BLM

Bureau of Land Mangagement

VERNAL FIELD OFFICE

Record of Decision

Approved Resource Management Plan AND

OCTOBER 2008
Bureau of Land Management

BLM-UT-PL-09-003-1610

UT-080-2005-71

BLM Mission

To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands 

for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
United States Department of the Interior 

 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Utah State Office 

P.O. Box 45155 

 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0155 

http://www.blm.gov 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

1610

(UT-935) 

Dear Reader/Interested Party: 

I am pleased to announce that, after several years of hard work and collaborative efforts, the 

Vernal Field Office Resource Management Plan (Approved RMP) is complete. This document 

will provide guidance for the management of over 1.7 million acres of public land and 3.9 

million acres of Federal mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

in Daggett, Duchesne, Uintah, and a small portion of Grand Counties in Northeast Utah. 

The attached Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved RMP have been prepared in accordance 

with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). The ROD/Approved RMP is available to members of the public and will be 

sent to pertinent local, State, Tribal and Federal government entities. The Approved RMP 

finalizes the proposed decisions presented in the Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) that was released on August 22, 2008 and subject to a 30-day protest period 

that ended on September 22, 2008. Fourteen protest letters with standing were received. The 

protests were reviewed by the BLM Director in Washington, D.C. After careful consideration of 

all points raised in these protests, the Director concluded the responsible planning team and 

decision makers followed all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and pertinent resource 

considerations in developing the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Minor adjustments or points of 

clarification are incorporated into the Approved RMP in response to issues raised in the protest 

process and final BLM review. These minor changes are discussed in the ROD under the section 

titled Notice of Modifications and Clarifications, but the protest review did not result in any 

significant changes from the Proposed RMP. 

The approval of this ROD by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Assistant Secretary for Land 

and Minerals Management serves as the final decision by the DOI for all land use planning and 

implementation-level decisions described in the attached Approved RMP. Implementation of 

land use plan decisions (e.g., oil and gas development, and land and realty decisions) will not be 

undertaken without suitable further NEPA analysis, including all appropriate public involvement 

and any hearings available to the public. 

Notification of the approval of this ROD/Approved RMP will be announced via local news 

releases and on the Vernal Field Office website at: 

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

  

VERNAL FIELD OFFICE 

RECORD OF DECISION 

AND 

APPROVED 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

October 2008 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Vernal Field Office 

Vernal, Utah 

Cooperating Agencies: 

State of Utah 

Daggett County 

Duchesne County 

Uintah County 

Ute Indian Tribe 

Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

i

Table of Contents 

LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................. V

RECORD OF DECISION .............................................................................................................. 1

A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1

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

Vernal Planning Area ................................................................................................................................ 2 

B. OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................ 4

Alternatives Considered in Detail .............................................................................................................. 6 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ............................................................. 14 

C. RESULTS OF PROTEST PERIOD .................................................................................................... 17

D. THE DECISION ................................................................................................................................... 19

What the Decision/RMP Provides ........................................................................................................... 19 

What the Decision/RMP Does Not Provide ............................................................................................. 21 

Implementation Decisions ....................................................................................................................... 22 

E. NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS & CLARIFICATIONS ....................................................................... 23

Modifications ........................................................................................................................................... 23 

Clarifications ............................................................................................................................................ 24 

F. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING THE APPROVED RMP ............................... 25

All Surface Disturbing Activities .............................................................................................................. 26 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................ 26 

Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 26 

Fire Management .................................................................................................................................... 27 

Forage ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 

Lands and Realty Management .............................................................................................................. 28 

Livestock and Grazing Management ...................................................................................................... 29 

Minerals and Energy Resources ............................................................................................................. 29 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics .................................................................................. 32 

Recreation: Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) .............................................................. 34 

Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) ............................................. 35 

Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) .......................................................................... 43 

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................... 44 

Travel: Roads and Trails ......................................................................................................................... 45 

Visual Resource Management ................................................................................................................ 46 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources ............................................................................................................ 46 

G. CONSISTENCY AND CONSULTATION REVIEW ............................................................................ 47

Governor’s Consistency .......................................................................................................................... 48 

NHPA Section 106 Consultation ............................................................................................................. 48 

Native American Consultation ................................................................................................................. 48 

Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act ................................................................... 49 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

ii

H. MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................................. 49

I. PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 49

J. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................................... 51

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 51 

Scoping and Notice of Intent to Plan (NOI) ............................................................................................. 51 

Notice of Availability (NOA) of Draft RMP/EIS and Proposed Plan Final EIS ........................................ 52 

Mailing List .............................................................................................................................................. 53 

Public Meetings ....................................................................................................................................... 53 

Website ................................................................................................................................................... 53 

Continuing Involvement ........................................................................................................................... 54 

K. AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN ........................................................................................................... 54

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................... 56

A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 56

B. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER BLM PLANS AND POLICIES ........................................................ 56

County Land Use Plans .......................................................................................................................... 56 

State of Utah ........................................................................................................................................... 57 

Other Federal Plans ................................................................................................................................ 57 

Activity Plans ........................................................................................................................................... 57 

Habitat Management Plans ..................................................................................................................... 57 

Endangered Species Recovery Plans .................................................................................................... 58 

Existing Environmental Impact Statements ............................................................................................ 58 

Documents Incorporated by Reference .................................................................................................. 58 

C. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................ 61

General Implementation Schedule of “One-Time” Actions ..................................................................... 61 

Maintaining the Plan ................................................................................................................................ 62 

Changing the Plan ................................................................................................................................... 62 

D. PLAN EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................... 63

E. MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ............................................................................................................. 63

Management Common to All Decisions (MCA) ...................................................................................... 65 

Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) ............................................................................................................... 69 

Air Quality (AQ) ....................................................................................................................................... 70 

Cultural Resources (CUL) ....................................................................................................................... 72 

Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE) ....................................................................................................... 77 

Forage (FOR) .......................................................................................................................................... 81 

Lands and Realty Management (LAR) .................................................................................................... 86 

Livestock and Grazing Management (GRA) ........................................................................................... 94 

Minerals And Energy Resources (MIN): Leasable Minerals (MLE), Locatable Minerals (MLO), and 

Saleable Minerals and Mineral Materials (MSA) ..................................................................................... 97 

Non-WSA Lands With Wilderness Characteristics (WC) ...................................................................... 101 

Paleontological Resources (PAL) ......................................................................................................... 103 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

iii

Rangeland Improvements (RNI) ........................................................................................................... 105 

Recreational Resources (REC): Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) and Trail 

Maintenance and Development (TMD) ................................................................................................. 106 

Riparian Resources (RIP) ..................................................................................................................... 113 

Soil and Water Resources (SOLW) ...................................................................................................... 116 

Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ............................................ 119 

Special Designations: Wild And Scenic Rivers (WSR) ........................................................................ 123 

Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) ....................................................................... 126

Special Status Species (SSS) ............................................................................................................... 128 

Travel Management: Roads And Trails (TRC) ..................................................................................... 133 

Vegetation (VEG) .................................................................................................................................. 135 

Visual Resources Management (VRM) ................................................................................................. 138 

Wild Horses (WHB) ............................................................................................................................... 139 

Wildlife And Fisheries (WL) ................................................................................................................... 141 

Woodlands And Forest Resources (WDF) ............................................................................................ 147 

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 150

GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................. 166

LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................................. 199

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 200

Appendix A: Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats In Utah, 

August 2006 

Appendix B: Hydraulic Considerations for Pipelines Crossing Stream Channels; Technical Note 

423 

Appendix C: Wild and Scenic Rivers Overview 

Appendix D: National Registry Sites and Districts 

Appendix E: Withdrawal and Classifications Identified in the Vernal Approved RMP 

Appendix F: BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management 

Appendix G: Overview of ACEC Relevance and Importance Values 

Appendix H: Disturbances and Fragmentation of Wildlife Habitat 

Appendix I: Visual Resources Management (VRM) Class Objectives 

Appendix J: Grazing Allotments 

Appendix K: Surface Stipulations Applicable to All Surface-Disturbing Activities 

Appendix L: Utah’s Threatened and Endangered Species Lease Notices for Oil and Gas and 

BLM-committed Conservation Measures 

Appendix M: Utah Public Lands Study--Key Social Survey Findings for Daggett, Duchesne and 

Uintah Counties 

Appendix N: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion Cover Letter (BO available on CD) 

Appendix O: Letter from the State of Utah Regarding Air Quality Mitigation Strategies 

Appendix P: State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Consultation Letter 

