 

interpreted and/or in terms of opportunities to increase awareness of resource values and 

sensitivities. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to education and interpretation resources include the 

following: 

 Federal lands within the boundary of the Monument, including the AHC, were used as 

the impacts analysis area for both individual and cumulative impacts. 

4.2.11.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to education and interpretation resources may differ in severity, depending on specific 

management actions under each alternative for different resource uses. The following sections 

describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions 

directly proposed for education and interpretation, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and 

recreation and transportation. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Education and Interpretation Management 

Education and interpretation management under Alternative I would include organizing public 

involvement programs; interpreting Monument resources and values; providing environmental 

education to visitors on important topics; managing cultural resources for protection, 

preservation, investigation, and public use; maintaining developed recreation sites at Lowry, 

Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon Pueblos for interpretation and information; developing 

interpretive signing; developing new sites and areas for controlled visitation; managing the AHC 

as a focal point for education and interpretation; providing information to visitors on safety and 

resource protection; and organizing public interpretive programs. 

The direct impacts of education and interpretation management may be beneficial due to the 

increased use of interpretive materials and enhanced visitor participation and appreciation. The 

impact of education and interpretation management on preservation of Monument resources 

may be beneficial. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative I would include developing new sites and 

areas with controlled visitation. The AHC would continue as the focal point for interpretation, 

and visitors would be directed to Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon Pueblos, and to the 

Sand Canyon Trail. Various levels of interpretation and management of data and collected 

material may enhance public awareness of resources and may lead to developing and 

protecting suitable cultural resources for public enjoyment. Approximately 240 sites would be 

stabilized. Protecting Monument cultural resources and developing interpretation for the public 

may enhance visitor participation and education, thereby increasing awareness of and 

appreciation for, Monument objects, which may be a beneficial impact. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

There would be no fluid minerals management actions pertaining to education and 

interpretation. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

There would be no rangeland resources management actions pertaining to education and 

interpretation. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

410 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Management of recreation resources under Alternative I would include maintaining developed 

recreation sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon Pueblos; preventing or reducing 

resource degradation; establishing site-specific visual quality and design guidelines for 

interpretation and for visitor management; constructing interpretive roads; and developing visitor 

management plans. Sand Canyon/Rock Creek, Mockingbird-Rincon, Cross, and Squaw 

Canyons would continue to be managed as undeveloped areas, with a focus on incidental and 

local visitors. Recreation management may result in direct beneficial impacts to education and 

interpretation due to the preservation of resources and to the design and construction of 

interpretive materials. 

Transportation management under Alternative I would include 149 miles of roads, of which 131 

miles would be open to all forms of public travel. Seven support facilities would be maintained 

under this alternative. No new roads would be developed, pending completion of a 

transportation management plan. 

Alternative II

Education and Interpretation Management 

Education and interpretation management under Alternative II would include developing an 

Interpretation and Education Plan for the Monument, minimizing on-the-ground interpretive 

media, focusing interpretive media at staging areas, and limiting interpretive media to developed 

sites. 

Under Alternative II, education and interpretation activities would be directed from the AHC. 

Although this alternative may limit the amount of on-Monument interpretive information 

available, the overall impact may be beneficial. BLM guidance on developing interpretation and 

education plans (see Appendix F) provides a framework for increased collaborative education 

and interpretation opportunities that would advance knowledge and preservation of Monument 

resources. Enhancements called for under this alternative include developing a plan that 

reflects Pueblo, Navajo, Ute, Spanish/Hispanic, and Anglo history in the Monument; developing 

differing approaches to public education for high-use, intermediate-use and backcountry zones; 

and adding “semi-developed” sites in high-use zones, if visitor demand warrants. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative II would include allocating 13 sites to Public 

Use D (Developed), preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, obtaining 

Native American interpretive consultation, and requiring training and education for SRPs for site 

visits. A broad-based standing research committee would guide research proposals, with new 

information then incorporated into interpretation, education, and heritage tourism. Public 

awareness of resources would be enhanced through interpretation by the AHC. Additionally, an 

increase in Native American interpretive information could be disseminated, which may increase 

the public’s understanding and sense of value for the resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

There would be no fluid minerals management actions pertaining to education and 

interpretation. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

There would be no rangeland resources management actions pertaining to education and 

interpretation. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

411 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Management of recreation resources under Alternative II would include promoting an 

undeveloped management strategy, and minimizing infrastructure and visitor facilities. The 

entrance fee to the AHC would continue, and fees would be established for Pueblo sites, as well 

as for Lowry, Sand Canyon, and Painted Hand. 

Although Monument resources would be preserved, direct access to them would be inhibited; 

therefore, recreation management may result in adverse impacts to onsite education and 

interpretation. Recreation management may result in beneficial impacts to offsite education and 

interpretation due to the lack of infrastructure and access to Monument resources, which may 

then shift education and interpretation emphasis to the AHC. However, this shift may be 

counteracted by the entrance fee. 

Transportation management roads under Alternative II are shown on Map 5. Out of the total 

139 miles of roads, 50 would be open to all forms of public travel. Seven support facilities would 

be maintained under this alternative. Transportation management may result in adverse 

impacts to education and interpretation due to the fact that Monument resources may not be 

easily accessed. 

Alternative III

Education and Interpretation Management 

Education and interpretation management under Alternative III would include developing an 

Interpretation and Education Plan for the Monument, minimizing on-the-ground interpretive 

media, focusing interpretive media at staging areas, and limiting interpretive media to developed 

sites. 

Under Alternative III, education and interpretation activities would be directed from the AHC. 

This alternative would increase the amount of on-Monument interpretive information through 

kiosks, self-guided tours, and other tools. BLM guidance on developing interpretation and 

education plans (see Appendix F) would provide a framework for increased collaborative 

education and interpretation opportunities that would advance knowledge and preservation of 

the Monument resources. Enhancements called for under this alternative include developing a 

plan that reflects Pueblo, Navajo, Ute, Spanish/Hispanic, and Anglo history in the Monument 

area; developing differing approaches to public education for frontcountry, middlecountry, and 

backcountry zones; and adding additional “semi-developed” sites in high-use zones, if visitor 

demand warrants. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative III would include allocating 13 to 25 sites to 

Public Use D (Developed), preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, and 

requiring training and education for SRPs for site visits. Under this alternative, Monument staff 

would seek input from outside knowledgeable researchers, and would rely on an ad-hoc peer 

review committee to guide research proposals, with new information then incorporated into 

interpretation, education, and heritage tourism projects. Public awareness of resources may be 

enhanced through interpretation by the AHC. These actions may result in beneficial impacts to 

education and interpretation uses due to the fact that visitors would be directed to these sites 

only after interpretation is developed and is available. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

There would be no fluid minerals management actions pertaining to education and 

interpretation. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

412 

Rangeland Resources Management 

There would be no rangeland resources management actions pertaining to education and 

interpretation. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Management of recreation resources under Alternative III would include promoting a destination 

management strategy for regional and local visitors, providing specific public access points for 

Monument resources, providing appropriate visitor support facilities, designating additional 

roads, and establishing new parking areas (up to 10 cars) at the Pueblo Sites and Sand 

Canyon, and Rock Creek SRMAs. The entrance fee to the AHC would continue. This 

alternative may be beneficial because it would result in additional information and education, 

and increase access to Monument resources. 

Transportation roads under Alternative III are shown on Map 5. This alternative calls for 189 

miles of roads, of which 60 miles would be open to all forms of public travel. In addition, 13 

support facilities would be maintained. Transportation management may result in a long-term 

beneficial impact to education and interpretation due to the fact that resources would be 

preserved because Monument resources would not be easily accessed. 

Alternative IV

Education and Interpretation Management 

Education and interpretation management under Alternative IV would include developing an 

interpretation and education plan for the Monument, minimizing on-the-ground interpretive 

media and focusing interpretive media at staging areas, and limiting interpretive media to 

developed sites. 

Under Alternative IV, education and interpretation activities would be directed from the AHC. 

This alternative would call for an increase in the amount of on-Monument interpretive 

information, which may be marketed at the national and international level. BLM guidance on 

developing Interpretation and Education Plans (see Appendix F) would provide a framework for 

increased collaborative education and interpretation opportunities that may advance knowledge 

and preservation of Monument resources. Enhancements called for under this alternative 

include developing a plan that reflects Pueblo, Navajo, Ute, Spanish/Hispanic, and Anglo history 

in the Monument area; developing differing approaches to public education for frontcountry, 

middlecountry, and backcountry zones; and adding additional “semi-developed” sites in highuse zones, if visitor demand warrants. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative IV would include allocating 13 to 25 sites to 

Public Use D (Developed), preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites; and 

encouraging training and education for SRPs for site visits. Under this alternative, Monument 

staff would develop research goals internally, but would consider outside input. Investigatorinitiated proposals would be evaluated by outside researchers, without a formal committee. 

New information would then be incorporated into interpretation, education, and heritage tourism 

projects. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

There would be no fluid minerals management actions pertaining to education and 

interpretation. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

413 

Rangeland Resources Management 

There would be no rangeland resources management actions pertaining to education and 

interpretation. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Recreation resources management under Alternative IV would include promoting a destination 

management strategy for national, international, regional, and local visitors; providing specific 

public access points for Monument resources; providing additional infrastructure and visitor 

facilities; designating additional roads; and establishing new parking areas (up to 20 cars) at the 

Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon, and Rock Creek SRMAs. 

This alternative may create the greatest need for interpretive materials due to the fact promotion 

of the Monument would occur at a global level. Transportation management roads under 

Alternative IV are shown on Map 5. Approximately 213 miles of public roads would exist as part 

of this alternative, with 102 miles open to all forms of public travel. In addition, 20 support 

facilities would be maintained. Enhanced recreational opportunities and increased access to 

Monument facilities may be a beneficial impact to education and interpretation. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Education and Interpretation Management 

Education and interpretation management under Alternative V would include developing an 

Interpretation and Education Plan for the Monument, minimizing on-the-ground interpretive 

media, focusing interpretive media at staging areas, and limiting interpretive media to developed 

sites. 

Under Alternative V, education and interpretation activities would be directed from the AHC. In 

addition, interpretive information would be made available at specific sites in the Monument. 

BLM guidance on developing interpretation and education plans would provide a framework for 

increased collaborative education and interpretation opportunities that would advance 

knowledge and preservation of the Monument resources. Enhancements called for under this 

alternative include developing a plan that reflects Pueblo, Navajo, Ute, Spanish/Hispanic, and 

Anglo history in the Monument area; developing differing approaches to public education for 

frontcountry, middlecountry, and backcountry zones; and adding additional “semi-developed” 

sites in high-use zones, if visitor demand warrants. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative V would include allocating 13 to 25 sites to 

Public Use D (Developed), preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, 

obtaining Native American interpretive consultation, and requiring training and education for 

SRPs for site visits. A broad-based standing research committee would guide research 

proposals, from which new information could be incorporated into interpretation, education, and 

heritage tourism. Additionally, an increase in Native American interpretive information could be 

disseminated, which may increase the public’s understanding of, and appreciation for, the 

resources. These management actions may be beneficial to education and interpretation. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

There would be no-fluid minerals management actions pertaining to education and 

interpretation. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

414 

Rangeland Resources Management 

There would be no rangeland resources management actions pertaining to education and 

interpretation. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Management of recreation resources under Alternative V would include a mix of promotion 

strategies; therefore, a variety of information and education materials would be required. 

Infrastructure development would target developed sites, while the majority of the Monument 

would provide an undeveloped backcountry experience. The entrance fee to the AHC would 

continue. 

Transportation management roads under Alternative V are shown on Map 5. This alternative 

would include 169 miles of roads, of which 74 miles would be open to all forms of public travel. 

In addition, as part of this alternative, 11 support facilities would be maintained. 

These management actions may be beneficial to education and interpretation because 

educational opportunities may be enhanced and access to Monument facilities would improve. 

4.2.11.3. Education and Interpretation Management Impact Comparison 

The education and interpretation impact comparison is presented in Table 4-19. This table 

compares the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on 

education and interpretation. 

4.2.11.4. Cumulative Impacts 

The primary outside influence on how education and interpretation is managed in the Monument 

is how it is marketed by other entities. It is important to work with local chambers of commerce 

and travel councils to make sure that there is a common vision for the Monument. Population 

growth in the Four Corners area may also impact information and education efforts due to a 

general increase in visitors, as well as to an increase in local school enrollment that, in turn, 

may increase the number of schools using the interpretive facilities at the AHC and in the 

Monument. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

415 

Table 4-19 Comparison of Impacts to Education and Interpretation 

Types of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Education and 

Interpretation 

Maintain current 

development and 

distribution of 

interpretive material. 

Develop Education 

and Interpretation 

Plan. Limit 

interpretive site 

development. 

Manage group 

visitation to 

backcountry sites. 

Develop Education 

and Interpretation 

Plan. Limit interpretive 

site development. 

Manage group 

visitation to 

backcountry sites. 

Develop Education and 

Interpretation Plan. 

Limit interpretive site 

development. Manage 

group visitation to 

backcountry sites. 

Develop Education and 

Interpretation Plan. 

Limit interpretive site 

development. Manage 

group visitation to 

backcountry sites. 

Cultural Resources 

Develop new sites 

for controlled 

visitation. 

Develop 13 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 

Rangeland Resources No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles of 

roads. Open 131 

miles to all forms of 

public travel. Allow 7 

support facilities. 

Promote no specific 

recreation strategy. 

Increase education 

and interpretation 

opportunities. 

Manage 139 miles 

of roads. Open 50 

miles to all forms of 

public travel. Allow 

7 support facilities. 

Market to local 

residents. 

Manage 189 miles of 

roads. Open 60 miles 

to all forms of public 

travel. Allow 13 

support facilities. 

Market to regional 

visitors. Increase 

education and 

interpretation 

opportunities. 

Manage 213 miles of 

roads. Open 102 miles 

to all forms of public 

travel. Allow 20 

support facilities. 

Market to national and 

international visitors. 

Increase education and 

interpretation 

opportunities. 

Manage 169 miles of 

roads. Open 74 miles 

to all forms of public 

travel. Allow 11 

support facilities. 

Market to a mix of 

visitors. Increase 

education and 

interpretation 

opportunities. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

416 

4.2.12. Facilities and Infrastructure 

The primary goals for facilities and infrastructure in the Monument include developing and 

maintaining the smallest number of facilities and infrastructure necessary to provide for public 

safety and to assist in meeting resource management objectives. Facilities and infrastructure 

include fences, troughs, roads, signs, visitor facilities, parking areas, boardwalks, railing, and 

other similar structures. The management objectives related to this goal include: 

 coordinate the development and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure, when 

appropriate, with Federal, State, Native American tribal, and private landowners (i.e., 

Hovenweep National Monument, the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, the Navajo Nation, 

the Utah BLM Monticello Field Office, and private landowners); and 

 ensure that all major BLM facilities are located outside the Monument to protect 

Monument resources and to provide economic opportunities in the local communities. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to facilities and infrastructure. 

Direct impacts to facilities and infrastructure may include, changes to facilities and infrastructure 

that impact the health and safety of visitors, staff, and Monument objects; and vandalism. The 

indirect impact of facilities and infrastructure may include increased or decreased protection of 

Monument objects. 

4.2.12.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Quantifying individual impacts to facilities and infrastructure is difficult due to fact that the 

location of potential impacts cannot be determined. Therefore, a descriptive analysis was 

conducted. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to facilities and infrastructure resource uses include the 

following: 

 Facility and infrastructure BMPs would be implemented. 

 Federal lands within the boundary of the Monument were used as the impacts analysis 

area. 

 The number of roads predicted for construction, based on new acres leased for mineral 

development, would all be new roads. 

4.2.12.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to facilities and infrastructure may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific 

management actions under each alternative for different resource uses. The following sections 

describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions 

directly proposed for facilities and infrastructure, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and 

recreation and transportation. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Facilities and Infrastructure Management 

Facilities and infrastructure management under Alternative I would include maintaining and 

rehabilitating existing camping facilities; considering applications for new facilities; implementing 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

417 

non-structural alternatives, whenever possible; coordinating new facilities and existing facility 

improvements with the AHC; and constructing new livestock, watershed, and/or wildlife facilities 

only where NEPA analysis demonstrates no adverse impacts. Additionally, local communities 

would be allowed to provide facility-dependent settings and opportunities. 

The direct impacts of these management actions may be beneficial. New signs, and parking at 

the Sand and East Rock Canyons and Painted Hand Pueblo may increase safety by removing 

non-designated parking along roads and by increasing awareness through the installation of 

new signs. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative I would include developing new sites and 

areas, with controlled visitation and various levels of interpretation; managing data and collected 

material to enhance public awareness of resources through interpretation by the AHC; and 

developing and protecting suitable cultural resources for public enjoyment. This type of 

management would require signs, paths, and other infrastructure. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Approximately 80 percent of the Monument lands are currently leased. Under Alternative I, the 

remaining 20 percent would not be leased and no new wells would be drilled; therefore, there 

would be no impacts from Alternative I fluid minerals management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources would be managed to improve Public Land Health Standards and to 

protect Monument objects. In order to manage livestock distribution, fences, and water 

developments would be required, and would need to be maintained to remain operational and 

effective, based on specific management objectives in AMPs. These management actions may 

have a beneficial impact on facilities and infrastructure. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative I, recreation management would include developing facilities on an as-needed 

basis, as well as maintaining developed sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon 

Pueblos. The Monument travel system would include 149 miles (864 acres) of roads for 

motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. Cross-country motorized and mechanized 

travel would be prohibited. These forms of travel would only be allowed on designated roads 

within the 126,737 acres open to OHV use. There would be no promotion strategy under this 

alternative; therefore, facility and infrastructure needs would target incidental visitors and local 

residents. These management actions may result in beneficial impacts to facilities and 

infrastructure due to the fact that new sites and associated roads may increase visitor and staff 

safety at the Monument. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil SSR/CSU would be applied for slopes greater than 40 percent 

(21,036 acres). The SSR/CSU would require an engineering/reclamation plan that 

demonstrates how site productivity would be restored, surface runoff would be controlled, and 

offsite areas would be protected from accelerated erosion. Additionally, surface-disturbing 

activities would not be allowed during extended wet periods. This restriction may be a beneficial 

impact to infrastructure and facilities because facilities would not likely be built on unstable or 

erosive slopes, and that timing constraints on construction would occur. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

418 

Alternative II

Facilities and Infrastructure Management 

Facilities and infrastructure management under Alternative II would include maintaining and 

rehabilitating existing facilities; implementing non-structural alternatives, whenever possible; 

coordinating new facilities and existing facility improvements with the AHC; and constructing 

new livestock, watershed, and/or wildlife facilities only where NEPA analysis demonstrates no 

adverse impacts. Additionally, under Alternative II, the BLM would work with the National Park 

Service to determine the feasibility of a joint visitor center and develop visitor contact stations 

outside the Monument to mitigate resource impacts and ensure public safety. The BLM would 

also work with surrounding landowners to determine the need for fencing and signs and to 

develop a cost-sharing program to install and maintain fences and signs. Under this alternative, 

local communities would be allowed to provide facility-dependent settings and opportunities. 

The beneficial impacts of these actions may be minimizing facilities while, at the same time, 

providing for the health and safety of Monument visitors. Additionally, new offsite signs may 

increase public safety and there may be an increased awareness of private-land boundaries. 

The direct impacts of this management may be beneficial. Signs may increase public safety 

because the flow of foot and car traffic in the Monument may be reduced and there may be an 

increased awareness of private-land boundaries. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative II would include developing 13 sites for public 

use, preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, and evaluating SRPs for 

site visits. These actions would require facilities and infrastructure to maintain visitor safety and 

education and the public would be directed to specific developed sites. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative II, up to 880 acres would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. 

Under Alternative II, up to two new well pads would be anticipated, along with up to one mile of 

road and up to four miles of pipeline. Additional infrastructure would be required for new 

facilities associated with new leases, and may include utility lines, signs, and/or gates. This 

alternative would contain several restrictions, including NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 

30 percent, and for the protection of cultural resources. These management actions may result 

in adverse impacts to facilities and infrastructure due to the additional facilities necessary to 

support fluid minerals development. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources under Alternative II would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. This management may not have any impact on 

facilities and infrastructure. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

This alternative would promote an undeveloped recreation strategy, and would manage for local 

residents and incidental visitors. This management strategy would require minimum 

infrastructure. Under Alternative II, recreation management would include managing for 

custodial purposes, user conflicts, visitor safety, and/or for resource protection. Developed sites 

at Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon Pueblos would be maintained. Approximately 8,211 

acres would be managed as visitation areas, and 157,124 acres would be managed as 

backcountry areas. By managing primarily for backcountry experiences, minimum signs and 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

419 

facilities would be required. Under this alternative, no new SRPs would be issued, and existing 

SRPs would be allowed to expire. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 139 miles (806 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. Roads would be maintained, but 

upgrades would not be allowed. There would be no roads specifically designated for OHV, 

mountain bike, or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would be allowed on roads designated 

as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and mechanized travel would be 

prohibited. Fluid minerals exploration and development on new leases would result in up to one 

mile of new roads. 

Recreation and transportation management may result in beneficial impacts to facilities and 

infrastructure due to the fact that the Monument would be managed for a minimum number of 

facilities. Existing roads would be maintained for visitor health and safety. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alterative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. These restrictions may 

impact the infrastructure and facilities due to the fact that facilities would not likely be built on 

unstable or erosive slopes, and that construction timing constraints would occur. This may be a 

beneficial impact. 

Alternative III

Facilities and Infrastructure Management 

Facilities and infrastructure management under Alternative III would include maintaining and 

rehabilitating existing facilities; evaluating applications for new facilities; implementing nonstructural alternatives, whenever possible; coordinating new facilities and existing facility 

improvements with the AHC; and constructing new livestock, watershed, and wildlife facilities 

only where NEPA analysis demonstrates no adverse impacts. Additionally, under Alternative III, 

the BLM would work with the National Park Service to determine the feasibility of a joint visitor 

center and to develop visitor contact stations outside the Monument in order to mitigate 

resource impacts and ensure public safety. The BLM would also work with surrounding 

landowners to determine the need for fencing and signs, and to develop a cost-sharing program 

for the installation and maintenance of fences and signs. Local communities would be allowed 

to provide facility-dependent settings and opportunities. 

The beneficial impacts of these actions may be minimizing facilities while, at the same time, 

providing for the health and safety of Monument visitors. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative III would include developing 13 to 25 sites for 

public use, preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, and evaluating 

SRPs for site visits. These actions would require facilities and infrastructure for visitor safety 

and education. Visitors would be directed to specific developed sites. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative III, additional infrastructure would be required for new facilities associated with 

new fluid minerals leases, including utility lines, signs, and/or gates. Under this alternative, up 

to 3,021 acres would be available for leasing. Up to nine new well pads would be anticipated, 

along with up to three miles of roads, up to 18 miles of pipeline, and up to one new facility. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

420 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources under Alternative III would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. This management would not have any impact on 

facilities and infrastructure. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Recreation resources management under Alternative III would include promoting a destination 

management strategy for regional and local visitors; providing specific public access points for 

Monument resources; providing appropriate visitor support facilities; designating additional 

roads; and establishing new parking areas (up to 10 cars) at the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon, 

and Rock Creek SRMAs. An entrance fee to the AHC would be established. 

Transportation management roads under Alternative III are shown on Map 5. The 

transportation system would include 169 miles of roads, including 69 miles of roads open to the 

public for all forms of travel. There would be roads specifically designated for bicycle, mountain 

bike, OHV, or dirt bike travel. Approximately 69 miles of roads open to all travel would exist. 

Roads would be maintained and surface upgrades could be authorized. 

Recreation and transportation management under Alternative III would require the construction 

of additional facilities and infrastructure to manage increased visitation. Under this alternative, 

facilities would not be minimized; therefore, public safety may be increased. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. These restrictions may 

impact infrastructure and facilities due to the fact that facilities would not likely be built on 

unstable or erosive slopes and that construction timing constraints would occur. These may be 

beneficial impacts. 

Alternative IV

Facilities and Infrastructure Management 

Facilities and infrastructure management under Alternative IV would include maintaining and 

rehabilitating existing camping facilities; considering applications for new facilities; implementing 

non-structural alternatives, whenever possible; coordinating new facilities and existing facility 

improvements with the AHC; and constructing new livestock, watershed, and wildlife facilities 

only where NEPA analysis demonstrates no adverse impacts. Additionally, under Alternative 

IV, the BLM would work with the National Park Service to determine the feasibility of a joint 

visitor center and to develop visitor contact stations outside the Monument to mitigate resource 

impacts and ensure public safety. The BLM would also work with surrounding landowners to 

determine the need for fencing and signs, and to develop a cost-sharing program for installing 

and maintaining fences and signs. Local communities would provide facility-dependent settings 

and opportunities. 

The direct impacts of this management may be beneficial. Signs may increase public safety 

due to the fact that the flow of foot and car traffic in the Monument may be reduced and that 

there may be an increased awareness of private-land boundaries. The indirect impact of this 

management may be beneficial due to the potentially increased economic gain for the local 

population. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

421 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative IV would include developing 13 to 25 sites for 

public use, preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, and evaluating 

SRPs for site visits. These actions would require facilities and infrastructure to maintain visitor 

safety and education due to the fact that visitors would be directed to specific developed sites. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative IV, up to 24,462 acres would be available for leasing. Fifty-nine new well 

pads would be anticipated, along with up to 19 miles of roads, up to 118 miles of pipeline, and 

two new facilities. This alternative contains several restrictions, including NSO stipulations for 

slopes greater than 30 percent, and for the protection of cultural resources. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources under Alternative IV would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. There may be no impacts from rangeland 

resources management. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative IV, recreation management would include a destination management 

strategy, including establishing destinations for national and international visitors; and providing 

specific public access points, visitor facilities, access, and appropriate support facilities. 

Approximately 47,056 acres would be managed as visitation areas, and 118,279 acres would be 

managed as backcountry areas. New SRPs would be issued on a case-by-case basis. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 213 miles (1,235 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. There would be roads specifically 

designated for OHV, mountain bike, or dirt bike travel, in addition to roads designated as open 

to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and mechanized travel would be prohibited. 

Roads would be maintained, and surface upgrades could be authorized. This alternative would 

require additional infrastructure, including signs, parking areas, roads, and visitor centers due to 

the fact that global marketing for tourism would be emphasized. 

Recreation and transportation management under Alternative IV may result in beneficial impacts 

to facilities and infrastructure. Under this alterative, Monument facilities would be increased and 

resources would be more easily accessed; therefore, access may be safer for visitors and 

Monument staff. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. These restrictions may 

impact infrastructure and facilities due to the fact that facilities would not likely be built on 

unstable or erosive slopes, and that timing constraints for construction could occur. This may 

be a beneficial impact. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Facilities and Infrastructure Management 

Facilities and infrastructure management under Alternative V would include maintaining and 

rehabilitating existing facilities; implementing non-structural alternatives, whenever possible; 

coordinating new facilities and existing facility improvements with the AHC; and constructing 

new livestock, watershed, and wildlife facilities only where NEPA analysis demonstrates no 

adverse impacts. Additionally, under Alternative V, the BLM would work with the National Park 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

422 

Service to determine the feasibility of a joint visitor center and to develop visitor contact stations 

outside the Monument to mitigate resource impacts and ensure public safety. The BLM would 

also work with surrounding landowners to determine the need for fencing and signs, and to 

develop a cost-sharing program to install and maintain fences and signs. Local communities 

would provide facility-dependent settings and opportunities. 

The direct impacts of this management may be beneficial. Signs may increase public safety 

and there would be an increased awareness of private-land boundaries. The indirect impact of 

this management may be beneficial due to the potentially increased economic gain for the local 

population. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative V would include allocating 13 to 25 sites to 

Public Use D (Developed), preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, and 

evaluating SRPs for site visits. These actions may result in direct impacts to facilities and 

infrastructure uses because visitors would be directed to specific sites, requiring signs, paths, 

and other infrastructure. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative V, up to 880 acres would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. 

Under Alternative V, two new well pads would be anticipated, along with up to one mile of roads, 

and up to four miles of pipeline. New wells would be drilled within existing lease areas and 

would result in up to 121 new well pads, up to 67 miles of road, up to eight treatment facilities, 

and up to 53 miles of pipeline. The management of fluid minerals on facilities and infrastructure 

may include developing facilities in support of oil and gas development. Additional 

infrastructure, including roads and utilities, as well as offsite infrastructure, would be required for 

fluid minerals development. Soil resource NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent 

(36,504 acres) would apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources under Alternative V would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. There may be no impacts from rangeland 

resources management. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative V, recreation management would include a combination of strategies. 

Undeveloped areas with minimal facilities would be combined with destination management 

strategies for Painted Hand and Sand Canyon Pueblos, the AHC, and Lowry Pueblo RMZs. 

Approximately 47,056 acres would be managed as visitation areas, and 118,279 acres would be 

managed as backcountry areas. Up to 10 new SRPs would be issued. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 169 miles (980 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. Roads would be maintained, but 

upgrades would not be allowed. There would be roads specifically designated for OHV, 

mountain bike, or dirt bike travel, in addition to roads designated as open to all forms of travel. 

Cross-country motorized and mechanized travel would be prohibited. These forms of travel 

would only be allowed on designated roads within the 126,737 acres open to OHV use. 

Recreation and transportation management may result in beneficial impacts to facilities and 

infrastructure because development would be minimized and increased access may improve 

public safety. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

423 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. These restrictions may 

be a beneficial impact on infrastructure and facilities due to the fact that facilities would not likely 

be built on unstable or erosive slopes, and that timing constraints for construction could occur. 

4.2.12.3. Facilities and Infrastructure Management Impact Comparison 

The facilities and infrastructure impact comparison is presented in Table 4-20. This table 

compares the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on 

facilities and infrastructure. 

4.2.12.4. Cumulative Impacts 

New fluid mineral wells may be drilled within existing leased areas in the Monument and may 

result in up to 121 new well pads, 67 miles of road, eight treatment facilities, and 53 miles of 

pipeline over the next 20 years. Additional infrastructure, including roads and utilities, may be 

required for fluid minerals development, both on and off the Monument. The visitor center at 

Hovenweep National Monument may attract additional visitors to the area (as do other local 

attractions, such as Mesa Verde National Park). The entire “package” of parks and monuments 

in the Four Corners region draws people from all over the world who are interested in learning 

more about archaeology and culture. This attraction is bound to increase and, consequently, 

may require the construction of additional facilities to meet the increased needs. 

As a result of increased demand for infrastructure, visual impacts to the natural landscape may 

occur. Construction of facilities with associated ground disturbance may result in loss of wildlife 

habitat and the possibility for erosion with additional sediments in stream systems. Noise levels 

from increased human presence (voices and vehicular) may reduce wildlife habitat security. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 424 

Table 4-20 Comparison of Impacts to Facilities and Infrastructure 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Facilities and 

Infrastructure 

Increase safety by 

closing nondesignated parking 

and installing new 

signs. 

Increase safety by 

closing nondesignated parking 

and installing new 

signs. 

Increase safety by 

closing nondesignated parking 

and installing new 

signs. 

Increase safety by 

closing nondesignated parking 

and installing new 

signs. 

Increase safety by 

closing nondesignated parking 

and installing new 

signs. 

Cultural Resources Develop new sites for controlled visitation. Develop 13 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. Make up to 880 acres available for leasing. Make up to 3,021 acres available for leasing. Make up to 24,462 acres available for leasing. Make up to 880 acres available for leasing. 

Rangeland Resources 

Maintain facilities for 

8,492 AUMs. 

Maintain facilities for 

6,437 AUMs. 

Maintain facilities for 

8,368 AUMs. 

Maintain facilities for 

8,492 AUMs. 

Maintain facilities for 

6,437 AUMs. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Promote no specific 

recreation strategy. 

Manage 149 miles of 

roads. 

Promote 

undeveloped strategy 

with minimum 

facilities for local 

visitors. Manage 139 

miles of roads. 

Promote destination 

strategy with 

appropriate support 

facilities for regional 

visitors. Manage 189 

miles of roads. 

Promote destination 

strategy with more 

facilities for national 

and international 

visitors. Manage 213 

miles of roads. 

Promote a 

combination of 

strategies. Manage 

169 miles of roads. 

Other Resources: 

Soil Resources 

Apply SSR/CSU to 

protect slopes greater 

than 40 percent 

(21,036 acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulation for slopes 

steeper than 30 

percent 

 (36,504 acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulation for slopes 

steeper than 30 

percent 

 (36,504 acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulation for slopes 

steeper than 30 

percent 

(36,504 acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO 

stipulation for slopes 

steeper than 30 

percent 

 (36,504 acres). 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

425 

4.2.13. Special Forest Products 

The primary goals for management of special forest products are to allow for the harvest 

of forest products, the management of woodland stands, and the collection of other resources 

while, at the same time, protecting the objects (i.e., cultural, biological, and geological 

resources) identified in the Proclamation. Special forest products traditionally harvested in the 

Monument include fuelwood, fence posts, poles, and Christmas trees. More traditional forest 

products include bark materials, limb wood, foliar materials, seeds, and nuts. The management 

objectives related to this goal include harvesting forestry products and all woodland stands to 

help sustain a biologically diverse landscape that supports a variety of habitats and native plant 

and animal species. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to special forest products. 

A number of proposed management actions have the potential to impact special forest products, 

as a component of native vegetation. For this discussion, beneficial impacts to forest product 

resources may include, an increase in areas of woodlands; an improvement in woodland health 

(in terms of increased diversity of stand species and/or size class); and a decrease in the size of 

noxious weed populations and insect and/or pathogen populations with the potential to be 

detrimental to woodland stand health. Adverse direct impacts to forest products may include 

the disruption and/or removal of rooted vegetation, which may result in a reduction in areas of 

woodlands and/or a reduction of total numbers of individual trees. 

A number of indirect impacts to forest product resources may also be possible as a result of 

proposed management actions under the alternatives. Most indirect adverse impacts are 

assumed to result from direct impacts, in proportion to the relative amount of associated surface 

disturbance. Adverse indirect impacts may include, the disruption and/or reduction of habitat 

suitable for colonization due to surface disturbance; the introduction of noxious weeds, insects, 

and/or pathogens by various vectors (or conditions that enhance such organisms); and the 

general loss of habitat due to surface occupancy, surface compaction, and/or trampling. Failed 

reclamation or mitigation may also result in indirect impacts to these resources. Beneficial 

indirect impacts usually result from minimizing or preventing surface disturbance and, therefore, 

disturbance to woodlands. Direct beneficial impacts to special forest products may include 

sustaining a biologically diverse landscape that supports a variety of habitats, as well as native 

plant and animal species. 

4.2.13.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

The most adverse direct impacts to woodlands may result from surface disturbances; therefore, 

these areas are the primary parameter for discussion and comparison of impacts for special 

forest products. Quantifying impacts in this way is difficult due to the fact that the location of 

potential impacts cannot be determined. Additionally, beneficial impacts of improving 

woodlands may not be realized during the 20-year planning period. In general, areas reclaimed, 

otherwise improved, and/or protected from ground disturbance are used to describe beneficial 

impacts. Estimates of surface disturbance areas associated with potential management actions 

were calculated using data from the AMS (BLM 2005b) and the RFD (BLM 2005c), and are 

summarized in Table 4-1. 

Assumptions included in the analysis of impacts to special forest products include the following: 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

426 

 Estimated disturbance areas are distributed among all vegetation communities, including 

woodlands, in proportion to their relative area throughout the Monument, unless 

otherwise limited by applicable surface-use restrictions and/or other special 

management considerations. 

 Application of appropriate BMPs and standardized reclamation practices would be 

required as COAs for all new leases, permits, and surface disturbance areas (see 

Appendix E). 

 Federal lands within the Monument boundary are the subject of the impact analysis. 

 Woodlands, as a component of the Colorado Plateau Semi-desert ecoregion (Bailey 

1995), are the subject of the cumulative impacts discussion. 

4.2.13.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to special forest product resources may differ in extent and severity, depending on 

specific management actions under each alternative for different resource uses. The following 

sections describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management 

actions proposed for forest product resources, as well as those anticipated for cultural 

resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, recreation and transportation, and fuels and fire. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Special Forest Products Management 

Commercial forest product sales would not occur under Alterative I. However, private forest 

product sales would be allowed. Areas for private fuelwood and vegetative use permits would 

be identified, and would be limited to previously chained pinyon-juniper woodlands to reduce 

hazardous fuel loads. Timber and wood products from recreation, cultural, public land disposal, 

and ACEC emphasis areas would be managed to enhance respective values and to maintain 

healthy pinyon-juniper woodlands. Management of special forest products under Alternative I is 

expected to result in a continuation of current conditions for these resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resource management actions would impact woodlands 

either directly or indirectly; therefore, continuing management would be expected to result in 

few, if any, impacts on special forest products. This alternative would allow for the stabilization 

and in some cases, development, of 240 cultural resource sites, which may result in surface 

clearance of vegetation at a localized level. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, no new fluid minerals leases would be available; therefore, no impacts 

may be expected. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

In many allotments, rangeland resources management may be considered one of the reasons 

for such allotments not meeting the Public Land Health Standards for healthy, productive plant 

and animal communities and for the downward trend observed in much of the native upland 

vegetation in the Monument. The current management of rangeland resources, including 

8,492 active AUMs on 28 allotments, may continue to be a contributing factor in these trends 

and, over time, may contribute to adverse impacts to woodlands and forest products, insofar as 

they comprise the vegetation communities failing to meet Public Land Health Standards. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

427 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Due to the restriction on new oil and gas leases, Alternative I may result in relatively few surface 

impacts from road development. Under this alternative, 149 miles of roads would be open to 

travel by all means (including travel for administrative purposes and travel necessary to support 

existing oil and gas leases). This may result in up to 864 acres of surface disturbance of total 

Monument surface or to the second-lowest road density (0.58 miles per square mile) of any of 

the alternatives. 

These factors may contribute to direct beneficial impacts to all native vegetation over the longterm, including woodlands. Indirectly, opportunities for noxious weed infestations occurring in 

road verges may be reduced in proportion to the reduction in total road miles. Recreation and 

transportation management under Alternative I is expected to result in a continuation of current 

conditions for these resources. 

Other Resources Management 

In general, it is assumed that vegetation resources management would result in current 

vegetation resource conditions and trends described in Section 3.1.8, which would continue into 

the future under these management actions. Therefore, under Alternative I (the No Action 

Alternative) the condition of woodlands, as one of the three dominant native upland 

communities, may be expected to continue generally in a stable degraded state or downward 

trend. 

Alternative I may result in the least effective fuels and fire management, when compared with 

the action alternatives. This may be expected to result in adverse impacts to special forest 

products and to woodland health, should a wildfire occur. 

Alternative II

Special Forest Products Management 

No private or commercial forest product removal would be permitted under Alternative II. 

Therefore, no impacts to these resources may be expected from direct management. This type 

of harvest would not be available, as part of fuels management to improve pinyon-juniper 

woodland health and to reduce fire risk. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions would impact woodland 

vegetation, either directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development of 13 sites, 

testing, and/or other activities under this alternative that results in surface clearance of 

vegetation may result in highly localized adverse impacts. The degree to which these become 

long-term disturbance areas would be dependant upon the care that is originally taken to 

minimize vegetation disturbance, as well as the degree to which appropriate reclamation 

techniques are implemented. 

Under Alternative II, indirect beneficial impacts to woodland vegetation may result due to the 

restriction of direct impacts to cultural resource communities, sites, and/or isolated finds. This 

restriction may be expected to eventually result in more numerous, larger areas in the 

Monument to which no direct surface-disturbing impacts would be allowed. This may result in 

the protection of forest product resources within these areas and may eventually provide 

widespread beneficial impacts. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

428 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative II, up to 880 acres of land currently unavailable for leasing could be leased. 