Appendix Q: Approved RMP Monitoring Plan 

Appendix R: Fluid Minerals Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

Appendix S: Public Lands Considered for Disposal 

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 201

Figure 1a Land Ownership 

Figure 2a Fire Management Categories 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

iv

Figure 3a Fire Regime 

Figure 4a Fire Condition Classes 

Figure 5a Forage Assignment Localities and Riparian Inventory 

Figure 6a Lands Considered for Disposal by Sale 

Figure 7a Seasons of Use 

Figure 8a Oil and Gas Leasing 

Figure 9a Mineral Materials/Phosphate/Gilsonite 

Figure 10a Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Areas 

Figure 11a Hill Creek Extension Indian and Federal Minerals 

Figure 12a Non-WSA Lands Inventoried for Wilderness Characteristics 

Figure 13a Special Recreation Management Areas 

Figure 14a Special Designations 

Figure 15a Travel/OHV Areas 

Figure 16a Visual Resource Management 

Figure 17a Wild Horse Herd Areas 

Figure 18a Deer, Elk, and Lynx-Winter Range/Corridor/Zone 

Figure 19a Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation 

Figure 20a Areas Open to Woodcutting 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

v

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AML Abandoned Mine Land 

AMLIS Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System 

AMR Appropriate Management Response 

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) 

ARPA Archeological Resource Protection Act (of 1979) 

AUM Animal unit month 

BA Biological Assessment 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BO Biological Opinion 

BOR (United States) Bureau of Reclamation 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (of 

1980) 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CRBSCA Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act 

CSU Controlled Surface Use 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI (United States) Department of the Interior 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EAR Environmental Analysis Record 

EIA Equine Infectious Anemia 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act (of 1975) 

ERMA Extended Recreation Management Area 

ESA Endangered Species Act (of 1973) 

ES&R Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act (of 1976) 

FMP Fire Management Plan 

FMU Fire Management Units 

FO Field Office 

GAP Geographical Analysis Program 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

HA Herd Area 

HLI Healthy Lands Initiative 

HMA Herd Management Area 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

vi

IMP Interim Management Policy 

ISA Instant Study Area (Wilderness Study Area) 

LTA Land Tenure Agreement 

LUP Land Use Plan 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MFO Moab Field Office 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (of 1990) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (of 1969) 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NNL National Natural Landmark 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

NOA Notice of Availability (published in the Federal Register) 

NOI Notice of Intent (published in the Federal Register) 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSO No Surface Occupancy (a stipulation on an oil and gas lease) 

O&G Oil and Gas 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 

ORV Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition (of riparian/wetland areas) 

PFO Price Field Office 

PM Particulate Matter 

RI Range Improvement 

R&I Relevance and Importance 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes (Act of 1926) 

RAC Resource Advisory Committee 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) 

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

RMEF Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

RHS Rangeland Health Standards 

RMP Resource Management Plan (BLM land use plan under FLPMA) 

RMZ Recreation Management Zone 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW Right of Way 

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SITLA (Utah) School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

SRP Special Recreation Permit 

T&E Threatened and/or Endangered (species as per ESA of 1973) 

TCP Traditional Cultural Properties 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

vii

TGA Taylor Grazing Act 

TMP Travel Management Plan 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

UAC Utah Administrative Code 

UDAQ Utah Department of Air Quality 

UDEQ Utah Division of Environmental Quality 

UDLF Utah Division of Lands and Forestry 

UDOGM Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

UGS Utah Geological Survey 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDI United States Department of Interior 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

VFO Vernal Field Office 

VPA Vernal Planning Area 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WAFWA Western Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

WRFO White River Field Office 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WSR Wild and Scenic River(s) (Act of 1973) 

WUG Western Utility Group 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 

Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

1

RECORD OF DECISION 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This Record of Decision (ROD) approves the Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM’s) proposal to manage the public lands 

within the Vernal Field Office as presented in the attached 

Resource Management Plan (RMP). This RMP was described as 

the Proposed Plan in the August 2008 Proposed Vernal RMP and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) [USDI-BLM-2008] – 

with minor adjustments and clarifications which are explained 

later in this ROD. This ROD provides the background on 

development of the plan and rationale for approving the decisions 

contained in the Proposed Plan, and describes the clarification 

and/or modifications made to address protests received on the 

plan. The attached Vernal Field Office (VFO) RMP (also referred 

to as the Approved RMP) includes the actual decisions. 

Purpose and Need for the Plan

Purpose 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that the BLM "develop, 

maintain, and when appropriate, revise land-use plans" (43 United States Code [USC] 1712 [a]). 

The BLM has determined it is necessary to revise existing land-use plans (LUP) and prepare a 

new RMP for the VFO based on a number of new issues that have arisen since preparation of the 

existing plans. In general, the purpose of this RMP is to provide a comprehensive framework for 

public land management within the jurisdiction of the VFO and its allocation of resources 

pursuant to the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate of FLPMA. In addition, the purpose of 

this plan revision is as follows: 

• To consolidate the existing LUPs and its amendments 

• To reevaluate, with public involvement, existing conditions, resources, and uses, and 

reconsider the mix of resource allocations and management decisions designed to 

balance uses and the protection of resources pursuant to FLPMA and applicable law 

• To resolve multiple-use conflicts or issues between resource values and resource uses. 

The resulting Approved RMP will establish consolidated guidance and updated goals, 

objectives, and management actions for the public lands in the decision area. The 

Approved RMP will be comprehensive in nature and will address issues that have 

been identified through agency, interagency, and public scoping efforts 

• To disclose and assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the reasonably 

foreseeable future actions resulting from the management actions in the Approved 

RMP and draft alternatives pursuant to the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), it’s implementing regulations, and other 

applicable laws 

Vernal Planning Area 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

2

• The Approved RMP will coordinate the management of federal subsurface mineral 

estates with private landowners, the Ute Indian Tribe, or other nonfederal surface 

owners. 

Need 

A revision to the Book Cliffs (1985) and Diamond Mountain (1994) RMPs is necessary because 

there have been significant alterations in light of new information and changed resources. 

Circumstances and policies relevant to the future management of public lands and allocation of 

resources under the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate have also changed. The BLM 

completed detailed evaluations of the Book Cliffs RMP and the Diamond Mountain RMP in 

March 2001 and determined that both plans needed revision by publishing in the Federal 

Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) to conduct land-use planning for the Vernal Field Office. 

Changes in the laws, policies, and regulations directing public land resource management and 

new information and resource data need to be considered to better manage the public lands. 

Visitation to the region has grown. Population growth and increased need for resource 

development has occurred, while concern for the environment has also increased. In addition to 

traditional consumptive uses (e.g., oil and gas development, mining, and livestock grazing), there 

is now an increased interest in uses that emphasize aesthetic values such as open space and 

increased recreational opportunities. These often conflicting uses need to be addressed in terms 

of how they affect local communities; national, regional, and state interests; and ecosystem 

health. Additionally, policy guidance has resulted in the initiation or completion of local and 

national plans, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recovery plans, and Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) that have changed land management direction in the 

VFO since the Book Cliffs RMP was written. 

Vernal Planning Area 

The VFO is located in the northeast corner of Utah and administers lands within Daggett, 

Duchesne, and Uintah Counties, plus a small portion of Grand County. The VFO also has 

Native American Trust responsibilities for the Ute Indian Tribe and allotted mineral trust lands 

located within these counties. 

Most of the land that the BLM manages is in the eastern and southern portions of the planning 

area and is generally characterized by habitats associated with the Uinta Basin and Colorado 

Plateau. Other agencies that manage land in the vicinity of the VFO include the United States 

Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), National Park Service (NPS), United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

(SITLA), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), and Utah Division of Lands and 

Forestry (UDLF). Additional lands are held in private ownership or in trust by the United States 

for the Ute Indian Tribe or for individual Native Americans. 

The Diamond Mountain portion of the planning area includes BLM-administered lands and 

minerals in Daggett and Duchesne counties and a portion of Uintah County northwest of the 

Green River. The Vernal Approved RMP is responsible for the administration of public land in 

Browns Park and the Diamond Mountain Plateau for the Little Snake Field Office in Colorado. 

The Little Snake Field Office administers public land in Browns Park for some resources, 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

3

including fire-suppression, under agreement between both offices. Administration of these 

agreed-upon resources is in accordance with the Vernal and Little Snake resource management 

plans. 

The Book Cliffs portion of the planning area is located in northeastern Utah. It is bounded by 

the Utah–Colorado state line on the east, the Book Cliff Mountains to the south, the Green River 

to the west, and Blue Mountain to the north. The Book Cliffs area includes public land and 

minerals in Uintah and Grand counties. The VFO boundary officially ends at the Uintah County 

line; however, a small portion of the public lands in Grand County of the Moab Field Office 

(MFO) are administered by the VFO under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

A small number of grazing allotments straddle the Utah–Colorado border. An MOU is in place 

between the White River Field Office (WRFO) in Colorado and the VFO, where each office, 

depending on the allotment boundaries, administers livestock grazing for the other office. 

Resources within the Vernal Planning Area (VPA) include botanical (including listed and nonlisted sensitive species), cultural resources, fisheries, mineral resources, paleontological 

resources, rangeland, recreational resources, riparian resources, visual resources, water 

resources, wetlands, wild horses, wilderness, and wildlife. 

Land-use and economic resources include building stone, Gilsonite, livestock grazing, oil and 

gas, phosphate, rights-of-way, tar sands, and woodland products. Opportunities for camping, 

fishing, hiking, hunting, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, sightseeing, and viewing historic sites 

provide public enjoyment, as well as additional revenues to businesses in and adjacent to the 

VPA. 

Unique features within the planning area include the Book Cliffs, an area rich in resources with 

abundant management opportunities: 

• Browns Park—which provides crucial big game winter range and a high density of 

cultural and historical sites 

• Nine Mile Canyon—with its rock art as well as the high density of cultural and 

historical sites 

• Pariette Wetlands—which provide habitat for over 100 species of wildlife 

• Red Mountain—with its high mountain vistas and plentiful recreational opportunities 

• White and Green Rivers—with their high value scenery and riparian ecosystems 

There are over 5.5 million acres within the boundary of the VFO, of which 1.7 million acres 

(approximately 31 percent) are BLM-managed surface lands. The VFO administers energyrelated mineral activities on 3.9 million acres of federal mineral lands (including 1.3 million 

acres of USFS lands) and post-lease mineral operations on Indian trust mineral lands. The 1.9 

million acres of BLM-managed mineral estate includes the split estate mineral lands within the 

Hill Creek Extension (comprises 188,500 acres of mineral estate underlying Indian trust surface). 

This large block of federal mineral estate within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and 

Ouray Indian Reservation has not been previously analyzed for oil and gas leasing. This issue 

has been addressed as part of the Approved RMP. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

4

Ownership of federal land formerly managed by the U.S. Department of the Navy, and more 

recently, by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), was transferred to the Ute Indian Tribe. The 

BLM managed certain resource programs for the DOE on these 47,978 acres. The Approved 

RMP will not analyze management of these programs. 

Land ownership patterns within both the Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs planning areas 

range from large blocks of BLM-administered public lands to small, privately owned blocks. 

This is complicated by lands where the BLM administers a percentage of the minerals, while 

other owners hold the remaining interests in the land and/or minerals. Land ownership, surface 

administration, and mineral management responsibilities within the VPA are shown in Figure 1a 

and described in the table below. 

Land Ownership in the VPA and the Surrounding Area 

Federal Acres Percent 

BLM Vernal Field Office 1,697,039 30.75% 

BLM Moab Field Office 28,473 0.52% 

Forest Service (USFS) 1,248,651 22.63% 

National Park Service (NPS) 50,113 0.91% 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 10,898 0.20% 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 3,046 0.06% 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (Indian Trust Lands for the 

benefit of the Ute Indian Tribe and Allottees) 846,669 15.34% 

Total 3,884,889 70.39% 

State of Utah Acres Percent 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 32,210 0.58% 

School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) 377,969 6.85% 

Total 410,179 7.43% 

Private Acres Percent 

Total 1,223,791 22.17% 

Total Acreage in Vernal Planning Area 5,518,859 100.00% 

Decisions and actions of the Approved RMP will only apply to BLM lands or BLM mineral 

estate where there is a split in ownership. In the case of split estate lands, such as lands within 

the planning area that are split between the BLM and the Uintah and Ouray Indian Tribe, actions 

affecting the surface must be coordinated with the surface owner. Undertakings conducted on 

lands not wholly or partly administered by the BLM (for example, fractional interest lands) are 

subject to the laws, regulations, conditions, and policies of the relevant land management agency 

or other landowner. 

B. OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in detail in the Vernal Field 

Office Draft RMP/EIS (USDI-BLM 2005). In October 2007, a Supplement to the Draft 

RMP/EIS (USDI-BLM 2007) analyzed a fifth alternative to further address Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics. The Vernal Field Office Proposed RMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

5

2008) combined all five alternatives into one document with the Proposed RMP. The 

alternatives were developed to address major planning issues and to provide direction for 

resource programs influencing land management. All alternatives incorporated the BLM Utah 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management developed in 

conjunction with the Utah Resource Advisory Council (RAC) as base standards for assessing 

land health. All decisions under any of the alternatives would comply with federal laws, rules, 

regulations, and policies. Mitigation has been incorporated in the development of all 

alternatives. 

On January 14, 2005, the BLM published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft RMP/EIS 

in the Federal Register to announce and solicit public comment for a 90-day period on the 

alternatives, as well as the impacts and effects of those alternatives on the human environment. 

The original NOA for the Draft RMP/EIS released January 2005 was augmented with a NOA 

published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2005, providing the public with information 

on ACECs considered in the Draft RMP/EIS and requesting public comments on the ACECs. 

This NOA published information about each existing and potential ACEC as required in 43 CFR 

1610.7-2. This initiated a 60-day public comment period. 

The BLM published the NOA for the Supplement to the Vernal Field Office Draft RMP/EIS for 

Non-WSA lands with Wilderness Characteristics for public review and a 90-day public comment 

period in the Federal Register in October 2007. The VFO Supplemental Draft RMP/EIS 

presented Alternative E which provided specific management actions to protect, preserve, and 

maintain the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This 

new alternative ensured that: 

(1) Consideration was given to wilderness characteristics. 

(2) An appropriate range of alternatives was considered for these lands. 

(3) An adequate analysis was prepared from which to base future land use decisions. 

Each alternative emphasized a different combination of resource uses, allocations, and 

restoration measures to address issues and resolve conflicts among uses, so program goals were 

met in using a variety of approaches across the alternatives. However, each alternative allowed 

for some level of support of all resources present in the planning area. The alternatives differed 

in how fast the goals would be met, the degree to which they would be met, the emphasis placed 

on certain programs and activities, and whether active or passive management would occur. 

Management decisions for programs not tied to major planning issues and/or mandated by law 

often contain minor or no differences in management decisions between alternatives. 

Alternative D (the No Action Alternative) is the continuation of the Book Cliffs (1985) and 

Diamond Mountain (1994) Resource Management Plans and is provided as a baseline for 

comparison. Alternative E is considered the environmentally preferable alternative, offering the 

most intensive, active management for protection of the area’s natural and biological values and 

favors natural systems over commodities development, including protecting all non-WSA lands 

BLM found to have wilderness characteristics. Alternative C is similar to Alternative E, but 

does not offer specific management to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative B emphasizes commodity development, provides the greatest economic benefit from 

mineral development, and imposes the fewest restrictions on public land uses. Alternative A, 

(the Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS and largely the baseline for the Proposed Plan in 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

6

the PRMP/FEIS) best achieves a balance between environmental protection and use of public 

land resources. General overviews of these alternatives and comparisons among them are 

provided below. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative A was selected as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Vernal Draft RMP/EIS. 

This alternative represents the mix and variety of management actions, based on BLM’s analysis 

and judgment, which best resolve the resource issues and management concerns while 

accommodating BLM’s values, programs, and policy. As a result of public comment, internal 

review, and cooperating agency coordination on the Draft RMP/EIS, Alternative A was modified 

to become the Proposed Plan and analyzed in the Final EIS. With minor adjustments and 

clarification, upon signature of this Record of Decision, it becomes the Approved RMP. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B emphasizes commodity production and human activities. Commodity production 

and human activities would be less constrained in Alternative B than in other alternatives. Other 

than Alternative D, Alternative B provides more opportunities for motorized recreation, and is 

the least restrictive to OHV use and all surface disturbing activities (including oil and gas 

leasing). Alternative B designates eight areas as ACECs, two suitable Wild and Scenic River 

segments, and there are no acres managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative B does not provide sufficient restrictions on uses to protect important natural 

resources. For these reasons, this alternative did not achieve the balance between resource 

protection and resource use that provided enhancement of resource use and conditions. The 

rationale for not selecting Alternative B is outlined below for the major management actions. 