This may result in the development of up to two well pads, with up to 12 acres of long-term 

disturbance (see Table 4-1). The result of leasing these areas under Alternative II may be 

limited adverse impacts to woodland resources within localized areas of disturbance. Many of 

these may be mitigated by application of appropriate BMPs and standardized reclamation 

practices, such as COAs on the new leases. However, successful reclamation of woodlands, in 

terms of available special forest products, may require a much longer time frame than either 

herbaceous or shrub-dominated plant communities, which may effectively result in adverse 

impacts over the 20-year planning period. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative II would emphasize rangeland management 

actions with the stated purpose of improving rangeland conditions for achievement of Public 

Land Health Standards. In addition, only Alternative II would consist of a number of 

management actions that may result in larger and/or more comprehensive beneficial impacts to 

vegetation, such as reduced AUMs and closed allotments. These may result in beneficial 

impacts to forest products and woodland health because they comprise a portion of the native 

vegetation in the Monument. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative II, in terms of transportation management, would be the most restrictive of all of the 

alternatives, with 139 miles of roads. This alternative may result in the smallest number of 

acres of disturbance due to roads (806 acres), as well as the lowest road density (0.54 miles per 

square mile) of any of the alternatives. These factors may contribute to direct beneficial impacts 

to all native vegetation over the long-term, including special forest products and woodland 

health. Managing for undeveloped backcountry use may have negligible impacts on woodland 

health. 

Other Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative II would emphasize vegetation resources 

management, with several specific management actions not included in Alternative I. Several 

management actions would focus on vegetation as a resource with specific intrinsic value, 

instead of only in terms of rangeland or forestry values. In general, these actions may result in 

beneficial impacts to vegetation resources, including special forest products and woodland 

health. 

Opportunities to meet the goals and objectives of fuels and fire management may be greatly 

enhanced under Alternative II (as well as under all of the action alternatives), in comparison to 

Alternative I (the No Action Alternative). This may result in beneficial impacts to special forest 

products and woodland health, should a wildfire occur. 

Alternative III

Special Forest Products Management 

No commercial firewood cutting would be authorized under Alterative III. Private fuelwood 

harvesting (restricted to dead-and-down wood only), pole and fencepost cutting, and Christmas 

tree harvesting would be allowed by permit only within designated forest product areas. 

As under Alternative II, all cutting areas would be designated under a permit system. Cutting 

areas would be considered open after completion of a Class III cultural resource inventory, and 

a determination that harvesting activities would not interfere with the proper care and 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

429 

management of Monument objects. Additional harvest areas within previously disturbed areas, 

and within 300 feet of a designated road, may be designated to meet overall vegetation 

management objectives. 

The permit system for special forest products under Alternative III would provide the BLM with 

administrative control of these actions. Harvesting special forest products may result in 

reducing hazardous fuels, removing unwanted trees to achieve specific management goals, and 

improving general woodland health. These actions may result in beneficial impacts to these 

resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions would impact woodland 

vegetation, either directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development of 13 to 25 

sites, testing, and/or other activities that result in surface clearance of vegetation may result in 

highly localized adverse impacts. The degree to which these become long-term disturbance 

areas would be dependant upon the care that is originally taken to minimize vegetation 

disturbance, as well as on the degree to which appropriate reclamation techniques are 

implemented. 

The requirement under Alternative III for a Class III cultural resources inventory may delay the 

commercial cutting of fuelwood in some areas. Under Alternative III, indirect beneficial impacts 

to woodland vegetation may result due to the restriction of direct impacts to cultural resource 

communities and sites. This restriction may be expected to eventually result in areas in the 

Monument to which no direct surface-disturbing impacts would be allowed. This may result in 

the protection of forest product resources and woodlands within these areas, which may 

eventually provide widespread beneficial impacts. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative III, up to 3,021 acres could be leased. This may result in up to eight well pads 

being developed, with up to 57 acres of long-term disturbance. The result of leasing these 

areas under Alternative III may be more adverse impacts to woodlands and special forest 

products than those expected under Alternatives I, II and V, but fewer than those expected 

under Alternative IV. Many of these may be mitigated by the application of appropriate BMPs 

and standardized reclamation practices, such as COAs on the new leases. However, 

successful reclamation of woodlands, in terms of available special forest products, may require 

a much longer time frame than either herbaceous or shrub-dominated plant communities, and 

may effectively result in adverse impacts over the 20-year planning period. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources management under Alternative III is very similar to current management, 

including numbers of active AUMs, except for the closing of five allotments (124 AUMs). AUMs 

may continue to be an important factor in these trends and, over time, and may contribute to 

adverse impacts to most of these vegetation communities, as well as failure to meet Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative III would emphasize rangeland management 

actions with the stated purpose of improving rangeland conditions to achieve Public Land Health 

Standards. These may result in some beneficial impacts to special forest products and 

woodland health because they comprise a portion of general native vegetation in the 

Monument. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

430 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative III, in terms of transportation management, would be the second least restrictive of 

all of the alternatives. Under this alternative, 189 miles of roads would be open to travel by all 

means (including travel for administrative purposes and travel necessary to support new and 

existing oil and gas leases). This may result in 1,096 acres of surface disturbance, as well as in 

the second highest road density (0.73 miles/square mile) of any of the alternatives. 

These factors may contribute to adverse impacts to all native vegetation, including woodlands 

and special forest products, over the long-term due to increased fragmentation of habitat and 

chances for disturbance impacts. Indirectly, opportunities for noxious weed infestations may 

increase in proportion to the increased numbers of roads. 

Managing for destination opportunities for regional visitors may result in few, if any, impacts to 

woodland health. Overnight camping and campfires in some SRMAs may create adverse 

impacts due to the increased risk of wildfire ignitions. 

Other Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative III would emphasize management of 

vegetation resources, with several specific management actions not included in Alternative I. In 

general, these may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources, including special forest 

products and woodland health. 

Opportunities to meet the goals and objectives of fuels and fire management may be greatly 

enhanced under Alternative III (as well as under all of the action alternatives), in comparison to 

Alternative I. This may be expected to result in beneficial impacts to special forest products and 

woodland health, insofar as they comprise a large component of the general resource protected 

by these actions. 

Alternative IV

Special Forest Products Management 

Commercial firewood cutting would be authorized in all areas (except WSAs and RNA) under 

Alterative IV. Private fuelwood harvesting, pole and fencepost cutting, and Christmas tree 

harvesting would also be allowed in the same areas. Both dead-and-down wood and live trees 

would be included in all firewood harvesting 

Similar to Alternative IV, all cutting areas would be designated under a permit system. Cutting 

areas would be considered open after completion of a Class III cultural resource inventory and a 

determination that harvesting activities would not interfere with the proper care and 

management of Monument objects. Additional harvest areas within previously disturbed areas, 

and within 300 feet of a designated road, may be designated to meet overall vegetation 

management objectives. 

Although the permit system for special forest products under Alternative IV would provide the 

BLM with administrative control of these actions, larger areas open to harvesting, and the use of 

live trees (as well as dead-and-down) may result in some adverse impacts to these resources 

and woodlands. However, harvesting special forest products may result in reducing hazardous 

fuels, removing unwanted trees and to achieve specific management goals, which may improve 

general woodland health. These may potentially result in both adverse and beneficial impacts 

to these resources. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

431 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions would impact woodland 

vegetation, either directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development and stabilization 

of 13 to 25 sites, testing, and/or other activities that result in surface clearance of vegetation 

may result in highly localized adverse impacts. The degree to which these become long-term 

disturbance areas would be dependant upon the care that is originally taken to minimize 

vegetation disturbance, as well as the degree to which appropriate reclamation techniques are 

implemented. 

The requirement under Alternative IV for a Class III cultural resources inventory may delay the 

commercial cutting of fuelwood in some areas. Indirect beneficial impacts to woodland 

vegetation may result due to the restriction of any direct impacts to cultural resource 

communities and sites. This restriction may be expected to eventually result in areas in the 

Monument to which no direct surface-disturbing impacts would be allowed. This may result in 

the protection of forest product resources and woodlands within these areas, and eventually 

provide widespread beneficial impacts. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative IV, a notably larger number of acres (up to 24,462) could be leased. This 

may result in up to 59 well pads being developed, with up to 338 acres of long-term disturbance. 

Leasing these areas may result in considerably more adverse impacts to woodlands, and 

therefore special forest products, than under any of the other alternatives. Many of these 

impacts may be mitigated by the application of appropriate BMPs and standardized reclamation 

practices, such as COAs on the new leases. However, successful reclamation of woodlands, in 

terms of available special forest products, may require a much longer time frame than either 

herbaceous or shrub-dominated plant communities, and may effectively result in more adverse 

impacts over the 20-year planning period. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland management under Alternative IV would be similar to current management, 

including numbers of active AUMs (8,492) and allotments (28 allotments). However, several 

intense management actions would be included under this alternative. AUMs may continue to 

be an important factor in range trends and, over time, may contribute to adverse impacts to 

most of these vegetation communities and possibly to the failure to meet Public Land Health 

Standards. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative IV, in terms of transportation management, would be the least restrictive of all of the 

alternatives. Under this alternative, 213 miles of roads would be open to travel by all means 

(including travel for administrative purposes and travel necessary to support new and existing oil 

and gas leases). This may result in 1,235 acres of surface disturbance, as well as to the 

highest road density (0.83 miles per square mile) of any of the alternatives. These factors may 

contribute to adverse impacts to all vegetation over the long-term due to increased 

fragmentation of habitat and chances for disturbance impacts. 

Marketing the Monument for national and international visitors is not expected to impact 

woodland health. Overnight camping and campfires in some SRMAs may create adverse 

impacts due to the increased risk of wildfire ignitions (even though visitors are required to use 

fire pits, grates, or firepans). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

432 

Other Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative IV would emphasize management of 

vegetation resources, with several specific management actions not included in Alternative I. In 

general, these all may result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources, including special 

forest products and woodland health. 

Opportunities to meet the goals and objectives of fuels and fire management may be greatly 

enhanced under Alternative IV (as well as under all of the action alternatives), in comparison to 

Alternative I. This may be expected to result in beneficial impacts to special forest products and 

woodland health, insofar as it comprises a large component of the general resource protected 

by these actions. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Special Forest Products Management 

Under Alternative V, private harvesting of special forest products would not be authorized. 

Commercial fuelwood cutting of live trees and dead-and-down wood would be authorized by 

permit. Similar to Alternative III and IV, all cutting areas would be designated under a permit 

system. Cutting areas would be considered open after completion of a Class III cultural 

resource inventory. 

Although the permit system for special forest products under Alternative V would provide the 

BLM with administrative control of these actions, larger areas open to harvesting, and the use of 

live trees (as well as dead-and-down), may result in some adverse impacts to these resources 

and woodlands. However, harvesting special forest products may result in the reduction of 

hazardous fuels, the removal of unwanted trees to achieve specific management goals, and an 

improvement in general woodland health. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions would impact woodland 

vegetation, either directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development and minimal 

stabilization of 13 to 25 sites, testing, and/or other activities that result in surface clearance of 

vegetation may result in highly localized adverse impacts. The degree to which these become 

long-term disturbance areas would be dependant upon the care that is originally taken to 

minimize vegetation disturbance, as well as the degree to which appropriate reclamation 

techniques are implemented. 

The requirement under Alternative V for a Class III cultural resources inventory may delay the 

commercial cutting of fuelwood in some areas. Under Alternative V, indirect beneficial impacts 

to woodland vegetation may result due to the restriction of any direct impacts to cultural 

resource communities and sites. This restriction may be expected to eventually result in areas 

in the Monument to which no direct surface-disturbing impacts would be allowed. This may 

result in the protection of forest product resources and woodlands within these areas, and 

eventually provide some widespread beneficial impacts. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative V, up to 880 acres of lands could be leased. This may result in development 

of up to two well pads, with up to 12 acres of long-term disturbance. The result of leasing these 

areas under Alternative V may be limited adverse impacts to vegetation resources. Many of 

these may be mitigated by application of appropriate BMPs and standardized reclamation 

practices, such as COAs on the new leases. However, successful reclamation of woodlands, in 

terms of available special forest products, may require a much longer time frame than either 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

433 

herbaceous or shrub-dominated plant communities, and may effectively result in adverse 

impacts over the 20-year planning period. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative V would emphasize rangeland management 

actions, with the stated purpose of improving rangeland conditions for achievement of Public 

Land Health Standards. Administering a reduction in AUMs (6,437) and closing five allotments 

(124 AUMs) may result in some beneficial impacts to forest products and woodland health, 

insofar as they comprise a portion of general native vegetation in the Monument. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative V, in terms of transportation management, falls in the middle of all alternatives 

Under this alternative, 169 miles of roads would be open to travel by all means (including travel 

for administrative purposes and travel necessary to support new and existing oil and gas 

leases). This may result in 980 acres of surface disturbance, as well as a road density of 0.66 

miles per square mile. 

These factors may contribute to some adverse direct impacts to all native vegetation over the 

long-term due to increased fragmentation of habitat and chances of disturbance impacts to 

special status plant species and significant plant communities. Indirectly, opportunities for 

noxious weed infestations may increase in proportion to the increased numbers of roads. 

Marketing the Monument to a variety of visitors may likely have little or no impact to woodland 

health. Overnight camping and campfires in some SRMAs may create adverse impacts due to 

the increased risk of wildfire ignitions. 

Other Resources Management 

Similar to the other action alternatives, Alternative V would emphasize management of 

vegetation resources, with several specific management actions not included in Alternative I. 

Several management actions would focus on vegetation as a resource with specific intrinsic 

value, instead of only in terms of rangeland or forestry values. In general, these all may result in 

beneficial impacts to vegetation resources, including special forest products and woodland 

health. 

Opportunities to meet the goals and objectives of fuels and fire management may be greatly 

enhanced under Alternative V (as well as under all of the action alternatives), in comparison to 

Alternative I. This may be expected to result in beneficial impacts to special forest products and 

woodland health, should a wildfire occur. 

4.2.13.3. Special Forest Products Management Impact Comparison 

The special forest products impact comparison is presented in Table 4-21. This table compares 

the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on special forest 

products. 

4.2.13.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Restrictions on harvesting fuelwood, Christmas trees, or other forest products in the Monument 

may result in greater demand for these products from neighboring public lands. For those living 

near the Monument, this may require more travel time and distance to obtain these products. 

As a result of not removing firewood and other forest products from the Monument, a greater 

reliance on prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatment may be required to reduce the risk of 

wildfire. A greater demand for forest products off the Monument may result in more roads and 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

434 

impacts from cross-country travel (i.e. erosion and sedimentation), and reduced risk of fire, on 

neighboring public lands. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

435 

Table 4-21 Comparison of Impacts to Special Forest Products 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Special Forest 

Products 

Allow no commercial 

permits. 

Allow no forest product 

removal. 

Allow personal 

fuelwood harvesting, 

post cutting, and 

Christmas tree cutting. 

Authorize no 

commercial permits. 

Allow personal 

fuelwood harvesting, 

post cutting, and 

Christmas tree cutting. 

Authorize commercial 

permits. 

Allow no personal 

fuelwood harvesting. 

Authorize commercial 

permits. 

Cultural Resources 

Develop new sites for 

controlled visitation 

(with localized clearing 

of woodlands). 

Develop 13 sites (with 

localized clearing of 

woodlands). 

Develop 13 to 25 sites 

(with localized clearing 

of woodlands). 

Develop 13 to 25 sites 

(with localized clearing 

of woodlands). 

Develop 13 to 25 

sites (with localized 

clearing of 

woodlands). 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make up to 880 acres 

available for new 

leases. Allow up to 

2 new well pads (with 

up to 18 acres of 

disturbance). 

Make up to 3,021 acres 

available for new 

leases. Allow up to 8 

new well pads (with up 

to 73 acres of 

disturbance). 

Make up to 24,462 

acres available for new 

leases. Allow up to 59 

new well pads (with up 

to 447 acres of 

disturbance). 

Make up to 880 acres 

available for new 

leases. Allow up to 2 

new well pads (with 

up to 8 acres of 

disturbance). 

Rangeland Resources 

Permit 8,492 active AUMs. Manage 28 

allotments. 

Permit 6,437 active AUMs. Manage 23 

allotments. 

Permit 8,368 active AUMs. Manage 23 

allotments. 

Permit 8,492 active AUMs. Manage 28 

allotments. 

Permit 6,437 active AUMs. Manage 23 

allotments. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles total 

road miles (with 897 

acres of disturbance), 0.58 miles per square 

mile road density. 

Manage 139 miles total 

road miles (with 806 

acres of disturbance), 0.54 miles per square 

mile road density. 

Manage 189 miles total 

road miles (with 1,096 

acres of disturbance), 0.73 miles per square 

mile road density. 

Manage 213 miles total 

road miles (with 1,235 

acres of disturbance), 0.83 miles per square 

mile road density. 

Manage 169 miles 

total road miles (with 

980 acres of 

disturbance), 

0.66 miles per square 

mile road density. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

436 

Table 4-21 Comparison of Impacts to Special Forest Products 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Other Resources: 

Vegetation Resources 

No specific vegetation 

treatments planned. 

Encourage vegetation 

treatments. Manage 

past pinyon-juniper 

chaining areas to 

improve ecological 

condition. 

Encourage vegetation 

treatments. Manage 

past pinyon-juniper 

chaining areas to 

improve ecological 

condition. 

Encourage vegetation 

treatments. Manage 

past pinyon-juniper 

chaining areas to 

improve ecological 

condition. 

Encourage 

vegetation 

treatments. Manage 

past pinyon-juniper 

chaining areas to 

improve ecological 

condition. 

Other Resources: 

Fuels and Fire More likely to have large-scale fires. Fires generally site- specific and short-term. Fires generally site- specific and short-term. Fires generally site- specific and short-term. Fires generally site- specific and short- term. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

437 

4.2.14. Lands and Realty 

The primary goals for lands and realty in the Monument are to use land tenure adjustments to 

protect objects identified in the Proclamation, to improve management, and to reduce 

administrative costs. The management objectives related to these goals include: 

 identify private land within and/or adjacent to the Monument boundary for possible 

acquisition from willing sellers, if the acquisition would contribute to achieving cultural 

and/or natural resource goals and objectives; and 

 work with landowners to resolve encroachment issues. 

Another goal for lands and realty is to develop ROWs to accommodate facilities supporting 

multiple-use activities while, at the same time, protecting objects identified in the Proclamation. 

The management objectives related to this goal include: 

 manage commercial filming to assist in achieving resource protection goals and 

objectives; and 

 manage non-recreational, competitive, and special events to assist in achieving resource 

protection goals and objectives. 

Approximately 17,541 acres within the Monument boundary are privately owned land. These 

lands consist of about 45 parcels of relatively large, isolated tracts of land under approximately 

31 different ownerships. These private-land parcels range in size from about 30 acres to 

several thousand acres. The 313-mile Monument perimeter lies adjacent to approximately 250 

landowners in Montezuma County, and to an unknown number in Dolores County. There are 

75 ROWs that encompass approximately 1,219 acres. 

In accordance with the Proclamation, the BLM may not dispose of any Monument land; 

however, the BLM may acquire inholdings. In accordance with the FLPMA, the BLM is 

authorized to convey or acquire partial interests, including water or mineral rights, access 

easements for roads or trails, certain improvements, and/or conservation easements. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to lands and realty. 

Direct adverse impacts to lands and realty may include the illegal encroachment of private land 

uses onto the Monument. Beneficial impacts may include acquiring inholdings or mitigating 

utility corridors to enhance the objects of the Monument. 

4.2.14.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Quantifying individual impacts to lands and realty is difficult due to the fact that acquisition of 

inholdings and location of all ROWs cannot be determined. It is difficult to quantify impacts to 

lands and realty because there are no standard impacts that can be predicted and measured 

across each alternative. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to facilities and infrastructure resource uses include the 

following: 

 New ROWs will be needed for oil and gas development and/or for mineral development. 

 Cutting of canyon rims includes allowing development, typically fluid minerals 

development, to develop along canyon rims, which often requires road cuts and/or 

pipeline cuts. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

438 

 The impacts analysis boundary for both individual and cumulative analyses is the 

Monument and the immediate adjoining lands. 

4.2.14.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to lands and realty may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific 

management actions under each alternative for different resource uses. The following sections 

describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions 

directly proposed for land and realty, as well as those anticipated for cultural resources, fluid 

minerals, rangeland resources, and recreation and transportation management. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Lands and Realty Management 

Under Alternative I, lands and realty management would include responding positively to private 

land sale offers (with willing sellers) on and adjacent to the Monument, pursuing easements, 

providing reasonable access to private parcels, identifying existing and potential ROW corridors, 

identifying terms and conditions for underground and/or aerial corridors, conducting a survey of 

the Monument boundary, and managing commercial filming and non-recreational special events 

to assist in achieving resource protection goals and objectives. Utility corridors would be allowed 

with protective stipulations; however, existing ROWs would be used as much as possible. 

Blasting and/or cutting of canyon rims would be avoided. 

There may be beneficial impacts of this management because existing ROWs would be used as 

much as possible, and new ROWs would be subject to protective stipulations. Additionally, 

acquisition of inholdings and adjacent lands may further protect Monument resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative I would include developing new sites and 

areas with controlled visitation and various levels of interpretation, managing data and collected 

material to enhance public awareness of resources through interpretation by the AHC, and 

developing and protecting suitable cultural resources for public enjoyment. There may be no 

impacts from cultural resources management in relation to lands and realty uses. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, the management of fluid minerals on lands and realty would include 

authorizing facilities in support of oil and gas development. Fluid minerals development would 

require ROWs for pipelines and transmission corridors, and roads for transportation to and from 

exploration and production areas. Under Alternative I, no new leases and, consequently, no 

new well pads or facilities would be anticipated; therefore, there may be no impacts from fluid 

minerals development in relation to lands and realty. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alterative, rangeland resources would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. This management may not have any impact on 

lands and realty. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative I, recreation management would include developing facilities on an as-needed 

basis, as well as maintaining developed sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon 

Pueblos. No new SRPs would be issued. Recreation management may not impact lands and 

realty. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

439 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 149 miles (864 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use, and seven supporting facilities. 

Cross-country motorized and mechanized travel would be prohibited. This alternative may 

result in adverse impacts to land and realty due to the fact that existing ROWs may not 

accommodate anticipated roads. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil SSR/CSU would be applied for slopes greater than 40 percent, 

(21,036 acres). Limiting the location and acreage available for roads and utilities may result in 

beneficial impacts to lands and realty by reducing surface disturbance and areas available for 

new ROWs. 

Alternative II

Lands and Realty Management 

Under Alternative II, lands and realty management would include including responding positively 

to private land sale offers (with willing sellers) on and adjacent to the Monument, pursuing 

easements, providing reasonable access to private parcels, identifying existing and potential 

ROW corridors, identifying terms and conditions for underground and/or aerial corridors, 

conducting a survey of the Monument boundary, and managing commercial filming and nonrecreational competitive and special events to assist in achieving resource protection goals and 

objectives. Under Alternative II, the BLM would: 

 pursue acquisition or exchange of private holdings from willing sellers within and 

adjacent to the Monument; 

 identify and prioritize a list of easements, develop a boundary management plan and 

pursue cost-sharing agreements with private landowners to survey boundaries; 

 prohibit commercial filming and non-recreational competitive and special events, except 

for education purposes relative to the Monument; 

 prohibit new ROWs in RMZ 5, except for access to private land, and major utility ROW 

corridors; 

 prohibit new renewable energy projects, construction of new communication sites, 

blasting and/or cutting near canyon rims, and strobe lights on communication sites; 

 require that road development be kept to an absolute minimum and that new ROWs 

comply with all NGD/NSO and SSR/CSU requirements; 

 require that existing ROWs be used when constructing new facilities; 

 align new ROWs adjacent to existing ROWs; and 

 require that reconstructed and future powerlines meet non-electrocution standards for 

raptors, and that new powerlines meet visual resource objectives. 

The impacts of this management may be beneficial because existing ROWs would be used as 

much as possible, and restrictions on new ROWs (construction and stipulations) may reduce 

surface disturbance and, therefore, preserve Monument objects. Additionally, acquisition of 

inholdings and adjacent lands may further protect Monument resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative II would include allocating 13 sites to Public 

Use D (Developed), preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, and 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

440 

evaluating SRPs for site visits. There may be no impacts from cultural resources management 

in relation to lands and realty uses. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative II, up to 880 acres would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. 

A total of up to 18 acres of new ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. 

Temporary access roads would require reclamation. Seismic operations requiring bulldozers, 

earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource NGD/NSO 

stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would apply, and BMPs would be 

included in COAs for new leases. 

Under Alternative II, fluid minerals management may result in adverse impacts to land and 

realty due to the fact that existing ROWs would probably not accommodate anticipated roads 

and pipelines. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources, under Alternative II, would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. This management may not have any impact on 

lands and realty. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative II, recreation management would include managing for custodial purposes, 

user conflicts, visitor safety, and resource protection. Developed sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, 

and Sand Canyon Pueblos would be maintained. Approximately 8,211 acres would be 

managed for public visitation, and 157,124 acres would be managed for backcountry use. No 

new SRPs would be issued, and existing SRPs would be allowed to expire. Recreation 

management under this alternative may have less impact to lands and realty due to the fact that 

fewer sites would be developed, with fewer associated infrastructure and roads, which may 

result in less ground disturbance and greater protection of Monument resources. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 139 miles (806 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use, along with seven support facilities. 

There would be no roads specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, or dirt bike travel; 

these forms of travel would be allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. 

Cross-country motorized and mechanized travel would be prohibited. Transportation 

management under this alternative may result in beneficial impacts to lands and realty due to 

the fact that although ROWs may still be needed, fewer may be needed to accommodate the 

reduced development. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. This restriction, along 

with the BMPs, may result in beneficial impacts to lands and realty due to the fact that there 

may be less surface disturbance and that Monument objects would be protected. 

Alternative III

Lands and Realty Management 

Under Alternative III, lands and realty management would include responding positively to 

private land sale offers (with willing sellers) on and adjacent to the Monument, pursuing 

easements, providing reasonable access to private parcels, identifying existing and potential 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

441 

ROW corridors, identifying terms and conditions for underground and/or aerial corridors, 

conducting a survey of the Monument boundary, and managing commercial filming and nonrecreational competitive and special events to assist in achieving resource protection goals and 

objectives. Under Alternative III, the BLM would conduct the following: 

 pursue acquisition or exchange of private holdings from willing holders within and 

adjacent to the Monument; 

 identify and prioritize a list of easements, develop a boundary management plan, and 

pursue cost-sharing agreements with private landowners to survey boundaries; 

 prohibit commercial filming and non-recreational competitive and special events, except 

for education purposes relative to the Monument; 

 prohibit new ROWs in RMZ 5, except for access to private land, and major utility ROW 

corridors; 

 prohibit blasting and/or cutting near canyon rims, and strobe lights on communication 

sites; 

 require that road development be kept to an absolute minimum, and that new ROWs 

comply with all NGD/NSO and SSR/CSU requirements; 

 require that existing ROWs be used when constructing new facilities; 

 required that new ROWs be aligned adjacent to existing ROWs; 

 require that reconstructed and future powerlines meet non-electrocution standards for 

raptors, and that new powerlines meet visual resource objectives; 

 allow major utility ROW corridors within or adjacent to the existing 230 kV aerial power 

line ROW; and 

 require that new renewable energy projects and communication sites develop a 

Monument-wide feasibility study to determine appropriate locations. 

The impacts of this management may be beneficial because existing ROWs would be used as 

much as possible and restrictions on new ROWs (construction and stipulations) may reduce 

surface disturbance and, therefore, preserve Monument objects. Additionally, acquisition of 

inholdings and adjacent lands may further protect Monument resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management under Alternative III would include allocating 13 to 25 sites to 

Public Use D (Developed), preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, and 

evaluating SRPs for site visits. There may be no impacts of cultural resource management on 

lands and realty uses. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative III, new leases would have NGD/NSO stipulations to protect cultural, natural, 

and scenic resources, and Monument objects. Under Alternative III, up to 3,021 acres would be 

available for leasing, and up to three miles of new roads would be required for this development. 

A total of up to 73 acres of new ground disturbance associated with eight new well pads may be 

possible under this alternative. Fluid minerals facilities may include pipelines, support 

structures, and/or utilities. Geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. 

Temporary access roads would require reclamation. The management of fluid minerals may 

include authorizing facilities in support of oil and gas development. Soil resource NGD/NSO 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

442 

stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would apply, and BMPs would be 

included in COAs for new leases. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources, under Alternative III, would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. This management would not have any impacts in 

relation to lands and realty. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative III, recreation management would include a destination management strategy, 

including establishing destinations for regional visitors, actively marketing communities in the 

Four Corners area, providing specific public access points, and appropriate support facilities. 

Approximately 18,875 acres would be managed for public visitation, and 146,460 acres would 

be managed for backcountry use. No new SRPs would be issued, and existing SRPs could be 

renewed. Recreation management may have adverse impacts to lands and realty due to the 

fact that more developed sites, as well as the associated infrastructure and roads, may result in 

increased ground disturbance. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 189 miles (1,096 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use, and would include 13 support 

facilities. There would be roads specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, or dirt bike. 

These forms of travel would be allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. 

Cross-country motorized and mechanized travel would be prohibited. Transportation 

management may result in adverse impacts to lands and realty due to the fact that additional 

ROWs may be needed to accommodate development, which may, in turn, increase ground 

disturbance. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. This restriction, along 

with the BMPs, may result in beneficial impacts to lands and realty due to the fact that surface 

disturbance may be decreased, and that Monument objects would be protected. 

Alternative IV

Lands and Realty Management 

Under Alternative IV, lands and realty management would include responding positively to 

private land sale offers (with willing sellers) on and adjacent to the Monument, pursuing 

easements, providing reasonable access to private parcels, identifying existing and potential 

ROW corridors, identifying terms and conditions for underground and/or aerial corridors, 

conducting a survey of the Monument boundary, and managing commercial filming and nonrecreational competitive and special events to assist in achieving resource protection goals and 

objectives. Under Alternative IV, the BLM would conduct the following: 

 pursue acquisition or exchange of private holdings from willing sellers within and 

adjacent to the Monument; 

 identify and prioritize a list of needed easements for public use or BLM administrative 

access, develop a boundary management plan, and pursue cost-sharing agreements 

with private landowners to survey boundaries; 

 prohibit commercial filming and non-recreational competitive and special events, except 

for education purposes relative to the Monument; 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

443 

 prohibit new ROWs in RMZ 5, except for access to private land; 

 prohibit blasting and/or cutting near canyon rims, and strobe lights on communication 

sites; 

 require that road development be kept to an absolute minimum and that new ROWs 

comply with all NGD/NSO and SSR/CSU requirements; 

 require that existing ROWs be used when constructing new facilities; 

 require that new ROWs be aligned adjacent to existing ROWs; 

 require that reconstructed and future powerlines meet non-electrocution standards for 

raptors, and that new powerlines meet visual resource objectives; 

 allow major utility ROW corridors within or adjacent to the existing 230 kV aerial power 

line ROW; and 

 require that new renewable energy projects and communication sites develop a 

Monument-wide feasibility study to determine appropriate locations. 

The impacts of this management may be beneficial because existing ROWs would be used as 

much as possible and restrictions on new ROWs (construction and stipulations) may reduce 

surface disturbance and, therefore, preserve Monument objects. Additionally, acquisition of 

inholdings and adjacent lands may further protect Monument resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, cultural resources management would include allocating 13 to 25 sites to 

Public Use D (Developed), preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, and 

evaluating SRPs for site visits. There may be no impacts of cultural resource management in 

relation to lands and realty uses. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative IV, new oil and gas leases would have NGD/NSO stipulations that protect 

cultural, natural, and scenic resources, and Monument objects. Under Alternative IV, up to 

24,462 acres would be available for leasing. A total of up to 447 acres of new ground 

disturbance, including up to 19 miles of new roads, would be possible under this alternative. 

In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, seismic operation-related work using 

bulldozers and/or other earthmoving equipment, as necessary, would be allowed to mitigate 

impacts to objects identified in the Proclamation. Soil resource NGD/NSO stipulations for 

slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would apply, and BMPs would be included in 

COAs for new leases. 

Under Alternative IV, fluid minerals management may result in adverse impacts to land and 

realty due to the fact that existing ROWs may not accommodate anticipated roads and 

pipelines. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, rangeland resources would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. This management may not have any impact on 

lands and realty. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative IV, recreation management would include a destination management strategy 

that markets to national and international visitors; and provides specific public access points, 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

444 

visitor facilities, access, and appropriate support facilities. Approximately 47,056 acres would 

be managed as visitation areas, and 118,279 acres would be managed as backcountry areas. 

New SRPs would be issued on a case-by-case basis. Recreation management may have 

adverse impacts to lands and realty due to the fact that the number of developed sites, along 

with the associated infrastructure and roads, may increase, which may, in turn, result in 

increased ground disturbance. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 213 miles (1,235 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use, and would include 20 support 

facilities. There would be roads specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, or dirt bike. 

These forms of travel would be allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. 

Cross-country motorized and mechanized travel would be prohibited. 

Under this alternative, transportation management may result in adverse impacts to lands and 

realty due to the fact that additional ROWs may be needed to accommodate development, 

which may, in turn, increase ground disturbance and decrease preservation of Monument 

resources. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. This restriction, along 

with the BMPs, may result in beneficial impacts to lands and realty due to the fact that 

Monument objects would be protected. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Lands and Realty Management 

Lands and realty management, under Alternative V, would include responding positively to 

private land sale offers (with willing sellers) on and adjacent to the Monument, pursuing 

easements, providing reasonable access to private parcels, identifying existing and potential 

ROW corridors, identifying terms and conditions for underground and/or aerial corridors, 

conducting a survey of the Monument boundary, and managing commercial filming and nonrecreational competitive and special events to assist in achieving resource protection goals and 

objectives. Under Alternative V, the BLM would conduct the following: 

 pursue acquisition or exchange of private holdings from willing sellers within and 

adjacent to the Monument; 

 identify and prioritize a list of needed easements for public use or BLM administrative 

access, develop a boundary management plan, and pursue cost-sharing agreements 

with private landowners to survey boundaries; 

 prohibit commercial filming and non-recreational competitive and special events, except 

for education purposes relative to the Monument; 

 prohibit new ROWs in RMZ 5, except for access to private land; 

 prohibit major utility ROW corridors, new renewable energy projects, construction of new 

communication sites, blasting and/or cutting near canyon rims, and strobe lights on 

communication sites; 

 require that road development be kept to an absolute minimum and that new ROWs 

comply with all NGD/NSO and SSR/CSU requirements; 

 require that existing ROWs be used when constructing new facilities; 

 require that new ROWs be aligned adjacent to existing ROWs; and 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

445 

 require that reconstructed and future powerlines meet non-electrocution standards for 

raptors, and that new powerlines meet visual resource objectives. 

The impacts of this management may be beneficial because existing ROWs would be used as 

much as possible and restrictions on new ROWs (construction and stipulations) may reduce 

visitor access and, therefore, preserve Monument objects. Additionally, acquisition of inholdings 

and adjacent lands may further protect Monument resources and decrease administrative costs. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management, under Alternative V, would include allocating 13 to 25 sites to 

Public Use D (Developed), preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, and 

evaluating SRPs for site visits. There may be no impacts of cultural resources management in 

relation to lands and realty uses. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative V, up to 880 acres would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. 

A total of up to 18 acres of new ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative. 

Additional infrastructure, including roads and utilities as well as offsite infrastructure, may be 

required for fluid minerals development. Under Alternative II, two new well pads may be 

developed. 

Under this alternative, geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. 

Temporary access roads would require reclamation. Seismic operations requiring bulldozers, 

earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource NGD/NSO 

stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would apply, and BMPs would be 

included in COAs for new leases. Under Alternative V, fluid minerals management may result in 

adverse impacts to land and realty because existing ROWs may not accommodate anticipated 

roads and pipelines. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources, under Alternative V, would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards, to reduce or control grazing, and to protect Monument objects. This management 

may not have any impact on lands and realty. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative V, recreation management would include a combination of strategies, 

including undeveloped areas with minimal facilities and destination management strategies for 

Painted Hand and Sand Canyon Pueblos, the AHC, and Lowry Pueblo RMZs. Approximately 

47,056 acres would be managed as visitation areas, and 118,279 acres would be managed as 

backcountry areas. A limit of 10 SRPs would be issued. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 169 miles (980 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use, and would include 11 support 

facilities. There would be no roads specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, or dirt bike 

travel. These forms of travel would be allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of 

travel. Cross-country motorized and mechanized travel would be prohibited. Under this 

alternative, transportation management may result in adverse impacts to lands and realty 

because additional ROWs may be needed to accommodate development. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. This restriction, along 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

446 

with the BMPs, may result in beneficial impacts to lands and realty due to the fact that 

Monument objects would be protected. 

4.2.14.3. Lands and Realty Management Impact Comparison 

A summary of impacts to lands and realty is presented in Table 4-22. This table compares the 

consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on lands and realty. 

4.2.14.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Activities on private land within, and adjacent to, the Monument may have cumulative impacts 

on lands and realty. As agriculture lands adjacent to the Monument become subdivided and 

developed, there may be a greater risk of encroachment onto public lands. In addition, access 

needs and request for ROWs may increase. Issues with fencing and water development may 

likely increase, as well. Oil and gas development, both on and off the Monument, may require 

more ROWs for utilities, pipelines, and/or for roads. 

As development of lands adjacent to the Monument increases, visual impacts to the natural 

landscape may occur. The construction of buildings, roads and associated structures would 

result in ground disturbance and may cause a loss of wildlife habitat and the possibility for 

erosion with additional sediments in stream systems. Noise levels from increased human 

presence (voices and vehicular) may reduce wildlife habitat security. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

447 

Table 4-22 Comparison of Impacts to Lands and Realty 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Lands and Realty 

Allow major utility 

corridors, with 

protective 

stipulations. Allow 

other land actions 

when clear significant 

public need. 

Prohibit major utility 

ROW corridors. 

Prohibit construction 

of new renewable 

energy projects and 

new communications 

sites. 

Allow major utility ROW 

corridors only within or 

adjacent to existing 

ROWs. Prepare 

feasibility study prior to 

authorizing new 

renewable energy or 

communication site 

projects. 

Allow major utility 

corridors with 

protective stipulations. 

Prepare feasibility 

study prior to 

authorizing new 

renewable energy or 

communication site 

projects. 

Prohibit major utility 

ROW corridors. 

Prohibit construction of 

new renewable energy 

projects and new 

communications sites. 

Cultural Resources 

Protect cultural sites. 

Develop new sites for 

controlled visitation. 

Protect cultural 

communities, sites, 

and isolated finds. 

Develop 13 sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities and sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities and sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities and sites. Develop 13 to 25 sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. Make up to 880 acres available for leasing. Make up to 3,021 acres available for leasing. Make up to 24,462 acres available for leasing. Make up to 880 acres available for leasing. 

Rangeland Resources No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Allow 7 transportation 

facilities. Allow 

ROWs for 149 miles 

of roads. 

Allow 7 transportation 

facilities. Allow 

ROWs for 139 miles 

of roads. 

Allow 13 transportation 

facilities. Allow ROWs 

for 189 miles of roads. 

Allow 20 transportation 

facilities. Allow ROWs 

for 213 miles of roads. 

Allow 11 transportation 

facilities. Allow ROWs 

for 169 miles of roads. 

Other Resources: 

Soil Resources Apply SSR/CSU to protect slopes greater Apply NGD/NSO stipulation for slopes Apply NGD/NSO stipulation for slopes Apply NGD/NSO stipulation for slopes Apply NGD/NSO stipulation for slopes 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

448 

Table 4-22 Comparison of Impacts to Lands and Realty 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

than 40 percent 

(21,036 acres). 

steeper than 30 

percent 

 (36,504 acres). 

steeper than 30 percent 

(36,504 acres). 

steeper than 30 

percent 

(36,504 acres). 

steeper than 30 percent 

(36,504 acres). 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

449 

4.2.15. Minerals 

Fluid Minerals

The primary goal for managing fluid minerals is to ensure the proper care and management of 

the objects protected under the Proclamation prior to authorizing continued exploration, 

development, production, and/or reclamation activity. The management objectives related to 

this goal include: 

 determine if any of the 34,221 acres of unleased mineral estate in the Monument should 

be leased to promote conservation of oil and gas resources in any common reservoir 

now being produced under existing leases to protect against drainage; 

 identify stipulations for new leases to ensure that impacts are not created that interfere 

with the proper care and management of the objects protected by the Proclamation; and 

 identify stipulations and BMPs for exploration, development, production, and reclamation 

to ensure that impacts are not created that interfere with the proper care and 

management of the objects protected by the Proclamation. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to fluid minerals management. 