Lands and Realty: In Alternative B, 55,808 acres (all within seven WSAs) are managed as 

exclusion areas for rights-of-way, and there are no acres managed as avoidance areas for rightsof-way. The exclusion areas for WSAs are non-discretionary, and not identifying any acres of 

avoidance areas is not sufficient to adequately protect the important natural resources listed 

below: 

• Some highly sensitive visual resources 

• Heavily used recreation areas 

• Pronghorn antelope kidding habitat 

• Bighorn sheep rutting and lambing habitat 

• Mule deer migration and fawning habitat 

• Rocky Mountain elk calving habitat 

• Raptor nesting sites 

• All the relevant and important values in potential ACECs 

Livestock Grazing: Alternative B (see Figure 9, PRMP/FEIS) would extend the grazing Seasons 

of Use as follows: 

• 05/19 through 10/07 for area 2 

• 05/31 through 11/01 for area 3 

• 04/25 through 05/26 and 11/01 through 12/31 for area 4 

• 04/10 through 05/26 and 11/01 through 12/31 for area 5 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

7

• 10/26 through 05/08 for area 6 

• 05/20 through 12/01 for area 7 

Under this alternative, these timing restrictions on livestock grazing are not sufficient to protect: 

• Pronghorn antelope kidding habitat 

• Bighorn sheep rutting and lambing habitat 

• Mule deer migration and fawning habitat 

• Rocky Mountain elk calving habitat 

• Raptor nesting habitat 

• Greater sage-grouse breeding habitat 

Minerals: Alternative B manages oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities with 

the following stipulations: 

• Unavailable – 52,550 acres 

• Open (subject major constraints such as No Surface Occupancy [NSO]) – 42,053 

• Open (subject to moderate constraints such as Timing Limitations[TLs]/Controlled 

Surface Use [CSU]) – 706,281 acres 

• Open (subject to standard terms and conditions) – 1,113,116 acres 

Alternative B is the least restrictive to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. 

Alternative B has the most acreage open subject to standard terms and conditions. Although the 

oil and gas restrictions are more conducive to development, they are not sufficient to protect all 

the important resources identified within the planning area. In particular, the stipulations in 

Alternative B are not sufficient to protect: 

• Highly sensitive visual resources 

• Heavily used recreation areas 

• Migration, lambing, and rutting habitats for mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, and 

pronghorn antelope 

• Relevant and important values in potential ACECs 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: There are no acres in Alternative B that 

manage non-WSA lands to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. 

Therefore, all the wilderness characteristics values identified in these areas could be potentially 

adversely affected. 

Recreation: Alternative B establishes three Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

which are managed for outstanding scenic vistas; riparian, fisheries, and special status resource 

values; water quality; water based recreation; wildlife viewing opportunities; hunting; 

comprehensive trail system for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and OHV use; camping; highvalue cultural resources; historic interpretation; protection of geological formations, and facility 

development. 

In Alternative B, heavily used recreation areas such as Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, and the 

White River would not be managed as SRMAs and consequently there would be no Recreation 

Management Zones for recreation management. As a result, recreation use and opportunities 

would not be proactively or adequately managed, resulting in continued degradation of the 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

8

resources in these heavily used areas. Alternative B does not provide for the full range of 

recreational activities known to occur in the planning area nor for the businesses that depend on 

these activities. 

Special Designations – ACECs: Alternative B would designate eight of the areas found to have 

relevant and important values as ACECs. The management prescriptions detailed under 

Alternative B are not sufficient to protect most of the relevant and important values of other 

potential ACECs not designated under this alternative. This is because proposed management 

decisions are not restrictive enough under this alternative to be protective. 

Special Designations – Wild and Scenic Rivers: Alternative B recommends two of the eligible 

river segments as suitable for potential designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers. However, 

Alternative B would not provide adequate protection for any of the other river segments found to 

have Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs). For example, the ORVs of scenic and cultural 

values of Nine Mile Creek would not be protected in Alternative B because proposed 

management decisions are not restrictive, resulting in adverse impacts from oil and gas 

development and other surface disturbing activities. 

Travel Management: Alternative B designates: 

• 5,434 acres open to OHV travel 

• 1,659,901 acres limited to OHV travel 

• 60,187 acres closed to OHV travel 

While this alternative accommodates many motorized travel opportunities, it conflicts with areas 

used for primitive recreation and thus does not provide a travel plan that meets the needs of all 

recreational users. 

Wildlife: Alternative B provides the least protection for wildlife habitats by using the least 

amount of crucial habitat for various species and the minimum timing limitations. The timing 

limitations imposed in Alternative B are shorter and cover less acreage than necessary for 

sustaining the species. Alternative B does not identify any Best Management Practices for 

raptors or raptor habitat, and as a whole, does not provide sufficient protection for wildlife 

habitats. 

In summary, Alternative B was not selected primarily because it does not best achieve the mix of 

multiple uses necessary to fully implement the mandate of FLPMA. Adoption of this alternative 

would result in adverse impacts to wildlife, loss of primitive recreation opportunities, reduced 

focus on recreational opportunities through SRMA management, and would provide no 

management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Relevant and important values 

and outstandingly remarkable values in potential ACECs and eligible wild and scenic river 

segments would be at risk. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C emphasizes protection of wildlife habitats, natural resources, ecosystems, and 

landscapes, but does not protect, preserve and maintain any non-WSA lands for their wilderness 

characteristics. Commodity production and human activities would be more constrained. Except 

for Alternative E, this alternative provides more opportunities for non-motorized recreation. In 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

9

addition to Alternative E, Alternative C protects areas for sensitive resources, designates all 

potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), and makes all eligible river 

segments suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River system. It is also 

restrictive to OHV use and surface disturbing activities (including oil and gas leasing). There are 

many uses that are overly restricted by the decisions in this alternative. The rationale for not 

selecting Alternative C is outlined below for the major management actions.

Lands and Realty: In Alternative C, 55,808 acres (all within seven WSAs) are managed as 

exclusion areas for rights-of-way, and it does not manage any acres as avoidance areas for rightsof-way. The exclusion areas for WSAs are non-discretionary, and identifying no acres of 

avoidance areas is not sufficient to adequately protect the important natural resources listed 

below: 

• Highly sensitive visual resources 

• Heavily used recreation areas 

• Pronghorn antelope kidding habitat 

• Bighorn sheep rutting and lambing habitat 

• Mule deer migration and fawning habitat 

• Rocky Mountain elk calving habitat 

• Raptor nesting sites 

• Relevant and important values in potential ACECs 

Livestock Grazing: Alternative C (see Figure 10a, PRMP/FEIS) would reduce the grazing 

Seasons of Use allowed as follows: 

• 05/19 through 10/07 for area 2 

• 06/15 through 08/31 for area 3 

• 10/01 through 03/01 (fall/winter) for area 4 

• 10/01 through 03/01 (fall/winter) for area 5 

• 10/01 through 03/01 (fall/winter) for area 6 

• 10/01 through 11/30 (fall) for area 7 

Alternative C was not selected because the timing restrictions are unnecessarily restrictive. 

Minerals: Alternative C manages oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities with 

the following stipulations: 

• Unavailable – 228,246 acres 

• Open (subject major constraints such as No Surface Occupancy [NSO]) – 58,670 

• Open (subject to moderate constraints such as Timing Limitations[TLs]/Controlled 

Surface Use [CSU]) – 768,466 acres 

• Open (subject to standard terms and conditions) – 858,619 acres 

Alternative C is overly restrictive to oil and gas development and other surface disturbing 

activities, especially in areas with high development potential for oil and gas. Except for 

Alternative E, it has the least amount of acreage open to oil and gas leasing. The acreage 

included in the Closed and No Surface Occupancy stipulation totals 15 percent of the acreage in 

the planning area that would be essentially unavailable to oil and gas development and other 

surface disturbing activities. The timing and controlled surface use stipulations in Alternative C 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

10

would add another 40 percent of the planning area in which oil and gas development would be 

prohibited during certain times and subject to specified conditions for construction. Timing and 

controlled surface use restrictions add to the cost of development. In total, about 55 percent of 

the planning area would be subject to restrictions above standard terms and conditions for 

development. This is not in compliance with Energy Policy and Conservation Act because it 

would not provide reasonable access or minimize impediments to oil and gas leasing and 

development as Congress directed. 

Alternative C provides the second least amount of ad valorum tax revenue ($20 million) as well 

as the least amount of federal gross annual royalty revenue ($511.2 million) and county annual 

royalty revenue ($454.4 million) of any of the action alternatives because of these restrictions on 

mineral development. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative C does not manage non-WSA 

lands to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. Therefore, all the 

wilderness values identified in these areas could be potentially adversely affected. 

Recreation: Alternative C identifies six potential SRMAs to be managed primarily for 

undeveloped recreational opportunities. The SRMAs contain outstanding scenic vistas; riparian, 

fisheries, and special status resource values; water quality; water based recreation; wildlife 

viewing opportunities; hunting; comprehensive trail system for hiking, biking, horseback riding, 

and OHV use; camping; high-value cultural resources; historic interpretation; protection of 

geological formations; and facility development. 