Beneficial impacts may include those actions that may enhance extraction efforts. Adverse 

impacts to fluid minerals resource extraction may include the inability to reach reserves and/or 

restrictions that make mineral extraction costly. Direct impacts may include the removal of 

ground from availability for exploration where restrictions, such as TLs or NSO stipulations that 

complicate the ability to extract fluid minerals, are in place 

The BLM prepared a RFD for the Monument (BLM 2005c), which estimated that 57 percent of 

all oil and natural gas wells, and 100 percent of CO2 wells, would be successful. The RFD also 

estimated the gross surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development. Drilling 

operations may result in surface disturbance for well pads and access roads, for both successful 

wells and for dry holes. Successful wells may require pipelines, treatment facilities, and 

ancillary infrastructure to support the increased production. Table 4-23 presents the total 

number of wells estimated to be drilled on the currently unleased Federal mineral estate over 

the 20-year planning period, and the area of temporary and long-term surface disturbance 

associated with each alternative. 

Table 4-23 Surface Impacts of Fluid Minerals Development on Currently Unleased Federal and SplitMinerals Estate Over 20-Year Planning Period 

Alternative 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

II 

Alternative 

III 

Alternative 

IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Total Area Effectively Available 

for New Fluid Mineral Surface 

Facilities1

0 acres Up to 880 

acres 

Up to 3,021 

acres 

Up to 

24,462 

acres 

Up to 880 acres 

Estimated Total New Oil and 

Gas Wells (Unsuccessful) in 20 

Years2

0 1 (0) 3 (1) 21 (9) 1 (0) 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

450 

Table 4-23 Surface Impacts of Fluid Minerals Development on Currently Unleased Federal and SplitMinerals Estate Over 20-Year Planning Period 

Alternative 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

II 

Alternative 

III 

Alternative 

IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Estimated Total New CO2 Wells 

in 20 Years 0 1 5 38 1 

Estimated New Roads on New 

Leased Lands 0 1 mile 3 miles 19 miles 1 mile 

20-yr Long-term Disturbance 0 acres 18 acres 73 acres 447 acres 18 acres 

1 Area of Federal and split-mineral estates currently not leased that may be made available for leasing under action 

alternatives. For oil and gas leases under Alternative III, this area is estimated to be the minimum necessary to prevent 

drainage only. Under Alternative II, this area is limited to currently unleased areas within the McElmo Dome Unit. 

2 Number in parentheses represents estimated unsuccessful wells (dry holes) as a subset of the total. These are used to 

calculate temporary disturbance areas. 

4.2.15.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Criteria used to compare alternatives include the number of acres available for new leases and, 

the estimated numbers of successful wells. Impacts may also be expressed in terms of costs 

and/or restrictions. Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to fluid minerals resource use 

include the following: 

 Alternative I: No new leases would be granted by the BLM under this alternative, as 

required by the 2002 Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the San Juan Citizens 

Alliance and the BLM (SJCA v. Gale Norton 2002). 

 Alternatives II and V: With up to 880 acres of currently unleased acreage available for 

new leases under these alternatives, and assuming a spacing of 640 acres for each CO2

well, up to one new CO2 well would be drilled on currently unleased acreage. 

 Alternative III: With up to 3,021 acres of currently unleased acreage available for new 

leases under this alternative, three new oil and natural gas wells are estimated to be 

drilled. Using the CO2 assumption described in Alternative II, five new CO2 wells may 

also be drilled over the next 20 years. 

 Alternative IV: The assumed 640-acre spacing for CO2 would apply to the total 

available unleased acreage, and 38 new CO2 wells may be drilled under this alternative. 

 The Monument contains the highest known density of archaeological sites in the United 

States, with approximately 5,157 previously recorded cultural sites, and with portions of 

the Monument containing more than 100 cultural sites per square mile. It is estimated 

that the total number of sites in the Monument may range from 20,000 to 30,000. 

 The average cost per acre for a Class III archaeological survey in the Monument is 

estimated to be $50. 

 In order to provide a reasonable range of alternatives for analysis purposes, Alternatives 

I and IV were included. However, both are considered not viable options. Alternative I is 

not valid because the BLM must at least lease for drainage purposes and Alternative IV 

is not valid because protecting the objects of the Monument and leasing the full 24,462 

acres with an NSO for cultural resource protection is considered not feasible. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

451 

4.2.15.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to fluid minerals management may differ in extent and severity, depending on specific 

management actions under each alternative for different resource uses. The following sections 

describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions 

directly proposed for fluid minerals, as well as those anticipated to result from the management 

actions proposed for cultural resources, rangeland resources, and recreation and transportation 

management. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Fluid Minerals Management 

Fluid minerals leasing, and oil, natural gas, and CO2 exploration and development activities 

under this alternative would be constrained by the existing 2002 Stipulated Settlement 

Agreement (San Juan Citizens Alliance et al. vs. Gale Norton et al.), in which the parties agreed 

that “decisions pertaining to future oil and gas leasing in the Monument shall be deferred by 

BLM until completion of the RMP EIS.” Out of the current 24,462 acres of unleased Federal and 

split-mineral estate lands available, none would be leased, and no oil, gas, or CO2 development 

would take place. This includes lands that could be leased to promote conservation of oil and 

gas resources from common reservoirs now being produced to protect against drainage. This is 

because the Agreement provides that the “RMP EIS shall present the known bounds of 

common reservoirs that produced under existing leases on the date of the Proclamation, and 

shall analyze alternative measures to protect against drainage.” 

Cultural Resources Management 

This alternative would not result in new fluid minerals leases or in any associated grounddisturbing activities from well pads, access roads, and/or facilities; therefore, cultural resources 

management would have no impact on fluid minerals resource use. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative I would not result in new fluid minerals leases or in any associated well pads, access 

roads, and/or facilities; therefore, rangeland resources management would have no impact on 

fluid minerals resource use. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

This alternative would not result in new fluid minerals leases or in any construction of new roads 

requiring access control and/or maintenance; therefore, recreation and transportation 

management would have no impact on fluid minerals resource use. 

Alternative II

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, new fluid minerals leasing would be limited to up to a total of 880 acres, 

with the specific purpose of protecting against drainage. This management action may result in 

one oil and gas well, and one CO2 well being drilled over the 20 years on currently unleased 

Federal and split-mineral estate lands. Construction of well pads and access roads to service 

these wells may result in long-term surface disturbance totaling up to 18 acres, with up to one 

mile of access roads. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, the BLM would require a Class III cultural resources inventory for lands 

subject to ground-disturbing activities. Monitoring of ground-disturbing activities would be 

required, and post-project monitoring may also be required, at the discretion of the BLM. Under 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

452 

this alternative, no direct impacts to cultural resource communities, sites, and/or isolated finds 

would be allowed. This would result in large blocks of ground where disturbance would be 

prohibited. 

The impact of cultural resources management on fluid minerals development may include 

increased cost and, potentially, significant time delays for project implementation. The cost of a 

Class III cultural resources survey for the 18 acres of surface disturbance for this alternative is 

estimated to be less than $1,000. In addition, the time necessary to obtain a favorable 

determination for APD approval would be longer. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources management does not include any management 

actions that would impact fluid minerals management. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

The 139 miles of roads under this alternative would service fluid minerals development in the 

Monument as well as recreation needs. Conflicts between mixed uses on some of these roads 

may occur. The two wells projected to be drilled may contribute up to one mile of road to this 

total. The impact of transportation management under this alternative includes access 

restrictions, maintenance and upkeep, and installation of erosion control measures. 

Alternative III

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, new fluid minerals leasing would be limited to up to 3,021 acres of the 

Leadville and Paradox Formations within the McElmo Dome Unit, a common reservoir currently 

under production in existing leases. Management actions under Alternative III may result in up 

to three oil and natural gas, and up to five CO2 wells being drilled during the planning period. 

Based on historical data, two of these wells would be successful and may have long-term 

surface disturbance, while one well would be a dry hole (where the surface disturbance would 

be immediately reclaimed). The up to five CO2 wells may result in long-term disturbance. Longterm surface disturbance is estimated to cover up to 73 acres, with up to three miles of access 

roads. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, the BLM would require a Class III cultural resources inventory for lands 

subject to ground-disturbing activities. Monitoring of ground-disturbing activities would be 

required, and post-project monitoring may also be required, at the discretion of the BLM. Under 

this alternative, no direct impacts to cultural resource communities and/or sites would be 

allowed. This would result in large blocks of ground prohibited from disturbance. 

The impacts of cultural resources management on fluid minerals development may include 

increased cost and, potentially, significant time delays for project implementation. The cost of a 

Class III cultural resources survey for the 73 acres of surface disturbance is estimated at 

approximately $3,000. This alternative may also result in additional CO2 production facilities, 

and the resulting additional cost may adversely impact the economics of development projects. 

The time necessary to obtain a favorable determination for APD approval would be longer. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources management would not include any management 

actions that would impact fluid minerals management. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

453 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

The 189 miles of roads under this alternative would service fluid minerals development in the 

Monument as well as recreation needs. Conflicts between mixed uses on some of these roads 

may occur. The eight wells projected to be drilled may contribute up to three miles to this total. 

The adverse impact of transportation management under this alternative, including access 

restrictions, maintenance and upkeep, and installation of erosion control measures, may be 

minor. 

Alternative IV

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, up to 24,462 acres in the Monument would be available for leasing. The 

BLM has estimated that this alternative may result in up to 21 new oil and natural gas wells, and 

38 new CO2 wells being drilled on currently unleased acreage during the planning period. For 

oil and natural gas wells, the BLM expects that 12 wells would be successful, resulting in longterm surface disturbance, and that nine wells would be dry holes. All of the 38 CO2 wells would 

be successful wells. Surface disturbance is estimated at up to 447 acres, with 19 miles of 

access roads being built to service new wells. This management may represent the most 

beneficial impacts to fluid minerals management because more area would be available for 

development. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, the BLM would require a Class III cultural resources inventory for lands 

subject to ground-disturbing activities. Monitoring of ground-disturbing activities would be 

required, and post-project monitoring may also be required at the discretion of the BLM. Under 

this alternative, no direct impacts to cultural resources communities and/or sites would be 

allowed. 

The impact of cultural resources management on fluid minerals development may be increased 

cost and, potentially, time delays for project implementation. The cost of a Class III cultural 

resources survey for the up to 447 acres of surface disturbance for this alternative is estimated 

to be $17,000. In addition, the time necessary to obtain a favorable determination for APD 

approval may be longer. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources management does not include any management 

actions that would impact fluid minerals management. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

The 213 miles of roads under this alternative would service fluid minerals development in the 

Monument as well as recreation needs. Conflicts between mixed uses on some of these roads 

may occur. Recreation management may impact fluid minerals development because more 

area would be allocated to front country recreational activities, which may draw more traffic. 

The 59 wells projected to be drilled may contribute up to 19 miles to this total. Transportation 

management under this alternative, including access restrictions, maintenance and upkeep, 

installation of erosion control measures, and administrative oversight of road operations, may 

increase proportionately. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

454 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Fluid Minerals Management 

Alternative V would limit new leasing of the currently unleased Federal mineral estate to up to 

880 acres, with the specific purpose of protecting against drainage. Even if additional lands are 

acquired, no more than up to 880 acres would be leased. This management action may result 

in up to one oil and gas well and in one CO2 well being drilled over the next 20 years. 

Construction of well pads and access roads to service these wells may result in surface 

disturbance totaling up to 18 acres, with up to one mile of access road. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, the BLM would require a Class III cultural resources inventory for lands 

subject to ground-disturbing activities. Monitoring of ground-disturbing activities would be 

required, and post-project monitoring may also be required, at the discretion of the BLM. Under 

this alternative, no direct impacts to cultural resource communities and/or sites would be 

allowed. 

The impact of cultural resources management on fluid minerals development may be increased 

cost and, potentially, significant time delays for project implementation. The cost of a Class III 

cultural resources survey for the 18 acres of surface disturbance for this alternative is estimated 

to be less than $1,000. In addition, the time necessary to obtain a favorable determination for 

APD approval may be longer. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources management does not include any management 

actions that would impact fluid minerals management. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

The 169 miles of roads under this alternative would service fluid minerals development in the 

Monument as well as recreation needs. Conflicts between mixed uses on some of these roads 

may occur. The two wells projected to be drilled may contribute one mile to this total. The 

adverse impact of transportation management under this alternative, including access 

restrictions, maintenance and upkeep, and installation of erosion control measures may be 

minor. 

Solid Minerals

The goal for the solid-minerals program is to maintain the proper care and management of the 

objects protected by the Proclamation while, at the same time, honoring valid existing rights and 

mitigating any impacts from new leases, including from surface disturbance. The management 

objective related to this goal includes enforcing mineral resource withdrawal, as specifically 

stated in the Proclamation. 

Except for fluid minerals leasing, the Proclamation reserved and appropriated all Federal lands 

and interests in lands in the Monument, and withdrew them from all forms of entry, location, 

selection, sale, leasing, and/or other disposition under the public land laws (including the 

mineral-leasing and mining laws). Thus, with the exception of fluid mineral leases, no new 

Federal mineral claims may be staked in the Monument, and authorization for activities on 

existing mineral claims would be managed by valid existing rights. 

For solid minerals, no new mining claims may be located, and no new prospecting and/or 

exploration activities may be undertaken to identify locatable minerals and/or to establish the 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

455 

discovery of valuable mineral deposits, except by existing claimants. Therefore, there would be 

no impacts to solid-minerals management. 

4.2.15.3. Minerals Management Impact Comparison 

The minerals management impact comparison is presented in Table 4-24. This table compares 

the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on minerals 

management. 

4.2.15.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative I would not result in new fluid mineral leases; therefore, there would be no changes 

in cumulative impacts from the current management situation. The cumulative impacts of 

drilling up to two (under Alternatives II and V) or eight (under Alternative III) new wells on 

currently unleased Federal and split-estate minerals, may be minor due to the fact that there are 

125 existing wells in the Monument. However, the estimated fluid minerals development under 

Alternative IV may result in cumulative impacts. With 125 active wells currently in the 

Monument, up to 59 new successful wells may increase this total by 47 percent. In terms of air 

quality, the additional oil and natural gas wells may potentially contribute VOC emissions from 

wellheads and treatment facilities. In addition, particulate material may result from travel on 

new unpaved access roads. These additional emissions may impact air quality in the 

Monument and impact visibility. In terms of surface water quality, the cumulative impacts may 

impact offsite watersheds. The impact may result from the same water pollutants impacting 

onsite surface water. Scenic values may diminish across the landscape and the feeling of 

remote, isolated, undiscovered land may be reduced over portions of the Monument, as well as 

across Dolores and Montezuma Counties. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

456 

Table 4-24 Comparison of Impacts to Fluid Minerals Management 

Type of Land Use 

or Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make up to 880 acre 

available for leasing 

(with up to 2 

successful wells 

drilled). 

Make up to 3,021 

acres available for 

leasing (with up to 8 

successful well 

drilled). 

Make up to 24,462 

acres available for 

leasing (with up to 59 

successful wells 

drilled). 

Make up to 880 acres 

available for leasing 

(with up to 2 

successful wells 

drilled). 

Cultural Resources No Impact. 

Disturb no 

communities, sites 

or isolated finds 

($1,000 cost for 

Class III surveys). 

Disturb no 

communities or sites 

($3,000 cost for 

Class III surveys). 

Disturb no 

communities or sites 

($17,000 cost for 

Class III surveys). 

Disturb no 

communities or sites 

($1,000 cost for Class 

III surveys). 

Rangeland Resources No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 

Recreation and 

Transportation No Impact. 

Control access. 

Maintain an 

additional 1 mile of 

road). 

Control access. 

Maintain an 

additional 3 miles of 

road). 

Control access. 

Maintain an 

additional 19 miles of 

road). 

Control access. 

Maintain an additional 

1 mile of road). 

Solid Minerals No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

457 

4.2.16. Rangeland Resources 

Rangeland resources in the Monument include livestock grazing and forage production, as 

described in Section 3.2.7. The primary goals for rangeland resources management are to 

manage livestock grazing consistent with the Public Land Health Standards and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management in Colorado (Public Land Health Standards), and to maintain a 

thriving natural ecological balance, multiple-use relationships, and productive forage resources. 

The management objectives related to these goals include: 

 develop a rangeland monitoring strategy and plan to assess rangeland health conditions 

on a regular basis, as well as a process to implement necessary management revisions 

based on monitoring results; 

 manage livestock grazing to achieve Public Land Health Standards for upland and 

riparian/wetland plant communities; 

 manage livestock grazing to ensure the long-term sustainability of rangeland 

ecosystems and to promote the resistance and resilience of rangeland plants and soil to 

the impacts of recurring drought; and 

 manage livestock grazing to meet vegetation, recreation, fish and wildlife, water quality, 

and cultural resource objectives and to protect sensitive or high-quality resources from 

adverse impacts. 

Another goal of rangeland resources management is to develop and encourage public and 

stakeholder understanding of livestock grazing management within the Monument. The 

management objective related to this goal is to improve communication and understanding of 

range standards and expectations between the BLM, grazing permittees, and the general 

public. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to rangeland resources. 

A number of proposed management actions have the potential to impact rangeland resources. 

Direct impacts to these resources are defined primarily in terms of forage production. These 

impacts may be adverse, resulting in disruption and/or removal of vegetation. These impacts 

may also be beneficial, resulting in increased forage quantity, quality, and/or availability. A 

number of indirect impacts to rangeland resources may also be possible as a result of proposed 

management actions. Indirect impacts associated with surface disturbance are assumed to 

occur in proportion to the relative amount of disturbance. These may include a general loss of 

forage area and/or availability of forage (due to surface occupancy for other uses), construction 

or widening of roads, direct and indirect impacts to soils and vegetation, and closure of specific 

areas to livestock to protect and/or enhance another resource. Vehicular traffic (including offroad vehicular traffic) and human visitors (and their dogs) may harass livestock. The 

introduction and/or expansion of noxious weeds through various vectors may poison livestock, 

replacing palatable species with unpalatable species. 

Impacts to soils and/or vegetation cover may also result in the transport of eroded soils to 

streams and ponds, where the resulting sedimentation may reduce the availability and/or quality 

of watering areas. A catastrophic release of a chemical pollutant into a watering source may 

result in direct harm to livestock, or make watering areas unusable (such releases are 

infrequent, but may occur during oil and gas development and/or during chemical control of 

weeds). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

458 

This section discusses vegetation primarily as a resource that supports productivity 

requirements of livestock nutrition. However, the plants and plant communities in the 

Monument are also managed for their intrinsic values. Public Land Health Standards #2 and #3 

acknowledge the multiple uses of the vegetation resource by discussing management along a 

continuum of characteristics. Managing vegetation for one aspect of the resource may result in 

conflicts with another aspect. For example, precluding livestock use of sensitive plant 

communities, such as riparian corridors, may enhance the vegetation (and associated fish and 

wildlife) values, but may also reduce the amount and/or quality of forage for livestock (requiring 

grazing permittees to provide additional sources of water). 

The converse may also be true. Managing vegetation for maximum livestock productivity, 

palatability, and/or for nutrition often involves planting non-native forage species to supplement 

native species suppressed, or lost, due to prolonged grazing use. Maximizing livestock 

production generally means placing these large grazers into plant communities that are not 

resilient to the impacts of trampling and selective plant removal. Stoddart et al. (1955) 

acknowledge that: “It is impossible to obtain the best use of a range without some disturbance, 

and the rancher cannot always have climax vegetation as his goal.” These conflicts are 

addressed throughout this analysis. Additional ramifications to vegetation are discussed in 

Section 4.2.8. 

Vegetation is also a resource for wild herbivores, ranging in size from mice to elk. Wildlife 

species must compete directly with livestock for the forage and for the thermal cover this 

vegetation provides, as well as for space and water. Any changes in livestock and/or wild 

herbivore use of these resources necessarily affects the other. The result of the direct 

competition is generally in favor of livestock and at the expense of wildlife. 

Some of the alternatives analyzed in this DRMP/DEIS incorporate management actions that 

skew this situation in favor of one type of herbivore over another. For example, where focused 

livestock use of riparian areas is allowed, the quality of the plant community as an intrinsically 

valuable resource and important wildlife habitat may be reduced. Likewise, increased areas of 

human activity may cause wildlife to avoid an area with suitable forage, leaving more of the 

resource available to livestock than might otherwise occur. 

Other land use and resource management considerations may result in the BLM applying 

various stipulations and other restrictions on use to protect specific resource values. These 

protective stipulations and other restrictions are listed and defined in Section 2.2. Similarly, the 

SSR/CSU and special mitigation designations (the latter would be applied as a condition of 

approval of a permit) may require that a grazing permittee undertake supplemental (“nonstandard”) mitigation as part of a proposed action. 

4.2.16.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

The most adverse direct impacts to rangeland resources result from surface disturbances; 

therefore, such areas are the primary parameter for discussion and comparison of impact 

analysis for rangeland resources. Areas reclaimed, otherwise improved, and/or protected from 

ground disturbance are used to describe beneficial or adverse impacts. Estimates of surface 

disturbance areas associated with potential management actions were calculated using data 

from the AMS (BLM 2005b) and from the RFD (BLM 2005c), and are summarized in Table 4-1. 

Proposed surface-use restrictions are listed and summarized in Table 2-1. 

When quantitative analysis is not possible, categories are based upon the potential physical 

impacts in terms of Public Land Health Standards. For riparian/wetland vegetation, these 

categories are based on the potential physical impacts in terms of Public Land Health Standard 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

459 

#2. For upland vegetation, these categories are based upon the potential physical impacts to 

this resource in terms of Land Health Standard #3. 

Assumptions included in the analysis of impacts to rangeland resources include the following: 

 estimated disturbance areas are distributed among upland and riparian/wetland plant 

communities in proportion to their relative area throughout the Monument, unless 

otherwise limited by applicable surface-use restrictions; 

 application of appropriate BMPs and standardized reclamation practices would be 

required as COAs for all new leases, permits, and surface disturbance areas (see 

Appendix E); 

 Federal lands within the Monument boundary are the subject of the impact analysis; and 

 the entire vicinity that comprises the Colorado Plateau Semi-desert ecoregion (Bailey 

1995) is the subject of the cumulative impacts analysis 

4.2.16.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to rangeland resources may differ in extent and severity, depending on the specific 

management actions under each alternative for different resource uses. The following sections 

describe the impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions 

directly proposed for rangeland resources, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland, and recreation 

and transportation. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, 28 allotments would continue to be available for livestock grazing with up to 

8,492 active AUMs permitted. Certain tracts outside of the allotments would be available for 

authorized livestock grazing, while others would be closed. A monitoring program would be 

established to determine whether or not livestock grazing goals and objectives are being 

achieved by the management system. Rangeland management would require improving 

conditions on all allotments in order to meet Public Land Health Standards. Livestock grazing 

use during any portion of the critical period would be limited to no more than 30 percent of the 

active preference, and to no more than 50 percent utilization of key forage species’ current 

season growth. Spring use by domestic livestock in all allotments would not be permitted on 

native ranges during the critical period of early growth, unless a livestock grazing system is 

implemented that provides crucial rest periods once every three years, or unless a spring-use 

pasture is developed to absorb livestock grazing use in meeting the rest requirements. Existing 

AMPs would be revised and new ones developed, as necessary. All livestock use adjustments, 

including grazing systems, would be implemented through documented cooperation and 

consultation with the permittee. 

This analysis assumes that current rangeland resource conditions and trends described in 

Section 3.2.7 would continue into the future under these management actions. Current 

rangeland evaluation and monitoring data (BLM 2001i) show that in 18 of the 28 allotments, 

livestock grazing is considered a contributing factor in not achieving Public Land Health 

Standards. Over time, this trend may continue to result in adverse impacts to rangeland 

resources, and in the failure to meet Public Land Health Standards in most allotments. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

460 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions would impact rangeland 

resources, either directly or indirectly; therefore, continuing management would be expected to 

result in negligible impacts to these resources. However, to some degree, development and 

stabilization, testing, and/or other activities that result in surface clearance of vegetation may 

result in highly localized, adverse impacts. The degree to which these become long-term 

disturbance areas would depend on the care that is originally taken to minimize vegetation 

disturbance, as well as the degree to which appropriate reclamation techniques are 

implemented. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative I (the No Action Alternative), currently unleased acres would continue to be 

unavailable for new fluid minerals leases. However, development of currently leased areas 

would continue. Seventy-two of the 105 existing fluid mineral sites occur in 24 grazing 

allotments, with the majority of these in the Cross Canyon allotment. Negligible direct impacts 

generally occur from active mineral exploration and construction activities because livestock 

usually avoid these areas. Avoidance can be considered an indirect impact that results in a 

reduction of available forage within these allotments. Well pads, supporting access roads, as 

well as utility and/or pipeline corridor, may also functionally remove rangeland from forage 

production. 

In addition to direct impacts of surface disturbance, other ongoing management actions 

associated with fluid minerals exploration and development have been noted as a factor in the 

observed downward trend in upland vegetation. This is due to incomplete or failed reclamation 

of closed and abandoned well pads, as well as to the associated roads and other infrastructure. 

Many of these sites support little vegetation, and are often dominated by noxious weeds. These 

areas then serve as centers of disturbance from which weeds and other undesirable plants 

spread into native vegetation. These factors are expected to continue to result in limited 

adverse impacts to rangeland resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative I, due to the restriction on new oil and gas leases, may result in relatively low surface 

impacts from road development. Under this alternative, 149 miles of roads would be open to 

travel by a variety of means (including travel for administrative purposes and travel necessary to 

support existing oil and gas leases). This may result in 864 acres of surface disturbance, and in 

the second-lowest road density (0.58 miles/square mile) of any of the alternatives. Less ground 

disturbance, resulting from fewer roads may be beneficial to rangeland resources over the longterm due to the fact that it may reduce loss of forage. Opportunities for noxious weed 

introduction and/or infestations occurring along roadsides may be reduced in proportion to the 

reduction in total miles of roads. 

Other Resources Management 

At present, 25,549 acres of the Monument surface are managed as three WSAs under existing 

non-impairment standards and practices, in accordance with Interim Management Policy, until 

they are designated as wilderness or until they are released by Congress (BLM 1995). Some 

grazing allotments coincide with these WSAs. In these areas, continued restrictions on the 

construction of permanent structures, facilities, and/or on surface-disturbing activities may 

continue to result in beneficial impacts due to the fact that forage may not be disturbed in these 

areas. However, livestock operators often find it easier, and more effective, to manage their 

livestock through the construction of such facilities. Under the No Action Alternative, should 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

461 

these areas be released from WSA status, they would still be managed for wilderness 

characteristics; therefore, impacts may likely continue as currently exists. 

Under this alternative, the 427-acre McElmo RNA would continue to be managed with special 

management prescriptions for research and habitat protection. Likewise, this area is protected 

from surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development by an NSO. This 

management may result in beneficial impacts to rangeland resources in this area. 

Alternative II

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative II would permit 6,437 active AUMs, which is considerably fewer than the 8,492 

AUMs under Alternative I. Alternative II would suspend active preference of 3,706 AUMS. 

Suspended AUMs would be acknowledged in AMPs, but would be unavailable for livestock 

grazing. Twenty-three allotments (five fewer than under Alternative I) would be available for 

livestock grazing. Sand Canyon East, Sand Canyon West, Rock Creek, Goodman Gulch, and 

Trail Canyon allotments would be made unavailable to livestock grazing (see Map 3). These 

allotments occur in the southeastern part of the Monument and total 6,059 acres of primarily 

pinyon-juniper woodlands with low forage production. Closing these allotments may avoid 

conflicts with cultural and natural resources and recreation, and accelerate achievement of 

Public Land Health Standards in these areas. Reduction of AUMs throughout the remaining 

allotments may result in reduced pressure on existing vegetation and beneficial impacts to 

forage quality and quantity. 

A number of specific management actions would be included in Alternative II to hasten 

compliance with Public Land Health standards. These would include adjusting spring livestock 

grazing duration and extent of use, and implementing a rotation-grazing system. Allowable 

utilization levels of current year growth would be no more than 30 percent of upland shrub and 

riparian woody species. Allowable utilization would be 35 percent of current year production for 

cool- and warm-season perennial grass species. In riparian systems, minimum stubble height 

standards for perennial grasses and forbs would be four inches in spring-use pastures and six 

inches in fall-and winter-use pastures. Livestock grazing within an allotment would be 

authorized during the critical spring growth period from March 1 through May 31 for no more 

than one year in any three-year period. This would be accomplished by implementing a 

rotational livestock grazing system and/or taking total non-use for two of every three years. 

Spring use would not be allowed where Public Land Health Standards are not being met. In the 

event a grazing permit is relinquished or becomes vacant, a determination would be made to reissue a term grazing permit, close the allotment, or create a reserve forage allotment. 

Permittees and interested public would be invited to participate in monitoring. Existing AMPs 

would be reviewed on a regular schedule and revised, as necessary, in order to address current 

allotment conditions and permittee needs (in the context of achieving Public Land Health 

Standards and other resource management objectives). These actions may be expected to 

result in beneficial impacts to rangeland resources, as well as in accelerated achievement of 

Public Land Health Standards, when compared with the other action alternatives. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions would impact rangeland 

resources, either directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development, testing, and/or 

other activities that result in surface clearance of vegetation may result in highly localized 

adverse impacts. The degree to which these become long-term disturbance areas would 

depend on the care that is originally taken to minimize vegetation disturbance, as well as the 

degree to which appropriate reclamation techniques are implemented. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

462 

Under this alternative, there would be a small potential for conflict between visitors to cultural 

sites and livestock grazing. The areas designated as undeveloped may provide long-term 

benefits in that they may reduce the potential for such conflicts. The preparation of Cultural 

Resource Management Plans for Public Use D (Developed) cultural sites may also reduce 

conflict due to the fact that rangeland resources management issues would be considered in the 

plans. 

Under Alternative II, beneficial impact to vegetation may result due to the restriction of any 

disturbance to cultural resource communities, sites, and/or to isolated finds. This restriction 

may be expected to eventually result in more numerous, larger areas in the Monument to which 

no direct surface disturbing impacts would be allowed. This may result in the indirect protection 

of forage and other rangeland resources within these areas, and may eventually provide 

widespread beneficial impacts to these resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative II, up to 880 acres of lands currently unavailable for leasing could be leased. 

This may result in the development of up to two well pads; with associated roads, equaling 18 

acres of long-term disturbance (see Table 4-1). Many of these may be mitigated by the 

application of appropriate BMPs and standardized reclamation practices, such as COAs on the 

new leases. Rangeland disturbed by associated road, utility corridor, and/or pad construction 

would be rehabilitated, including with the seeding of native plant species. The development of 

GADPs by the BLM, and five-year development plans by the lessees, may provide long-term 

benefits to rangeland resource planning. The result of leasing these areas, as well as the 

discussed management actions under Alternative II, may result in limited adverse impacts to 

rangeland resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative II, in terms of transportation management, would be the most restrictive of all of the 

alternatives. Under this alternative, 139 miles of roads would be open to all forms of travel 

(including travel for administrative purposes and travel necessary to support new and existing oil 

and gas leases). This may result in 806 acres of surface disturbance, as well as in the lowest 

road density (0.54 miles/square mile) of any of the alternatives. 

Less ground disturbance, resulting from fewer roads under this alternative, may be beneficial to 

rangeland resources over the long-term due to the fact that this may minimize the loss of forage. 

Opportunities for noxious weed introduction and spread along roadsides may be reduced in 

proportion to the reduction in the total miles of roads. 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, 25,549 acres of the Monument surface would continue to be managed as 

three WSAs under existing non-impairment standards and practices, in accordance with Interim 

Management Policy, until they are designated as wilderness or until they are released by 

Congress (BLM 1995). Some grazing allotments coincide with these WSAs. In these areas, 

continued restrictions on the construction of permanent structures, facilities, and/or on surfacedisturbing activities may continue to result in beneficial impacts due to the fact that forage may 

not be disturbed in these areas. However, livestock operators often find it easier, and more 

effective, to manage their livestock through the construction of such facilities. 

Similar to all of the action alternatives, these areas would also be designated as a NGD/NSO. 

Therefore, should these areas be released from WSA status, they would still be protected from 

long-term surface-disturbing activities because they would still be managed for wilderness 

characteristics. All of the action alternatives also include additional management actions 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

463 

intended to protect and enhance the wilderness characteristics of the WSAs. All of these 

actions may result in protection of livestock forage and rangeland resources. 

Under Alternative II, the existing McElmo RNA would be considerably expanded (from 427 to 

7,826 acres), and would continue to be managed with special management prescriptions for 

herpetological research and habitat protection. Likewise, portions of this area would be 

protected from surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development by an NGD/NSO. 

This management may result in beneficial impacts to rangeland resources in this area. 

Alternative II would also include management of 25 miles of river reaches as suitable for WSR 

designation. This may result in beneficial impacts to rangeland resources throughout these 

reaches because protecting riparian vegetation is key to maintaining the WSR status. 

Alternative III

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, active AUMs would be 124 fewer than those proposed under Alternative I 

(8,368 versus 8,492, respectively) based on closing five allotments. Alternative III would also 

suspend active preference of 3,706 AUMS, identified in all affected grazing permits. Suspended 

AUMs would be acknowledged in AMPs, but would be unavailable for livestock grazing. 

Twenty-three allotments (five fewer than under Alternative I) would be available for livestock 

grazing. Sand Canyon East, Sand Canyon West, Rock Creek, Goodman Gulch, and Trail 

Canyon allotments would be made unavailable to livestock grazing (see Map 3). This would 

account for the 124 fewer AUMs under this alternative. These allotments occur in the 

southeastern part of the Monument and total 6,059 acres of primarily pinyon-juniper woodlands 

with low forage production. Closing these allotments may result in the avoidance of conflicts 

between cultural and natural resources and recreation, and accelerate achievement of Public 

Land Health Standards in these areas. However, as the open allotments would not experience 

any reduction in AUMs, this aspect of rangeland management under Alternative III is not 

expected to result in substantial overall improvements to current rangeland resource conditions 

and trends; trends that show livestock grazing is not achieving Public Land Health Standards. 

Alternative III would consist of a number of other specific rangeland management actions that 

are not included in Alternative I, although several are less stringent than under Alternative II. 

Spring livestock grazing duration and extent of use would be limited, and a rotation-grazing 

system would be implemented. The allowable utilization level of current year growth would be 

no more than 30 percent of upland shrub and riparian woody species. In riparian areas, 

minimum stubble height standards for perennial grasses and forbs would be four inches in 

spring-use pastures and six inches in fall- and winter-use pastures. Allowable utilization would 

be 50 percent of current year production for desired cool- and warm-season perennial grass 

species where Public Land Health Standards are being met, and 35 percent where the 

standards for soil and plant communities are not being met. If utilization or stubble height 

standards are not achieved, annual adjustments in reduced livestock numbers and/or season of 

use would be made. Livestock grazing within an allotment would be authorized during the 

critical spring growth period from March 1 through May 31 for no more than two years in any 

three-year period. This would be accomplished by implementing a rotational livestock grazing 

system or by taking total non-use every third year. More stringent spring deferment (two years 

out of every three) could be implemented, or spring use would not be allowed, where Public 

Land Health Standards are not being met. In the event a grazing permit is relinquished or 

becomes vacant, a determination would be made to re-issue a term grazing permit, close the 

allotment, or create a reserve forage allotment. Permittees and interested public would be 

invited to participate in Public Land Health monitoring. Existing AMPs would be revised, as 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

464 

necessary, to facilitate the obtainment of the Public Land Health Standards. New AMPs would 

be developed, as necessary. These actions may result in beneficial impacts and may help 

movement toward achieving Public Land Health Standards; however, it would likely be at a 

slower pace than under Alternatives II and V. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management would actions impact rangeland 

resources, either directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development, testing, and/or 

other activities that result in surface clearance of vegetation may result in highly localized 

adverse impacts. The degree to which these become long-term disturbance areas would 

depend on the care that is originally taken to minimize vegetation disturbance, as well as the 

degree to which appropriate reclamation techniques are implemented. 

Under this alternative, there is a small potential for conflict between visitors to cultural sites and 

livestock grazing. The areas designated as undeveloped may provide long-term benefits due to 

the fact that they may reduce the potential for such conflicts. The preparation of Cultural 

Resource Management Plans for Public Use D (Developed) cultural sites may also reduce 

conflict due to the fact that rangeland resources management issues would be considered in the 

plans. 

Under Alternative III, some beneficial impact to rangeland resources may result due to the 

restriction of any direct impacts to cultural resource communities and/or to sites. This restriction 

may eventually result in more numerous, larger areas in the Monument to which no direct 

impacts would be allowed. This may result in the indirect protection of the rangeland resources 

within these areas, and may eventually provide beneficial impacts to these resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative III, up to 3,021 acres of land currently unavailable for leasing could be leased. 

This may result in the development of up to eight new well pads; with the associated roads, 

equaling 73 acres of long-term disturbance (see Table 4-1). The result of leasing these areas 

under Alternative III may be considerably more direct adverse impacts to rangeland than those 

expected under Alternatives I, II and V, but less than those expected under Alternative IV. 

Under this alternative, some of these impacts may be mitigated by the application of appropriate 

BMPs and standardized reclamation practices, such as COAs on the new leases. Rangeland 

disturbed by road, utility corridor, and/or pad construction would be rehabilitated, including with 

the seeding of native plant species, or non-native species, where considered necessary. The 

development of GADPs by the BLM, and five-year development plans by the lessees, may 

provide long-term benefit to rangeland resource planning. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative III, in terms of transportation management, would be the second least restrictive of 

all of the alternatives. Under this alternative, 89 miles of roads would be open to all forms of 

travel (including travel for administrative purposes and travel necessary to support new and 

existing oil and gas leases). This may result in 1,096 acres of surface disturbance, as well as in 

the second highest road density (0.73 miles/square mile) of any of the alternatives. 

These factors may contribute to adverse impacts to rangeland resources due to the fact that 

more ground may be disturbed and that more forage may be removed. Relatively few existing 

roads would be returned to native vegetation through reclamation. Indirectly, opportunities for 

noxious weed introduction and/or spread may increase in proportion to the increased numbers 

of roads. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

465 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, 25,549 acres of the Monument surface would continue to be managed as 

three WSAs under existing non-impairment standards and practices, in accordance with Interim 

Management Policy, until they are designated as wilderness or until they are released by 

Congress (BLM 1995). Some grazing allotments coincide with these WSAs. In these areas, 

continued restrictions on the construction of permanent structures, facilities, and/or on surfacedisturbing activities may continue to result in beneficial impacts because forage may not be 

disturbed in these areas. However, livestock operators often find it easier, and more effective, 

to manage their livestock through the construction of such facilities. 

Similar to all of the action alternatives, these areas would also be designated as a NGD/NSO. 

Therefore, should these areas be released from WSA status, they would be protected from 

surface-disturbing activities because they would still be managed for wilderness characteristics. 

All of the action alternatives include management actions intended to protect and enhance the 

wilderness characteristics of the WSA areas. These actions may result in greater beneficial 

impacts to rangeland resources than those expected under Alternative I. 

Under this alternative, the 427-acre McElmo RNA would continue to be managed with special 

management prescriptions for herpetological research and habitat protection. Likewise, this 

area would be protected from surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development by 

an NSO. This management may result in beneficial impacts to rangeland resources in this area. 

Alternative IV

Rangeland Resources Management 

Grazing administration allocations would be the same under Alternative IV as under Alternative I 

(the No Action Alternative). Twenty-eight allotments would continue to be available for livestock 

grazing, with 8,492 active AUMs on a total of 165,000 acres (see Map 3). Alternative IV would 

also suspend active preference of 1,692 AUMS, identified in all affected grazing permits. 

Suspended AUMs would be acknowledged in AMPs, but would be unavailable for livestock 

grazing. 

This analysis assumes that current rangeland resource conditions and trends described in 

Section 3.2.7 would continue into the future under these management actions. Current 

rangeland evaluation and monitoring data (BLM 2001i) show that in 18 of the 28 allotments, 

livestock grazing is contributing to allotments not achieving Public Land Health Standards. Over 

time, this trend may continue to result in adverse impacts to rangeland resources, and in failure 

to meet Public Land Health Standards in most allotments. 