No Recreational Management Zones (RMZs) or Focus Areas were identified in Alternative C 

for the heavily used recreation areas such as Blue Mountain, Browns Park, Book Cliffs, Fantasy 

Canyon, Nine Mile Canyon, and the White River. As a result, recreation use and opportunities 

would not be proactively or adequately managed resulting in continued degradation of the 

resources in these areas. Recreation opportunities would not be adequately managed in these 

heavily used areas. Alternative B does not provide for the full range of recreational activities 

known to occur in the planning area nor for the businesses that depend upon these activities. 

Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Alternative C designates 13 

areas determined to have relevant and important values as Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACECs). Management of six of these potential ACECs in Alternative C is 

unnecessary to protect the relevant and important (R&I) values. 

For example, the relevant and important (R&I) values of the White River ACEC are unique 

geological formations, high value scenery, and riparian ecosystem. These R&I values are 

protected in Alternative C by closing most of the public lands along the river canyon to oil and 

gas leasing or alternately allowing leasing with NSO stipulations. Some of the river segment 

would be managed as a SMRA providing primitive recreation activities such a floating, primitive 

camping, fishing, hiking, and wildlife viewing. Much of the river corridor would be closed to 

disposal of sand, gravel, and building stone. Most of the river canyon would be managed Visual 

Resources Management (VRM) Class II for retention of the characteristic landscape. Surface 

disturbance would be prohibited within floodplains and 100 meters of riparian zones. OHV use 

would be limited to designated routes. Furthermore, compliance with endangered species and 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

11

cultural resource protection laws would continue to afford protection of those elements of the 

ACEC relevant and important values. 

In another example, the relevant and important value for the Coyote Basin ACEC is due to the 

existence of an important white-tailed prairie dog complex. It is protected in Alternative C 

through VRM Class II objectives, limiting OHV travel to designated routes, and limiting surface 

disturbance associated with oil and gas leasing through controlled surface which would protect 

habitat for the white-tailed prairie dogs. 

In addition, some of the ACECs overlay WSAs. The multiple special designation layering is 

duplicative and unnecessary where relevant and important values are protected through IMP 

management. 

Special Designations – Wild and Scenic Rivers: Alternative C recommends as suitable all eight 

river segments found eligible for potential designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Many of the 

river segments found suitable in Alternative C include scenery and recreation attributed to water 

related resources as Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs). Scenery and non-motorized 

recreational activities, especially non-boating activities, are more amenable for management by 

other means, such as SRMAs, WSAs and non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. As a 

consequence, Alternative C would impose unnecessary restrictions that provide no additional 

management protections that are not otherwise available through existing or alternative 

management options. 

Travel Management: Alternative C designates: 

• 5,434 acres open to OHV travel 

• 1,353,529 acres limited to OHV travel 

• 366,559 acres closed to OHV travel 

• 4,707 miles of routes to OHV travel 

While this alternative accommodates many motorized travel opportunities, it is overly restrictive 

in the amount of acres closed to motorized use, and therefore does not meet the needs of all 

recreational users, such as cross-country motorized travel. 

Wildlife: Alternative C provides the maximum protection for wildlife habitats by using the most 

inclusive habitats for various species. In addition, Alternative C is the most restrictive to uses 

within these broader habitats. The timing limitations imposed in Alternative C are longer and 

cover larger acreages than are necessary for sustaining the species. 

In summary, Alternative C would not provide adequate or balanced consideration of existing 

uses such as motorized recreational activities, economic land uses such as rights-of-way, energy 

corridors, or access to mineral development. Adoption of this alternative could also preclude the 

consideration of possible future development of renewable energy resources. This Alternative is 

inconsistent with existing state and local county plans; conflicts with the intent of federal 

legislation including Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the Energy Policy Act, and it does 

not give adequate consideration to local needs, customs and culture. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

12

Alternative D (No Action) 

Alternative D is referred to as the No Action Alternative. This alternative would have continued 

present management practices defined in the existing land use plans. Direction contained in 

existing laws, regulations, and policies would have continued to be implemented, sometimes 

superseding provisions of the Book Cliffs (1985) and Diamond Mountain (1994) Resource 

Management Plans. For example, the Book Cliffs RMP allows for oil and gas leasing in WSAs. 

This was superseded by law in 1986, and all WSAs are no closed to oil and gas leasing. 

Alternative D was not selected because it does not meet the purpose and need for the 

management of public lands under the jurisdiction of the VFO. The decisions in the 1985 and 

1994 RMPs are largely based on outdated information. Equally important, these decisions do not 

meet changing uses, trends, and conditions that have occurred since that time. The existing land 

use plans do not address many recent issues, nor do they address the increased levels of 

controversy some existing issues are facing. Special status species, including threatened and 

endangered species, are not fully addressed within the parameters of Alternative D. Alternative 

D designates 787,859 acres as open to OHV use. This large open acreage within the planning 

area results in unacceptable resource damage which is contrary to BLM policy. Alternative D 

continues designation of eight ACECs but does not consider any new areas as ACECs. The No 

Action Alternative did not consider non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to protect 

and preserve their wilderness characteristics, nor does it consider suitability designation for 

eligible river segments. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E, as analyzed and described in the Supplement to the Draft RMP/EIS was based on 

Alternative C of the Draft RMP/EIS. Alternative E provided management to protect, preserve 

and maintain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Alternative E is recognized as the 

environmentally preferable alternative. This Alternative emphasized protection of all non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics, and proposed very restrictive management in these areas. 

The natural succession of ecosystems would be allowed to proceed in these and other select 

management areas. This alternative strongly emphasizes maintenance of watershed conditions, 

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

also includes designation of ACECs and determinations for wild and scenic river suitability, 

while still providing for resource uses in other parts of the VFO, including mineral and energy 

development and motorized recreation use. Alternative E is the same as Alternative C, except 

that it adds a protective management prescription in 25 areas that comprise non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Lands and Realty: In Alternative E, 330,654 acres are managed as exclusion areas for rights-ofway. Alternative E would be overly restrictive on rights-of-way and oil and gas development. In 

light of direction provided by the Energy Policy Act, to provide reasonable access and minimize 

impediments, this alternative would constrain necessary infrastructure to develop oil and gas 

resources. 

Minerals: Alternative E manages oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities with 

the following stipulations: 

• Unavailable – 360,037 acres 

• Open (subject major constraints such as No Surface Occupancy [NSO]) – 47,629 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

13

• Open (subject to moderate constraints such as Timing Limitations [TLs]/Controlled 

Surface Use [CSU]) – 680,570 acres 

• Open (subject to standard terms and conditions) – 818,891 acres 

Alternative E is overly restrictive to oil and gas development and other surface disturbing 

activities, especially in areas with high development potential for oil and gas. It has the least 

amount of acreage open to oil and gas leasing. The acreage included in the Closed and No 

Surface Occupancy stipulation totals 21 percent of the acreage in the planning area that would be 

essentially unavailable to oil and gas development and other surface disturbing activities. The 

timing and controlled surface use stipulations in Alternative E would add another 36 percent of 

the planning area in which oil and gas development would be prohibited during certain times and 

subject to specified conditions for construction. Timing and controlled surface use restrictions 

add to the cost of development. In total, about 57 percent of the planning area would be subject 

to restrictions above standard terms and conditions for development. The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act provides policy directing BLM to minimize impediments to oil and gas leasing 

and development, and this alternative does not meet these policy objectives as directed by 

Congress. 

Alternative E provides the least amount of ad valorum tax revenue ($19.6 million) as well as the 

least amount of federal gross annual royalty revenue ($502.4 million) and county annual royalty 

revenue ($446.6 million) than any other action alternative because of these restrictions on 

mineral development. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative E manages 277,596 acres to 

protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. These acres are closed to mineral 

leasing and development, rights-of-way, woodcutting, and all other surface disturbing activities. 

In addition, management of non-WSA lands to preserve their wilderness characteristics would 

preclude potentially beneficial actions such as fuels and vegetation treatments and other healthy 

land initiatives, wildlife and range improvements, and the construction of recreation facilities. 

Many of the areas managed to protect wilderness characteristics in Alternative E have conflicts 

with high development potential areas for oil and gas. Some of this acreage is also currently 

leased for oil and gas, thereby make impractical the protection of wilderness characteristic 

values. The management of all the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in Alternative 

E is overly restrictive on other resources and uses of the public lands. 

Travel Management: Alternative E designates: 

• 5,434 acres open to OHV travel 

• 1,326,024 acres limited to OHV travel 

• 392,818 acres closed to OHV travel 

• 4,654 miles of routes to OHV travel 

While this alternative accommodates many motorized travel opportunities, it is overly restrictive 

in the amount of acres closed to motorized use. Many of these lands could remain open to OHV 

use on designated routes without impacting other resources. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

14

Rationale for not selecting this alternative for Livestock Grazing, Recreation, ACECs, WSRs, 

and wildlife would be the same as rationale for not selecting Alternative C because they are 

essentially the same decisions under both alternatives. 

In summary, Alternative E would not provide adequate or balanced consideration of existing 

uses such as motorized recreational activities, economic land uses such as rights-of-way, energy 

corridors or access to mineral development. Adoption of this alternative could also preclude 

consideration of possible future development of renewable energy resources. Valid existing 

rights within some of the wilderness characteristics areas would make managing these areas for 

their wilderness values impractical. This Alternative is inconsistent with existing state and local 

plans; conflicts with the intent of federal legislation including Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act and the Energy Policy Act, and it does not give adequate consideration to local needs, 

customs and culture. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Several organizations and individuals provided components of alternatives and management 

actions as possible ways of resolving individual resource management issues and conflicts. 

However, none of the submittals addressed the BLM’s purpose and need (outlined in Chapter 1) 

and multiple-use requirements as identified in the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA). These submissions were considered during alternative development; however, none 

provided the full range of protections required. The following alternatives and management 

options were considered as possible ways of resolving resource management issues and conflicts 

but were eliminated from detailed analysis because they were unreasonable or not practical as a 

result of technical, legal, regulatory, or policy issues. 

No Grazing Alternative 

An alternative that proposes to make the entire planning area unavailable for grazing would not 

meet the purpose and need of this Approved RMP. The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires that agencies study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to 

recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning 

alternative uses of available resources. No issues or conflicts have been identified during this 

land-use planning effort which requires the complete elimination of grazing within the planning 

area for their resolution. Where appropriate, removal of livestock and adjustments to livestock 

use have been incorporated into the alternatives on an allotment or area basis to address issues 

identified in this planning effort. Since the BLM has considerable discretion through its grazing 

regulations to determine and adjust stocking levels, seasons-of-use, and grazing management 

activities, and to allocate forage to uses of the public lands in RMPs, the analysis of an 

alternative to entirely eliminate grazing is not needed. 

An alternative that proposes to make the entire planning area unavailable for grazing would also 

be inconsistent with the intent of the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), which directs the BLM to 

provide for livestock use of BLM lands; to adequately safeguard grazing privileges; to provide 

for the orderly use, improvement, and development of the range; and to stabilize the livestock 

industry dependent upon the public range. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) requires that public lands be managed on a "multiple use and sustained yield basis" 

(FLPMA Sec. 302(a) and Sec. 102(7)) and includes livestock grazing as a principal or major use 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

15

of public lands. While multiple-use does not require that all lands be used for livestock grazing, 

complete removal of livestock grazing on the entire planning area would be arbitrary and would 

not meet the principle of multiple use and sustained yield. 

Livestock grazing is and has been an important use of the public lands in the planning area for 

many years and is a continuing government program. Although the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) guidelines for compliance with NEPA require that agencies analyze the No 

Action Alternative in all EISs, for purposes of this NEPA analysis, the No Action Alternative is 

to continue the status quo, which includes livestock grazing (CEQ Forty Most Asked Questions, 

Question 3). For this reason and those stated above, a no grazing alternative for the entire 

planning area has been dismissed from further consideration in this RMP/EIS. 

Livestock Grazing Adjustments Alternative 

During scoping and comment on the Draft EIS, it was suggested that the BLM consider 

adjustments to livestock numbers, livestock management practices, and the kind of livestock 

grazed on allotments within the VFO to benefit wildlife and protect and promote land health, 

including soils, hydrologic cycles, and biotic integrity. 

The BLM’s policy regarding adjustments to the levels of livestock use authorized is to monitor 

and inventory range conditions under existing stocking levels and make adjustments to livestock 

use as indicated by this data to help assure that standards for rangeland health and resource 

objectives are met. Regulations at 43 CFR 4130.3-1 require that the terms and conditions under 

which livestock are authorized “ensure conformance with the provisions of subpart 4180” (BLM 

Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management) and further that 

“authorized livestock grazing use shall not exceed the livestock carrying capacity of the 

allotment.” It would be inappropriate and unfeasible to estimate and allocate the available forage, 

design-specific management practices, and determine if changes to the kind of livestock are 

necessary for each allotment in the VFO or in the area as a whole in the RMP/EIS. Such changes 

would not be supportable considering the type and amount of data required and the analysis 

necessary to make such changes. 

According to BLM policy, decisions regarding authorized livestock use levels and the terms and 

conditions under which they are managed are implementation decisions (Land Use Planning 

Handbook (H-1601-1), Appendix C, p. 15). The BLM assesses rangeland health, conducts 

monitoring and inventories, and evaluates this data on a periodic basis, normally on an allotment 

and/or watershed basis. After NEPA analysis, necessary changes to livestock management and 

implementation of BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Management are implemented through a proposed decision in accordance with 43 CFR 4160.1. 

These decisions determine the exact levels of use by livestock in conformance with the RMP and 

to meet resource objectives and maintain or enhance land health. For these reasons this 

alternative has been dismissed from further consideration in this RMP/EIS. 

No Leasing Alternative 

During scoping and/or the comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS, commenters suggested that 

the BLM should address a “No Leasing Alternative” because the No Leasing Alternative is the 

equivalent of the No Action Alternative that must be analyzed in all EISs. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

16

The No Leasing Alternative in an RMP revision is actually an action alternative because where 

lands have already been leased, the no action for NEPA purposes continues to allow for (honor) 

valid existing rights. Proposing a No Leasing Alternative would require revisiting existing leases 

and either buying them back from the lessee or allowing them to expire on their own terms. The 

first option (buying back) is outside the scope of any RMP. This is a political decision that the 

BLM has no authority to undertake in planning. As a result, the BLM does not regularly include 

a No Leasing Alternative. The second option (lease expiration) would occur to some degree 

under any alternative. 

The purpose and need for the RMP is to identify and resolve potential conflicts between 

competing resource uses rather than to eliminate a principle use of the public lands in the VFO 

Area. Leasing of the public lands for oil and gas exploration and production is required by the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the BLM’s current policy is to apply the least 

restrictive management constraints to the principal uses of the public lands necessary to achieve 

resource goals and objectives. A field office–wide No Leasing Alternative would be an 

unnecessarily restrictive alternative for mineral exploration and production on the public lands. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA Section 102 [E]) requires that agencies “study, 

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal 

which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” No 

issues or conflicts have been identified during this land-use planning effort that requires the 

complete elimination of oil and gas leasing within the planning area for their resolution. The 

BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) requires that LUPs identify areas as open or 

unavailable for leasing. 

Given the potential range of decisions available in the Draft RMP/EIS, the analyzed alternatives 

include no leasing for certain areas, but a field office-wide No Leasing Alternative is not 

necessary in order to resolve issues and protect other resource values and uses. 

As mentioned in the “No Grazing Alternative” discussion, a No Leasing Alternative should not 

be confused with the No Action Alternative for purposes of NEPA compliance. Leasing as well 

as no leasing on the public lands has previously been analyzed in several NEPA documents. In 

1973, the Department of Interior published the Final EIS on the Federal Upland Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program (USDI, 1973). The Proposed Action was to lease federal lands for production 

of oil and natural gas resources. Alternatives included the No Action Alternative, which at 

initiation of the program was the No–Leasing Alternative. To supplement that EIS, the BLM 

prepared a series of environmental assessments (EAs, then referred to as Environmental Analysis 

Records, or EARs), including the Vernal District Oil and Gas Program Environmental Analysis 

Record (EAR) of 1975, which addressed oil and gas leasing for the public lands in the VFO area. 

Alternatives again included the No Action or No Leasing alternative. The outcome was a 

category system for leasing that categorized all public and USFS lands into four groups: 

• Open to leasing with standard lease stipulations 

• Special stipulations to address special concerns 

• No surface occupancy 

• No leasing 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

17

Since completion of the EAR in 1975, oil and gas leasing in the VFO area has been an ongoing 

federal program under the established categories. 

The CEQ (Section 1502.14[d] of NEPA) requires the alternatives analysis in an EIS to "include 

the alternative of no action." CEQ Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 3 goes on to say that: 

“. . . Section 1502.14(d) requires the alternatives analysis in the EIS to "include 

the alternative of no action." There are two distinct interpretations of "no action" 

that must be considered, depending on the nature of the proposal being evaluated. 

The first situation might involve an action such as updating a land management 

plan where ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations 

will continue, even as new plans are developed. In these cases "no action" is "no 

change" from current management direction or level of management intensity. To 

construct an alternative that is based on no management at all would be a useless 

academic exercise. Therefore, the "no action" alternative may be thought of in 

terms of continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed. 