Alternative IV does, however, consist of a number of other specific rangeland management 

actions that are not included under Alternative I. Adjustments to spring livestock grazing 

duration and extent of use, and implementation of a rotation-grazing system, would be applied. 

The allowable utilization level of current year growth would be no more than 30 percent of the 

upland shrub and riparian woody species. In riparian systems, minimum stubble height 

standards for perennial grasses and forbs would be four inches in spring-use pastures and six 

inches in fall- and winter-use pastures. Allowable utilization would be 50 percent of current year 

production for desired cool- and warm-season perennial grass species. If utilization or stubble 

height standards are not achieved, annual adjustments in reduced livestock numbers or season 

of use would be made. Livestock grazing within an allotment would be authorized during the 

critical spring growth period from March 1 through May 31 for no more than two years in any 

three-year period. This would be accomplished by implementing a rotational grazing system or 

taking total non-use every third year. More stringent spring deferment (two years out of three) 

may be implemented or spring use would not be allowed where Public Land Health Standards 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

466 

are not being met. In the event a grazing permit is relinquished or becomes vacant, a 

determination would be made to re-issue a term grazing permit, close the allotment, or create a 

reserve forage allotment. Permittees and interested public would be invited to participate in 

Public Land Health monitoring. Existing AMPs would be revised, as necessary, to facilitate the 

obtainment of the Public Land Health Standards. New AMPs would be developed, as 

necessary. Although these actions may contribute to gradual improvement to some rangeland 

resources (when combined by the number of active AUMs and allotments), if these 

improvements occur, it may be at a considerably slower pace than under Alternatives II and V. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions would impact rangeland 

resources, either directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development and 

stabilization, testing, and/or other activities that result in surface clearance of vegetation may 

result in highly localized adverse impacts. The degree to which these become long-term 

disturbance areas would depend on the care that is originally taken to minimize vegetation 

disturbance, as well as on the degree to which appropriate reclamation techniques are 

implemented. 

There is a small potential for conflict between visitors to cultural sites and livestock grazing. The 

areas designated as undeveloped may provide long-term benefits due to the fact that they may 

reduce the potential for such conflicts. The preparation of Cultural Resource Management 

Plans for Public Use D (Developed) cultural sites may also reduce conflict due to the fact that 

rangeland resources management issues would be considered in the plans. 

Under Alternative IV, some beneficial impact to rangeland resources may result due to the 

restriction of any direct impacts to cultural resource communities and/or to sites. This restriction 

may eventually result in more numerous, larger areas in the Monument to which no direct 

impacts would be allowed. This may result in the indirect protection of the rangeland resources 

within these areas, and may eventually provide beneficial impacts to these resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative IV, a notably larger number of acres (up to 24,462) of lands currently 

unavailable for leasing could be leased. This may result in up to 59 well pads being developed, 

with associated roads equaling 447 acres of long-term disturbance. Some of these impacts 

may be mitigated by the application of appropriate BMPs and standardized reclamation 

practices, such as COAs on the new leases. Rangeland disturbed by associated roads, utility 

corridors, and/or pad construction would be rehabilitated, including with the seeding of both 

native and non-native plant species. The development of GADPs by the BLM, and 5-year 

development plans by the lessees, may provide some long-term benefit to rangeland resource 

planning. However, overall, considerable adverse impacts to rangeland resources may be 

expected from fluid minerals management under Alternative IV. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative IV, in terms of transportation management, would be the least restrictive of all of the 

alternatives. Under this alternative, 213 miles of roads would be open to all forms of travel 

(including travel for administrative and travel necessary to support new and existing oil and gas 

leases). This may result in 1,235 acres of surface disturbance, as well as in the highest road 

density (0.83 miles/square mile) of any of the alternatives. 

These factors may contribute to adverse direct impacts to all rangeland resources over the longterm, due to the increased fragmentation of habitat and to the chances of disturbance impacts to 

special status plant species and/or to significant plant communities. Opportunities for noxious 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

467 

weed introductions and/or spread may increase in proportion to the increased numbers of roads 

(Harris and Silvea-Lopez 1992, Zink et al. 1995). 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, 25,549 acres of the Monument surface would continue to be managed as 

three WSAs under existing non-impairment standards and practices, in accordance with Interim 

Management Policy, until they are designated as wilderness or until they are released by 

Congress (BLM 1995). Some grazing allotments coincide with these WSAs. In these areas, 

continued restrictions on the construction of permanent structures, facilities, and/or on surfacedisturbing activities may continue to result in beneficial impacts due to the fact that forage may 

not be disturbed in these areas. However, livestock operators often find it easier, and more 

effective, to manage their livestock through the construction of such facilities. 

Similar to all of the action alternatives, these areas would also be designated as a NGD/NSO. 

Therefore, should these areas be released from WSA status, they would be protected from 

long-term surface-disturbing activities because they would still be managed for wilderness 

characteristics. All of the action alternatives include additional management actions intended to 

protect and enhance the wilderness characteristics of the WSA areas. All of these actions may 

result in protection of livestock forage and rangeland resources. 

Under this alternative, the 427-acre McElmo RNA would continue to be managed with special 

management prescriptions for herpetological research and habitat protection. Likewise, this 

area would be protected from surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development by 

an NSO. This management may result in beneficial impacts to rangeland resources in this area. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Rangeland Resources Management 

Similar to Alternative II, the Preferred Alternative would include 6,437 active AUMs, which would 

be considerably fewer than those proposed under Alternative I (8,492 AUMs). Alternative V 

would suspend active preference of 3,706 AUMS, identified in all affected grazing permits. 

Suspended AUMs would be acknowledged in AMPs, but would be unavailable for livestock 

grazing. Twenty-three allotments (five fewer than under Alternative I) would be available for 

livestock grazing. Sand Canyon East, Sand Canyon West, Rock Creek, Goodman Gulch, and 

Trail Canyon allotments would be made unavailable to livestock grazing (see Map 3). These 

allotments occur in the southeastern part of the Monument and total 6,059 acres of primarily 

pinyon-juniper woodlands with low forage production. Closing these allotments may avoid 

conflicts with cultural and natural resources and recreation, and accelerate achievement of 

Public Land Health Standards in these areas. Reduction of AUMs throughout the remaining 

allotments may result in reduced pressure on existing vegetation and in expected beneficial 

impacts to forage quality and quantity. 

A number of specific management actions are included in Alternative V to hasten compliance 

with Public Land Health standards. These would include adjusting spring livestock grazing 

duration and extent of use, and implementing a rotation-grazing system. Allowable utilization 

levels of current year growth would be no more than 30 percent of upland shrub and riparian 

woody species. Utilization would be 35 percent of current year production for cool- and warmseason perennial grass species. In riparian systems, minimum stubble height standards for 

perennial grasses and forbs would be four inches in spring-use pasture and six inches in falland winter-use pastures. Livestock grazing within an allotment would be authorized during the 

critical spring growth period from March 1 through May 31 for no more than one year in any 

three-year period. This would be accomplished by implementing a rotational livestock grazing 

system or taking total non-use for two of every three years. Spring use would not be allowed 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

468 

where Public Land Health Standards are not being met. In the event a grazing permit is 

relinquished or becomes vacant, a determination would be made to re-issue a term grazing 

permit, close the allotment, or create a reserve forage allotment. Permittees and interested 

public would be invited to participate in monitoring. Existing AMPs would be reviewed on a 

regular schedule and revised, as necessary, in order to address current allotment conditions 

and permittee needs in the context of achieving Public Land Health Standards and other 

resource management objectives. These actions may be expected to result in beneficial 

impacts to rangeland resources, as well as in accelerated achievement of Land Health 

Standards, in comparison to the other action alternatives. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, few cultural resources management actions would impact rangeland 

resources, either directly or indirectly. However, to some degree, development and 

stabilization, testing, and/or other activities that result in surface clearance of vegetation may 

result in highly localized adverse impacts. The degree to which these become long-term 

disturbance areas would depend on the care that is originally taken to minimize vegetation 

disturbance, as well as in the degree to which appropriate reclamation techniques are 

implemented. 

There is a small potential for conflict between visitors to cultural sites and livestock grazing. The 

areas designated as undeveloped may provide long-term benefits due to the fact that they may 

reduce the potential for such conflicts. The preparation of Cultural Resource Management 

Plans for Public Use D (Developed) cultural sites may also reduce conflict due to the fact that 

rangeland resources management issues would be considered in the plans. 

Under Alternative V, some beneficial impact to rangeland resources may result due to the 

restriction of any direct impacts to cultural resource communities and/or to sites. This restriction 

may eventually result in more numerous, larger areas in the Monument to which no direct 

impacts would be allowed. This may result in the indirect protection of the rangeland resources 

within these areas, and may eventually provide beneficial impacts to these resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Similar to Alternative II, under the Preferred Alternative, up to 880 acres of lands currently 

unavailable for leasing could be leased. This may result in the development of up to two well 

pads, with associated roads equaling up to 12 acres of long-term disturbance (see Table 4-1). 

Many of these may be mitigated by the application of appropriate BMPs and standardized 

reclamation practices, such as COAs on the new leases. Rangeland disturbed from road, utility 

corridor, and/or pad construction would be rehabilitated, including with the seeding of native 

plant species. The development of GADPs by the BLM, and 5-year development plans by the 

lessees, may provide a small long-term benefit to rangeland resource planning. The result of 

leasing these areas, as well as the discussed management actions under Alternative V, may 

result in limited adverse impacts to rangeland resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative V, in terms of transportation management, would fall in the middle of all alternatives. 

Under this alternative, 169 miles of roads would be open to all forms of s (including travel for 

administrative purposes and travel necessary to support new and existing oil and gas leases). 

This may result in 980 acres of surface disturbance, as well as in a road density of 0.66 

mile/square mile. 

These factors may result in adverse impacts to all rangeland resources over the long-term due 

to the loss of forage, the increased fragmentation of habitat, and the increased chances of 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

469 

disturbance to special status plant species and/or to significant plant communities. 

Opportunities for noxious weed introduction and spread may increase in proportion to the 

increased numbers of roads (Harris and Silvea-Lopez 1992, Zink et al. 1995). 

Other Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, 25,549 acres of the Monument surface would continue to be managed as 

three WSAs under existing non-impairment standards and practices, in accordance with Interim 

Management Policy, until they are designated as wilderness or until they are released by 

Congress (BLM 1995). Some grazing allotments coincide with these WSAs. In these areas, 

continued restrictions on the construction of permanent structures, facilities, and/or on surfacedisturbing activities may continue to result in beneficial impacts due to the fact that forage may 

not be disturbed in these areas. However, livestock operators often find it easier, and more 

effective, to manage their livestock through the construction of such facilities. 

Similar to all of the action alternatives, these areas would also be designated as a NGD/NSO. 

Therefore, should these areas be released from WSA status, they would be protected from 

long-term surface-disturbing activities because they would still be managed for wilderness 

characteristics. All of the action alternatives include additional management actions intended to 

protect and enhance the wilderness characteristics of the WSA areas. All of these actions may 

result in protection of livestock forage and rangeland resources. 

The existing McElmo RNA would be considerably expanded under Alternative V (from 427 to 

7,826 acres), and would continue to be managed with special management prescriptions for 

herpetological research and habitat protection. Likewise, portions of this area are protected 

from surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development by an NSO. This 

management may result in beneficial impacts to rangeland resources in this area. 

Alternative V would also include the management of 25 miles of river reaches as suitable for 

WSR designation. This may result in beneficial impacts to rangeland resources throughout 

these reaches, due to the fact that protecting riparian vegetation is key to maintaining the WSR 

status. 

4.2.16.3. Rangeland Resources Management Impact Comparison 

The rangeland resources impact comparison is presented in Table 4-25. This table compares 

the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on rangeland 

resources. 

4.2.16.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts are discussed in terms of: 1) past, present, and future actions in non-BLM 

portions of the Monument and the surrounding region; 2) the impacts resulting from ongoing 

actions on BLM lands, not included this DRMP/DEIS; and 3) the additive and synergistic effects 

of multiple management actions on rangeland resources. For this discussion, the region is 

considered the areas immediately adjacent to the Monument, as well as the entire vicinity that 

comprises Dolores and Montezuma Counties. 

Livestock grazing has occurred in the Monument, as well as throughout the general vicinity, for 

decades. The general condition of the range throughout this area is poor. This is due to 

overlapping use by livestock and wild herbivores, the general unsuitability of this ecoregion’s 

plant communities to support extensive and long-term domestic herbivore grazing, and to the 

regional drought. All of the potential adverse impacts discussed as consequences of different 

alternatives are cumulative to prior degradation of rangeland resources. Therefore, adverse 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

470 

impacts that may result from management actions under this DRMP/DEIS may have the 

potential to be cumulatively greater than when assessed in isolation. 

Regardless of management actions in the Monument, direct adverse impacts to rangeland 

resources may result from ongoing human development throughout the general region, which 

may bring new roads, fluid minerals development, housing, commercial development, and/or 

increasing recreational use of rangeland. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the currently unleased acres would continue to be unavailable 

for new fluid minerals leases. However, continued development of areas currently leased is 

expected to result in up to 121 new well pads over the next 20 years, with up to an associated 

eight new treatment facilities, 53 miles of pipeline, and 67 miles of roads. The expected 

commensurate surface disturbance from these developments is expected to total up to 883 

acres of short-term disturbance or up to 428 acres of long-term impacts to rangeland resources, 

after reclamation of abandoned and non-productive well pads. 

Future development of fluid minerals on currently leased and private surface lands within the 

Monument, as well as on adjacent areas, may result in impacts similar to those from 

development on the BLM portions. These cumulative impacts may be greater if reclamation of 

short- and long-term disturbances and avoidance of riparian areas are not performed to any 

standards. Reclamation on private lands is negotiated between the landowner and oil and gas 

operator and may, therefore, be less stringent in terms of plant species composition, cover, 

and/or structure. Failure to perform adequate reclamation and/or to avoid riparian/wetland 

areas may result in indirect impacts to BLM lands due to the fact that this may create a seed 

source for noxious weed infestations and/or contribute to sedimentation in riparian areas. 

Degradation of these areas may also result in a decrease in the areal extent of vegetation 

communities and/or in the quality of wildlife habitat and human recreation experience throughout 

the area. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

471 

Table 4-25 Comparison of Impacts to Rangeland Resources 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Rangeland Resources 

Permit 8,492 active AUMs. Manage 28 

allotments. 

Not meeting Land 

Health Standards. 

Permit 6,437 active AUMs. Manage 23 

allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

rapidly progress 

toward meeting Public 

Land Health 

Standards. 

Permit 8,368 active AUMs. Manage 23 

allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Permit 8,492 active AUMs. Manage 28 

allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

progress toward 

meeting Public Land 

Health Standards. 

Permit 6,437 active AUMs. Manage 23 

allotments. Take 

specific actions to 

rapidly progress 

toward meeting Public 

Land Health 

Standards. 

Cultural Resources Protect cultural sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities, sites, 

and isolated finds. 

Protect cultural 

communities and 

sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities and 

sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities and 

sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make up to 880 acres 

available for new 

leases. Allow up to 2 

new well pads (with 

up to 18 acres of 

disturbance). 

Make up to 3,021 

acres available for 

new leases. Allow up 

to 8 new well pads 

(with up to 73 acres of 

disturbance). 

Make up to 24,462 

acres available for 

new leases. Allow up 

to 59 new well pads 

(with up to 447 acres 

of disturbance). 

Make up to 880 acres 

available for new 

leases. Allow up to 2 

new well pads (with 

up to 18 acres of 

disturbance). 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles 

road miles (with 864 

acres of disturbance); 0.58 miles per square 

mile road density. 

Manage 139 miles 

road miles (with 806 

acres of disturbance); 0.54 miles per square 

mile road density. 

Manage 189 miles 

road miles (with 1,096 

acres of disturbance); 0.73 miles per square 

mile road density. 

Manage 213 miles 

road miles (with 1,235 

acres of disturbance); 0.83 miles per square 

mile road density. 

Manage 169 miles 

road miles (with 980 

acres of disturbance); 0.66 miles per square 

mile road density. 

Other Resources: Manage 25,549 acres Manage 25,549 acres Manage 25,549 acres Manage 25,549 acres Manage 25,549 acres 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

472 

Table 4-25 Comparison of Impacts to Rangeland Resources 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Special 

Designations 

as WSA. Manage 

427 acres as RNA. 

Manage 0 acres as 

WSR. 

as WSA. Manage 

5,223 acres for 

Wilderness 

Character. Manage 

7,826 acres as RNA. 

Manage 25.3 miles as 

WSR (suitable). 

as WSA. Manage 

427 acres as RNA. 

Manage 0 acres as 

WSR. 

as WSA. Manage 

427 acres as RNA. 

Manage 0 acres as 

WSR. 

as WSA. Manage 

5,223 for Wilderness 

Character. Manage 

7,826 acres as RNA. 

Manage 0 acres as 

WSR. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

473 

4.2.17. Recreation 

The primary goal for recreation is to manage and enable access to the Monument for 

recreational activities while, at the same time, protecting cultural and natural resources, 

ensuring compatibility with other existing and permitted uses, and considering impacts on 

adjacent landowners and the local community. The management goals include: 

 produce Recreation Management Objectives for specific recreation opportunities, 

consisting of activities, experiences, and benefits; 

 sustain Recreation Setting Prescriptions to produce targeted recreation opportunities 

and to facilitate the attainment of experiences and benefits; and 

 use Providers’ Implementing Actions to conduct, yet constrain, all management, 

marketing, monitoring, and administrative support actions, as necessary to produce 

targeted recreation opportunities, facilitate outcome attainment, and sustain prescribed 

recreation setting character. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to recreation management. 

Recreational activities offered throughout the Monument include, but are not limited to, wildlife 

viewing, scenic drives, hunting, camping, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, sports 

climbing, OHV use, accessing a number of Ancestral Puebloan culture sites, and experiencing 

the scenic vistas of Colorado Plateau geology and ecology. Determining adverse or beneficial 

impacts to recreational resources is often difficult. One person may perceive an action to be 

adverse; another person may perceive it to be beneficial. For example, certain management 

actions may promote a backcountry recreation experience, while other management actions 

promote a frontcountry recreation experience. 

Direct impacts to recreation may include road closures or openings, changes to methods of 

travel, and/or entrance fees. Indirect impacts may include the presence of livestock in a 

recreation area, the sight of mineral wells, and/or water diversion. 

4.2.17.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Impact analysis from recreation management actions and to recreation uses is difficult. 

However, differences between the alternatives in terms of experiences being offered can be 

evaluated. For example, Alternative IV would provide a more developed experience with 

numerous travel roads, facilities, and visitors. Alternatives II and V, on the other hand, would 

provide greater opportunities for backcountry travel, offering more solitude, fewer roads, and 

fewer facilities. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to recreation include the following: 

 Application of appropriate BMPs and standardized reclamation practices would be 

required as COAs for all new leases, permits, and surface disturbance areas (see 

Appendix E). 

 This impact analysis considers the spatial boundary as the existing limits of recreational 

lands and facilities within the Monument, and the temporal boundary as the 20-year 

planning horizon. 

 Cumulative impacts are considered at the regional scale and, more specifically, for 

Dolores and Montezuma Counties. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

474 

4.2.17.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to recreation may differ in extent and severity, depending on the specific management 

actions under each alternative for different resource uses The following sections describe the 

impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions directly 

proposed for recreation, as well as those anticipated to result from the management actions 

proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and travel management. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Recreation Management 

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to recreation resources would not change from current 

conditions. This alternative would continue to ensure that recreational sites at Lowry, Painted 

Hand, and Sand Canyon Pueblos are maintained. A broad range of recreation settings and 

activities would be maintained, while preventing and/or reducing resource degradation caused 

by recreation use, and while providing for visitor health and safety. Recreation opportunities 

would continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as a part of project-level planning. The 

BLM would provide for a blend of settings and opportunities. Local communities would provide 

facility-dependent settings and opportunities. Visitor services and facility requirements would be 

managed to meet recreation goals. This alternative would continue to manage recreation based 

on “emphasis areas” (whereas one area may emphasize wildlife habitat, another may 

emphasize livestock grazing, and yet another may emphasize recreation). Existing limitations 

and closures would be retained. Based on the Proclamation, no motorized and no mechanized 

cross-country travel would be allowed. No new commercial SRPs would be issued. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, cultural resources would continue to be developed for visitation and for 

interpretation. Areas would be made available for day use, where feasible, with the 

development of infrastructure to support visitors, where needed. As a result, there would be no 

change in the impacts to recreational use under this alternative. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, no new fluid mineral leases would be available (although existing leases 

would not be affected). Site-specific visual quality objectives and design guidelines for 

infrastructure development would continue to be implemented. Therefore, there would be no 

impacts from this management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources management would be based on 8,492 active 

AUMs and 28 allotments. There would be no new management actions under this alternative, 

which may mean that poor Public Land Heal would likely continue (but without significant 

impacts on recreation management). 

Transportation Management 

This alternative would maintain the current 149 miles of roads within the Monument. No 

separation of roads between bike, foot, and/or horse would occur, and conflicts between 

recreation users may continue in the Sand Canyon/East Rock Creek area. All motorized and 

mechanized travel would be restricted to designated roads. A total of 131 miles of roads would 

be designated open to all forms of travel. Seven transportation facilities would be included 

under this alternative. This management may have beneficial impacts on recreation due to the 

fact that visitors would be able to access recreational opportunities. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

475 

Other Resources Management 

Spectacular scenery is one of the primary reasons people come to the Monument to recreate. 

Therefore, to protect this resource, visual quality would be actively managed. Visual quality is 

measured on a scale from Class I (most pristine) to Class V (most altered). Based on Interim 

Guidance, WSAs are to be managed as Class I. For this alternative, 25,976 acres would be 

managed according to Class I; 139,265 acres would be managed according to Class II; and 94 

acres would be managed according to Class III. This alternative would continue to manage 

visual resources according to interim management, which states, “permanent or long-term 

visual intrusions would be discouraged” and “Preserve scenic values enhance viewing 

opportunities and increase variety where appropriate” (BLM 1985). 

Alternative II

Recreation Management 

This alternative defines the Monument in terms of RMZs. Each zone would be managed in 

terms of its defined objectives and setting. Under this alternative, the BLM would provide for 

day-use visitation to the Monument, as well as for recreational opportunities that include such 

activities as hiking, biking, horseback riding, OHV use, driving, and/or viewing of archeological 

resources. Yet, given the restrictions on travel and the lack of facilities, this alternative may 

largely promote an undeveloped character in the Monument. 

Under this alternative, there would be an overall reduction of total road miles available for travel 

through the Monument, which may promote a backcountry setting for most recreation activities. 

Because the number of available roads throughout the Monument would be reduced and 

reclaimed under this alternative, motorized visitors would be concentrated in a few developed 

locations. The Monument would charge visitors an entrance fee for developed sites, including 

for the Sand Canyon/Rock Creek management area, as well as for Lowry, Painted Hand, and 

Sand Canyon Pueblo sites. This may likely reduce recreation usage of these areas. 

Visitation would focus on incidental visitors and local residents. Camping, campfires, 

recreational shooting, geocaching, and climbing would be prohibited throughout the Monument. 

No new construction of parking areas would occur, and the construction of facilities and/or of 

infrastructure would be discouraged. Although this alternative would require less funding to 

maintain its few structures, it may be unlikely to keep up with the increasing demand for 

recreation on public lands. This alternative would manage almost solely for day-use visitors 

seeking quiet and solitude through backcountry experiences. A total of 8,211 acres would be 

managed for public visitation, and 157,124 acres would be managed for backcountry use. No 

new SRPs and no renewal of existing SRPs would be allowed. Because most of the Monument 

would not be accessible, and overnight camping would be prohibited, much of the Monument 

may receive little to no recreational use. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, the Monument would be promoted as an outdoor museum, allowing visitors 

to experience cultural and natural resources in their natural undisturbed landscape through selfdiscovery. In addition, 13 cultural sites would be developed for public visitation. This would 

provide specific areas to which the public is directed, would facilitate visitation on developed 

roads, and would provide interpretive signs and education. The development of these cultural 

resource sites may enhance frontcountry visitor experiences. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, up to 880 acres would become available for new mineral leases. 

Protective measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of maintenance activities 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

476 

to reduce human disturbance and to minimize the need for site visits to any existing lease 

areas. Leases would stipulate that access be limited to one road for many of the energy 

developments. No increase in infrastructure development in new lease areas would occur along 

the Byway. A total of up to 18 acres of ground would be disturbed because of this alternative. 

Given the required stipulations, adverse impacts to recreation may be minimal. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between 

livestock grazing, recreating publics, and the protection of cultural resources. There would be a 

reduction of 2,055 active AUMs (from 8,492 to 6,437). Of primary benefit to recreational 

activities may be the closing of five livestock allotments to grazing (which are located in an area 

popular to hikers, mountain bike riders, and horseback riders, (i.e., Sand Canyon/East Rock). 

The removal of livestock from this area may provide beneficial impacts because of rangeland 

resources management, and may eliminate conflicts of use on trails. 

Transportation Management 

This alternative would propose 139 miles of roads within the Monument. No separation of roads 

between bike, foot, and/or horse would occur, and some conflicts between recreation users may 

continue to occur in the Sand Canyon/East Rock Creek area. A total of 50 miles of roads would 

be designated open to all forms of travel. All existing user-created roads would be closed. All 

motorized and mechanized travel would be restricted to designated roads. This decrease in 

available roads may discourage the public from exploring more of the Monument. 

Other Resources Management 

Spectacular scenery is one of the primary reasons people come to the Monument to recreate. 

Therefore, to protect this resource, visual quality would be managed. Visual quality is measured 

on a scale from Class I (most pristine) to Class V (most altered). This alternative would manage 

28,598 acres as Class I; 126,643 as Class II; and 94 acres as Class III. 

Alternative III

Recreation Management 

This alternative manages for a mix of backcountry and frontcountry opportunities. Under this 

alternative, there would be an overall increase of total road miles available to travel through the 

Monument, which may potentially increase recreational resource usage. However, the number 

of public roads available throughout the Monument would be reduced and reclaimed, which may 

potentially deter visitors from using more remote sections of the Monument (concentrating them 

in areas with roads). 

This alternative defines the Monument in terms of RMZs. Each zone would be managed in 

terms of its defined objectives and setting. Under this alternative, the BLM would provide 

destination points for local and regional visitors, and would actively market the area as a tourism 

opportunity for people in the Four Corners area. This may require the construction of some 

facilities and infrastructure, which may result in a greater reliance on collaboration with counties 

for funding and/or for work and materials. 

Under this alternative, there would be an overall reduction from current levels of total road miles 

available to travel. The transportation system would allow for a mix of uses; however, this 

alternative would attempt to segregate possible conflicting uses by establishing separate trails 

for foot/bike and for foot/horse. The Monument would charge visitors an entrance fee for the 

AHC only. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

477 

Recreational shooting, geocaching, and climbing would be prohibited. Camping and campfires 

would be prohibited in the Pueblo Sites, Sand Canyon/Rock Creek, and AHC Recreation 

Management areas, but would be allowed elsewhere. Parking areas may be established to 

accommodate up to 10 vehicles. 

In summary, approximately 18,875 acres would be managed for public visitation, and 146,460 

acres would be managed for backcountry use. Existing SRPs would be allowed to continue and 

could be renewed. New permits would not be issued. The transportation system would consist 

of 189 miles of roads. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, the Monument would be promoted as an outdoor museum, allowing 

visitors to experience cultural and natural resources in their natural undisturbed landscape 

through self-discovery. In addition, 13 to 25 cultural sites would be developed and interpreted 

for the public. This would direct visitors to specific public roads for hiking and viewing 

developed portions of the Monument. Cultural resources management may be beneficial to 

recreation. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative III, there would be up to 3,021 acres available for new leases. Protective 

measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of maintenance activities to reduce 

human disturbance and to minimize the need for site visits in any existing lease areas. Leases 

would stipulate that access be limited to one road for all energy developments. This increase in 

acreage available for leasing may lead to an increase in infrastructure development in areas 

currently used for recreational activities (which may be visually distracting to visitors), or may 

eliminate roads and/or areas currently used by recreationists. This alternative would result in up 

to 73 acres of ground disturbance. Required stipulations may minimize adverse impacts to 

recreation. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between 

livestock grazing and the protection of cultural resources. Under this alternative, there would be 

a minor reduction of active AUMS (from 8,492 AUMs under Alternative I to 8,368 under this 

alternative). These AUMs would be accounted for by closing the five allotments in the Sand 

Canyon/Rock Creek area. The removal of livestock from this area may eliminate further 

livestock impacts to cultural resources and may eliminate conflicts of use on trails. Conflicts 

between recreational activities and livestock elsewhere in the Monument may continue at the 

same level. 

Transportation Management 

This alternative would allow 189 miles of roads within the Monument. Segregation of road uses 

would be incorporated into this alternative to reduce conflicts between bike, foot, and horse 

travel, as well as between motorized and non-motorized travel. A total of 60 miles of roads 

would be designated open to all forms of travel. All motorized and mechanized travel would be 

restricted to designated roads. Alternative III would promote low-impact activity, and would add 

a few more destination facilities than proposed under Alternative II (13 facilities) to support the 

transportation system. 

Other Resources Management 

Spectacular scenery is one of the primary reasons people come to the Monument to recreate. 

Therefore, in order to protect this resource, visual quality would be managed. Visual quality is 

measured on a scale from Class I (most pristine) to Class V (most altered). This alternative 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

478 

would manage 25,976 acres as Class I; 34,754 as Class II; and 104,605 acres as Class III. 

Alternative III visual resource management may not be as beneficial as management proposed 

under Alternatives I and II.

Alternative IV

Recreation Management 

This alternative defines the Monument in terms of RMZs. Each zone would be managed in 

terms of its defined objectives and setting. This alternative would manage for a mix of 

backcountry and frontcountry opportunities, with a greater emphasis on larger developed areas. 

This alternative would promote a destination management strategy, marketing tourism for 

national and international visitors. This marketing strategy may require greater coordination 

among county and Federal entities to meet facility and infrastructure demands. Management 

actions would continue to provide multiple-use opportunities in the Monument, while 

emphasizing cultural resource values. 

Under this alternative, management plans for recreation would restrict certain activities (i.e., 

target shooting and climbing) in various SRMAs in the Monument. Camping and campfires 

would be allowed in designated areas in the more developed recreation management zones. 

Dispersed camping and campfires would be allowed in less developed recreation management 

zones. Additional roads would be designated, including a variety of transportation methods in 

order to allow users to explore and utilize more of the Monument than is currently available. 

In summary, approximately 47,056 acres would be managed for public visitation, and 118,279 

acres would be managed for backcountry use. New SRPs would be allowed on a case-by-case 

basis. The transportation system would consist of a total of 213 miles of roads. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, the Monument would be promoted as an outdoor museum, allowing 

visitors to experience the natural and cultural resources through self-discovery. In addition, 13 

to 25 cultural sites would be developed for public interpretation. This may be a beneficial 

impact, due to the fact that it would direct visitors to specific public roads for hiking and viewing 

in more developed portions of the Monument. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative IV, there would be up to 24,462 acres available for new leases. Protective 

measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of maintenance activities to reduce 

human disturbance and to minimize the need for site visits to any existing lease areas. Leases 

would stipulate that access be limited to one road for all energy developments. This increase in 

acreage available for leasing may lead to an increase in infrastructure development near 

recreational areas, which may be visually distracting to visitors using these areas. Development 

of these lease areas may increase road usage by commercial vehicles accessing these areas. 

As a result, both noise and visual impacts to recreating publics may result. This alternative 

would result in up to 447 acres of ground disturbance. Required stipulations may help to 

minimize adverse impacts to recreation. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources would be managed to improve land heath, yet, to a 

lesser level and at a slower rate than under Alternatives II and V. Although active AUMs would 

remain at the current level, additional restrictions on livestock management would be 

implemented. No livestock grazing allotments would be closed, which may mean that conflicts 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

479 

between livestock grazing and recreating publics in the Sand Canyon/East Rock area would 

continue. This alternative may be the least beneficial to recreation. 

Transportation Management 

This alternative proposes 213 miles of roads within the Monument. Segregation of road uses 

would be incorporated into this alternative to reduce conflicts between bike, foot and horse 

travel, as well as between motorized and non-motorized travel. A total of 102 miles of roads 

would be designated open to all forms of travel. All motorized and mechanized travel would be 

restricted to designated roads. 

Alternative IV would have the fewest restrictions for motorized and mechanized access 

throughout the Monument. Alternative IV would emphasize more destination facilities to support 

the transportation system than would all of the other alternatives (20 facilities). No existing 

user-created roads would be closed. This increase in available roads may encourage the public 

to explore more of the Monument. 

Other Resources Management 

Spectacular scenery is one of the primary reasons people come to the Monument to recreate. 

Therefore, to protect this resource, visual quality would be managed. Visual quality is measured 

on a scale from Class I (most pristine) to Class V (most altered). This alternative would manage 

25,976 acres as Class I; 27,535 as Class II; 94,327 acres as Class III; and 17,497 acres as 

Class IV. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Recreation Management 

This alternative defines the Monument in terms of RMZs. Each zone would be managed in 

terms of its defined objectives and setting. Certain zones would be managed and marketed for 

regional, national, and international visitors, while the majority of the Monument would be 

managed for visitation by local residents. Construction of facilities and infrastructure would be 

kept to a minimum, but would be constructed, as needed, in the more developed recreation 

zones. This alternative would promote a destination management strategy for some areas and 

an undeveloped strategy for others, and would manage for a mix of backcountry and 

frontcountry opportunities. Under this alternative, there would be an overall increase (when 

compared with Alternative I) in the total miles of roads available to travel on in the Monument. 

Under this alternative, recreational shooting and geocaching would be prohibited monumentwide. Camping and campfires would not be allowed in the more developed management 

zones; however, these activities would be allowed within the majority of the Monument (in the 

less developed management zones). 

In summary, approximately 7,875 acres would be managed for public visitation, and 157,460 

acres would be managed for backcountry use. The transportation system for this alternative 

would consist of 169 miles of roads, which would allow for a combination of uses. Ten SRPs 

could be issued. 

Cultural Resource Management 

Under Alternative V, the Monument would be promoted as an outdoor museum, allowing visitors 

to experience cultural and natural resources through self-discovery. In addition, 13 to 25 

cultural sites would be developed, directing visitors to more developed portions of the 

Monument. Cultural resources management under this alternative, may be beneficial to 

recreation. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

480 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, up to 880 acres would become available for new mineral leases. 

Protective measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of maintenance activities 

to reduce human disturbance and to minimize the need for site visits to any existing lease 

areas. Leases would stipulate that access be limited to one road for many of the energy 

developments. No increase in infrastructure development in new lease areas would occur along 

the Byway. A total of up to 18 acres of ground would be disturbed because of this alternative. 

However, given required stipulations, adverse impacts to recreation may be minimal. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between 

livestock grazing, recreating publics, and the protection of cultural resources. There would be a 

reduction of 2,055 active AUMs (from 8,492 to 6,437). Of primary benefit to recreating publics, 

may be closing five livestock allotments to livestock grazing (which are located in an area 

popular to hikers, mountain bike riders, and horseback riders, i.e., Sand Canyon/East Rock. 

The removal of livestock from these areas may further eliminate impacts to cultural resources 

resulting from livestock and conflicts of use on trails. 

Transportation Management 

This alternative would allow 169 miles of roads within the Monument. Some separation of roads 

between bike, foot, and/or horse would occur, which may help to alleviate conflicts in the Sand 

Canyon/East Rock Creek area. A total of 74 miles of roads would be designated open to all 

forms of travel. All motorized and mechanized travel would be restricted to designated roads. 

Alternative V would promote low-impact activity, but would add minimal facilities and 

infrastructure (11 facilities), thereby not disturbing the pristine experience of the area. Several 

user-created roads would be closed. 

Other Resources Management 

Spectacular scenery is one of the primary reasons people come to the Monument to recreate. 

Therefore, in order to protect this resource, visual quality would be managed. Visual quality is 

measured on a scale from Class I (most pristine) to Class V (most altered). This alternative 

would manage 38,598 acres as Class I; 126,643 as Class II; and 94 acres as Class II. 

Alternative V may be more beneficial to recreation than Alternatives III and IV.

4.2.17.3. Recreation Management Impact Comparison 

The recreation management impact comparison is presented in Table 4-26. This table 

compares the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on 

recreation management. 

4.2.17.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Regionally and nationally, recreation is on the increase. As more and more people find 

themselves living in urban environments, the demand to recreate on public lands is becoming 

more intense. Depending on the target audience and the marketing strategy, those visiting the 

Monument may be primarily local residents, regional visitors, or national and international 

tourists. Managing the Monument for day-use visitors, by restricting access and camping, as 

Alternative II would propose, may likely move those seeking overnight camping opportunities to 

neighboring public lands. Providing limited facilities, yet offering a range of recreation 

opportunities, as described under Alternative V, may provide for day-use activities and overnight opportunities for dispersed camping. The absence of developed campgrounds with 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

481 

facilities for camp trailers may result in visitors who are looking for these amenities to use other 

public lands and/or private facilities. This concept of shifting uses based on what is or is not 

authorized in the Monument may be applied to all uses, including recreational shooting, 

geocaching, and others. 

Marketing for national and international tourism may increase visitation to the region and may 

boost the economic income of local counties, businesses, and residents. Depending on the 

influx of people that may result, regional infrastructure may be insufficient to support the 

demand. Services, such as Search and Rescue and/or law enforcement, may be strained. 

Increased recreation opportunities may result in an increased demand for infrastructure, which 

may cause visual impacts to the natural landscape. Construction of facilities with associated 

ground disturbance may result in loss of wildlife habitat and the possibility for erosion with 

additional sediments in stream systems. Noise levels from increased human presence (voices 

and vehicular) may reduce wildlife habitat security. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

482 

Table 4-26 Comparison of Impacts to Recreation Management 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Recreation 

Maintain developed 

recreation sites at 

Lowry, Painted Hand, 

and Sand Canyon for 

interpretation. Allow 

no new commercial 

permits. Allow 

dispersed recreational 

camping. Retain 

existing limitations 

and closures. No 

restrictions on 

geocaching, climbing 

or shooting. 

Manage 8,211 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 157,124 

acres for backcountry 

use. Allow no new 

SRPs, no renewal of 

existing SRPs. 

Prohibit 

camping, campfires, 

recreational shooting, 

geocaching, and 

climbing. 

Manage 18,875 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 146,460 

acres for backcountry 

use. Allow no new 

SRPs. Allow renewal 

of existing SRPs. 

Allow camping and 

campfires within 

Mockingbird MesaRincon, Squaw-Cross 

Canyons, and 

Goodman Point 

SRMAs. Do not allow 

geocaching, climbing 

or shooting any where 

in the Monument. 

Manage 47,056 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 118,279 

acres for backcountry 

use. Allow new SRPs 

on a case-by-case 

basis. Allow camping 

and campfires within 

Mockingbird MesaRincon, Squaw-Cross 

Canyons, and 

Goodman Point 

SRMAs, and in 

designated sites in 

other SRMAs. Do not 

allow geocaching, 

climbing or shooting 

any where in the 

Monument. 

Manage 7,875 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 157,460 

acres for backcountry 

use. Allow 10 SRPs. 

Allow camping and 

campfires within 

Mockingbird MesaRincon, Squaw-Cross 

Canyons, and 

Goodman Point 

SRMAs. Allow 

climbing in 

designated sites only. 

Do not allow 

geocaching or 

shooting any where in 

the Monument. 

Cultural Resources Develop new sites for controlled visitation. Develop 13 sites for visitation. Develop 13 to 25 sites for visitation. Develop 13 to 25 sites for visitation. Develop 13 to 25 sites for visitation. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

lease (with up to 

18 acres or 

disturbance). 

Make up to 3,021 new 

acres available for 

lease (with up to 

73 acres of 

disturbance). 

Make up to 24,462 

new acres available 

for lease (with up to 

447 acres of 

disturbance). 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

lease (with up to 18 

acres of disturbance). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

483 

Table 4-26 Comparison of Impacts to Recreation Management 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Rangeland 

Permit 8,492 AUMs. 

Manage 

28 allotments. 

Permit 6,437 AUMs; 

Manage 

23 allotments. 

Permit 8,368 AUMs. 

Manage 

23 allotments. 

Permit 8,492 AUMs. 

Manage 

28 allotments. 

Permit 6,437 AUMs. 

Manage 

23 allotments. 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles 

roads. Allow 7 

transportation 

facilities. 

Manage 139 miles 

roads. Allow 7 

transportation 

facilities. 

Manage 189 miles 

roads. Allow 13 

transportation 

facilities. 

Manage 213 miles 

roads. Allow 20 

transportation 

facilities. 

Manage 169 miles 

roads. Allow 11 

transportation 

facilities. 

Other Resources: 

Visual Resources 

Manage 25,976 acres 

as VRM Class I. 

Manage 

139,265 acres as 

VRM Class II, 

Manage 94 acres as 

VRM Class III. 

Manage 38,598 acres 

as VRM Class I. 

Manage 

126,643 acres as 

VRM Class II. 

Manage 

94 acres as VRM 

Class III. 

Manage 25,976 acres 

as VRM Class I. 

Manage 34,754 acres 

as VRM Class II. 

Manage 104,605 

acres as VRM Class 

III. 

Manage 25,976 acres 

as VRM Class I. 

Manage 27,535 acres 

as VRM Class II. 

Manage 94,327 acres 

as VRM Class III. 

Manage 17,497 acres 

as VRM Class IV. 

Manage 38,598 acres 

as VRM Class I. 

Manage 

126,643 acres as 

VRM Class II. 

Manage 

94 acres as VRM 

Class III. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

484 

4.2.18. Transportation 

The primary goal for transportation management is to define a travel management network (i.e., 

system of areas and roads), with supporting facilities (e.g., parking areas), that provides 

reasonable access to the public, private landowners, and authorized users (e.g., fluid mineral 

operators and livestock grazing permittees) while, at the same time, protecting the objects 

identified in the Proclamation. (NOTE: For the purpose of this DRMP/DEIS, a “road” is defined 

as an open way for the passage of vehicles, persons, or animals on land, regardless of the type 

of travel; and “off-road” is defined as cross-country travel between designated roads.) All offroad travel by motorized and/or mechanized vehicles is prohibited in the Monument. The 

management objectives related to this goal include: 

 designate administrative roads, by type of use (e.g., street-legal motorized vehicle and 

OHV) for authorized users only. These are roads that lead to private land or 

developments that have an administrative purpose where the BLM or permitted 

user/private landowner must have access for regular maintenance or operation. These 

authorized developments include power lines, weather stations, oil and gas facilities, 

spring developments, corrals, and water troughs. All types of use include street legal 

motorized vehicle, OHV, dirt bike, foot, horse, and bicycle; 

 designate existing and new roads for different types (e.g., street-legal motorized vehicle 

and OHV) of motorized and non-motorized public access, following the travel 

management network methodology in Appendix G. (In summary, this methodology 

closes existing roads that do not access a destination (e.g., scenic overlook, camping 

site, or archaeological site allocated for public use) and/or that pose a threat to 

Monument resources. All types of use include street-legal motorized vehicle, OHV, dirt 

bike, foot, horse, and bicycle); 

 designate travel management areas to protect Monument objects and to prohibit all offroad motorized and mechanized vehicle use, except for emergency or authorized 

administrative purposes, as required under the Proclamation; 

 identify the types and locations of facilities necessary to support the functions of the 

transportation management network; 

 identify maintenance activities required to protect the objects of the Monument; 

 identify criteria that would assist in deciding if additional roads should be added or 

removed from the transportation management network in the future; 

 work in partnership with the CDOW to determine limitations (e.g., season of use and 

density level), if any, on new road construction to protect big game winter range and 

migration corridors within the Monument; 

 identify guidelines and/or limitations to properly maintain, manage, and/or monitor the 

travel management network; 

 work in partnership with affected interests to manage overflights and achieve and 

maintain visitor experiences and benefits within RMZs; 

 manage access to oil and gas leases issued prior to passage of the FLPMA in existing 

WSAs, and ensure that the BLM non-impairment standard is not violated; and 

 work in partnership with affected interest groups to manage roads to protect resources 

and maintain visitor experiences and benefits. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

485 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to transportation management. 

Direct beneficial impacts to transportation may include increased access to authorized users, 

protecting Monument resources, and increased public safety. Indirect impacts may include 

changes in the type of traffic or level of use. 

4.2.18.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Quantifying individual impacts to transportation management is difficult due to the fact that the 

location of potential impacts cannot be determined. The location and extent of some new roads 

and parking areas can be identified, but the location and extent of roads associated with oil and 

gas development cannot be predicted. Quantitative estimates of road length and acreage are 

used, when possible. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to transportation management include the following: 

 Estimates of disturbance were compiled from the AMS (BLM 2005b) and the RFD (BLM 

2005c). 

 The number of roads predicted for construction, based on new acres leased for mineral 

development, would all be new roads. 

 Federal lands within the boundary of the Monument were used as the impacts analysis 

area. 

 Cumulative impacts include the counties of Dolores and Montezuma. 

 State laws apply to the Monument. For example, should an alternative show a road as 

being open to OHV travel, if it is prohibited by state law, the state law will apply. 

 While travel cross-country (i.e., off-road) to retrieve game during the hunting season may 

be authorized on other public lands, it is not authorized within the Monument. 

 Several transportation terms from 43 CFR 8340.0-5 are defined for the reader. 

− Off-road: cross-country travel between designated roads. All off-road travel is 

prohibited by motorized and mechanized vehicles. 

− Open areas: areas where both cross-country and designated road travel is allowed 

by all types of vehicles, at all times, anywhere in the area, subject to the operating 

regulations and vehicle standards set forth in subparts 43 CFR 8341 and 8342. 

There are no “open areas” within the Monument. 

− Limited areas: areas restricted at certain times, in certain areas and/or to certain 

vehicular use. Generally, these are areas where mechanized and/or motorized 

travel is restricted to designated roads only. No cross-country travel is allowed. 

− Closed areas: areas where all types of mechanized and motorized travel are not 

permitted off roads and, in this case, where for the most part, roads do not exist and 

are not to be constructed, such as WSAs. 

− Off-highway vehicle (OHV): any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, 

travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain. Typically, this 

refers to All-Terrain-Vehicles (ATVs). 

− Cross-Country travel: travel between designated roads. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

486 

− Administrative roads: roads restricted from general public use. These roads are 

used for administration of oil and gas facilities, livestock grazing structures, research 

areas, and other such administrative uses. They are generally open for public travel 

by horseback or hiking (foot). 

− Public roads: these roads are open to the public, but may be restricted in terms of 

the type of travel allowed. For example, there are motorized and non-motorized 

public roads. 

− Motorized travel: travel that uses some form of motorized vehicles, including dirt 

bikes (i.e., motorcycles), OHV (i.e., ATVs), and/or four-wheel and two-wheel drive 

full-size vehicles. 

− Non-motorized travel: travel not using a form of machinery, such as foot (hiking) or 

horseback riding. 

− Mechanized travel: travel using self-propelled bicycles. This is sometimes included 

in the definition of “non-motorized” but making the distinction is often important. 

4.2.18.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to transportation may differ in extent and severity, depending on the specific 

management actions under each alternative. The following sections describe the impacts under 

each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions directly proposed for 

transportation, as well as those anticipated to result from management actions proposed for 

cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and recreation management. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Transportation Management 

The No Action Alternative for transportation is based on the San Juan/San Miguel RMP (BLM 

1985). Since that time, several user and development-created roads have been constructed. 

Therefore, the miles and map for Alternative I roads do not reflect what is currently in the 

Monument. Since this is the No Action Alternative, it does not include the development of a 

comprehensive transportation plan, which the Proclamation mandates. 

The transportation system under Alternative I would consist of 149 miles of roads that include 

the following: 

 Administrative + Public Foot, Horse = 7 miles; 

 Administrative + Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 3 miles; 

 Public Foot = 2 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse = 0 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 6 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 0 miles; and 

 Public Open to All Travel Means = 131 miles. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 149 miles (864 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or non-motorized use. There would be no additional 

roads for new fluid mineral leasing. There would be no roads specifically designated for OHV, 

mountain bike, or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would be allowed on roads designated 

as open to all forms of travel. All cross-country motorized and/or mechanized travel would be 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

487 

prohibited within the Monument. Under this alternative, 139,359 acres would be designated 

“limited” and 25,976 acres would be designated “closed.” Under Alternative I, Monument roads 

would be maintained or upgraded to ensure public safety. Impacts to the transportation network 

would not change under this alternative. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resources management, under Alternative I, would include stabilizing with some 

development of 240 sites, and other areas with controlled visitation and various levels of 

interpretation; managing data and collected material to enhance public awareness of resources 

through interpretation by the AHC; and developing and protecting suitable cultural resources for 

public enjoyment. Roads would be closed, when necessary, in order to limit access and to 

protect cultural resources. There may be beneficial impacts associated with this alternative due 

to the fact that an increase in developed sites may result in additional roads. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, no new areas would be made available for fluid minerals leasing; 

therefore, this alternative would have no impact on the transportation system. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. Use of the transportation system by livestock 

grazing permittees may be expected to continue, as under current management, with 8,492 

AUMs and 28 allotments. This management may not have any impact on transportation. 

Recreation Management 

Under Alternative I, recreation management would include developing facilities on an as-needed 

basis, and maintaining developed sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon Pueblos. No 

new SRPs would be issued. An off-road vehicle management program would be implemented 

and some OHV designations would occur. This alternative contains no promotion strategy for 

the Monument; therefore, visitation may be expected to continue to grow at the same rate as in 

the local region. There is no impact to transportation management because of this alternative. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil SSR/CSU would be applied for slopes greater than 40 percent, 

(21,036 acres). The SSR/CSU would require an engineering/reclamation plan that 

demonstrates how site productivity would be restored, how surface runoff would be controlled, 

and how offsite areas would be protected from accelerated erosion. Additionally, surfacedisturbing activities would not be allowed during extended wet periods. This may have a 

beneficial impact on transportation because road safety may be enhanced. 

Alternative II

Transportation Management 

The transportation system under Alternative II (excluding one mile of new fluid minerals roads) 

would consist of 138 miles of roads (excluding up to one mile of new fluid mineral development 

road) that include the following: 

 Administrative + Public Foot, Horse = 79 miles; 

 Administrative + Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 0 miles; 

 Public Foot = 9 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse = 0 miles; 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

488 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 0 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 0 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 0 miles; and 

 Public Open to All Travel Means = 50 miles. 

Under this alternative, roads would be maintained, but upgrades would not be allowed. There 

would be no roads specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, or dirt bike travel. These 

forms of travel would be allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. All crosscountry motorized and mechanized travel would be prohibited within the Monument. Under this 

alternative, 126,737 acres would be designated “limited” and 38,598 acres would be designated 

“closed”. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resource management, under Alternative II, would include developing 13 sites for public 

use, preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, and evaluating SRPs for 

site visits. Road maintenance efforts would focus on areas where visitors are directed. The 

majority of the Monument, however, would be promoted as an outdoor museum, allowing 

visitors to experience the Monument through self-discovery. This alternative would protect 

cultural resource communities, sites, and/or isolated finds to protect the potential for 

archaeological information at the landscape scale. Protecting large blocks of land may prevent 

future road development from weaving between individual cultural sites. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative II, up to 880 acres would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. 

A total of up to 18 acres of new ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative, 

and one mile of additional road would be required. Geophysical operations would be restricted 

to BLM-defined roads. Seismic operations requiring bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or 

explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 30 

percent (up to 36,504 acres) would apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new 

leases. Protective measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of maintenance 

activities to reduce human disturbance and to minimize the need for site visits to any existing 

lease areas. Impacts to the transportation system may include increased traffic, with large 

vehicles possibly impacting public safety. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. Use of the transportation system by livestock 

grazing permittees may be expected to continue. This management may have little or no 

impact on transportation. 

Recreation Management 

Alternative II would promote low-impact activity, and would have the greatest restrictions for 

motorized vehicle access throughout the Monument. Approximately 8,211 acres would be 

managed for public visitation and 157,124 acres would be managed for backcountry use. 

Alternative II would identify and manage RMZs and SRMAs. It would add minimal facilities and 

infrastructure, and may, therefore, not disturb the experience of the area. No new roads would 

be authorized. This alternative would promote a non-developed strategy for the Monument; 

therefore, backcountry visitation may experience the greatest growth from local residents and 

incidental visitors. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

489 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. This may result in 

beneficial impacts to transportation due to the fact that public safety on roads may be enhanced. 

Alternative III

Transportation Management 

The transportation system, under Alternative III, would consist of 189 miles of roads (excluding 

three miles of new fluid minerals roads) that include the following: 

 Administrative + Public Foot, Horse = 11 miles; 

 Administrative + Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 21 miles; 

 Public Foot = 1 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse = 21 miles; 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 1 mile; 

 Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 9 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 9 miles; and 

 Public Open to All Travel Means = 60 miles. 

Under this alternative, parking lots would be expanded and surface upgrades of roads would be 

authorized to protect public safety and/or Monument resources. The total mileage of roads 

would increase from 149 miles under Alternative I to186 miles under Alternative III. 

Under this alternative, there would be nine miles of roads specifically designated for OHV, 

mountain bike, or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would be also allowed on roads 

designated as open to all forms of travel. All cross-country motorized and mechanized travel 

would be prohibited within the Monument. Under this alternative, 139,024 acres would be 

designated “limited” and 25,976 acres would be designated “closed”. Impacts to the 

transportation system under Alternative III would be the requirement of the BLM to maintain a 

greater number of roads than under the No Action Alternative. 

Cultural Resource Management 

Cultural resource management, under Alternative III, would include developing 13 to 25 sites for 

public use, preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, and evaluating 

SRPs for site visits. Road maintenance efforts would focus on areas where visitors are 

directed. The majority of the Monument, however, would be promoted as an outdoor museum, 

allowing visitors to experience the Monument through self-discovery. This alternative would 

protect cultural resource communities and/or sites in order to protect the potential for 

archaeological information at the landscape scale. Protecting large blocks of land may prevent 

future road development from weaving between individual cultural sites. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative III, up to 3,021 acres would be available for leasing. Up to 73 acres of new 

ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative, and three miles of additional roads 

may be required. Geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined roads. Seismic 

operations requiring bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives would be prohibited. 

Soil resource NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (up to 36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. Protective measures in leased 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

490 

areas would include the consolidation of maintenance activities in order to reduce human 

disturbance and to minimize the need for site visits to any existing lease areas. Impacts to the 

transportation system may include increased traffic, with large vehicles possibly impacting 

public safety. Due to the fact that up to eight additional wells would likely be drilled because of 

this alternative, adverse impacts to the transportation may occur because of the increase in 

traffic. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. Use of the transportation system by livestock 

grazing permittees may be expected to continue. This management may have little or no 

impact on transportation. 

Recreation Management 

Alternative III defines the Monument in terms of RMZs and SRMAs. This alternative would 

promote low-impact activity, and would add facilities and infrastructure to support recreation 

uses. Approximately 18,875 acres would be managed for public visitation and 146,460 acres 

would be managed for backcountry use. Although some existing user-created roads would be 

closed and reclaimed, the overall increase in available road access may encourage the public to 

explore more of the Monument. This alternative would promote a destination strategy for 

regional visitors to the Monument; therefore, growth in visitation may be realized. Recreation 

management may have beneficial impacts to transportation since public safety may be 

enhanced by the additional roads. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. This may result in 

beneficial impacts to transportation since public safety on roads may be enhanced. 

Alternative IV

Transportation Management 

The transportation system, under Alternative IV, would consist of 194 miles of roads (excluding 

19 miles new fluid minerals roads) that are summarized as follows: 

 Administrative + Public Foot, Horse = 31 miles; 

 Administrative + Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 7 miles; 

 Public Foot = 4 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse = 12 miles; 

 Public Foot, Bicycle = 0 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 19 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 19 miles; and 

 Public Open to All Travel Means = 102 miles. 

Under this alternative, parking lots would be expanded, and surface upgrades of roads would be 

authorized to protect public safety and/or Monument resources. The total mileage of roads 

would increase from 149 miles under Alternative I to 213 miles under Alternative IV. 

Under this alternative, there would be 19 miles of roads specifically designated for OHV, 

mountain bike, or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would also be allowed on roads 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

491 

designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and/or mechanized travel 

would be prohibited. Under this alternative, 139,359 acres would be designated “limited” and 

25,976 acres would be designated “closed”. Impacts to the transportation system under 

Alternative IV may be beneficial due to the fact that more roads would be built to access the 

Monument and public safety may be enhanced. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resource management, under Alternative IV, would include stabilizing and/or 

developing 13 to 25 sites for public use, preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for 

these sites, and evaluating SRPs for site visits. Road maintenance efforts would focus on areas 

where visitors are directed. The majority of the Monument, however, would be promoted as an 

outdoor museum, allowing visitors to experience the Monument through self-discovery. This 

alternative would protect cultural resource communities and/or sites in order to protect the 

potential for archaeological information at the landscape scale. Protecting large blocks of land 

may prevent future road development from weaving between individual cultural sites. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative IV, up to 24,462 acres would be available for leasing. A total of up to 447 

acres of new ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative, and up to 19 miles of 

additional roads may be required. Geophysical operations would be restricted to BLM-defined 

roads. Seismic operations requiring bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or explosives 

would be prohibited. Soil resource NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 30 percent (up to 

36,504 acres) would apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. Protective 

measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of maintenance activities to reduce 

human disturbance and to minimize the need for site visits to any existing lease areas. Impacts 

to the transportation system may include increased traffic, with large vehicles possibly impacting 

public safety. Due to the fact that up to 59 additional wells would likely be drilled because of this 

alternative, resulting in up to 19 miles of new roads, adverse impacts from increased traffic may 

occur. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. Use of the transportation system by livestock 

grazing permittees would be expected to continue, as under current management. This 

management may not have any impact on transportation. 

Recreation Management 

Alternative IV would identify and manage RMZs and SRMAs, and would emphasize the 

development of facilities and infrastructure to support recreation and transportation uses. 

Approximately 47,056 acres would be managed for public visitation and 118,279 acres would be 

managed for backcountry use. No existing user-created roads would be closed, and crosscountry foot traffic and/or horseback riding would be permitted. This overall increase in 

available roads and cross-country access may encourage the public to explore more of the 

Monument. This alternative would promote a destination strategy for national and international 

visitors to the Monument; therefore, growth in visitation may be realized. Recreation 

management may have beneficial impacts to transportation since public safety may be 

enhanced by the additional roads. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

492 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alternative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. This may result in 

beneficial impacts to transportation due to the fact that public safety on roads may be enhanced. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Transportation Management 

The transportation system, under Alternative V, would consist of 168 miles of roads (excluding 

up to 1 mile of new fluid minerals roads), summarized as follows: 

 Administrative + Public Foot, Horse = 59 miles; 

 Administrative + Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 0 miles; 

 Public Foot = 3 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse = 1 mile 

 Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle = 23 miles; 

 Public Foot, Horse, Bicycle, Dirt Bike, OHV = 8 miles; and 

 Public Open to All Travel Means = 74 miles. 

Under this alternative, roads would be maintained, but upgrades would not be allowed. The 

total mileage of roads would be increased from 149 miles under Alternative I, to 169 miles under 

Alternative V, and the total mileage of roads open to all travel means by the public would be 

reduced from 131 to 74 miles. 

Under this alternative, there would be 19 miles of roads specifically designated for OHV, 

mountain bike, or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would be also allowed on roads 

designated as open to all forms of travel. Under this alternative, 126,737 acres would be 

designated “limited” and 38,598 acres would be designated “closed”. All cross-country 

motorized and mechanized travel would be prohibited. Impacts to the transportation system 

under Alternative V may be beneficial because more roads would be built to access the 

Monument and, therefore, public safety may be enhanced. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Cultural resource management, under Alternative V, would include stabilizing and/or developing 

13 to 25 sites for public use, preparing Cultural Resource Management Plans for these sites, 

and evaluating SRPs for site visits. Road maintenance efforts would focus on areas where 

visitors are directed. The majority of the Monument, however, would be promoted as an 

outdoor museum, allowing visitors to experience the Monument through self-discovery. This 

alternative would protect cultural resource communities and/or sites to protect the potential for 

archaeological information at the landscape scale. Protecting large blocks of land may prevent 

future road development from weaving between individual cultural sites. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative V, up to 880 acres would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. 

Up to a total of 18 acres of new ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative and 

up to one mile of additional road would be required. Geophysical operations would be restricted 

to BLM-defined roads. Seismic operations requiring bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, and/or 

explosives would be prohibited. Soil resource NGD/NSO stipulations for slopes greater than 30 

percent (up 36,504 acres) would apply, and BMPs would be included in COAs for new leases. 

Protective measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of maintenance activities 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

493 

to reduce human disturbance and to minimize the need for site visits to any existing lease 

areas. Impacts to the transportation system may include increased traffic, with large vehicles 

possibly impacting public safety. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources would be managed to improve Public Land Health 

Standards and to protect Monument objects. Use of the transportation system by livestock 

grazing permittees would be expected to continue. This management may have little or no 

impact on transportation. 

Recreation Management 

Alternative V would promote low-impact activity, but would provide for motorized vehicle access 

throughout the Monument. Approximately 7,875 acres would be managed for public visitation 

and 157,460 acres would be managed for backcountry use. Alternative V would identify and 

manage RMZs and SRMAs, but would add minimal facilities and infrastructure, thereby not 

disturbing the pristine experience of the area. 

Other Resources Management 

Under this alterative, a soil NGD/NSO for slopes greater than 30 percent (36,504 acres) would 

apply, and BMPs would be required for all ground-disturbing activities. This may result in 

beneficial impacts to transportation because public safety on roads may be enhanced. 

4.2.18.3. Transportation Management Impact Comparison 

The transportation management impact comparison is presented in Table 4-27. This table 

compares the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on 

transportation management. 

4.2.18.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Impacts to the local road systems in, and/or near, the Monument would likely include the need 

for expansion and maintenance, depending on area population growth. This may result from 

nearby agriculture fields being subdivided and developed primarily for residences, as well as 

from an influx of recreating publics. Private, county, and state road maintenance costs may 

continue to reflect the increased level of need, but funds may be focused more on developed 

and primary access roads. In terms of maintenance, less developed, natural surface roads (as 

occurs within the Monument) would depend on national funding. This funding may not increase 

at the rate in which maintenance is needed. As use of the public lands increases, these impacts 

may increase. 

The increase in road mileage in the Monument resulting from fluid minerals exploration and 

development on existing leases over the next 20 years is estimated at 67 miles. These new 

roads may result in up to 360 acres of surface disturbance. Currently, there are 196 miles 

(1,053 acres) of roads for fluid mineral access. Most of the maintenance costs for these roads 

are covered by the developer. 

Depending on residential and tourist growth in the Monument area, additional parking areas and 

developed site facilities may be required. In terms of protecting the objects of the Monument, 

additional law enforcement may be needed, due to more user-created roads and increased 

cross-country travel. 

As a result of increased demand for infrastructure, visual impacts to the natural landscape may 

occur. Construction of facilities with associated ground disturbance may result in loss of wildlife 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

494 

habitat and the possibility for erosion with additional sediments in stream systems. Noise levels 

from increased human presence (voices and vehicular) may reduce wildlife habitat security. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

495 

Table 4-27 Comparison of Impacts to Transportation Management 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles of 

roads. Designate 

139,359 acres 

“limited” and 25,976 

acres “closed” to OHV 

travel. 

Manage 139 miles of 

roads. Designate 

126,737 acres 

“limited” and 38,598 

acres “closed” to OHV 

travel. 

Manage 189 miles of 

roads. Designate 

139,359 acres 

“limited” and 

25,976 acres “closed” 

to OHV travel. 

Manage 213 miles of 

roads. Designate 

139,359 acres 

“limited” and 

25,976 acres “closed” 

to OHV travel. 

Manage 169 miles of 

roads. Designate 

262,737 acres 

“limited” and 

38,598 acres “closed” 

to OHV travel. 

Cultural Resources 

Develop new sites for 

controlled visitation, 

resulting in greater 

need for roads. 

Develop 13 

sites, resulting in less 

need for roads. 

Develop 13 to 25 

sites, resulting in less 

need for roads. 

Develop 13 to 25 

sites, resulting in less 

need for roads. 

Develop 13 to 25 

sites, resulting in less 

need for roads. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

lease. Allow up to 2 

new well pads (with 

up to 1 mile of new 

roads). 

Make up to 3,021 new 

acres available for 

lease. Allow up to 8 

new well pads (with 

up to 3 miles of new 

roads). 

Make up to 24,462 

new acres available 

for lease. Allow up to 

59 new well pads 

(with up to 19 miles of 

new roads). 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

lease. Allow up to 2 

new well pads (with 

up to 1 mile of new 

roads). 

Rangeland Resources No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 

Recreation 

Promote no specific 

recreation strategy. Develop new roads 

as needed. 

Promote undeveloped 

strategy with 

minimum facilities for 

local visitors. 

Manage 8,211 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 157,124 

acres for backcountry 

Promote destination 

strategy with 

appropriate support 

facilities for regional 

visitors. 

Manage 18,875 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 146,460 

acres for backcountry 

Promote destination 

strategy with more 

facilities for national 

and international 

visitors. 

Manage 47,056 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 118,279 

acres for backcountry 

Promote combination 

of strategies for local, 

regional, national, and 

international visitors. 

Manage 7,875 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 157,460 

acres for backcountry 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

496 

Table 4-27 Comparison of Impacts to Transportation Management 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

use. use. use. use. 

Other Resources: 

Soil Resources 

Apply SSR/CSU to 

protect slopes greater 

than 40 percent 

(21,036 acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO for 

slopes steeper than 

30 percent (36,504 

acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO for 

slopes steeper than 

30 percent (36,504 

acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO for 

slopes steeper than 

30 percent (36,504 

acres). 

Apply NGD/NSO for 

slopes steeper than 

30 percent (36,504 

acres). 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

497 

4.3. Special Designations 

4.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

The primary goal for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is to provide consistent 

protection and management to important cultural sites. The management objective related to 

this goal is to manage in order to maintain and/or to enhance the special resource values within 

the Monument. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to ACECs. 

Beneficial impacts may include actions that further enhance and/or protect ACECs for the 

purposes they were designated. Adverse impacts may include, but are not limited to, actions 

that might diminish the value of the area being protected. 

4.3.1.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Evaluation criteria for comparing impacts under the various alternatives on ACECs depend on 

the purpose of the designation. In the case of Canyons of the Ancients, the designation was to 

protect cultural resources. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to special designation areas include the following: 

 This impact analysis considers the spatial boundary to be the existing limits of the 

ACEC, and the temporal boundary as the 20-year planning horizon. This would apply to 

both individual and cumulative impacts analyses. 

4.3.1.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to ACECs may differ in extent and severity, depending on the specific management 

actions under each alternative. The following sections describe the impacts under each 

alternative anticipated to result from the management actions directly proposed for ACECs, as 

well as those anticipated to result from the management actions proposed for cultural 

resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, recreation and transportation, and for other 

resources. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Management 

Alternative I would maintain the current designation of the Anasazi Cultural Multiple Use Area 

ACEC on 165,335 acres. Private lands within the ACEC would not be affected by this 

designation. In addition, management actions would provide multiple-use opportunities, and 

closer monitoring of surface-disturbing activities. Alternative I would propose no change to the 

current management conditions of the ACEC; therefore, there would be no new impacts to the 

ACEC. Current impacts and/or adverse trends, however, may continue and may continue to 

diminish ACEC values. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Alternative I would manage cultural resources to preserve and protect them throughout the 

ACEC. This alternative may have beneficial impacts to the ACEC by furthering the goals for 

which the ACEC was designated, and continuing to providing a multiple-use area while, at the 

same time, protecting the area’s natural, biological, and cultural resources. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

498 

Fluid Minerals Management 

This alternative would have no new fluid mineral leases. Existing leases would continue and 

would not be affected. This alternative may have no new impacts on existing ACECs. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, rangeland resources management would permit 8,492 active AUMS. 

There would be no new management actions pertaining to livestock management. Impacts to 

resources of the ACEC may continue, as under current management, which, in some cases, 

may result in a continued decline. In areas where livestock grazing is preventing Public Land 

Health Standards from being met, this condition may likely continue. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

In general, the fewer the number of roads, the less the ground disturbance and associated 

resource damage, and the less impact to vegetation, water, soil, and/or to scenic values. Under 

this alternative, there would be 149 miles of roads within the ACEC. This may result in a road 

density of 0.58 miles per square mile and a ground disturbance totaling 864 acres. Visitation to 

the area may impact the character and the quality of pristine areas. Maintaining large areas for 

a backcountry experience may help to direct the majority of visiting publics to a few specific 

developed locations (i.e., Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon Pueblo). 

Other Resources Management 

Alternative I would protect 2,415 acres of riparian system. There would be no restrictions on 

groundwater or new water developments in this alternative. This alternative may be the least 

protective of water resources. 

Alternative II

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Management 

Under Alternative II, the ACEC designation would be removed because the Presidential 

designation of the Anasazi Cultural Multiple Use Area ACEC as a National Monument 

supersedes the administrative ACEC designation. In addition, management actions would 

continue to provide multiple-use opportunities in the Monument, but would primarily emphasize 

cultural resource values at the community, site, and/or at the isolated find levels. This level of 

protection would provide for large undisturbed areas and a greater potential for recovering 

information from cultural resource landscapes. Similarly, this alternative would continue to 

provide closer monitoring of surface-disturbing activities. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, the Monument would be managed as an outdoor museum, allowing 

backcountry exploration and self-discovery experiences of archaeological sites. In addition, 13 

cultural sites would be developed for public visitation. This may have beneficial impacts by 

facilitating visitation through roads, interpretive signs, and education. The development of these 

cultural resource sites may enhance visitor experiences, promote concern for cultural resource 

protection, and help prevent impairment of these resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, fluid minerals exploration and development would be required to protect 

cultural resource communities, sites, and/or isolated finds. This may help to protect large blocks 

of land. Up to 880 acres would be available for new leases, but only to protect against 

drainage. Up to 18 acres may be disturbed because of new fluid minerals management for this 

alternative. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

499 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative II would decrease permitted livestock grazing to 6,437 AUMs and five livestock 

grazing allotments would be closed. The reduction in AUMs, closed allotments, and addition of 

intense management may improve land health. This management may result in beneficial 

impacts due to the fact that cultural resources may sustain fewer impacts from livestock rubbing 

and/or trampling, and due to the fact that the reduction in erosion (from increased vegetative 

cover) may help hold cultural artifacts on site. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

In general, the fewer the number of roads, the less the ground disturbance and associated 

resource damage, and the less impact to vegetation, water, soil, and/or to scenic values. Under 

this alternative, there would be 139 miles of roads. This may result in a road density of 0.54 

miles per square mile and a ground disturbance totaling 806 acres. This alternative would 

propose the least number of roads. This alternative would maintain a majority of the Monument 

for a backcountry experience. Alternative II would manage 8,211 acres for public visitation and 

157,124 acres for backcountry experiences. 

Other Resources Management 

Alternative II would protect 5,312 acres of riparian system, including canyon bottoms, riparian 

areas, and floodplains. Groundwater and new water developments would be discouraged. This 

alternative, along with Alternative V, may be the most protective of water resources. 

Alternative III

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Management 

Management actions under Alternative III are similar to those proposed under Alternatives II, IV, 

and V. Under Alternative III, the ACEC designation would be removed. In addition, 

management actions would continue to provide multiple-use opportunities in the Monument, but 

would primarily emphasize cultural resource values at the community and at the site levels. 

This level of protection would provide for larger undisturbed areas and for a greater potential for 

recovering information from cultural resource landscapes. Similarly, this alternative would 

continue to provide closer monitoring of surface-disturbing activities, but would primarily 

emphasize cultural resource values. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, the Monument would be managed as an outdoor museum, allowing 

backcountry exploration and self-discovery experiences of archaeological sites. In addition, 13 

to 25 cultural sites would be developed for public visitation. This may have beneficial impacts 

due to the fact that it may facilitate visitation through roads, interpretive signs, and education. 

The development of these cultural resource sites may enhance visitor experiences, promote 

concern for cultural resource protection, and prevent impairment of these resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, fluid minerals exploration and development would be required to protect 

cultural resource communities and sites. This may help to protect large blocks of area from 

ground disturbance. Up to 3,021 acres would be available for new leases, resulting in up to 73 

acres of ground disturbance. Although NSO stipulations would apply, some adverse impacts 

may occur due to noise, construction of facilities impacting visual quality, and to the release of 

materials that may impact air quality. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

500 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative III would reduce livestock grazing to 8,368 AUMs through closing five allotments. 

The reduction in AUMs would occur in an area rich with archaeological sites; therefore, their 

protection from livestock tramping and rubbing may help to protect the objects of the Monument. 

Beneficial impacts may be realized from other intensive management actions proposed under 

this alternative, as well. However, these benefits may occur over a longer time period than 

expected under Alternatives II and V, due to the fact that AUMs may not be reduced according 

to calculated capacity for Public Land Health Standards. Cultural resources may continue to 

sustain impacts from livestock rubbing and trampling at the same level, as under current 

management, except in the areas of closed allotments. The areas of closure may also show a 

reduction in erosion due to increased vegetative cover, which may help hold cultural resource 

artifacts on site. Impacts from this management may be beneficial. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

In general, the fewer the number of roads, the less the ground disturbance and associated 

resource damage, and the less impact to vegetation, water, soil, and/or to scenic values. Under 

this alternative, there would be 189 miles of roads. This may result in a road density of 0.73 

miles per square mile and a ground disturbance totaling 1,096 acres. Maintaining large areas 

for a backcountry experience may help to direct a majority of visiting publics to specific 

developed locations. This alternative would manage 18,875 acres for public visitation and 

146,460 acres for backcountry experiences. 

Other Resources Management 

Alternative III would protect 5,312 acres of riparian system, including canyon bottoms, riparian 

areas, and floodplains. Groundwater and new water developments would be allowed. Impacts 

from water resources management may be beneficial. 

Alternative IV

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Management 

Under Alternative IV, the ACEC designation would be removed since designation as a National 

Monument supersedes the administrative designation of the ACEC. Management actions would 

continue to provide multiple-use opportunities in the Monument, but would primarily emphasize 

cultural resource values at the community and at the site levels. This level of protection may 

provide for large undisturbed areas and for a greater potential for recovering information from 

cultural resource landscapes. Similarly, this alternative would continue to provide closer 

monitoring of surface-disturbing activities, but would primarily emphasize cultural resource 

values. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, the Monument would be managed as an outdoor museum, allowing 

backcountry exploration and self-discovery experiences of archaeological sites. In addition, 13 

to 25 cultural sites would be developed for public visitation. This may have beneficial impacts 

due to the fact that it may facilitate visitation through roads, interpretive signs, and education. 

The development of these cultural resource sites may enhance visitor experiences, promote 

concern for cultural resource protection, and prevent impairment of these resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, fluid minerals exploration and development would be required to protect 

cultural resource communities and sites. Up to 24,462 acres would be available for new leases, 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

501 

which would equate to up to 447 acres of ground disturbance. Fluid minerals management may 

result in adverse impacts due to the potential disturbance of cultural resources. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative IV would permit livestock grazing at 8,492 active AUMs. No improvement in land 

health would be anticipated from maintaining current AUM levels. Beneficial impacts may be 

realized from other intensive management actions proposed in this alternative. However, these 

benefits may occur over a longer time period than those expected under Alternatives II and V 

and, in some areas, may never be realized due to the fact that AUMs are not reduced according 

to calculated capacity for Public Land Health Standards. Cultural resources may continue to 

sustain impacts due to livestock rubbing and trampling at the same level as under current 

management. Erosion from decreased vegetative cover may impact cultural resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

In general, the fewer the number of roads, the less ground disturbance and associated resource 

damage and the less impact to vegetation, water, soil, and/or to scenic values. Under this 

alternative, there would be 213 miles of roads. This may result in a road density of 0.83 miles 

per square mile and a ground disturbance totaling 1,235 acres. This alternative would propose 

the greatest number of roads. This alternative would manage 47,056 acres for public visitation 

and 118,279 acres for backcountry experiences. This alternative would designate the least 

amount of area within the Monument to backcountry experiences. 

Other Resources Management 

Alternative IV would protect 3,217 acres of riparian system, including riparian areas and 

floodplains (not canyon bottoms). Groundwater and new water developments would be 

encouraged to support expanded resource development. This alternative would provide for the 

least protection of water resources. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Management 

Under Alternative V, the ACEC designation would be removed because the Presidential 

designation of the Anasazi Cultural Multiple Use Area ACEC as a National Monument 

supersedes the administrative ACEC designation. Management actions would continue to 

provide multiple-use opportunities in the Monument, but would primarily emphasize cultural 

resources values at the community and site levels. This level of protection may provide large 

undisturbed areas and greater potential for recovering information from cultural resource 

landscapes. Similarly, this alternative may continue to provide closer monitoring of surfacedisturbing activities. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, the Monument would be managed as an outdoor museum, allowing 

backcountry exploration and self-discovery of archaeological sites. In addition, 13 to 25 cultural 

sites would be developed for public visitation. This may have beneficial impacts due to the fact 

that it may facilitate visitation through roads, interpretive signs, and education. The 

development of these cultural resource sites may enhance visitor experiences and prevent 

impairment of these resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, fluid minerals exploration and development would be required to protect 

cultural resource communities and sites, and to fully document isolated finds. This may help to 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

502 

protect large blocks of land from ground disturbance. Up to 880 acres would be available for 

new leases, but only to protect against drainage. This may result in up to 18 acres of ground 

disturbance. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative V would decrease livestock grazing to 6,437 permitted AUMs and would close five 

allotments to grazing. The reduction in AUMs and the addition of intense management may 

rapidly improve land health. Cultural resources may sustain fewer impacts from livestock 

rubbing and trampling, and the reduction in erosion from increased vegetative cover may help 

hold cultural resource artifacts on site. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

In general, the fewer the number of roads, the less the ground disturbance and associated 

resource damage, and the less impact there is to vegetation, water, soil, and/or to scenic 

values. Under this alternative, there would be 169 miles of roads. This may result in a road 

density of 0.66 miles per square mile and a ground disturbance totaling 980 acres. However, 

this alternative would maintain large areas for a backcountry experience. This alternative would 

manage 7,875 acres for public visitation and 157,460 acres for backcountry experiences. This 

alternative would designate the most area within the Monument to backcountry experiences. 

Other Resources Management 

Alternative V would protect 5,312 acres of riparian system, including canyon bottoms, riparian 

areas, and floodplains. Groundwater and new water developments would be discouraged. This 

alternative, along with Alternative II, would be the most protective of water resources. 

4.3.1.3. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Impact Comparison 

The ACEC management impact comparison is presented in Table 4-28. This table compares 

the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on ACECs. 

4.3.1.4. Cumulative Impacts 

There would be no cumulative impacts because of removing the ACEC designation, due to the 

fact that the Presidential designation of the Monument supersedes the administrative 

designation. A variety of impacts may occur that would diminish the purpose for declaring the 

Monument and ACEC. (Please refer to the analysis of cultural resources in this Chapter.) 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

503 

Table 4-28 Comparison of Impacts to Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

ACEC 

Maintain ACEC 

designation on 

165,335 acres. 

Drop ACEC 

designation, except 

for RNAs. Manage 

7,826 acres as 

ACEC. 

Drop ACEC 

designation, except 

for RNAs. Manage 

427 acres as ACEC. 

Drop ACEC 

designation, except 

for RNAs. Manage 

427 acres as ACEC. 

Drop ACEC 

designation, except 

for RNAs. Manage 

7,826 acres as 

ACEC. 

Cultural Resources Protect cultural sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities, sites, 

and isolated finds. 

Protect cultural 

communities and 

sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities and 

sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities and 

sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

lease (with up to 18 

acres of disturbance). 

Make up to 3,021 

new acres available 

for lease (with up to 

73 acres of 

disturbance). 

Make up to 24,462 

new acres available 

for lease (with up to 

447 acres of 

disturbance). 

Make up to 880 new 

acres available for 

lease (with up to 18 

acres of disturbance). 