Consequently, projected impacts of alternative management schemes would be 

compared in the EIS to those impacts projected for the existing plan. In this case, 

alternatives would include management plans of both greater and lesser intensity, 

especially greater and lesser levels of resource development. 

The second interpretation of "no action" is illustrated in instances involving 

federal decisions on proposals for projects. "No action" in such cases would mean 

the proposed activity would not take place, and the resulting environmental 

effects from taking no action would be compared with the effects of permitting 

the proposed activity or an alternative activity to go forward.” 

Therefore, the No Action Alternative is to continue the status quo, which is to lease under the oil 

and gas stipulations (formerly categories) established in the Diamond Mountain RMP and the 

Book Cliffs RMP. 

C. RESULTS OF PROTEST PERIOD 

The BLM received 16 protest letters with standing during the 30-day protest period provided for 

the proposed land use plan decisions contained in the Vernal Proposed RMP/Final EIS in 

accordance with 43 CFR Part 1610.5-2. Of these, 13 presented valid protest points. Protesting 

parties with valid protests included: 

Twelve Letters from Organizations: Utah Rivers Council; Independent Petroleum 

Association of Mountain States; Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership; Western 

Watersheds Project, Inc.; Uintah Mountain Club; Uintah County Commission; Questar 

Exploration and Production Company; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Department of 

Wildland Science – Utah State University; National Trust for Historic Preservation; 

National Outdoor Leadership School Rocky Mountain, Outdoor Industry Association; 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, The Wilderness Society (TWS), Sierra Club - Utah 

Chapter, Center for Native Ecosystems. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

18

One Letter from Individual: Jane and Jim Perkins

Protest issues were varied. Numerous protests centered on whether or not BLM followed the 

NEPA regulations in completing the land use planning effort. Issues specifically related to a lack 

of detailed impact analysis for numerous resources, lack of an adequate range of alternatives, and 

a lack of opportunities for public involvement. Other issues identified that the land use plan did 

not meet FLPMA’s multiple use mandate or give priority to the designation of ACECs. In 

addition, protests declared that BLM did not adequately analyze effects of planning actions on 

air quality or appropriately analyze impacts of climate change. Some protestors did not feel that 

their comments and/or submitted information provided on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS were 

satisfactorily responded to in the Proposed Plan/Final EIS. 

 

Detailed information on protest response can be found on the BLM Washington Office Website 

at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/protest_resolution.html

The BLM Director addressed all protests without making significant changes to the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. Five issues within the protests letters were granted, however, none resulted in 

modifications to the decisions in the Approved RMP. Two issues resulted in an Errata 

Clarification to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS: 

(1) To correct some Geographic Information System (GIS) data on a map from 

Alternative A 

(2) To correct language cited in the response to comments. 

One issue resulted in a clarification to an Appendix, and one resulted in the inclusion of 

additional references in the References section of the document. Minor adjustments and 

clarifications were made and have been explained in the Notice of Modifications and

Clarifications section later in this ROD. 

The last of the granted protest issues identified recommendations for potential designation of two 

ACECs which were overlooked during the planning process. The BLM has reviewed its 

administrative record and found that comments submitted in February 2006 (during a comment 

period for gathering input on potential ACECs) did include recommendations for designating 

ACECs to protect Graham’s penstemon and Pariette cactus habitat. These recommendations 

were mistakenly overlooked. Because the BLM did not review or consider the recommendations 

in accordance with BLM 1613 Manual, the protest is granted and these recommended areas will 

be considered at the earliest opportunity as part of the next planning process conducted in the 

Field Office. Until such time as a plan amendment or revision to consider these ACECs is 

completed, the following measures are being (and will continue to be) implemented to mitigate 

impacts to the sensitive plant species from submitted projects with proposed surface disturbance: 

(1) Within suitable habitat, site-specific inventories will be conducted to determine 

occupancy. The inventories will be conducted for lands within 300 feet of proposed 

surface-disturbance. 

(2) In suitable habitat, the project infrastructure will be designed to minimize impacts. 

(3) Within occupied habitat, the project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct 

disturbance and to minimize indirect impacts to populations and individual plants. 

The nearest proposed surface disturbance to a plant will be at least 300 feet away. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

19

D. THE DECISION 

The decision is hereby made to approve the attached plan as the Approved Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) for management of public lands that are administered by the BLM’s 

Vernal Field Office (see Approved RMP). The Approved RMP replaces public land decisions in 

the Book Cliffs RMP approved in May 1985 and the Diamond Mountain RMP approved in 

December 1994, and amendments thereunto. 

The Approved RMP was prepared under the authorities of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 in accordance with BLM planning regulations (43 CFR Part 

1600). An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for this RMP in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. 

The Approved RMP is nearly identical to the Proposed Plan presented in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. Management decisions and guidance for public lands under the jurisdiction of 

the Vernal Field Office are presented in the Approved RMP. All decisions covered by the ROD 

are either land use planning decisions or implementation decisions. 

The Approved RMP emphasizes an appropriate multiple-use balance of protection and 

restoration of the natural and cultural resources while providing for resource use, extraction, and 

enjoyment. The Approved RMP is considered the appropriate plan of action when taking into 

consideration the social, economic, and natural environment. The Approved RMP supports the 

six broad policy goals for all Federal plans, programs, and policies: 

(1) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for 

succeeding generations. 

(2) Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings. 

(3) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, 

risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences 

(4) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and 

maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of 

individual choice. 

(5) Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities. 

(6) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources. 

What the Decision/RMP Provides

Land use plan decisions include goals, objectives, land use allocations, and management actions. 

 

Goals are the broad statements of desired outcomes, and are usually not quantifiable. 

Objectives are specific desired conditions, usually quantifiable and measurable, and may have 

timeframes for achievement. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

20

Land use allocations specify locations within the planning area that are available or not for 

certain uses. These include decisions such as what lands are available for livestock grazing, 

mineral material use, oil and gas leasing, and locatable mineral development, what lands may be 

available for disposal via exchange and/ or sale, and what lands are open, closed, or limited to 

motorized travel (please note that all acreages presented in the Approved RMP are estimations 

even when presented to the nearest acre). 

Management actions include those provisions that help in meeting the established goals and 

objectives and include measures that will be applied to guide day-to-day activities on public 

lands, including but not limited to best management practices (BMPs), design features, 

guidelines, and stipulations. 

The primary management decisions in the Approved RMP are to: 

• Designate seven Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and manage 

according to the special management prescriptions identified for each area. 

• Designate two river segments as suitable for consideration as part of the National 

Wild and Scenic system, and manage such segments to protect the free flowing nature 

and outstandingly remarkable values. 

• Protect, preserve, and maintain the wilderness characteristics on non-Wilderness 

Study Area (WSA) lands for 106,178 acres in 15 areas. 

• Conduct proactive cultural resource inventories under Section 110 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

• Place BLM-administered lands in fire management categories. 

• Designate areas as Limited, Closed, or Open to off-highway vehicle use: 

 Designate 1,640,725 acres as limited to off-highway vehicle use. 

 Designate 78,595 acres as closed to off-highway vehicle use. 

 Designate 6,202 acres in four areas as open to cross-country off-highway 

vehicle use. 

• Determine which lands are available or unavailable to mineral leasing: 

 Make an estimated 1.7 million acres of the 1.9 million acres of federal mineral 

estate available for oil and gas leasing. 

 Make an estimated 750,131 acres available for oil and gas leasing under 

standard lease terms. 

 Make an estimated 890,280 acres available subject to Controlled Surface Use 

or Timing Limitation stipulations. 

 Make an estimated 86,789 acres are available subject to No Surface 

Occupancy (NSO) stipulations. 

 Make approximately 190,434 acres unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

• Recommend withdrawing approximately 22,814 acres from locatable mineral entry. 

• Delineate seven Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and identify special 

recreational management zones. 

• Allocate to wildlife 4,232 active Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) and 4,026 active AUMs of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

(RMEF). 

• Designate WSAs as VRM Class I, and close WSAs to all OHV use. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

21

• Wild horses will be gathered and removed from the Hill Creek and the Winter Ridge 

Herd Areas. Forage will be allocated during the life of the plan until the horses have 

been removed. The Bonanza, Hill Creek, and the Winter Ridge Herd Area 

designations will continue, but there will be no management for horses. 

• Designate 106,178 acres as right-of-way avoidance areas. 

• Designate 55,808 acres as rights-of-way exclusion areas. 

• Designate the following visual resource management classes: 

 VRM Class I 57,776 acres 

 VRM Class II 259,734 acres 

 VRM Class III 759,977 acres 

 VRM Class IV 642,450 acres 

This ROD serves as the final decision establishing the land use plan decisions outlined in the 

Approved RMP and is effective on the date it is signed. No further administrative remedies are 

available to the public for these land use plan decisions. 