Rangeland Resources Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. Permit 8,368 AUMs. Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Maintain developed 

recreation sites. 

Manage 149 miles 

roads (with 864 acres 

of disturbance), 0.58 

miles per square 

mile. 

Manage 8,211 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 157,124 

acres for backcountry 

use. Manage 139 

miles roads (with 806 

acres of disturbance), 0.54 miles per square 

mile. 

Manage 18,875 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 146,460 

acres for backcountry 

use). Manage 189 

miles roads (with 

1,096 acres of 

disturbance), 

0.73 miles per square 

mile. 

Manage 47,056 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 118,279 

acres for backcountry 

use. Manage 

213 miles roads (with 

1,235 acres of 

disturbance), 

0.83 miles per square 

mile. 

Manage 7,875 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 157,460 

acres for backcountry 

use. Manage 169 

miles roads (with 980 

acres of disturbance), 0.66 miles per square 

mile. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 504 

Table 4-28 Comparison of Impacts to Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Other Resources: 

Water Resources 

Protect 2,415 acres 

of riparian system. 

Allow no restrictions on groundwater and 

new water 

developments. 

Protect 5,312 acres 

of canyon bottoms, 

riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Discourage 

groundwater and new 

water developments. 

Protect 5,312 acres 

of canyon bottoms, 

riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Allow 

groundwater and new 

water developments. 

Protect 3,217 acres 

of riparian areas and 

floodplains. 

Encourage 

groundwater and new 

water developments 

to support expanded 

resource 

development. 

Protect 5,312 acres 

of canyon bottoms, 

riparian areas, and 

floodplains. Discourage 

groundwater and new 

water developments. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

505 

4.3.2. Scenic and Historic Byway 

The primary goal for Scenic and Historic Byways is to cooperate with management partners to 

implement the corridor management plan for the Trails of the Ancients Scenic and Historic 

Byway. The Byway provides access to examples of Ancestral Puebloan culture and scenic 

vistas of Colorado Plateau geology and ecology. The management objective related to this goal 

is to preserve resource values while, at the same time, implementing site-specific actions in the 

Corridor Management Plan. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to Scenic and Historic Byways. 

Beneficial impacts to byways may include impacts resulting from management actions that 

enhance the pristine, natural conditions that are viewed from the roadway and/or the historic 

values for which the roadway was designated. Adverse impacts may include impacts resulting 

from actions that reduce these values. 

Direct impacts to byways may include the implementation of an unnatural-appearing vegetation 

treatment, especially if these may be seen from the byway (and thereby diminishing its scenic 

quality). On the other hand, managing livestock grazing for healthy native vegetation along the 

roadway may indirectly benefit the byway designation by maintaining scenic quality. Impacts 

may also include potential fluid minerals development and/or visitor services development along 

the byway. 

4.3.2.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

In order to quantify impacts, acres of disturbance, miles of roads, and numbers of livestock can 

be measured. However, quantifying these impacts within the viewshed of the byway may be 

more difficult. Special considerations and restrictions exist for the placement of structures 

adjacent to Scenic Byways. Therefore, while the number of structures may increase for an 

alternative, placement of structures in relation to a byway may not occur. For example, 

Alternative IV would allow for greater fluid mineral development on current unleased land than 

would Alternative II. Although there may be more development, the infrastructure associated 

with that development may be placed away from the viewshed of the Scenic Byway. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to Scenic and Historic Byways include the following: 

 The impacts analysis boundary for the Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway 

would include the area seen in the foreground of County Road 10. 

 The San Juan Skyway does not enter the Monument, but does reference the Anasazi 

Heritage Center as a point of interest. Therefore, this analysis pertains only to the Trail 

of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway. 

4.3.2.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to Scenic and Historic Byways may differ in extent and severity, depending on the 

specific management actions under each alternative. The following sections describe the 

impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions directly 

proposed for Scenic and Historic Byways, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, 

recreation and transportation, and other resources. 

 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

506 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Scenic and Historic Byways Management 

Alternative I would continue to ensure that significant cultural resources are identified and given 

proper consideration in advance of project-level decisions. A comprehensive Monument-wide 

program for the inventory, protection, and interpretation of cultural resources is not explicitly 

addressed in the management actions of existing plans, or those to be used under Alternative I. 

Although current management of public lands is required to comply with the various laws and 

regulations that provide protection for cultural and historical resources, this alternative, as 

defined in existing plans, may result in indirect impacts to cultural resources. Adverse impacts 

to byways may include increased visitor usage of the byways and public roads with a 

combination of motorized and/or non-motorized travel. This may increase the need for road 

maintenance, including trash pickup, infrastructure (such as signage), and law enforcement for 

traffic control and public safety. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, cultural resources would continue to be developed for visiting and 

interpretation. As a result, there would be no change in the impacts to byways. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, no new fluid minerals leases would be available (although existing leases 

would not be affected). As a result, no impacts to byways would occur. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, management of rangeland resources would be based on permitting 8,492 

AUMs. No new impacts would occur under this alternative. However, current impacts would 

continue. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Recreation management under this alternative would promote visitation to Lowry, Painted Hand, 

and Sand Canyon Pueblos. Currently, there are 149 miles of roads representing 864 acres of 

ground disturbance. Impacts to byways would not change under this alternative. Designated 

motorized access throughout the Monument generally does not present a threat to the scenic 

and historic byway under the current plan; however, unmanaged travel may pose a threat and 

this alternative would not promote the completion of a travel plan. 

Other Resources Management 

Visual resource management (VRM) for this alternative would discourage permanent or longterm visual intrusions to preserve scenic values, enhance viewing opportunities, and increase 

variety, where appropriate. Portions of the Monument with cultural resources and canyons 

would be managed according to Class II VRM standards. This alternative would manage 

25,976 acres as VRM Class I; 139,265 acres as VRM Class II; and 94 acres as VRM Class III. 

Similar to all of the alternatives, the Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway, along with 

a 0.5-mile buffer on either side, is assigned as VRM Class II. 

Alternative II

Scenic and Historic Byways Management 

This alternative would emphasize the protection of cultural resource communities, sites, and 

isolated finds, and would emphasize natural resource protection and enhancement. Under this 

beneficial landscape-scale management approach, potential direct visual impacts along the 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

507 

byways may be reduced. There would be an overall reduction of total road miles available to 

travel throughout the Monument, which may potentially reduce resource damage. Reduced 

access may concentrate visitors to other areas, where more roads exist. Signage would be kept 

to a minimum, reducing possible visual impacts observed along the Byway. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, the Monument would be promoted as an outdoor museum, allowing visitors 

to explore the objects of the Monument through a self-discovery experience. Thirteen sites 

would be developed for public use and interpretation. This management may direct visitors to 

sites accessed from the Byway, which may increase the use of the roadway, which may, in turn, 

result in beneficial impacts. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Protective measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of maintenance activities 

to reduce human disturbance and minimize the need for site visits to any existing lease areas. 

No increase in infrastructure development in new lease areas would occur along the Byway. 

The new proposed leasing areas would be used to protect against drainage. There would be no 

impact to Byway management from the leasing of up to an additional 880 acres. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between 

livestock grazing, and the protection of cultural resources. There would be a reduction of 2,055 

active AUMs (from 8,492 active AUMs under Alternative I, to 6,437 under this alternative). The 

canceling of these AUMs may improve vegetation cover and land health, restore more natural 

conditions, and enhance the scenic quality along the Byway. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative II would target local residents and incidental visitors, promoting low-impact activities. 

This alternative would have the greatest restrictions for motorized vehicle access throughout the 

Monument. Alternative II would identify and manage RMZs and SRMAs, but would add minimal 

facilities and infrastructure, thereby not disturbing the pristine experience of the area. 

Alternative II would maintain 139 miles of roads, representing 806 acres of ground disturbance 

(with most existing user-created roads closed and reclaimed). Approximately 8,211 acres would 

be managed for public visitation with 157,124 acres managed for backcountry use. Maintaining 

large areas for backcountry use may minimize impacts from infrastructure, road development, 

and from other human influences. 

Other Resources Management 

This alternative would manage 38,976 acres as VRM Class I; 126,643 acres as VRM Class II; 

and 94 acres as VRM Class III. As with all alternatives, the Trail of the Ancients Scenic and 

Historic Byway, along with a 0.5-mile buffer, is assigned to VRM Class II. 

Alternative III

Scenic and Historic Byways Management 

This alternative would emphasize landscape-scale cultural resource values, cultural resource 

communities and site protection, and natural resource protection and enhancement. Under this 

landscape-scale management approach, potential direct visual impacts along the Byway may 

be reduced due to large blocks of land being protected from ground disturbance. Under this 

alternative, there may be an overall increase of total road miles available to travel through the 

Monument, which may potentially increase usage of the Byway as visitors explore more of the 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

508 

Monument. Additional informational signage would be required under this alternative, which 

may add to possible visual impacts observed along the Byway. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, the Monument would be managed as an outdoor museum, allowing 

visitors to experience the Monument through self-discovery. In addition, 13 to 25 sites would be 

developed for public visitation and interpretation. More interpretive signage and resource 

stabilization would be added to cultural areas, which may encourage more visitors to access 

these areas, which may, in turn, promote the use of the Byway. Cultural resource management 

may result in beneficial impacts to Scenic and Historic Byways management. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, protective measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of 

maintenance activities to reduce human disturbance and to minimize the need for site visits to 

any existing lease areas. Under Alternative III, there would be an increase of up to 3,021 acres 

available for new leases. This increase in acreage available for leasing may lead to an increase 

in infrastructure development, which may be visually distracting to visitors when traveling along 

the byway. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between livestock grazing and 

protection of cultural resources. Under this alternative, there would be a minor reduction of the 

active AUMs (from 8,492 AUMs under Alternative I, to 8,368 under this alternative) because of 

closing five allotments to grazing. Closing these AUMs may improve vegetation and land health 

conditions in these allotments; however, the area impacted is not adjacent to any byways and, 

consequently, there may be no impacts. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative III would identify and manage RMZs and SRMAs, adding facilities and infrastructure 

to support recreation and transportation. This alternative would promote visitation by regional 

visitors. Approximately 18,875 acres would be managed for public visitation, and 146,460 acres 

would be managed for backcountry use. Total road mileage would be increased from 149 miles 

under Alternative I, to 189 miles under this alternative, representing 1,096 acres of ground 

disturbance. Although some existing user-created roads would be closed and reclaimed, the 

overall increase in available road access may encourage the public to explore more of the 

Monument, using the Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway for access to the 

Monument. Recreation and transportation management may result in beneficial impacts to 

Byways management. 

Other Resources Management 

This alternative would manage 25,976 acres as VRM Class I; 34,754 acres as VRM Class II; 

and 104,605 acres as VRM Class III. Similar to all of the alternatives, the Trail of the Ancients 

Scenic and Historic Byway, along with a 0.5-mile buffer, is VRM Class II. 

Alternative IV

Scenic and Historic Byways Management 

This alternative would emphasize the protection of cultural resource communities and sites, and 

natural resource values while, at the same time, encouraging resource use and development. 

Under this alternative, there would be an overall increase of total road miles available for travel 

to, and through, the Monument. This, along with an increase in developed cultural sites, may 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

509 

increase the demand for use of the Byway as visitors explore more of the Monument. Additional 

interpretive signage would be required under this alternative, which may add to the possibility of 

visual impacts observed along the Byway. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, the Monument would be managed as an outdoor museum, allowing 

visitors to experience the Monument through self-discovery. In addition, 13 to 25 sites would be 

developed for public visitation and interpretation. Interpretive signage would be added to 

cultural areas, which may encourage more visitors to access these areas. This may encourage 

visitors to use the Byway to view these cultural sites and to explore more of the Monument, 

which may result in beneficial impacts. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, protective measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of 

maintenance activities in order to reduce human disturbance and to minimize the need for site 

visits to any existing lease areas. Under Alternative IV, there would be an increase of up to 

24,462 acres available for new leases. This increase in acreage available for leasing may lead 

to an increase in infrastructure development along the byway, which may be visually distracting 

to visitors when traveling along the byway. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, management of rangeland resources would be based on the permitting of 

8,492 AUMs. No new impacts would occur under this alternative. Existing impacts may 

continue. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative IV would identify and manage RMZs and SRMAs, and would emphasize the 

development of facilities and infrastructure to support recreation and transportation uses. This 

alternative would promote visitation by national and international visitors. Approximately 47,056 

acres would be managed for public visitation, and 118,279 acres would be managed for 

backcountry use. No existing user-created roads would be closed. The total mileage of roads 

would increase from 149 miles under Alternative I, to 213 miles under Alternative IV, 

representing 1,235 acres of ground disturbance. This overall increase in available road access 

may encourage the public to explore more of the Monument, which may increase the use of the 

Scenic Byway for visitors going to the Monument. This may be a beneficial impact. 

Other Resources Management 

This alternative would manage 25,976 acres as VRM Class I; 27,535 acres as VRM Class II; 

94,327 acres as VRM Class III; and 17,497 acres as VRM Class IV. As with all other 

alternatives, the Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway, along with a 0.5-mile buffer, is 

VRM Class II. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Scenic and Historic Byways Management 

This alternative would emphasize the protection of cultural resource communities, sites, and 

natural resources. Under this landscape-scale management approach, potential direct visual 

impacts along the Byway may be reduced. The designation, clarification, and implementation of 

a travel plan may assist in preventing unwanted off-road travel. Managed access would 

concentrate visitors in areas of developed cultural resource sites and maintain the majority of 

the Monument in a backcountry setting. This may reduce visual impacts along the Byway while, 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

510 

at the same time, requiring maintenance and infrastructure to support visiting publics. 

Alternative V may result in beneficial impacts. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, the Monument would be managed as an outdoor museum, allowing visitors 

to experience the Monument through self-discovery. Thirteen to 25 sites would be developed 

for public use and interpretation. This may direct visitors to sites accessed off the Byway, which 

may increase the use of the roadway, which may, in turn, result in beneficial impacts. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, protective measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of 

maintenance activities in order to reduce human disturbance and to minimize the need for site 

visits to any existing lease areas. No increase in infrastructure development in new lease areas 

would occur along the Byway. New proposed lease areas would be used to protect against 

drainage. There would be no impacts to byway usage from the leasing of up to an additional 

880 acres. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between 

livestock grazing, and the protection of cultural resources. There would be a reduction of 2,055 

active AUMs available (from 8,492 active AUMs under Alternative I to 6,437 under this 

alternative). Closing these AUMs may result in beneficial impacts by improving vegetation 

cover and land health, restoring more natural conditions, and enhancing the scenic quality along 

the Byway. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative V would identify and manage RMZs and SRMAs, and would promote low-impact 

activity with minimal facilities and infrastructure, thereby not disturbing the pristine experience of 

the area. This alternative would promote visitation by a mix of local residents, as well as by 

regional, national, and international visitors. Alternative V would maintain 169 miles of roads, 

representing 980 acres of ground disturbance with most existing user-created roads closed and 

reclaimed. Approximately 7,875 acres would be managed for public visitation, with 157,460 

acres managed for backcountry use. Although most user-created roads would be closed and 

reclaimed, the overall increase in available road access may encourage the public to explore 

more of the Monument, using the Trails of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway as access to 

the Monument. 

Other Resources Management 

This alternative would manage 38,598 acres as VRM Class I; 126,643 acres as VRM Class II; 

and 94 acres as VRM Class III. As with all of the alternatives, the Trail of the Ancients Scenic 

and Historic Byway, along with a 0.5-mile buffer, is VRM Class II 

4.3.2.3. Scenic and Historic Byway Management Impact Comparison 

The Scenic and Historic Byway impact comparison is presented in Table 4-29. This table 

compares the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on Scenic 

and Historic Byways. 

4.3.2.4. Cumulative Impacts 

The Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway, along County Road 10, was established for 

its cultural and natural beauty. Fluid minerals development may be the most immediate threat 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

511 

to maintaining the pristine character of this roadway, with potential impacts coming from already 

leased areas within the Monument and from neighboring private land. Furthermore, roadways 

in and surrounding the Monument would be used more often and, potentially, by heavier 

vehicles associated with mineral-development traffic. This increased use may result in a greater 

need for maintenance, litter clean up, and law enforcement for traffic control and public safety. 

The invasion of noxious weeds from offsite influences may impact vegetation along byways, 

compromising the natural beauty of the travel corridor, including use by wildlife. The increase in 

visitors to the Four Corners region may undoubtedly increase the use of Scenic and Historic 

Byways, regardless of actions in the Monument. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

512 

Table 4-29 Comparison of Impacts to Scenic and Historic Byway 

Land Use or 

Management Action 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Scenic and Historic 

Byways 

Take no actions 

specific to Scenic and 

Historic Byways. 

Implement all sitespecific actions to 

Scenic and Historic 

Byways. 

Implement all sitespecific actions to 

Scenic and Historic 

Byway. 

Implement all sitespecific actions to 

Scenic and Historic 

Byways. 

Implement all sitespecific actions to 

Scenic and Historic 

Byways. 

Cultural Resources Develop new sites for controlled visitation. Identify 13 sites for development. Identify 13 to 25 sites for development. Identify 13 to 25 sites for development. Identify 13 to 25 sites for development. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make up to 880 acres 

available for new 

leasing. 

Make up to 3,021 

acres available for 

new leasing. 

Make up to 24,462 

acres available for 

new leasing. 

Make up to 880 acres 

available for new 

leasing. 

Rangeland Resources Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. Permit 8,368 AUMs. Permit 8,492 AUMs. Permit 6,437 AUMs. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles of 

roads (with 864 acres 

of disturbance). 

Maintain developed 

recreation sites. 

Manage 139 miles of 

roads (with 806 acres 

of disturbance). 

Manage 8,211 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 157,124 

acres for backcountry 

use. 

Manage 189 miles of 

roads (with 1,096 

acres of disturbance). 

Manage 18,875 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 

146,460 acres for 

backcountry use. 

Manage 213 miles of 

roads (with 1,235 

acres of disturbance). 

Manage 47,056 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 118,279 

acres for backcountry 

use. 

Manage 169 miles of 

roads (with 980 acres 

of disturbance). 

Manage 7,875 acres 

for public visitation. 

Manage 157,460 acres 

for backcountry use). 

Other Resources: 

Visual Resources 

Manage the Trail of 

the Ancients Scenic 

and Historic Byway 

as VRM Class II. 

Manage the Trail of 

the Ancients Scenic 

and Historic Byway 

as VRM Class II. 

Manage the Trail of 

the Ancients Scenic 

and Historic Byway 

as VRM Class II. 

Manage the Trail of 

the Ancients Scenic 

and Historic Byway 

as VRM Class II. 

Manage the Trail of 

the Ancients Scenic 

and Historic Byway as 

VRM Class II. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

513 

4.3.3. Research Natural Areas 

The primary goal for the McElmo Research Natural Area (RNA) is to provide a natural and 

undisturbed setting for scientific research and public education. The management objectives 

related to this goal include: 

 maintain and manage the McElmo RNA as a herpetological research area, a resource 

for educational institutions, and an outdoor classroom; 

 enhance McElmo RNA surface disturbance protections; 

 enhance research and outdoor educational opportunities within McElmo RNA; 

 reduce livestock grazing pressure within the RNA; 

 protect Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs) proposed by the Colorado Natural Heritage 

Program (CNHP) from adverse impacts of ground-disturbing activities; and 

 evaluate the potential expansion of the RNA boundary. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to RNAs. 

This section discusses impacts under each alternative of RNA management, and other key 

resource management alternatives on RNAs. Refer to Table 2.1 for the proposed RNA 

management actions under each alternative, and refer to Section 3.3.3 for a description of 

existing RNA conditions in the Monument. 

Adverse impacts to the RNA may include any action that diminishes habitat for the long-nose 

leopard lizard and for other resources, particularly herpetological, in this area. Beneficial 

impacts may include actions that enhance the natural features of the RNA, such as its 

vegetation, water, and/or wildlife. Direct impacts may include the direct mortality of lizards 

and/or of other wildlife within the RNA. Indirect impacts may include the degradation of wildlife 

habitat. 

4.3.3.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Factors used to quantify impacts to the RNA include acres, miles, and/or number of AUMs that 

may impact the natural resources within the RNA. The number and kind of protective measures 

can also be used to differentiate alternatives. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to RNAs include the following: 

 This impact analysis, for both individual and cumulative impacts, considers the spatial 

boundary to be the existing and/or expanded boundary of the McElmo RNA, and the 

temporal boundary to be the 20-year planning horizon. 

4.3.3.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to RNAs may differ in extent and severity, depending on the specific management 

actions under each alternative. The following sections describe the impacts under each 

alternative anticipated to result from the management actions directly proposed for RNAs, as 

well as those anticipated to result from the management actions proposed for cultural 

resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and recreation and transportation management. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

514 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Research Natural Areas Management 

Alternative I would continue to manage the Rare Lizard and Snake Instant Study Area (ISA) as 

both an ACEC and a WSA. The ISA is in the same location as the McElmo RNA. The McElmo 

RNA would be expanded to include adjoining private land, if the proposed land exchange is 

completed. This may have beneficial impacts on the existing RNA due to increasing the area 

that would be protected for research and education. Because this action is beyond the decision 

ability of this plan, this alternative would only identify the 427-acre existing RNA. In addition, 

more intensive management of rangeland resources within the RNA, and fencing for additional 

management control, may have a beneficial impact to vegetation and wildlife. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, no cultural resource sites would be developed for public visitation within 

the RNA boundaries; therefore, there would be no impact to RNAs. Management actions that 

preserve and protect cultural resource sites may also protect natural resources within the RNA. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

There is currently an NSO stipulation for the McElmo RNA for any new leases after 1991. This 

management may have a beneficial impact to the RNA because it would protect wildlife and 

vegetation from surface-disturbing activities related to fluid minerals exploration and extraction. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, extensive management of rangeland resources within the McElmo RNA 

would be required after fencing is constructed. This may have a beneficial impact to vegetation 

and wildlife because it would restrict livestock from sensitive areas and intensely manage them 

elsewhere to protect the natural and biological resources of the RNA. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under this alternative, the two-track road leading into the RNA would remain as it currently 

exists, and would be open to the public. No specific recreation management plan is currently in 

place. This may have adverse impacts on the RNA, due to the lack of clear management 

direction for specific resource uses, especially if visitation increases in the future. 

Alternative II

Research Natural Areas Management 

The proposed expansion of the McElmo RNA under this alternative would include public land 

only. It would also designate the Cannonball and Sand Canyon Potential Conservation Areas 

(PCAs) as RNAs for a total area of 7,826 acres. This may have beneficial impacts on the 

existing RNA because it would increase the area protected for research and education. 

Expanding into adjacent private land may occur if the proposed land exchange is completed. 

Alternative II would maintain the Bridge Canyon NGD/NSO designation and limit road 

improvements. A NGD/NSO restriction would be placed on portions of the expanded RNA not 

currently under lease for protecting herpetological resources. By not improving roads, visitation 

may be limited, which may further protect these resources. Surface-disturbing activities would 

be limited to research and education, would prohibit seismic activity, and would close the RNA 

to livestock grazing. These actions may improve vegetation health and help to protect wildlife. 

Developing a recreation activity management plan may help guide future actions within the 

RNA. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

515 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, there would be no cultural resource sites developed for public visitation 

within the RNA boundaries; therefore, there would be no impact on the RNAs. Management 

actions that preserve and protect cultural resource sites may also protect natural resources 

within the RNA. These management actions may have a beneficial impact on RNAs because 

they may preserve RNA resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

There is currently an NSO stipulation for the McElmo RNA for any new leases after 1991. A 

NSO stipulation would be placed on portions of the expanded RNA not currently under lease for 

protecting herpetological resources. This management may have a beneficial impact to the 

RNA because it may protect wildlife and vegetation from surface-disturbing activities related to 

fluid minerals exploration and extraction. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

After fencing is completed, livestock would be removed from the McElmo RNA. This may have 

beneficial impacts on the vegetation and wildlife that are protected by the RNA designation. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under this alternative, no new road development would occur within the McElmo RNA, and the 

existing two-track road would be closed to all traffic. This may have beneficial impacts to the 

RNA since it would limit access and surface-disturbing activities within the RNA. Access 

limitations for visitors may help preserve the important wildlife and habitat protected by the RNA 

designation. The RNA is currently included in the Mockingbird Mesa RMZ. This area would be 

managed from “Backcountry to Rural” under Alternative II, which would minimize infrastructure 

and development. 

Alternative III

Research Natural Areas Management 

Under this alternative, the McElmo RNA would be expanded to include adjoining private land, if 

the proposed land exchange is completed. This may have beneficial impacts on the existing 

RNA because it would increase the area protected for research and education. Due to the fact 

that this action is beyond the decision ability of this plan, this alternative only identifies a total of 

427 acres for the existing RNA. Alternative III would maintain the Bridge Canyon NSO 

designation, limit surface-disturbing activities to research and education, and permit seismic 

activity under NGD/NSO stipulations. The RNA would limit livestock grazing (allowed 

November 15 through March 15), develop a recreation activity management plan, and improve 

the access road to a natural surface. Alternative III may also have a beneficial impact on the 

natural, biological, and cultural resources of the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs in that it 

would establish NGD/NSO stipulations where mineral leasing has not already occurred. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, no cultural resource sites would be developed for public visitation within 

the RNA boundaries; therefore, there would be no impact to RNAs. Management actions that 

preserve and protect cultural resource sites may also protect natural resources within the RNA. 

These management actions may have a beneficial impact on RNAs due to the fact that they 

may preserve the RNA resources. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

516 

Fluid Minerals Management 

There is currently an NSO stipulation for the McElmo RNA for any new leases after 1991. This 

management may have a beneficial impact to the RNA because it would protect wildlife and 

vegetation from surface-disturbing activities related to fluid minerals exploration and extraction. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative III may have beneficial impacts to wildlife and vegetation in the RNA because it 

would limit livestock grazing opportunities to November 15 through March 15. While this 

alternative may have beneficial impacts, it may not be as beneficial as Alternative II (where no 

grazing is allowed). 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative III would improve the existing two-track road to a natural surface within the RNA and 

restrict its use for administrative purposes only. Additionally, cross-country foot traffic and 

horseback riding would be allowed. This management action would limit the number of visitors 

and help to preserve the wildlife and habitat resources protected by the RNA designation. 

Under Alternative III, the RNA would be managed under the Mockingbird-Mesa RMZ. This area 

would be managed from “Backcountry to Rural.” Improving the access to a natural surface road 

may increase visitation, which, in turn, may have an adverse impact to the RNA, depending on 

the intensity of use. 

Alternative IV

Research Natural Areas Management 

Under this alternative, the McElmo RNA would be expanded to include adjoining private land, if 

the proposed land exchange is completed. This may have beneficial impacts on the existing 

RNA because it would increase the area protected for research and education. Because this 

action is beyond the decision ability of this plan, this alternative only identifies a total of 427 

acres for the existing RNA. Alternative IV would maintain the Bridge Canyon NSO designation, 

limit surface-disturbing activities to research and education, and permit seismic activity under 

NGD/NSO restrictions. The RNA management would strictly manage livestock grazing, develop 

a recreation activity management plan, and improve the access road to a natural surface open 

to the public. Alternative IV may also have a beneficial impact on the natural, biological, and 

cultural resources of the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs because it would establish CSU 

stipulations where mineral leasing has not already occurred. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, there would be no cultural resource sites developed for public visitation 

within the RNA boundaries; therefore, there would be no impact to RNAs. Management actions 

that preserve and protect cultural resource sites may also protect natural resources within the 

RNA. These management actions may have a beneficial impact on RNAs because it may 

preserve RNA resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

There is currently an NSO stipulation for any new leases after 1991 within the McElmo RNA. 

This management may have a beneficial impact to the RNA because it would protect wildlife 

and vegetation from surface-disturbing activities relating to fluid minerals exploration and 

extraction. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

517 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, extensive management of rangeland resources within the McElmo RNA 

would be required after fencing is constructed. This may have a beneficial impact to vegetation 

and wildlife since it would restrict livestock from sensitive areas and intensely manage them 

elsewhere to protect the natural and biological resources of the RNA. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative IV would limit new road development and improve the existing two-track road for 

public use. This management action may encourage more visitors, which may, in turn, impact 

the preservation of wildlife and habitat resources protected by the RNA. Under Alternative IV, 

the RNA would be managed under the Mockingbird-Mesa RMZ. This area would be managed 

from “Backcountry to Rural.” 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Research Natural Areas Management 

Under this alternative, the proposed expansion of the McElmo RNA would have beneficial 

impacts on the existing RNA because it would increase the area protected for research and 

education. This alternative would manage 7,826 acres as RNA. Alternative V may also have a 

beneficial impact on the natural, biological, and cultural resources of the Cannonball and Sand 

Canyon PCAs because it designates these areas as RNAs. As a result of limiting activities 

within the RNA, such as seismic activity and livestock grazing, there may be beneficial impacts 

to the vegetation and wildlife protected by the RNA. Existing NGD/NSOs for the protection of 

herpetological resources would be maintained, and new ones established where mineral leasing 

has not already occurred. In addition, by not improving the access road and keeping it open for 

administrative purposes only, visitation would be limited, which may further protect these 

resources. Alternative V would not develop a recreation activity management plan. This may 

have adverse impacts to vegetation and wildlife as visitation increases in the Monument. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, there would be no cultural resource sites developed for public visitation 

within the RNA boundaries; therefore, there would be no impact on RNAs. Management actions 

that preserve and protect cultural resource sites may also protect natural resources within the 

RNA. These management actions may have a beneficial impact on RNAs because they may 

preserve RNA resources. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

There is currently an NSO stipulation for the McElmo RNA for any new leases after 1991. In 

addition, stipulations to prohibit long-term, ground-disturbing fluid minerals development in the 

Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs would also be implemented. This management, including 

prohibiting all seismic operations, may have a beneficial impact to the RNA because it would 

protect wildlife and vegetation from surface-disturbing activities related to fluid minerals 

exploration and extraction. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Alternative V may have beneficial impacts to wildlife and vegetation in the RNA because it 

would permit livestock grazing only from November 15 through March 15. Although this 

alternative may have beneficial impacts, it may not be as beneficial as Alternative II, where 

livestock grazing is not allowed. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

518 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under this alternative, no new road development would occur within the McElmo RNA. Limiting 

new road development may have a beneficial impact to the RNA because it may limit the 

number of visitors and may help preserve the wildlife and habitat resources protected by the 

RNA. No established recreation activity management plan would be developed under this 

alternative, which may have adverse impacts to the RNAs since it would not plan for potential 

increases in visitation and associated impacts. 

4.3.3.3. Research Natural Areas Management Impact Comparison 

The RNA impact comparison is presented in Table 4-30. This table compares the 

consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on RNAs. 

4.3.3.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Actions may occur on adjoining private land that may negate the desire to acquire that land, as 

part of the RNA. Activities that result in loss of habitat and/or in direct loss to species of interest 

may minimize the potential of the private land to be considered for expansion into the existing 

RNA. 

The expansion of RNA designation would add to a larger national system of lands protected for 

research purposes. These areas serve to protect natural conditions within them, reducing 

ground disturbing activities and the associated loss of wildlife habitat, possible erosion, and 

sedimentation into nearby water systems. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

519 

Table 4-30 Comparison of Impacts to Research Natural Areas 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

RNAs Manage 427 acres as RNA. Manage 7,826 acres as RNA. Manage 427 acres as RNA. Manage 427 acres as RNA. Manage 7,826 acres as RNA. 

Cultural Resources 

Develop no cultural 

resource sites in 

RNA. 

Develop no cultural 

resource sites in 

RNA. 

Develop no cultural 

resource sites in 

RNA. 

Develop no cultural 

resource sites in 

RNA. 

Develop no cultural 

resource sites in RNA. 

Fluid Minerals Protect RNA through NGD/NSO. 

Protect RNA through 

NGD/NSO. Expand 

RNA. Protect 

Cannonball and Sand 

Canyon units, where 

not currently leased. 

Protect RNA through 

NGD/NSO. 

Protect RNA through 

NGD/NSO. 

Protect RNA through 

NGD/NSO. Expand 

RNA. Protect 

Cannonball and Sand 

Canyon units, where 

not currently leased. 

Rangeland Resources 

Apply intensive 

livestock 

management. 

Close to livestock 

grazing. 

Permit livestock 

grazing from 

November 15 to 

March 15. 

Apply intensive 

livestock 

management. 

Permit livestock 

grazing from 

November 15 to 

March 15. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Develop no 

recreation plan. Take 

no specific action for 

management of the 

two-track access 

road. 

Develop no 

recreation plan. 

Close two-track 

access road. 

Develop recreation 

plan. Manage twotrack access road for 

administrative 

purposes only. 

Develop recreation 

plan. Improve 

existing two-track 

road for public use. 

Develop no recreation 

plan. Manage twotrack access road for 

administrative 

purposes only. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

520 

4.3.4. Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The primary goal for Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) is to preserve free-flowing rivers with 

special values in their natural condition. The management objectives related to this goal is to 

manage rivers found suitable for WSR designation to protect their Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values and Classification. Currently there are no WSRs in the Monument. However, four rivers 

are eligible for reclassification as either scenic or recreational. These rivers include Cross 

Canyon, Hovenweep Tributary, Sandstone Canyon, and Bowdish Canyon. WSR review has 

three steps: 1) eligibility, 2) tentative classification, and 3) suitability. Wild rivers are those 

rivers, or sections of rivers, that are free of impoundments with watersheds and/or shorelines 

essentially primitive and unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. Scenic 

rivers are those rivers, or sections of rivers, that possess at least one outstandingly remarkable 

value such as geologic, historic, cultural, scenic, recreational, or other similar values. These 

free-flowing rivers occur throughout the Monument and all have outstanding cultural values. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to WSRs 

Beneficial impacts to river segments deemed qualified as wild and scenic may include any 

activity that enhance the qualities of rivers that initially rendered them eligible (for example, 

actions that protect native riparian vegetation along the stream corridor). Adverse impacts to 

river segments may include any activity that reduces the characteristics that initially qualified the 

river (for example, impoundments would be considered a direct adverse impact). 

4.3.4.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Impacts on WSR values may come from development actions that diminish the outstandingly 

remarkable and free-flowing values that make the rivers eligible. These may be measured in 

terms of miles of stream, acres of disturbance, and/or other measures of intrusion or 

degradation. Often these qualities cannot be calculated. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to river segments deemed suitable as WSR include the 

following: 

 Alternative II is the only alternative to assume that all river segments deemed eligible 

would also be considered suitable for designation as a WSR. 

 Alternatives I and III through V assume that all river segments deemed eligible would not 

be considered suitable for designation as a Wild and Scenic River. Therefore, impacts 

from other resource management actions under these alternatives are not evaluated. 

 The impacts analysis boundary for the WSR would include the stream in which these 

segments lie. 

 The cumulative impacts analysis boundary for the WSR would include the drainage in 

which these streams lie. 

4.3.4.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to WSRs may differ in extent and severity, depending on the specific management 

actions under each alternative. The following sections describe the impacts under each 

alternative anticipated to result from the management actions proposed for WSRs, as well as 

those anticipated to result from the management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

521 

minerals, rangeland resources, recreation and transportation, and other resources 

management. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Under this alternative, eligibility and a tentative classification study of river segments in the 

Monument was completed. The BLM determined that four rivers within the Monument meet the 

WSR eligibility criteria, as identified in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Although rivers have 

been determined to be eligible, under this alternative, which maintains current management, 

they would not be considered suitable. Therefore, there would be no impacts to WSR under this 

alternative. 

Cultural Resources Management 

There are currently no WSRs in the Monument. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

There are currently no WSRs in the Monument. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

There are currently no WSRs in the Monument. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

There are currently no WSRs in the Monument. 

Other Resources Management 

There are currently no WSRs in the Monument. 

Alternative II

Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Designation of all four eligible river segments to the National WSR System is recommended 

under this alternative. Although the BLM makes recommendations for inclusion into the 

National WSR System, only Congress or the Secretary of the Interior (upon application by the 

Governor of the State), could designate a river to the National WSR System. Actual 

designation, if any, may or may not follow the recommendations made by the BLM. 

If designated, the values that make these stream segments eligible for Congressional or 

administrative designation into the WSR System would be protected by management 

prescriptions in this plan, or in a subsequent river management plan that would limit potential 

surface disturbance for the 0.5 mile-wide corridor. The four rivers eligible for reclassification 

include Cross Canyon, Hovenweep Tributary, Sandstone Canyon, and Bowdish Canyon. A 

total of 25.3 free-flowing river miles that have outstanding cultural values are eligible as either 

scenic or recreational rivers. 

Under this alternative, the BLM would not anticipate any changes to the free-flowing 

characteristics of these rivers, or not to the degree that they would affect eligibility/suitability. 

This management would have no impact. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, the Monument would be managed as an outdoor museum, allowing visitors 

to experience the Monument through self-discovery. In addition, 13 sites would be developed 

for public visitation. This may encourage visitors to explore the Monument, but would not 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

522 

change the free-flowing characteristic of the rivers to the degree that they would impact 

eligibility/suitability. Under this alternative, all archaeological and historic sites located within 

0.25 mile from either side of the existing streambed would be considered “river-related 

resources” and would be protected. Visitors using these rivers may have an enhanced cultural 

experience in the Monument. Cultural resources management may have a beneficial impact on 

WSRs. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Protective measures in leased areas would include the consolidation of maintenance activities 

in order to reduce human disturbance and to minimize the need for site visits to any existing 

lease areas. Under this alternative, the 880 acres considered available for leasing would be 

used to protect against drainage. The proposed action is not anticipated to change the freeflowing characteristics, or alter or disturb the shoreline of the rivers, to the degree that they 

would impact eligibility/suitability. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between 

livestock grazing and the protection of cultural resources. There would be a reduction of 2,055 

active AUMs available (from 8,492 active AUMs under Alternative I to 6,437 under this 

alternative). Additionally five allotments would be closed. The removal of these AUMs, under 

this alternative, would not change the free-flowing characteristic of the rivers to the degree that 

they would impact eligibility/suitability, or disturb the shorelines of these rivers. These actions 

may benefit many of the resource conditions that resulted in stream segment eligibility and 

suitability as WSRs. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Alternative II would promote low-impact activity, and may have the greatest restrictions for 

motorized vehicle access throughout the Monument. Alternative II would identify and manage 

RMZs and SRMAs, but would add minimal facilities and infrastructure, thereby not disturbing the 

pristine experience of the area. Alternative II would reduce designated access to 139 miles of 

roads. Most existing user-created roads would be closed and reclaimed. The decrease in 

mileage available to travel in the Monument would not change the free-flowing characteristic of 

the rivers to the degree that they would impact eligibility/suitability, or disturb or alter their 

shorelines. 

Other Resources Management 

Alternative II would protect 5,312 acres of riparian system, including canyon bottoms, riparian 

areas, and floodplains. Groundwater and new water developments would be discouraged. This 

alternative would be the most protective of water resources. 

Alternative III

Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Cultural Resources Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

523 

Fluid Minerals Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Other Resources Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Alternative IV

Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Cultural Resources Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Other Resources Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Cultural Resources Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

524 

Fluid Minerals Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

Other Resources Management 

No river segments would be considered suitable for WSR designation to the National WSR 

System under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no impact. 

4.3.4.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Impact Comparison 

The WSR impact comparison is presented in Table 4-31. This table compares the 

consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. 

4.3.4.4. Cumulative Impacts 

The primary influence outside the Monument that may prevent current eligible and suitable 

stream segments from consideration as WSRs is the removal of agriculture water flows. Water 

runoff from irrigation occurring upstream of the Monument is the primary source of year-round 

water flow within the Monument and, in particular, the four stream segments being considered 

for designation. Given the increase in urban development (subdivisions) in fields that were used 

for crop production, this threat to free-flowing streams may be substantial. 

Cumulative impacts from onsite and offsite fluid minerals management, livestock grazing, and/or 

from similar activities may potentially contaminate surface and groundwater, increase soil 

erosion, reduce natural vegetation cover, and proliferate noxious and invasive weeds along the 

four eligible WSRs. Surface disturbance may be localized to onsite river segments, but water 

quality issues may arise anywhere within the watershed. Impacts may be either short- or longterm, depending on their severity, and may be reduced through adequate planning, mitigation, 

and monitoring. Adherence to appropriate pre-development, development, and postdevelopment protective measures may be critical to mitigate offsite and cumulative impacts. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

525 

Table 4-31 Comparison of Impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Types of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

Make no WSR 

designations. 

Consider all eligible 

river segments 

suitable as WSR 

(25.3 miles). 

Consider no river 

segments suitable as 

WSR. 

Consider no river 

segments suitable as 

WSR. 

Consider no river 

segments suitable as 

WSR. 

Cultural Resources No Impact. 

Protect cultural 

communities, sites, 

and isolated finds. 

No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Make up to 880 acres 

available for leasing, 

with an NSO/NGD 

stipulation. 

No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 

Rangeland Resources No Impact. Manage 6,437 AUMs. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 

Recreation and 

Transportation No Impact. Reduce road miles (139 miles). No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 

Other Resources: 

Water Resources No Impact. 

Protect 5,312 acres 

of canyon bottoms, 

riparian areas, and 

floodplains. 

No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

526 

4.3.5. Wilderness Study Areas 

The primary goals for Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) are to determine management guidance, 

should Congress release them from WSA status. The management objectives related to this 

goal include: 

 maintain the non-impairment standard for WSAs, in accordance with the FLPMA, in 

order to prevent undue and unnecessary degradation of wilderness characteristics; and 

 protect and preserve wilderness characteristics, where appropriate (i.e., their 

“naturalness”, their outstanding opportunities for solitude, and their potential for primitive 

and unconfined recreation) in citizens wilderness proposal areas located outside WSAs. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to WSAs. 

Beneficial impacts may include activities that enhance wilderness qualities and/or provide 

protection for wilderness characteristics. Adverse impacts may include any activity that 

diminishes the wilderness quality of WSAs. Direct impacts may include such actions as the 

construction of a road or a well pad. Indirect impacts may include such actions that might result 

from over-grazing and/or from erosion. 

4.3.5.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Numerous restrictions and stipulations exist that maintain the integrity of existing WSAs, which 

significantly reduces impacts. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to WSAs include the following: 

 This impact analysis considers the spatial boundary the existing boundary of the WSAs, 

and the temporal boundary the 20-year planning horizon. 

4.3.5.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to WSAs may differ in extent and severity, depending on the specific management 

actions under each alternative. The following sections describe the impacts under each 

alternative anticipated to result from the management actions directly proposed for WSAs, as 

well as those anticipated to result from the management actions proposed for cultural 

resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and recreation and transportation. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Wilderness Study Areas Management 

Alternative I would use the no-impairment standards from the FLPMA and from the BLM’s 

Interim Management Policy to Manage WSAs and would provide opportunities for backcountry 

recreation (e.g., hiking, dispersed camping, horseback riding). The BLM would preserve these 

areas (25,549 acres) as suitable for wilderness until they are reviewed and acted upon by 

Congress. Patrolling WSAs may help prevent any misuse or impairment of these wilderness 

areas. Providing opportunities for backcountry recreation would allow access to and enjoyment 

of these areas while, at the same time preserving the natural landscape. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, no cultural resource sites would be developed for public visitation within the 

WSA boundaries. Additional management actions would preserve and protect cultural resource 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

527 

sites, and provide research, interpretation, and education opportunities. These management 

actions may have a beneficial impact on WSAs. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative I, there would be no new leasing of fluid minerals within the existing WSAs; 

therefore, there would be no impact from fluid minerals management on WSAs. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under this alternative, there would be no specific livestock management actions related to 

WSAs. This alternative may have adverse impacts to WSAs because there would be no 

changes to the current management, which includes 8,492 AUMs. This may adversely impact 

areas within the WSAs that are currently not achieving Public Land Health Standards or PFC. 

Several areas within the WSAs have been identified as Functional-At Risk with a downward 

trend. Without more restrictive rangeland management, it is unlikely that improvements would 

occur to resource conditions for soil, vegetation, habitat, and/or to water quality within these 

areas. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative I, there would be no development of additional roads within WSA boundaries; 

therefore, there would be no impacts from transportation management actions on WSAs. 

Providing backcountry recreation (e.g., hiking, dispersed camping, horseback riding) would 

allow public access to, and enjoyment of, these areas, while, at the same time, preserving the 

natural landscape. This alternative does not have a marketing strategy for tourism; therefore, it 

would not increase visitation through agency promotion. 

Alternative II

Wilderness Study Areas Management 

Alternative II would manage the citizen’s proposed expansion of the WSAs, along with existing 

WSAs, for wilderness characteristics (30,772 acres). If Congress releases the WSAs from 

designation, management of these areas would remain consistent with non-impairment 

standards. 

Alternative II would further manage released WSAs by removing unnecessary fencing and nondomestic water developments, preventing the construction of new fences and water-related 

developments, and establishing NGO/NSO restrictions. These actions may have beneficial 

impacts on the resources of all areas with wilderness characteristics. Beneficial impacts to 

wildlife and vegetation may include the reduction of barriers and habitat disturbance, as well as 

the restoration of habitat connectivity. In addition, management actions for WSA-appropriate 

range improvements may have beneficial impacts due to the fact that they may improve habitat 

for both livestock and wildlife. 

Management of the citizen’s proposed expansion for WSAs may have beneficial impacts to 

existing WSAs because this would increase the area of protection for natural, biological, and 

aesthetic resources. However, because much of the citizen’s proposed expansion area is 

already leased for fluid minerals, only those stipulations in place at the time of leasing could 

apply. The establishment of NGO/NSO restrictions within existing WSAs and unleased areas 

managed for wilderness characteristics may have beneficial impacts to vegetation, wildlife, and 

cultural resources because they would limit ground-disturbing activities that may adversely 

impact these resources. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

528 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, no cultural resource sites would be developed for public visitation within the 

WSA boundaries. Additional management actions would preserve and protect cultural resource 

sites, and provide research, interpretation, and education opportunities. These management 

actions may have a beneficial impact on WSAs since they would provide education about the 

cultural and natural history of the Monument. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative II, adverse impacts on existing and expanded WSAs may occur, except where 

NSO stipulations apply. The citizen has proposed expansion area would be managed with 

existing stipulations where leases already exist. This may result in impacts to wilderness 

characteristics. Areas not currently leased would be managed with NSO stipulations that 

protect wilderness qualities. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

As previously discussed, removing unnecessary fencing and/or non-domestic water-related 

developments and preventing the construction of these features may have beneficial impacts on 

the natural, biological, and aesthetic resources of WSAs. Beneficial impacts to wildlife and 

vegetation may include the reduction of barriers and habitat disturbance, as well as the 

restoration of habitat connectivity. Management actions for WSA-appropriate range 

improvements may have beneficial impacts due to the fact that they may improve habitat for 

both livestock and wildlife. In addition, by implementing lower stocking levels (6,437 AUMs), 

spring use restrictions, and stricter utilization standards, there may be beneficial impacts to 

WSAs because of the improvement in land health conditions, including in soil, vegetation, 

wildlife habitat, and water quality. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative II, there would be no development of additional roads within the WSA 

boundaries; therefore, there would be no impacts from transportation management actions on 

WSAs. Alternative II would limit recreational activities, such as camping, campfires, rock 

climbing, and target shooting in the Monument. Due to the remoteness of the WSAs, limited 

use may occur because of the no-camping restriction. This alternative would promote an 

undeveloped recreation strategy, marketing primarily to local residents and incidental visitors. 

Alternative III

Wilderness Study Areas Management 

Alternative III would not include the citizen’s proposed expansion of WSA. This alternative 

would manage existing WSAs for wilderness characteristics (25,549 acres). If Congress 

releases the WSAs from their designation, these areas would continue to be managed for 

wilderness characteristics. However, minimal development would be allowed for research 

purposes. 

Removing unnecessary fencing and/or non-domestic water-related developments, and limiting 

construction of these features may have beneficial impacts on the natural, biological, and 

aesthetic resources of the WSAs. Beneficial impacts to wildlife and vegetation may include the 

reduction of barriers and habitat disturbances, as well as the restoration of habitat connectivity. 

In addition, management actions for WSA-appropriate range improvements may have beneficial 

impacts due to the fact that they may improve habitat for both livestock and wildlife. By limiting 

the construction of new fences and water-related developments, in order to further enhance the 

wilderness values, there may be a beneficial impact to WSAs due to improved ecological 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

529 

conditions. Similarly, establishing NGO/NSO restrictions that protect areas with wilderness 

characteristics and permitting ground-disturbing activities only when necessary for research 

purposes may further protect the natural, biological, and aesthetic resources of the WSAs. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, there would be no cultural resource sites developed for public visitation 

within the WSA boundaries. Additional management actions would preserve and protect 

cultural resource sites, and provide research, interpretation, and education opportunities. These 

management actions may have a beneficial impact on WSAs. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative III, adverse impacts to existing and expanded WSAs may occur, except where 

NSO stipulations apply. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Removing unnecessary fencing and/or non-domestic water-related developments would have 

beneficial impacts on the natural, biological, and aesthetic resources of WSAs. Beneficial 

impacts to wildlife and vegetation may include the reduction of barriers and habitat 

disturbances, as well as the restoration of habitat connectivity. By limiting the construction of 

new fences and water-related developments, in order to further enhance wilderness values, 

there may be a beneficial impact to WSAs due to improved ecological conditions. Management 

actions for WSA-appropriate range improvements may have beneficial impacts because they 

may improve habitat for both livestock and wildlife. Although stock levels would remain the 

same as those proposed under Alternative I, spring use restrictions and stricter utilization 

standards would be implemented. This may have beneficial impacts on WSAs because they 

may improve land health conditions, including soil, vegetation, wildlife habitat, and water quality. 

This improvement may be slower to occur than under Alternative II, where AUM allocations 

match calculated capacity. This alternative permits 8,368 AUMs. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative III, there would be no development of additional roads within the WSA 

boundaries; therefore, there would be no impacts from the transportation management actions 

on WSAs. Under Alternative III, camping would be permitted within the Squaw and Cross 

Canyons WSAs. This would allow public access to, and enjoyment of, these areas while, at the 

same time, preserving the natural landscape. This alternative would promote the Monument as 

a destination for regional visitors. This may increase visitation to the backcountry. 

Alternative IV

Wilderness Study Areas Management 

Alternative IV would manage the existing WSAs for wilderness characteristics (25,549 acres). If 

Congress releases WSAs from their designation, these areas would continue to be managed for 

wilderness characteristics; however, minimal development would be allowed for research, 

recreation, interpretation, fuels and fire management, rangeland, and vegetation manipulation 

for wildlife habitat. 

Removing unnecessary fencing and/or non-domestic water-related developments, and limiting 

construction of these features may have beneficial impacts on the natural, biological, and 

aesthetic resources of the WSAs. Beneficial impacts to wildlife and vegetation may include the 

reduction of barriers and habitat disturbance, as well as the restoration of habitat connectivity. 

In addition, management actions for WSA-appropriate range improvements may have beneficial 

impacts due to the fact that they may improve habitat for both livestock and wildlife. By limiting 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

530 

the construction of new fences and water-related developments, in order to further enhance the 

wilderness values, there may be a beneficial impact to WSAs due to improved ecological 

conditions. Similarly, establishing NGO/NSO restrictions that protect areas with wilderness 

characteristics and permitting ground-disturbing activities only when necessary for research 

purposes may further protect the natural, biological, and aesthetic resources of the WSAs. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, there would be no cultural resource sites developed for public visitation 

within the WSA boundaries. Additional management actions would preserve and protect 

cultural resource sites, and provide research, interpretation, and education opportunities. These 

management actions may have a negligible, beneficial impact on WSAs. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative IV, adverse impacts on existing and expanded WSAs may occur, except 

where NSO restrictions apply. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Removing unnecessary fencing and/or non-domestic water-related developments may have 

beneficial impacts on the natural, biological, and aesthetic resources of the WSAs. Beneficial 

impacts to wildlife and vegetation may include the reduction of barriers and habitat disturbance, 

as well as the restoration of habitat connectivity. On the other hand, by allowing the 

construction of new fences and water-related developments, there may be a beneficial impact to 

WSAs due to improved ecological conditions. In addition, management actions for WSAappropriate range improvements may have beneficial impacts by improving habitat for both 

livestock and wildlife. 

Under this alternative, there would be no change in livestock levels compared with Alternative I; 

however, more intensive livestock management would occur. Concern for land health 

conditions would continue, but such conditions may be expected to improve, which may benefit 

soil, vegetation, wildlife habitat, and water quality within WSAs. Improvement may be slower to 

occur than under Alternative II, where AUM allocations match calculated capacity. This 

alternative permits 8,492 AUMs. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative IV, there would be no roads developed within the boundaries of the WSA; 

however, there would be two roads developed for public access by foot or by horse. Depending 

on the extent of use, there may be the potential for adverse impacts. These impacts may be 

small, however, due to the fact that access would be limited to non-motorized use. Under 

Alternative IV, camping would be permitted within the Squaw and Cross Canyon WSAs. This 

would allow public access to, and enjoyment of, these areas while, at the same time, preserving 

the natural landscape. This alternative would promote the Monument as a destination for 

national and international visitors, which may increase visitation to the backcountry. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Wilderness Study Areas Management 

Alternative V would manage the citizen’s proposed expansion of WSAs, along with existing 

WSAs, for wilderness characteristics (30,772 acres). If Congress releases the WSAs from 

designation, management of these areas would remain consistent with non-impairment 

standards. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

531 

Ground-disturbing activities would be allowed on a site-specific basis for research, recreation, 

rangeland management, fuels and fire management, and vegetation manipulation for wildlife 

habitat. Removing unnecessary fencing and/or non-domestic water-related developments, and 

limiting construction of these features may have beneficial impacts on resources of the WSAs. 

Beneficial impacts to wildlife and vegetation may include the reduction of barriers and habitat 

disturbance, as well as the restoration of habitat connectivity. On the other hand, Monument 

Manager’s discretion to allow WSA-appropriate range improvements may have beneficial 

impacts due to the fact that they may improve habitat for both livestock and wildlife. By allowing 

the construction of new fences and water-related developments, there may be a beneficial 

impact to WSAs due to improved ecological conditions. 

Management of the citizen’s proposed expansion for WSAs may have beneficial impacts to 

existing WSAs due to the fact that this would increase the area to preserve the natural, 

biological, and aesthetic resources of the WSAs. However, because much of the citizen’s 

proposed expansion area is already leased for fluid minerals, only those stipulations in place at 

the time of leasing would apply. The establishment of NGO/NSO restrictions within existing 

WSAs and unleased areas proposed for WSA expansion may have beneficial impacts to 

vegetation, wildlife, and cultural resources due to the fact that they would limit ground-disturbing 

activities that may adversely impact these resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, no cultural resource sites would be developed for public visitation within 

WSA boundaries. Management actions that protect natural resources would preserve and 

protect cultural resource sites, and provide research, interpretation, and education opportunities. 

These management actions may have a beneficial impact on WSAs. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative V, possible impact on existing and expanded WSAs may occur, except where 

NSO/NGD stipulations apply. The citizen’s proposed expansion area would need to be 

managed with existing stipulations where leases already exist. This may result in adverse 

impacts to wilderness characteristics. Areas of new leases would be managed with NSO/NGD 

stipulations in order to protect wilderness qualities. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Removing unnecessary fencing and/or non-domestic water-related developments may have 

beneficial impacts on the natural, biological, and aesthetic resources of the WSAs. Beneficial 

impacts to wildlife and vegetation may include the reduction of barriers and habitat disturbance, 

as well as the restoration of habitat connectivity. By limiting the construction of new fences and 

water-related developments, in order to further enhance the wilderness values, there may be a 

beneficial impact to WSAs due to improved ecological conditions. In addition, management 

actions for WSA-appropriate range improvements may have beneficial impacts due to the fact 

that they may improve habitat for both livestock and wildlife. 

In addition, by implementing lower stocking levels (6,437 AUMs), spring use restrictions, and 

stricter utilization standards, there may be beneficial impacts to WSAs due to the fact that they 

may improve land health conditions, including soil, vegetation, wildlife habitat, and water quality. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative V, there would be no development of additional roads within the WSA 

boundaries; therefore, there would be no impacts from transportation management actions on 

WSAs. Alternative V would allow camping and campfires within the WSA, but would prohibit 

geocaching and target shooting. Rock climbing would be in designated sites only and would not 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

532 

occur within a WSA. This would allow public access to, and enjoyment of, these areas while, at 

the same time, preserving the natural landscape. This alternative would promote specific sites 

in the Monument as destinations for regional, national, and international visitors. Most of the 

Monument, however, would be managed for undeveloped recreation, targeting local residents 

and incidental visitors. 

4.3.5.3. Wilderness Study Areas Management Impact Comparison 

The WSA impact comparison is presented in Table 4-32. This table compares the 

consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on WSAs. 

4.3.5.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Factors outside the Monument that may impact WSAs, as well as areas with wilderness 

characteristics, include the spread of noxious weeds, the reduction of water flows from 

upstream agriculture operations, the development of neighboring private land (and the 

associated noise and/or ridgeline construction), the increased visitation to the local region 

through tourism marketing, the loss of air quality, and the increased fly-over traffic from aircrafts. 

Any activity that can be detected by any human sense may impact a person’s wilderness 

experience. For example, the placement of an oil well on neighboring private land may send 

fumes and odors into the WSA, if wind direction allows. Increased traffic on roads adjacent to 

WSAs may result in increased noise levels within WSAs. In general, the more people and 

development in the area, the more chance of impacts to wilderness characteristics. Any one of 

these impacts may affect a person’s wilderness experience at any given moment. However, the 

cumulative impact of several of these factors may negate the wilderness experience over a long 

period of time, if not permanently. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

533 

Table 4-32 Comparison of Impacts to Wilderness Study Areas 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 

Alternative V 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

WSAs Manage 25,549 acres as WSA, 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA. Manage an 

additional 5,223 acres 

for wilderness 

character. 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA. 

Manage 25,549 acres 

as WSA. 

Manage 25,549 

acres as WSA. 

Manage an 

additional 5,223 

acres for wilderness 

character. 

Cultural Resources No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. 

Apply NSO stipulations 

on existing WSAs and 

on expanded WSA 

where leasing does not 

already occur. 

Apply NSO 

stipulations on 

existing WSAs. 

Apply NSO 

stipulations on 

existing WSAs. 

Apply NSO 

stipulations on 

existing WSAs and 

on expanded WSA 

where leasing does 

not already occur. 

Rangeland Resources 

Permit 8,492 AUMs. 

Allow no new fencing 

or water 

developments. 

Permit 6,437 AUMs. 

Rarely allow new 

fencing and water 

developments. 

Permit 8,368 AUMs. 

Rarely allow new 

fencing and water 

developments. 

Permit 8,492 AUMs. 

Manager’s discretion 

to allow new fencing 

and water 

developments to 

improve WSA values. 

Permit 6,437 AUMs. 

Manager’s discretion 

to allow new fencing 

and water 

developments to 

improve WSA 

values. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Allow camping and 

campfires. Promote 

no specific recreation 

strategy. 

Allow no camping or 

campfires. Promote 

undeveloped strategy 

for local residents. 

Allow camping and 

campfires. Promote 

destination strategy for regional visitors. 

Allow camping and 

campfires allowed. 

Promotes a 

destination strategy 

for national and 

international visitors. 

Allow camping and 

campfires. 

Promotes a mix of 

strategies. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

534 

4.3.6. Public Safety and Law Enforcement 

The primary goal of public safety and law enforcement goal is to provide for public safety and for 

enforcement of Federal laws and regulations related to the Monument and its resources. The 

management objectives related to this goal include: 

 address law enforcement strategies recommended in existing Monument Law 

Enforcement Plan including: 

 hazardous waste public safety; 

 drug and controlled substances; and 

 unauthorized use and development of Monument lands, resources, and objects; 

 provide appropriate law enforcement training for specific Monument resources and 

objects; and 

 maintain coordination with other agencies and jurisdictions for fire control, emergency 

response, and Search and Rescue functions. 

The five alternatives represent different combinations of management actions and land use or 

resource development scenarios, each with differing types and levels of impacts. The following 

alternative analysis considers adverse and beneficial impacts, direct and indirect impacts, as 

well as short-term and long-term impacts related to public safety and law enforcement. 

Direct impacts to public safety and law enforcement may include visitation and vandalism 

without adequate facilities and personnel to manage such issues. Indirect beneficial impacts 

may include increased signage; safe roads; clear easily obtainable travel maps; more law 

enforcement initiatives, including hotline numbers; and greater public awareness of what to look 

for and how to report violations. 

4.3.6.1. Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions 

Quantifying individual impacts to public safety and law enforcement can be indirectly determined 

by measures of road miles, number of sites developed for visitation, and marketing strategies. 

Assumptions used in analyzing impacts to public safety and law enforcement resource uses 

include the following: 

 Federal lands within the boundary of the Monument were used as the impacts analysis 

area. 

 Cumulative impacts were examined in relation to trends within Dolores and Montezuma 

Counties. 

4.3.6.2. Alternative Analysis 

Impacts to public safety and law enforcement may differ in extent and severity, depending on 

the specific management actions under each alternative. The following sections describe the 

impacts under each alternative anticipated to result from the management actions directly 

proposed for public safety and law enforcement, as well as those anticipated to result from the 

management actions proposed for cultural resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and 

recreation and transportation. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

535 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Public Safety and Law Enforcement Management 

Alternative I management actions would include continued cooperation with the National Park 

Service Stabilization Unit at Mesa Verde National Park, and increasing patrol efforts in cultural 

resource areas using two full-time seasonal law enforcement rangers. These actions may result 

in beneficial impacts to public safety. 

Under this alternative, the BLM would provide intensive protection of cultural resources from 

vandals and pothunters through increased surveillance and law enforcement. In addition, close 

coordination with other local law enforcement personnel, as well as opportunities for contracting 

law enforcement with county sheriffs would be explored. Periodic aircraft flights and ground and 

vehicle patrols would be used year-round to reduce and/or to prevent pothunting. Patrol activity 

would be complemented by public education and awareness programs, conducted in 

cooperation with the AHC. These actions may result in beneficial impacts to public safety and 

law enforcement due to the increased cooperation with other law enforcement personnel. Air 

patrols of Monument resources may further protect public safety and Monument resources. 

Cultural Resources Management 

This alternative would call for the stabilization, and possible development of up to 240 sites. 

Cultural resource patrols would be managed as a component of other resource protection 

activities, which may result in beneficial impacts. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under this alternative, no new wells would be drilled, which would reduce the number of workers 

accessing Monument roads and resources; therefore, there may be no impacts from fluid 

minerals management. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative I, enforcement actions would be taken against trespassers grazing illegal 

livestock in the Monument. In addition, applicable permit laws and regulations would apply. 

This action may result in beneficial impacts due to increased protection of Monument resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative I, recreation management would include developing facilities on an as-needed 

basis, and maintaining developed sites at Lowry, Painted Hand, and Sand Canyon Pueblos. No 

new SRPs would be issued. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 149 miles (864 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or for non-motorized use. Cross-country motorized and 

mechanized travel would be prohibited. No new roads would be built because of new fluid 

minerals leasing. No BLM marketing strategy for tourism would occur; therefore, Monument 

visitation may continue to be dominated by local residents and incidental visitors. 

Other Resources Management 

The management goals and actions for other resources (fuels and fire, geologic, facilities and 

infrastructure, and lands and realty), although not specifically addressing public safety and law 

enforcement, may provide beneficial impacts to public safety and law enforcement. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

536 

Alternative II

Public Safety and Law Enforcement Management 

Alternative II management actions would include increasing patrols during seasonal permit 

activities at recreation sites during spring breaks and holidays, and in areas experiencing high 

levels of cross-country travel. Management would also include developing a protocol to identify, 

respond to, and remove hazardous materials. Additional management actions that may result in 

greater public safety and protection of Monument resources include cooperating with other law 

enforcement entities to: 

 provide training of, and updates to, personnel conducting patrols during periods with 

high or extreme fire danger; 

 prevent and investigate human-caused fires and suspicious wildland fires; 

 assist SAR teams and emergency medical services; 

 participate in training; 

 enforce Monument laws, regulations, and policies; and 

 create a protocol for reporting resource management violations. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, the BLM would establish cultural resource vandalism, trespassing, and 

human remains discovery reporting and investigation procedures and protocols between the 

Dolores Field Office, AHC/Monument staff, the BLM law enforcement rangers, and local law 

enforcement agencies. The BLM would also ensure that these archaeology and law 

enforcement personnel maintain current training in investigation and case preparation, in 

accordance with the requirements of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

(ARPA). These actions may result in beneficial impacts due to the fact that they may allow law 

enforcement personnel to operate more efficiently and effectively. Thirteen cultural resource 

sites would be developed for public visitation under this alternative. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative II, up to 880 acres would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. 

Up to a total of 18 acres of new ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative. 

Additional infrastructure, including roads and utilities, as well as offsite infrastructure, would be 

required for fluid minerals development. Under Alternative II, two new well pads would be 

anticipated. This alternative may slightly increase traffic, as well as the chance for toxic spills, 

which may impact public safety. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative II, enforcement actions would be taken against trespassers grazing illegal 

livestock in the Monument. In addition, applicable permit laws and regulations would apply. 

This action may result in beneficial impacts due to increased protection of Monument resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative II, recreation management would include managing for custodial purposes, 

user conflicts, visitor safety, and/or for resource protection. Developed sites at Lowry, Painted 

Hand, and Sand Canyon Pueblos would be maintained. Approximately 8,211 acres would be 

managed as visitation areas, and 157,124 acres would be managed as backcountry areas. No 

new SRPs would be issued, and existing SRPs would be allowed to expire. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

537 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 139 miles (806 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or for non-motorized use. There would be no roads 

specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would 

be allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and 

mechanized travel would be prohibited, and law enforcement efforts to maintain this would be 

critical. 

This alternative would require the closure of all user-created roads, as well as other more 

established roads. Managing the public so that they would not use closed roads would involve 

education and law enforcement efforts. This alternative may require more enforcement efforts, 

for this reason, than would any other alternative. 

Alternative III

Public Safety and Law Enforcement Management 

Alternative III management actions would include increasing patrols during seasonal permit 

activities and at recreation sites during spring breaks and holidays, and in areas experiencing 

high levels of cross-country travel. It would also include developing a protocol to identify, 

respond to, and remove hazardous materials. Additional management actions that may benefit 

public safety and the protection of Monument resources include cooperating with other law 

enforcement entities to: 

 provide training of, and updates to, personnel conducting patrols during periods with 

high or extreme fire danger; 

 prevent and investigate human-caused fires and suspicious wildland fires; 

 assist SAR teams and emergency medial services; 

 participate in training; 

 enforce Monument laws, regulations, and policies; and 

 create a protocol for reporting resource management violations. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, the BLM would establish cultural resource vandalism, trespassing, and 

human remains discovery reporting and investigation procedures and protocols between the 

Dolores Field Office, AHC/Monument staff, the BLM law enforcement rangers, and local law 

enforcement agencies. The BLM would also ensure that their archaeology and law enforcement 

personnel maintain current training in investigation and case preparation, in accordance with the 

requirements of ARPA. Additionally, under Alternative III, access to most sites would not be 

encouraged. These actions may result in beneficial impacts to public safety and law 

enforcement because reduced access to sites may increase public safety and Monument 

resource preservation. Thirteen to 25 cultural resource sites would be developed for public 

visitation under this alternative. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative III, up to 3,021 acres would be available for leasing. Up to a total of 73 acres 

of new ground disturbance associated with eight new well pads would be possible under this 

alternative. This management may result in adverse impacts to public safety due to increased 

traffic and the potential for toxic spills. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

538 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative III, law enforcement actions would be taken against trespassers grazing illegal 

livestock in the Monument. In addition, applicable permit laws and regulations would apply. 

This action may result in beneficial impacts due to increased protection of Monument resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative III, recreation management would include a destination management strategy 

for regional visitors, actively marketing communities in the Four Corners area. Promoting the 

Monument regionally may draw more people to the area, which, in turn, may require greater 

education and law enforcement efforts to protect the objects of the Monument. Specific public 

access points and appropriate support facilities would be provided. Approximately 18,875 acres 

would be managed as visitation areas, and 146,460 acres would be managed as backcountry 

areas. No new SRPs would be issued, and existing SRPs could be renewed. The Monument 

travel system would include 189 miles (1,096 acres) of roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or 

for non-motorized use. There would be roads specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, 

or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would be allowed on roads designated as open to all 

forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and/or mechanized travel would be prohibited. 

Maintaining a variety of segregated use roads may require education and enforcement. 

Alternative IV

Public Safety and Law Enforcement Management 

Alternative IV management actions would increase patrols during seasonal permit activities and 

at recreation sites during spring breaks and holidays, and in areas experiencing high levels of 

cross-country travel. It would also include developing a protocol to identify, respond to, and 

remove hazardous materials. Additional management actions that may benefit public safety 

and Monument resources include cooperating with other law enforcement entities to: 

 provide training of, and updates to, personnel conducting patrols during periods with 

high or extreme fire danger; 

 prevent and investigate human-caused fires and suspicious wildland fires; 

 assist SAR teams and emergency medial services; 

 participate in training; 

 enforce Monument laws, regulations, and policies; and 

 create a protocol for reporting resource management violations. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, the BLM would establish cultural resource vandalism, trespassing, and 

human remains discovery reporting and investigation procedures and protocols between the 

Dolores Field Office, AHC/Monument staff, the BLM law enforcement rangers, and local law 

enforcement agencies. The BLM would also ensure that their archaeology and law enforcement 

personnel maintain current training in investigation and case preparation, in accordance with the 

requirements of ARPA. Additionally, under Alternative IV, access to most sites would be 

encouraged. These actions may result in adverse impacts to public safety and law enforcement 

due to the fact that access to sites may decrease public safety and Monument resource 

preservation. Thirteen to 25 cultural resource sites would be developed for public visitation 

under this alternative. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

539 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative IV, up to 24,462 acres would be available for leasing and would involve up to 

59 new well pads and up to 19 miles of roads. Under Alternative IV, new oil and gas leases 

would have NSO stipulations that protect cultural, natural, and scenic resources and Monument 

objects. Up to a total of 447 acres of new ground disturbance would be possible under this 

alternative. This management may result in adverse impacts to public safety due to the fact that 

additional development may increase traffic and the potential for toxic spills. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative IV, enforcement actions would be taken against trespassers grazing illegal 

livestock in the Monument. In addition, applicable permit laws and regulations would apply. 

This action may result in beneficial impacts due to increased protection of Monument resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative IV, recreation management would include a destination management 

strategy, including establishing destinations for national and international visitors, providing 

specific public access points, visitor facilities, access, and/or appropriate support facilities. 

Approximately 47,056 acres would be managed as visitation areas, and 118,279 acres would be 

managed as backcountry areas. New SRPs would be issued on a case-by-case basis. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 213 miles (1,235 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or for non-motorized use. There would be roads 

specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would 

be allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and 

mechanized travel would be prohibited. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Public Safety and Law Enforcement Management 

Alternative V management actions would include increasing patrols during seasonal permit 

activities and at recreation sites during spring breaks and holidays, and in areas experiencing 

high levels of cross-country travel. It would also include developing a protocol to identify, 

respond to, and remove hazardous materials. Additional management actions that may benefit 

public safety and Monument resources include cooperating with other law enforcement entities 

to: 

 provide training, of and updates to, personnel conducting patrols during periods with 

high or extreme fire danger; 

 prevent and investigate human-caused fires and suspicious wildland fires; 

 assist SAR teams and emergency medial services; 

 participate in training; 

 enforce Monument laws, regulations, and policies; and 

 create a protocol for reporting resource management violations. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Under this alternative, the BLM would establish cultural resource vandalism, trespassing, and 

human remains discovery reporting and investigation procedures and protocols between the 

Dolores Field Office, AHC/Monument staff, the BLM law enforcement rangers, and local law 

enforcement agencies. The BLM would also ensure that their archaeology and law enforcement 

personnel maintain current training in investigation and case preparation, in accordance with the 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

540 

requirements of ARPA. Additionally, under Alternative V, access to most sites would not be 

encouraged. These actions may result in beneficial impacts to public safety and law 

enforcement due to the fact that reduced access to sites may increase public safety and 

Monument resource preservation. Thirteen to 25 cultural resource sites would be developed for 

public visitation under this alternative. 

Fluid Minerals Management 

Under Alternative V, up to 880 acres would be available for leasing to protect against drainage. 

A total of 18 acres of new ground disturbance would be possible under this alternative. 

Additional infrastructure, including roads and utilities, as well as offsite infrastructure may be 

required for fluid minerals development. Up to two new well pads would be anticipated. This 

alternative may slightly increase the potential for impacts to public safety due to increased traffic 

and the potential for toxic spills. 

Rangeland Resources Management 

Under Alternative V, enforcement actions would be taken against trespassers grazing illegal 

livestock in the Monument. In addition, applicable permit laws and regulations would apply. 

This action may result in beneficial impacts due to increased protection of Monument resources. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Under Alternative V, recreation management would include a combination of strategies. 

Undeveloped areas with minimal facilities would be combined with destination management 

strategies for Painted Hand and Sand Canyon Pueblos, the AHC, and Lowry Pueblo RMZs. 

47,056 acres would be managed as visitation areas, and 118,279 acres would be managed as 

backcountry areas. Up to 10 new SRPs would be issued. 

Under this alternative, the Monument travel system would include 169 miles (980 acres) of 

roads for motorized, mechanized, and/or for non-motorized use. There would be roads 

specifically designated for OHV, mountain bike, or dirt bike travel. These forms of travel would 

be allowed on roads designated as open to all forms of travel. Cross-country motorized and 

mechanized travel would be prohibited. Maintaining a variety of segregated use roads may 

require education and law enforcement. 

4.3.6.3. Public Safety and Law Enforcement Management Impact Comparison 

The public safety and law enforcement impact comparison is presented in Table 4-33. This 

table compares the consequences of resource management actions under each alternative on 

public safety and law enforcement. 

4.3.6.4. Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts on public safety and law enforcement management may include enhanced 

safety and response due to cooperation with other Federal, State, county, and local law 

enforcement entities. The increased numbers of local residents and visiting publics may 

increase the need for public safety and law enforcement throughout the region. This may also 

be true for increased oil and gas development. These developments may occur both on and off 

the Monument, and may result in more traffic. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

541 

Table 4-33 Comparison of Impacts to Public Safety and Law Enforcement 

Type of Land Use or 

Management 

Alternative I 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Public Safety and 

Law Enforcement 

Add additional 

rangers. 

Add additional 

rangers. Promote 

greater cooperation, 

more efficient use of 

resources. 

Add additional rangers. 

Promote greater 

cooperation, more 

efficient use of 

resources. 

Add additional 

rangers. Promote 

greater cooperation, 

more efficient use of 

resources. 

Add additional rangers. 

Promote greater 

cooperation, more 

efficient use of 

resources. 

Cultural Resources 

Develop new sites for 

controlled visitation. 

Protect cultural sites. 

Develop 13 sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities, sites, 

and isolated finds. 

Develop 13 to 25 sites. 

Protects cultural 

communities and sites. 

Develop 13 to 25 sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities and sites. 

Develop 13 to 25 sites. 

Protect cultural 

communities and sites. 

Fluid Minerals No Impact. Make up to 880 acres available for leasing. Make up to 3,021 acres available for leasing. Make up to 24,462 acres available for leasing. Make up to 880 acres available for leasing. 

Rangeland Resources 

Take action against 

trespassers. Permit 

8,492 AUMs. 

Take action against 

trespassers. Permit 

6,437 AUMs. 

Take action against 

trespassers. Permit 

8,368 AUMs. 

Take action against 

trespassers. Permit 

8,492 AUMs. 

Take action against 

trespassers. Permit 

6,437 AUMs. 

Recreation and 

Transportation 

Manage 149 miles 

roads. Promote no 

specific recreation 

strategy. 

Manage 139 miles 

roads. Promotes 

undeveloped strategy 

for local residents. 

Manage 189 miles 

roads. Promotes a 

destination strategy for 

regional visitors. 

Manage 213 miles 

roads. Promote a 

destination strategy for 

national and 

international visitors. 

Manage 169 miles 

roads. Promote a mix 

of strategies. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

542 

4.4. Social and Economic Conditions 

4.4.1. Introduction 

For this DRMP/DEIS, potential social and economic impacts were analyzed by comparing an 

economic and social baseline scenario predicted for the study area over the 20-year planning 

period against changes to this baseline that may be expected to result from different planning 

alternatives. The baseline scenario was developed from a forecast created by Colorado’s State 

Office of Demography and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2007). This scenario 

establishes how the socioeconomic study area is expected to change over the next 20 years, 

given current economic and social trends for the local area, Four Corners region, Colorado, and 

the western United States. The analysis is based on the assumption that this predicted baseline 

for the study area would result under continuation of current management (and subsequent 

trends), on Alternative I, the No Action Alternative. Therefore, this baseline scenario is 

described in the following discussion of Alternative I impacts. 

4.4.2. Economic Impact Analysis 

In the economic impact analysis, management actions for the key planning issues (e.g., cultural 

resources, fluid minerals, rangeland resources, and recreation/transportation) are linked to one 

of the base industries (e.g., mining, agriculture, tourism) in order to estimate potential impacts to 

employment and income in Montezuma County. These individual impacts are summed up to 

estimate changes in total jobs, total personal income, and population, and are expressed as a 

departure from the predicted baseline scenario/No Action Alternative estimated impacts across 

the 20-year planning period. These results are summarized in Table 4-34, and discussed in 

detail below. Appendix I presents background data, information, and methods descriptions for 

these analyses. 

Table 4-34 Summary of Economic Impacts, End of Planning Period 

Percentage Change from Alternative I (No Action Alternative) 

Measure Alt II Alt III Alt IV Alt V 

Total Jobs (-) 2%-4% No change (+) 5%-10% (+) 4%-8% 

Total Personal 

Income (-) 0.15%-0.3% No change (+) 1%-2% No change 

Population No change No change No change No change 

Total Jobs (-) 2%-4% No change (+) 5%-10% (+) 4%-8% 

Total Personal 

Income (-) 0.15%-0.3% No change (+) 1%-2% No change 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

Table 4-35 summarizes some of the demographic and economic parameters used to determine 

the baseline economic scenario described by Alternative I. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

543 

Table 4-35 Summary of Economic Baseline/No Action Forecast for Study Area 

Parameter 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Montezuma County 

Total Jobs1 12,600 14,400 15,500 16,700 17,900 

Total Base Jobs 7,600 8,300 8,700 9,400 10,200 

Total Tourism Jobs 1,460 1,540 1,500 1,460 1,400 

Total Personal Income ($ millions) 660 920 1,270 1,790 2,480 

Farm Proprietor Income 9.6 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.5 

Annual CO2 Production (bcf)2 360 490 490 490 490 

Annual Oil Production (1000 bbls) 200 200 200 150 100 

Annual Nat. Gas Production (bcf) 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.75 0.50 

Population3 24,900 27,600 30,400 33,800 36,800 

Dolores County 

Total Jobs1 800 930 990 1,060 1,140 

Total Base Jobs 680 710 720 750 790 

Total Tourism Jobs 30 30 30 30 30 

Total Personal Income 50 68 93 130 180 

Farm Proprietor Income 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Annual CO2 Production (bcf)2 0 65 65 65 65 

Annual Oil Production (1000 bbls) 40 40 40 30 20 

Annual Nat. Gas Production (bcf) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 

Population3 1,850 2,060 2,220 2,380 2,720 

(Sources: 1Region 9 2006 CEDS update, 2RFD, 3CSDO 2006) 

Overall, the demographics of Montezuma and Dolores Counties are forecast to parallel those of 

Colorado in general. Population in the study area is anticipated to grow from just under 30,000 

to over 40,000 over the next 20 years. Although there will be good and bad years in agriculture, 

long-term trends show a drop in farm earnings that may reduce farm income as a percentage of 

total personal income for the two counties to less than one 1 percent. Non-labor income may 

continue to comprise more than one-third of total personal income, providing a buffer to the 

cyclical changes in tourism and mining employment. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

544 

Tax revenues from fluid minerals production (primarily CO2 production) comprise almost half of 

the total revenues in Montezuma County, and one-quarter of the total revenues in Dolores 

County. Therefore, changes to fluid minerals production and prices may have a significant 

impact on county budgets. Under the No Action Alternative, CO2 production may increase as a 

result of increasing pipeline capacity from 1.1 billion cubic feet bcf to 1.5 bcf per day, and may 

remain steady through the planning period (RFD, BLM 2005c). Note that part of the increased 

CO2 production would occur in Dolores County, which would provide a new source of revenue 

there. Oil and gas production is forecasted to decline steadily, as the existing fields are 

depleted and no new large finds are anticipated. The net change to county tax revenues is 

forecast to be neutral, because increased CO2 production and pricing may make up for the 

decrease in oil and gas production. 

The proposed rangeland management actions under the No Action Alternative would not 

change the total active AUMs, and would strive to improve rangeland conditions to meet Public 

Land Health Standards. This may result in a slight increase in agricultural income over the long 

term, as pasture conditions improve. The management actions proposed for recreation and 

transportation management may increase visitor use of the Monument. Fluid minerals 

management actions would not include any new leases. This may reduce oil and natural gas 

production, as well as mining jobs and income over the long term (50+years). However, current 

CO2 development undertaken on existing leases would increase annual production from 360 bcf 

to 420 bcf. 

The economic impacts of Alternative I are summarized in Table 4-36, and include an estimate of 

total jobs, total personal income, and population for the study area (Montezuma and Dolores 

Counties, combined). 

Table 4-36 Economic Impacts for Baseline/Alternative I (No Action Alternative) 

Parameter 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Total Jobs 13,400 15,330 16,490 17,760 19,040 

Total Personal Income 

($ million) 

710 990 1,360 1,920 2,660 

Population 26,760 29,660 32,620 36,180 39,520 

Alternative II

Management actions for Alternative II would reduce active AUMs by about 25 percent, bringing 

grazing activity closer to pasture carrying capacity and to recent actual use. Reducing AUMs by 

25 percent may reduce agricultural income in Montezuma County by about one-half of one 

percent. This is estimated as a result of considering the options available to ranch operators 

when faced with fewer AUMs (see Appendix I). Recreation and transportation management 

may result in a minor reduction in recreational use of the Monument. This is estimated to 

reduce tourism jobs by 10 to 25 percent, when compared to the No Action Alternative (see 

Appendix I for details on the relationship between tourist visits and tourism jobs). Fluid minerals 

management actions may result in one new oil and gas well on new leases, which would keep 

oil and gas production at the levels forecasted under the No Action Alternative. One new CO2

well is anticipated on new leases under Alternative II. This may keep CO2 production at levels 

forecasted under the No Action Alternative. The impacts of these changes on total jobs, 

personal income, and population may be a reduction of two to four percent in total jobs, and 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

545 

about two-tenths of one percent reduction in total personal income, due to agricultural income 

losses compared, when compared to Alternative I. These impacts are summarized in Table 4-

37. 

Table 4-37 Economic Impacts for Alternative II 

Parameter 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Total Jobs 13,100 14,900 16,000 17,000 18,300 

Total Personal Income 

($ million) 

710 990 1,360 1,920 2,660 

Population 26,760 29,660 32,620 36,180 39,520 

Alternative III

Management actions for Alternative III would reduce active AUMs by about two percent, and 

would administer grazing permits to meet Public Land Health Standards. This may not change 

agricultural income or jobs, when compared to the No Action Alternative. Recreation 

management actions may restrict management activities and may reduce recreation use of the 

Monument. Transportation management actions would increase motorized use of the 

Monument. Therefore, the net change in tourism spending on the region is anticipated to be the 

same as the No Action Alternative, leaving tourism jobs and income unchanged. Fluid mineral 

management may result in up to two new oil and gas wells and five new CO2 wells on new 

leases, which may keep production levels the same as under the No Action Alternative. Overall, 

the management actions for Alternative III may result in the same total jobs, personal income, 

and population as under Alternative I (see Table 4-36 for results). 

Alternative IV

Management actions for Alternative IV would not change the number of active AUMs; therefore, 

there would be no change in agricultural jobs or in income, when compared to the No Action 

Alternative. Recreation and transportation management actions may increase recreational use 

and visits, moderately. This may increase tourism visits and jobs in Montezuma County by 25 

to 50 percent over the No Action Alternative. Fluid minerals management actions may result in 

up to 12 new oil and gas wells and up to 38 new CO2 wells on new leases. This may increase 

oil and gas production by up to 10 to 15 percent over the No Action Alternative because a new 

discovery may replace declining oil and gas production and/or new enhanced oil recovery using 

local CO2 to flood existing oil and gas reservoirs may be undertaken. 

The increase in tourism and mining jobs may result in total jobs increasing by five to ten percent 

over the No Action Alternative. Increased fluid minerals production and tourism income may 

increase total personal income by one to two percent. Population is not expected to change, 

when compared to the No Action Alternative, because tourism jobs do not generally attract longterm residents, and there may be only a few mining jobs. These impacts are summarized in 

Table 4-38. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

546 

Table 4-38 Economic Impacts for Alternative IV 

Parameter 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Total Jobs 14070 16250 17640 19180 20940 

Total Personal Income 

($ million) 

720 1000 1390 1960 2710 

Population 26760 29660 32620 36180 39520 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Management actions for the Preferred Alternative would reduce active AUMs by 25 percent, 

bringing grazing activity closer to pasture carrying capacity and recent actual use. Reducing 

AUMs by 25 percent may reduce agricultural income in Montezuma County by about one-half of 

one percent (see Alternative II for details). Recreation and transportation management actions 

may increase recreational use and visits, moderately. This may increase tourism jobs in 

Montezuma County by 25 to 50 percent above the No Action Alternative. 

Fluid mineral management actions may result in up to one new oil and gas well on new leases, 

which may keep oil and gas production at the levels forecasted in the No Action Alternative. Up 

to one new CO2 well is anticipated on new leases under Alternative V. This may keep CO2

production at levels forecasted under the No Action Alternative. Overall, the management 

actions under the Preferred Alternative may result in an increase in total jobs of four to eight 

percent over the No Action Alternative. Total personal income may be unchanged, as increases 

in low-wage tourism jobs may be offset by losses in agricultural income due to the reduced 

AUMs. Population may also remain unchanged, when compared to the No Action Alternative. 

The economic impacts of Alternative V are summarized in Table 4-39. 

Table 4-39 Economic Impacts for Alternative V (Preferred Alternative) 

Parameter 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Total Jobs 13940 16100 17480 19000 20560 

Total Personal Income 

($ million) 

710 990 1360 1920 2660 

Population 26760 29660 32620 36180 39520 

4.4.2.1. Social Impact Analysis 

The social impact analysis uses two variables: 1) settlement patterns, and 2) community 

resources. Settlement patterns measure the rate at which land is converted from existing uses, 

such as agricultural, to a different land use, such as residential. This may impact the quality of 

life in the region, as open space amenities are highly valued in the community. Community 

resources measure impacts to social services and organizations that support the rural lifestyle 

that defines and organizes communities in Montezuma and Dolores Counties. Table 4-40 

defines terms used in the social and cumulative impact analysis (see Appendix I for details on 

estimating social impacts). 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

547 

Table 4-40 Measures for Social and Cumulative Impact Analysis 

Term Definition 

None No change to current conditions or baseline forecast. 

Negligible No measurable change from current conditions or baseline forecast. Any 

changes are of short duration – 1 year or less. 

Minor Small change in current conditions or baseline forecast. Impacts may be 

detectable, but temporary – less than 2 years. 

Moderate Small, but permanent, change to current conditions or baseline forecast. 

Impacts may be measurable and directly attributable to management actions. 

Impacts may be long-term (greater than two years) or permanent, and may 

increase over time. 

Major Highly noticeable long-term or permanent changes from current conditions or 

baseline forecast that can be directly attributed to management actions. 

Impacts may be of concern to the public – media attention, local officials take 

action. Impacts may be long-term (great than two years) or permanent, and 

likely to increase over time. 

Direct Action may cause a primary reaction or change in the study area’s society 

and/or economy. 

Indirect Action may cause a secondary reaction or change in the study area’s society 

and/or economy. 

Beneficial Positive impacts. 

Adverse Negative impacts. 

Localized Highly specific location. 

Temporary Impact may occur only during implementation, and generally may last no more 

that two 2) years. 

Short-term Impact may occur only for a short time (less than 2 years) after 

implementation. 

Long-term Impact may occur for an extended period (more than 2 years) after 

implementation. 

Permanent The society and/or economy of the study area would never revert back to 

current condition after implementation 

Alternative I

The management actions for the Alternative I may result in improved rangeland health, as 

grazing permits are managed to improve rangeland condition to meet Public Land Health 

Standards. There would be no new fluid mineral leases. Combined, these management 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

548 

actions may improve open space amenities in the Monument. Recreation and transportation 

management actions may support increased recreational use of the Monument. Under the No 

Action Alternative, rising land values, amenity migration, and increased agricultural input costs 

may result in conversion of about one-third of existing private agricultural land in the study area 

into residential and/or other land uses during the next 20 years. This was estimated from 

historical agricultural land conversion rates and planning forecasts for the study area (see 

Appendix I for details). 

Community resources, especially county social services, may be maintained at present levels of 

availability and quality of service under the No Action Alternative (see Appendix I for details). 

Alternative II

Management actions for Alternative II would reduce grazing activity in the Monument to improve 

rangeland health. Reducing grazing opportunities may reduce the economic viability of some 

ranching operations in Montezuma and Dolores Counties, potentially accelerating the 

development of agricultural land. Recreation and transportation management actions may 

reduce recreational use of the Monument; therefore, private open space and remote recreation 

amenities may be reduced directly and indirectly by these actions. Community resources may 

remain the same as under the No Action Alternative due to the fact that fluid minerals 

production would be the same. Overall, Alternative II may have minor adverse social impacts, 

when compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative III

Management actions for Alternative III may result in small net changes in recreational use of the 

Monument and amenities. Rangeland health may improve, but new fluid minerals development 

may offset open space amenity improvements. Recreation management actions may restrict 

recreational use, but transportation management actions may increase motorized use. Overall, 

land-use patterns and community resource may not be changed from the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative III may have negligible social impacts, when compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative IV

Management actions for Alternative IV may increase recreational use and new fluid minerals 

development in the Monument. Grazing would remain the same as in the baseline, but 

rangeland health may slowly improve. Increased tourism and fluid minerals tax revenues may 

support increased county social services. However, accelerated tourism and industrial activity 

may also increase and/or shift demands for social services, especially if a “boom town” 

phenomenon develops. Under this scenario, private open space amenities may be the same as 

under the No Action Alternative, but Monument open space amenities may be reduced. Overall, 

Alternative IV may have minor beneficial social impacts, when compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 

Alternative V

Management actions for the Preferred Alternative would reduce livestock AUMs, as it would 

under Alternative II, which may indirectly impact the viability of agricultural open space 

amenities. Recreation and transportation management actions may increase the recreational 

use of the Monument. Fluid minerals development may be managed to maintain the same 

production levels (and tax revenues) as under the No Action Alternative. Overall, open space 

and recreational amenities in the Monument, as well as community resources, may be improved 

over the No Action Alternative. Open space amenities associated with private agricultural land 

may be indirectly reduced, when compared to the No Action Alternative. Therefore, the 

Preferred Alternative may have minor beneficial social impacts. 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

549 

4.4.2.2. Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative socioeconomic impacts are analyzed by accumulating direct and indirect impacts 

across time and key trends. The baseline trends driving social and economic changes in the 

study area include amenity migration and boom/bust cycles. These trends are expected to 

result in one-third more people living in the study area, about one-third of existing agricultural 

land being developed for residences, and personal income levels staying below the average for 

Colorado. In estimating cumulative socioeconomic impacts, it is important to identify potential 

“tipping points” that leverage major shifts in economic and/or social patterns for the study area. 

Two tipping points have been identified: 1) changes to open space amenities and rural lifestyle 

that accelerate or decelerate amenity migration, and 2) boom/bust cycle related to fluid minerals 

development. Amenity migration is shaping future population and demographics for the study 

area. If management actions were to tip the balance of baseline trends to significantly degrade 

the quality and/or the quantity of open space amenities, such as vistas, wildlife habitat, and/or 

remote recreation, the rate of amenity migration may decrease or reverse. Furthermore, 

management actions that reduce rangeland grazing quality and/or quantity may indirectly impact 

the viability of agricultural enterprises in the study area, and may reduce private open space 

amenities. Under the No Action Alternative, Monument open space amenities may become 

more valuable to residents as one-third of existing private agricultural land is converted to 

residential development. 

Presently, the Four Corners region is experiencing an economic and population boom caused 

by coal-bed methane development in the San Juan Basin. Counties in the Four Corners are 

experiencing some of the fastest growth in population and personal income for any of their 

respective counties. High natural gas prices and new coal-bed methane recovery technologies 

are fueling this boom. However, natural gas production in the San Juan Basin peaked in 2003 

and is expected to decline in the future due to resource depletion (Durango Herald 2006). The 

study area has been defined in part by boom/bust cycles in hard rock mining and forestry. If 

management actions, such as increased fluid mineral development, were to amplify the 

boom/bust cycle, it may result in social impacts, such as insufficient social services and 

infrastructure to serve the population boom. A bust may likely be caused by an action 

completely outside the control of the BLM, such as a drastic reduction in natural gas and/or oil 

prices. A bust may reduce county tax revenues to levels insufficient to support baseline social 

services. In the cumulative impact analysis, management actions with the potential for causing 

a tipping point are highlighted. 

Alternative I (No Action Alternative)

The management actions of the No Action Alternative may improve the long-term viability of 

ranching, and may help to maintain the benefits of open space and rural lifestyle provided by 

private agricultural lands in the study area. Alternative I may also maintain county tax revenues 

from fluid mineral development through existing leases, as well as maintain diverse recreation 

opportunities in the Monument. 

Alternative II

The management actions of Alternative II may have the highest likelihood of impacting the 

amenity-migration tipping point. Reduced grazing opportunities may indirectly reduce open 

space amenities on private land and restricted recreation use may reduce remote recreation 

opportunities in the Monument. In combination, these actions may be enough to tip the balance 

of open space amenities in the study area and decelerate or reverse amenity migration. It is not 

possible to measure the likelihood of tipping this balance. However, because of this possibility, 

cumulative impacts may be adverse and minor, when compared to Alternative I. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 4 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

550 

Alternative III

Over the long term, restricted recreational use and fees under Alternative III may reduce tourism 

and the income, jobs, and amenity migration that it supports. However, continued development 

of fluid minerals, especially CO2 may provide counties with a stable revenue source, and may 

make it possible to maintain and/or perhaps improve the quantity and/or quality of social 

services in the study area. The viability of agricultural operations may not be further threatened 

by this alternative. The net long-term impact of the combination of these management actions 

may be very similar to the No Action Alternative. The cumulative impacts for Alternative III may 

be negligible, when compared to Alternative I. 

Alternative IV

Over the long term, Alternative IV may have the highest potential for conflicts between 

recreation and other resource uses. Increased income and population in the study area may 

add pressure to remaining open space and to remote wilderness areas. Increased fluid 

minerals development may reduce land areas with these characteristics in the Monument. 

Continued development of fluid minerals, especially CO2 may provide counties with a stable 

revenue source, and may make it possible to maintain and/or improve the quantity and/or 

quality of social services in the study area. The viability of agricultural operations may not be 

further threatened by this alternative. This alternative may have the greatest potential for 

amplifying the boom/bust cycle. It is not possible to predict the size and/or the rate of 

amplification; however, because of this possibility, cumulative impacts may be adverse and 

minor, when compared to Alternative I. 

Alternative V (Preferred Alternative)

Under the Preferred Alternative, the impacts of some management actions, such as reducing 

the number of AUMs, may have indirect adverse impacts on private open space amenities. The 

net economic impacts may likely be beneficial under the Preferred Alternative because income 

and employment related to tourism and fluid mineral development may offset losses in the 

agricultural sector. Continued fluid minerals development may support baseline social services. 

Increased recreational opportunities and improved rangeland health may enhance the amenities 

in the Monument. It is not possible to determine whether or not enhanced open space 

amenities in the Monument would offset private land losses. However, the net impact, when 

compared to the No Action Alternative, may be minor beneficial cumulative impacts. 

4.4.2.3. Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 requires that all Federal actions must consider potentially 

disproportionate impacts on minority and/or on low-income communities. Principles for 

considering environmental justice are outlined in Environmental Justice Guidance under the 

NEPA (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). These principles are recognized, and have 

been considered in this analysis. Native Americans are the only minority race present in the 

study area in a greater proportion to other minorities than the rest of the State. Native 

Americans comprise 13 percent of the Montezuma County population (CSDO 2005). Most of 

these residents are members of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (Utes). 

During the scoping process, Ute representatives identified several issues of concern (BLM 

2003e and 2004d): 

 access to, or continuation of, historical uses, such as grazing, offering sites, herbgathering, and places of prayer offering; 

 conflicts with the Brunot Treaty (i.e., access to historical hunting grounds); 
Chapter 4 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

551 

 excavation leading to artifacts being taken away and placed in storage or on display (i.e., 

a loss of control and/or ability to appreciate artifacts as left by ancestors); 

 lack of involvement or “hearing” in actual decision-making; 

 agency failing to honor policies for “returning human remains back to the ground;” and 

 oil and gas development impacts to archeological sites and human remains. 

Inherent in each concern is the Ute history of distrust toward European settlers, and toward the 

United States government. This distrust is founded on the history of broken treaties with the 

Utes, beginning around 1849. Originally, “Utes” were a large band of Native American who 

occupied a territory, including New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Wyoming, Utah, and 

Colorado. The discovery of minerals and the ever-expanding settler population resulted in a 

rash of renegotiated treaties for over 50 years. One of the last, and most relevant, was the 

Brunot Treaty of 1873. In short, the Utes gave up access to most of their traditional Colorado 

territory, in return for a $25,000 annual payment, permission to hunt in the San Juan Mountains, 

an increase in Chief Ouray's salary from $500 to $1,000 a year, and a government reaffirmation 

that unauthorized persons should not enter the reservation (USGS 2004). In a 2005 San Juan 

National Forest Planning roundtable, Peter Ortego, Attorney for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 

stated that the “Tribes (Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute) are very concerned about 

restrictions on access, because their hunting rights predate the existence of the state and 

natives have been using these areas for a long time. There needs to be sensitivity to this issue, 

and the Utes do not want a battle over access” (USFS 2005). 

Management actions, such as reductions in permitted grazing, further development of 

archeological sites, increased oil and gas development, and/or road closures may impact the 

this tribe’s historical sense of exclusion from access to their traditional areas, decisions about 

use and management, as well as the gains realized from extraction. Currently, and in the 20-

year horizon of this study, Utes are not adversely impacted economically. In fact, their tourism 

enterprises stand to benefit from the increased visitation to the Monument. Utes are impacted 

further socially by what is perceived as yet another infringement upon their historic lands and 

rights. The social impacts to the Utes may be easily mitigated through a careful assessment of 

how access to popular areas would be altered, through consultation on each planned change to 

existing archeological sites, and through the minimization of further plans to excavate and 

stabilize new sites. Continuation of a regular collaborative approach may improve relations with 

Native American tribes and with Pueblos, as well as management of the Monument. 
CHAPTER 5 

References
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 5 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

552 

5.0 REFERENCES 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1997. Toxicological Profile for 

Formaldehyde (Draft). Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Atlanta, GA. 

American Museum of Natural History, Division of Paleontology, Archived Field Photographs. 

1900 Expedition to the Jurassic McElmo Canyon, Colorado. www.amnh.org. 

Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds: A reference to their distribution and habitat. 

Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. 

Armstrong, D.M. 1972. Distribution of mammals in Colorado. Monograph of the Museum of 

Natural History, University of Kansas, Number 3. Lawrence, Kansas. 

Aubrey, W.M. 1992. New interpretations of the stratigraphy and sedimentology of the 

uppermost Jurassic to lowermost Upper Cretaceous strata in the San Juan Basin of 

northwest New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1808:1-17. 

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States, 2nd edition. 

Miscellaneous publication number 1391 (rev), USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. 

Belnap, J. 1995. Surface disturbances: their role in accelerating desertification. Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment 37:39-57. 

Belnap, J. 2003. Magnificent microbes: Biological soil crusts in pinyon-juniper communities. In: 

Floyd, M.L. (ed.). Ancient pinyon-juniper woodlands – a natural history. University 

Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 213-222. 

Belnap, J. and D.A. Gillette. 1998. Vulnerability of desert biological crusts to wind erosion: the 

influences of crust development, soil texture, and disturbance. Journal of Arid 

Environments 39:133-142. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2007. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional 

Economic Accounts. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm?catable=CA1-

3§ion=2. Accessed on May 11, 2007. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1985. San Juan/San Miguel Resource Management 

Plan. San Juan Field Office. September. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986a. The Anasazi Culture Multiple-Use Area, An Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): ACEC Plan, Management Guidelines and 

Environmental Assessment. Denver, CO. July. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986b. Visual Resource Inventory. BLM Manual-8410-1. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986c. Sand Canyon Cultural Resource Management 

Plan. San Juan Field Office. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1988a. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. BLM 

Manual 1613. Rel. 1-1541. U.S. Department of the Interior. September. U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 
Chapter 5 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

553 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1988b. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. 

BLM Handbook H-1790-1. Rel. 1-1547. U.S. Department of the Interior. October. U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1991a. Record of Decision: Oil and Gas Plan 

Amendment to the San Juan/San Miguel Resource Management Plan. BLM Montrose 

District, CO. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1991b. Final EIS: Vegetation treatment on BLM lands in 

thirteen western states. www.blm.gov/weeds/VegEIS/. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1996a. Rangeland standards and guidelines for livestock 

grazing. www.co.blm.gov/standguide.htm. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1997. Colorado Public Land Health Standards and 

guidelines for livestock grazing management. February. U.S. Department of the 

Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1998a. State Protocol Agreement between the Colorado 

State Director of BLM and the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 

regarding the manner in which BLM will meet its responsibilities under the NHPA and the 

National Programmatic Agreement (NPA) among the BLM, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers (NCSHPO). U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1998b. Programmatic Agreement among the BLM, State 

of Colorado, the National Forests in the State of Colorado, USDA Forest Service, SHPO, 

and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding the management of wildland 

fire for resource benefits. Agreement No. 1102-002-98-038. U.S. Department of the 

Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1998c. BLM Prescribed Fire Handbook (H-9214-1). 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1998d. Manual and handbook for the management of 

paleontological resources. BLM Handbook 8270. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1999. Programmatic Agreement among the Bureau of 

Land Management, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers regarding the manner in which BLM 

will meet its responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2000. Instruction Memorandum No. CO-2001-001. 

Recreation guidelines to meet public land health standards. December. U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001a. Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-008, Interim 

Management Policy for BLM National Monuments and National Conservation Areas. 

October. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001b. Colorado Interim Management for Canyons of the 

Ancients National Monument. http://www.co.blm.gov/canm/canminterim.htm. Accessed 

October 23, 2003. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001c. Interim Management Guidance for Oil and Gas 

Leasing and Development. U.S. Department of the Interior. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 5 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

554 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001d. Special status species management. BLM 

Manual 6840. Rel. 6-121. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001e. Rangeland Health Standards. BLM Manual 4180. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001f. BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2001-022. 

Planning Guidance for National Monuments and National Conservation Areas. October. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001g. Land use planning handbook. BLM Handbook H1601-1. Rel. 1-1693. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001h. National Management Strategy for Motorized OffHighway Vehicle Use on Public Lands. January. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2001i. Ecological Site Inventory and Rangeland Health 

Assessment Results. Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. U.S. Department of 

the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2002a. National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. November. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2002b. Instruction Memorandum No. CO-2002-029, 

Interim Historic Preservation Guidelines and Procedures for Evaluating the Effect of 

Rangeland Management Activities on Historic Properties. March. U.S. Department of 

the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2002d. Informational Bulletin No. 2002-101 Cultural 

Resource Considerations in Resource Management Plans. May. U.S. Department of 

the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2002e Prescribed Fire Policy Direction and Clarification, 

Attachment 1, Office of Fire and Aviation. June. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2002f. Water Resources Inventory on file, San Juan 

Resource Area, Dolores, CO. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003a. Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-152. 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD) – Process Improvement #1 – Comprehensive 

Strategies. Department of the Interior. April. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003b. Instruction Memorandum 2003-38, Interim 

Guidance for Completion of Fire Management Plan Revisions Using the Interagency 

Template. Office of Fire and Aviation. July. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003c. San Juan Fire Management Plan. U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003d. Water Resources Inventory on file, San Juan 

Resource Area, Dolores, CO. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003e Notes from CANM Intertribal Meeting held at 

Cortez, CO November 3-5, 2003. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2004a. Scoping Report: Canyons of the Ancients 

National Monument. March. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2004b. The Foundations for Management of Cultural 

Resources. U.S. Department of the Interior. 
Chapter 5 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

555 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2004c. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 

2004-007, Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan Guidance for Wildland Fire 

Management Guidance. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2004d. Notes from CANM Intertribal Meeting held at 

Pojoaque, NM. March 4, 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005a. H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook. 

Department of the Interior. March. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005b. Analysis of the Management Situation, Canyon of 

the Ancients National Monument. August. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005c. Reasonable, Foreseeable Development: Oil, 

Natural Gas, and Carbon Dioxide in Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. April. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2006. Oil and Gas Surface Operating Standards and 

Guidelines. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Chaney, E.W., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado. 

Clary, W.P. and D.E. Medin. 1990. Differences in vegetation biomass and structure due to 

cattle grazing in a northern Nevada riparian ecosystem. U.S. Forest Service Research 

Paper INT-427. 

Cohn, T. 2005. Getting to Know Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE). 2002. Status of Water 

Quality in Colorado. Water Quality Control Division. 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2003a. TMDL for Mercury 

in McPhee and Narraguinnep Reservoirs, Colorado Phase 1. 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2003b. Water Quality 

Control Commission. http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/wqcchom.asp. Accessed 

February 10, 2004. 

Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR). 2003. Hydro Database Set, Analysis and 

Query Tools. State of Colorado, Water Division 7. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) 2005. Threatened & Endangered List. 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList/

ListOfThreatenedAndEndangeredSpecies.htm

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). 2002. Region 9 Tourism Report. 

Graves, D. Region 9 Economic Development District. Gaining Ground or Shaky 

Ground? A Detailed Look at Tourism Employment in the Southwest Colorado Travel 

Region. Final Report, December 2. http://www.scan.org. Accessed on November 5, 

2005. 

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). 2006. Region 9. CEDS Update 

2006. Region 9 Economic Development District. Comprehensive Economic 

Development Strategy. 2006 Update for Montezuma and Dolores counties. 

http://www.scan.org. Accessed on February 22, 2007. 

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). 2007. 2007 Region 9 Economic 

Development District. http://www.scan.org. Accessed on February 22, 2007. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 5 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

556 

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) 2004. Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument amphibian and reptile inventory. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/. Accessed 

on October 27, 2005. 

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2005. Statewide list of tracked species and 

communities. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/. 

Colorado State Demography Office (CSDO). 2005. Census estimates. 

http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/demog/pop_cnty.html. Accessed on February 20, 2007. 

Colorado State Demography Office (CSDO). 2006 Economic Data by County. 

http://www.dola.state.co.us/demog/. Accessed on February 20, 2007. 

Colorado State Parks. 2004. Profile of Tourism and the Outdoors. A Report on the 

Proceedings of the Southwest Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Partnership 

Forum. July 2004. 

http://parks.state.co.us/Trails/LandandWaterConservationFund/SCORPPlan/. Accessed 

on February 22, 2007. 

Cortez Journal. 2006. Crane, John, R. “Kinder Morgan proposes wells in Canyons.” November 

2. http://cortezjournal.com. Accessed on February 22, 2007. 

Cortez Journal. 2007. Crane, John, R. “Kinder Morgan plans $200M gas expansion”. February 

3. http://cortezjournal.com. Accessed on February 22, 2007. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/ej/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf. 

Accessed on February 20, 2007. 

Durango Herald. 2006. Hanel, J. “Methane production past its peak”. July 2. 

www.durangoherald.com/. Accessed July 2, 2007. 

Eldridge, D.J. and S.B. Greene. 1994. Microbiotic soil crusts: a review of their roles in soil and 

ecological processes in rangelands of Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research 

32:289-415. 

Eldridge, D.J. 1998. Trampling of microphytic crusts on calcareous soils, and its impact on 

erosion under rain-impacted flow. Catena 33:221-239. 

Environment Colorado. 2007. http://www.environmentcolorado.org/reports/madeintheusa. 

Evans, R.D. and J.R. Johansen. 1999. Microbiotic Crusts and Ecosystem Processes. Critical 

Reviews in Plant Sciences. 18:2. 

Executive Order. 2000. Establishment of Canyons of the Ancients National Monument by the 

President of the United States of America. Presidential Proclamation No. 7317. June 9. 

Federal Land Managers (FLAG). 2000. Air Quality Related Values Workgroup Guidelines. 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/flag/flaginfo/. 

Fetterman, J. 2004. Report on the Cultural Resource Survey for the Indian Camp Northeast 

Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project, Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, 

Montezuma County, Colorado. Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 

Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, Lakewood. 

Contract No. CAP030483. 

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong, 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver 

Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. Niwot, Colorado. 
Chapter 5 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

557 

Fleischner, T.L. 1993. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. 

Conservation Biology 8:629-644. 

Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds). 1993. Flora of North America North of 

Mexico. New York and Oxford. 

Floyd, M. Lisa (ed). 2003. Ancient Pinon-Juniper Woodlands: A Natural History of Mesa Verde 

Country. University Press of Colorado. 

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the 

United States. Conservation Biology 14(1):31-35. 

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. 

Four Corners Air Quality Task Force. 2005. 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/4C/Docs/4CornersOzoneDataGraphs_files/frame.ht

m

Fox, D.G. et al. 1989. A Screening Procedure to Evaluate Air Pollution Effects on Class I 

Wilderness Areas. USDA General Technical Report RM-168. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO. 36 pp. 

Freddy, D.J., W.M. Bronaugh, and M.C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance 

by persons afoot and on snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14: 63-68. 

Friends of the Trails of the Ancients. 2001. The Trail of the Ancients Scenic and Historic Byway 

Amended Corridor Management Plan. 

Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado: A Colorado field guide. 

University Press of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Niwot, Colorado. 

Hanser, S.R., and N.J. Huntly. 2006. The biogeography of small mammals of fragmented 

sagebrush-steppe landscapes. Journal of Mammalogy 87(6):1165-1174. 

Harper, K.T. and J.R. Marble. 1988. A role for nonvascular plants in management of arid and 

semiarid rangelands. In: P.T. Tueller (ed.). Vegetation Science Applications for 

Rangeland 

Harper, K.T. and R.L. Pendleton. 1993. Cyanobacteria and cyanolichens: Can they enhance 

availability of essential minerals for higher plants? Great Basin Naturalist 53:59-72. 

Harris, L.D. and G. Silvia-Lopez. 1992. Forest fragmentation and the conservation of biological 

diversity. In Conservation biology: The theory and practice of nature, conservation, and 

management. Fiedler, P. and F. Jans (eds.). Chapman Hall. New York. 

Haynes, D. D., J. D Vogel, and D. G. Wyant. 1972. Geology, structure, and uranium deposits 

of the Cortez Quadrangle, Colorado and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Geologic Investigations Map I-629. http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmbin/ILView.pl?sid=q250_9408a_us_c.sid&vtype=b. 

Horn, J.C. 2004. Landscape-level history of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Montezuma and Dolores Counties, Colorado. Bureau of Land Management. 

Hovezak, T. D., L. M. Sesler, J. E. Fetterman, and L. Honeycutt. 2003. The 2002 Canyons of 

the Ancients National Monument Survey, Montezuma County, Colorado. Woods 

Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Yellow Jacket, Colorado. Prepared for the 

Bureau of Land Management, National Business Center, Denver. Contract No. 

NAC020006. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 5 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

558 

Ingelfinger, F.M. 2001. The effects of natural gas development on sagebrush steppe 

passerines in Sublette Country, Wyoming. Master of Science thesis. University of 

Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming. 

Interagency Workshop on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM). 1993. Phase 1 Report. EPA-454/R93-015. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers, Working Group 1 Fourth 

Assessment Report. February 

Issa, O.M., Y.L. Bissonnais, C. Defarge, and J. Trichet. 2001. Role of cyanobacterial cover on 

structural stability of sandy soils in the Sahelian part of Western Niger. Geoderma 

101:15-30. 

Jenson, S. 2003. Canyons of the Ancients Monument Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) 

Assessments. Unpublished Report. April. 

Johansen, J.R. 1993. Cryptogamic crusts of semiarid and arid lands of North America. Journal 

of Phycology 29:140-147. 

Kinder Morgan CO2, Inc. (K-M). 2007. Website: About Us. 

http://www.kindermorgan.com/about_us/about_us_kmp_co2.cfm. Accessed on 

February 22, 2007. 

Kingery, H.E. (Editor). 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership 

and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, Colorado. 

Knight, R.L., and K.J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Knight, R.L., F.W. Smith, S.W. Buskirk, W.H. Romme, and W. L. Baker. 2000. Forest 

fragmentation in the southern Rocky Mountains. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, 

Colorado. 

Lipe, W. D., M. Varien, and R. Wilshusen (eds). 1999. Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the 

Southern Colorado River Basin. Denver: Colorado Council of Professional 

Archaeologists. 

McIntyre, N.E. 1995. Effects of forest patch size on avian diversity. Landscape Ecol. 10(2):85-

99. 

Meaney, C.A., M. Reed-Eckert, and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis): a 

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/kitfox.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2006. 

Metting, B. 1991. Biological surface features of semiarid lands and deserts. In: J. Skujins 

(ed.). Semiarid lands and deserts: soil resource and reclamation. Marcel Dekker, New 

York. 

NatureServe Explorer. 2005. An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.6. 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed on November 1, 2005. 

National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG). 2001. National Energy Policy. May. 

National Interagency Fire Center. 2004. Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation 

Operations. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1994. Rangeland health: new methods to classify, 

inventory, and monitor rangelands. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 
Chapter 5 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

559 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2003. Soil Survey of Cortez Area, Colorado, 

Parts of Dolores and Montezuma Counties. Washington, D.C. 

Nickens, P. R., S. L. Larralde, and G. C. Tucker, Jr. 1981. A Survey of Vandalism to 

Archaeological Resources in Southwestern Colorado. Cultural Resources Series No. 

11. Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Denver. 

Noble, D.G. 2006. Mesa Verde World: Explorations in Ancestral Pueblo Archeology. School of 

American Research Press 

Operation Healthy Communities (OHC). 2005. Pathways to Healthier Communities. 2003-

2004, A Report that Measures the Health of Southwest Colorado. 

Patton, P. C., N. Biggar, C.D. Condit, M. L. Gillam, D. W. Love, M. N. Machette, L. Mayer, R. B. 

Morrison, and J. N. Rosholt. 1991. Quaternary Geology of the Colorado Plateau. In: 

Morrison, R.B., (ed.) Quaternary Nonglacial Geology: Coterminous United States. 

Pellant M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2000. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland 

Health, Version 3. Technical Reference 1734-6. BLM National Science and Technology 

Center. 

Preston, M. 2005. Office of Community Services, Fort Lewis College. “Productive Harmony 

Analysis; Interpretive Framework for Social and Economic Assessment of Southwest 

Colorado Communities and San Juan Public Lands”. July. 

Prichard, D. 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the 

Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. USDOI BLM Technical Reference 1737-15. Denver, 

Colorado. 

Prichard, D. 1999. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the 

Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. USDOI BLM Technical Reference 1737-16. 

Denver, Colorado. 

Rainforth, E.C. 1997. Vertebrate ichnological diversity and census studies, Lower Jurassic 

Navajo Sandstone. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder 49 

pp. 

Reed, R.A., J. Johnson-Barnard, and W.L. Baker. 1996. Contribution of roads to forest 

fragmentation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:1098-1106. 

Reeve, A.F. and T.C. Vosburgh. 2006. Recreational Shooting of Prairie Dogs. In Conservation 

of the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. J.H. Hoogland (ed.) Island Press, Washington D.C. 

Roath, L.R. and W.C. Krueger. 1982. Cattle grazing influence on a mountain riparian zone. 

Journal of Range Management 35:100-104. 

Robson, S.G. and E.R. Banta. 1995. Groundwater Atlas of the United States – Segment 2 – 

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah. U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic 

Investigations Atlas 730-C. 

San Juan Citizen Alliance (SJCA) v. Gale Norton. 2002. Stipulated Settlement Agreement, 

Civil Action No. 02-B-1597 (MJW). United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado. 

Schmidt, K.M., J.P. Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W.J. Hann, and D.L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of 

coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical 

Report RMRS-87. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Chapter 5 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

560 

Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. 

Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins. 

Spackman, S. and D.G. Anderson. 2002. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide 2002 Update. 

Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 

Stoddart, L.A., A.D. Smith, and T.W Box. 1955. Range management (Third Edition). McGrawHill Series in Forest Resources. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York. 

Thornbury, W. 1965. Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley and Sons, 

New York. 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 1970. Convention 

on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Transfer of Ownership 

of Cultural Property. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). 1977. Dolores Project Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Durango, CO. May. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Last Revised: June 4, 

2003. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/index.html. Accessed June 5, 2003. 

USDA, Forest Service. 2000. San Juan National Forest 2000. US Forest Service. San Juan 

National Forest. Social and Economic Assessment for San Juan National Forest Boggy 

Draw Allotment Management Planning. August. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statement Northern San Juan Basin 

Coal Bed Methane Project. July. 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r@/sanjuan/projects/projects.shtml) 

USDA Forest Service, USDOI BLM, USDOI BIA, USDOI F&WS, and USDOI NPS. 2006. 

National Fire Management Analysis System. March 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 1995. Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and 

Program Review. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 1999. Strategic Plan and National Fire Plan Actions. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2000. Memorandum from Secretary of the Interior to the 

Director, Bureau of Land Management. June 28. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2001. Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and 

Program Review.. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2006a. Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation 

Operations (published annually). 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2006b. Interagency Fire Plan Template. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Western 

Governors’ Association. 2001. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire 

Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy 

Implementation Plan. August. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. 

National Fire Plan. August. http://www.fireplan.gov. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. 

Restoring Fire-Adapted Ecosystems on Federal Lands – A Cohesive Strategy. 
Chapter 5 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

561 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Threatened and Endangered Species System. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/servlet/gov.doi.tess_public.servlets.UsaLists?state=CO. 

. Accessed on October 25, 2005. 

U.S. Geological Service (USGS). 2004. Historic Trail Map of the Leadville 1° × 2° Quadrangle, 

Central Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2004/2820/sim2820.html. Accessed on February 20, 2007. 

U.S. Geological Service (USGS). 2006. Colorado Water Science Center. 

http://co.water.usgs.gov/drought/index.html. Accessed on February 20, 2007. 

Van Dyke, R.M., L. Ciborowski, and K. Throgmorton. 2004. Colorado College Survey of the 

Painted Hand Environs, Fall 2002: Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, 

Montezuma County, Colorado. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Denver, 

and Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Dolores, Colorado. 

Warren, S.D. 1995. Ecological role of microphytic soil crusts in arid ecosystems. In: D. 

Allsopp, R.R. Cowell, and D.L. Hawksworth (eds.). Microbial diversity and ecosystem 

function. CAB International, New York. 

Warren, S.D. 2001. Synopsis: Influence of biological soil crusts on arid land hydrology and soil 

stability. In: Belnap, J. and O.L. Lange (eds.). Biological soil crusts: Structure, function, 

and management. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2005. Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. 

Available at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/climsum.html Accessed: January 5, 2005. 

Williams, J.D., J.P. Dobrowolski, and N.E. West. 1995a. Microphytic crust influence on interrill 

erosion and infiltration capacity. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural 

Engineers 38:139-146. 

Williams, J.D., J.P. Dobrowolski, D.A. Gillette, and N.E. West. 1995b. Microphytic crust 

influence on wind erosion. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural 

Engineers 38:131-137. 

Witkind, I. J. 1964. Geology of the Abajo Mountains area, San Juan County, Utah. U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 453. 

Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado’s little fish: A guide to the minnows and other lesser known fishes 

in the State of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. 

Zink, T.A., M.F. Allen, B.Heindl-Tenhunen, and E.B. Allen. 1995. The effect of a disturbance 

corridor on an ecological reserve. Restoration Ecology 3(4):304-310.