What the Decision/RMP Does Not Provide

The Approved RMP does not contain decisions for the mineral estates of land administered by 

the BLM Vernal Field Office for Forest Service lands located in the planning area, for lands 

under the jurisdiction of other Federal agencies, or for private or State-owned lands and minerals. 

Although private or state lands are shown on Figures 1a-20a, decisions for the surface estate only 

apply to BLM managed lands. 

• The Approved RMP does not affect valid existing rights. 

• It does not create new wilderness or designate new Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). 

• Existing WSAs continue to be managed under the Interim Management Policy for 

Lands under Wilderness Review. 

• Withdrawal recommendations are not effective until Congress or the Secretary of the 

Interior takes action. 

• “Closed routes” are not closed for administratively approved activities. 

• The Approved RMP does not adjudicate, analyze, or otherwise determine the validity 

of claimed rights-of-way. However, the State of Utah’s statutory policy is to “use 

reasonable administrative and legal measures to protect and preserve valid existing 

rights-of way granted by Congress under R.S. 2477,” (Utah Code 63J-4-401(7)(b)). 

The BLM is committed to working with the State to develop potential options to 

recognize existing rights-of-way in accordance with Washington Office Instruction 

Memorandum 2008-174 and 2008-175. BLM recognizes that it would be beneficial 

to meet and discuss Non-Binding Determinations and Recordable Disclaimer of 

Interest options which would result in the BLM documenting its position in its 

official records, after public notification and involvement. BLM will work with the 

State and counties to set priorities for specific roads. It is BLM’s intent to work 

toward an outcome that is in the interest of the general public and the State of Utah. 

• The Approved RMP does not affect terms of existing leases, commercial recreation 

permits, or other permits issued by the BLM. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

22

In addition, many decisions are not appropriate at this level of planning and are not included in 

the ROD. Examples of these types of decisions include: 

• Statutory requirements: The Approved RMP will not change the BLM’s 

responsibility to comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 

• National policy: The Approved RMP will not change BLM’s obligation to conform 

with current or future National policy. 

• Funding levels and budget allocations: These are determined annually at the 

national level and are beyond the control of the Field Office. 

Implementation Decisions

Route Designation Implementation Decisions 

While the designation of areas as Open, Closed, or Limited to off-highway vehicle use is a land 

use planning decision, the proposed route designations for motorized wheeled travel in the 

planning area included the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are implementation decisions. 

The route designations described in the Travel Management section of the Approved RMP and 

identified on Figure 15a are effective upon issuance of this Record of Decision. All area 

designations are complete upon signature of the ROD in accordance with 43 CFR 8342.2(b). 

 

Designation of specific vehicle routes for the Approved RMP was undertaken by addressing the 

purpose and need for the routes and weighing the purpose and need against potential resource 

conflicts. Routes were not designated in the Approved RMP where it was determined that the 

routes have no purpose and need or where resource conflicts outweighed the purpose and need. 

Interdisciplinary team meetings were held to evaluate all routes on BLM administered lands 

within the planning area for the Travel Management Plan (TMP). Representatives of the 

cooperating agencies were invited to attend and were present at the meetings. The route 

evaluation process resulted in the designation of 4,860 miles of vehicle routes in the Approved 

RMP. The TMP will be further refined within one to five years from the approval of the ROD. 

The same interdisciplinary team process will be followed for revising the baseline inventory. 

In the seven Wilderness Study Areas (55,808 acres), no ways are designated open for motorized 

use. 

In the Approved RMP, a total of about 104 miles of routes are designated within areas specified 

as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. These routes provide access to destination 

points which include overlooks, primitive camping areas, and provide access to grazing 

improvements. These routes were found not to have a detrimental effect on the wilderness 

characteristics in the area because travel on them is very light and the topographical relief found 

in the area provides terrain masking which makes them largely unnoticeable. 

Very few comments were submitted on the Travel Management Plan (TMP) in the Draft 

RMP/EIS or Supplement to the Draft RMP/EIS that suggested additions, deletions, and 

modifications to the proposed travel areas for the Preferred Alternative. The Approved RMP 

identifies that specific designated routes may be modified through subsequent implementation 

planning and project planning on a case-by-case basis and based on site specific documentation 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the route designation process 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

23

entailed the analysis of hundreds of route segments covering nearly 1.7 million acres. Due to the 

magnitude of this effort, it is not reasonable to begin immediately making modifications to the 

route system. Modifications to the route system in the Approved RMP will not be considered 

until implementation of the travel portion of the plan has been substantially completed which 

includes mapping, signing, monitoring, and evaluation. The process for considering route 

modifications will be detailed in the Implementation Plan developed for the RMP after 

completion of the ROD. 

A specific decision to keep the Chipeta Canyon road open is made in the Approved RMP. This 

road provides access to the Chipeta cabin. The cabin is used by BLM personnel and provides 

temporary overnight living accommodations when they are working in the area (i.e., monitoring 

grazing allotments, wildlife studies and surveys, etc.) The cabin area may be developed in the 

future for recreational renting to the public. It is essential to maintain access to the cabin for 

these purposes. 

The travel management plan provides an appropriate route system to allow access for recreation 

use on public lands while still protecting sensitive resources. 

Grazing Implementation Decisions 

According to BLM policy, decisions regarding authorized livestock use levels and the terms and 

conditions under which they are managed is an implementation-level decision based on 

monitoring and inventory of range conditions and evaluation of such data. Changes in livestock 

management from the planning level are, therefore, minimal. The Approved RMP does include 

six implementation-level decisions regarding the Seasons of Use for areas 2 through 7 as 

depicted on Figure 7a. The changes in the Seasons of Use for the Approved RMP allow the 

greatest flexibility to manage livestock while at the same time provide sufficient restrictions to 

protect: 

• Bighorn sheep rutting and lambing habitat 

• Mule deer migration and fawning 

• Pronghorn antelope kidding habitat 

• Raptor nesting 

• Rocky Mountain elk calving habitat 

• Sage grouse breeding 

E. NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS & CLARIFICATIONS 

Modifications and clarifications were made to the Approved Plan based on the review and 

resolution of the protest letters, as well as from internal review by the BLM. The modifications 

or clarifications to the decisions are provided below. 

Modifications

As a result of protests on the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and continued internal review, BLM 

made the following modifications to the Proposed RMP. As described below, these 

modifications are not considered significant changes. The Approved Plan includes these 

modifications: 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

24

(1) The following items been added to the List of References in the Approved RMP. 

Information reviewed from these references did not altar any big game wildlife 

management decisions in the Approved RMP: 

 Sawyer, H., R. Nielson, D. Strickland, and L. McDonald. 2005. 2005 Annual 

Report. Sublette Mule Deer Study (Phase II): Long-term monitoring plan to 

assess potential impacts of energy development on mule deer in the Pinedale 

Anticline Project Area. Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. Cheyenne, 

WY. 

 Sawyer, H., R. M. Nielson, F. Lindzey, and L. L. McDonald. 2006. Winter 

Habitat Selection of Mule Deer Before and During Development of a Natural 

Gas Field. Journal of Wildlife Management. 70(2): 396-403. 

 Watkins, B. E., C.J. Bishop, E. J. Bergman, A. Bronson, B. Hale, B. F. 

Wakeling, L. H. Carpenter, and D. W. Lutz. 2007. Habitat Guidelines for 

Mule Deer: Colorado Plateau Shrubland and Forest Ecoregion. Mule Deer 

Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

(2) The section under the Greater sage-grouse stipulation (at page K-49 of the 

PRMP/FEIS) which states, "no permanent facilities or structures would be allowed 

within two miles when possible" has been changed to a Controlled Surface Use 

(CSU) stipulation rather than NSO. This change made been made in Appendix K of 

the Approved RMP (Page K-12) and is only a minor clarification in the Approved 

RMP since the prescription will remain the same. 

(3) Graham's penstemon and Pariette cactus potential ACECs: The BLM has reviewed 

its administrative record and found that comments submitted in February 2006 

(during a comment period for gathering input on potential ACECs) did include 

recommendations for designating ACECs to protect Graham’s penstemon and 

Pariette cactus habitat. These recommendations were mistakenly overlooked. 

Because the BLM did not review or consider the recommendations in accordance 

with BLM 1613 Manual, these recommended areas will be considered at the earliest 

opportunity as part of the next planning process conducted in the VFO. 

The following measures are currently (and will continue to be) implemented to mitigate impacts 

to the sensitive plant species from submitted projects with proposed surface disturbance: 

(1) Within suitable habitat, site-specific inventories will be conducted to determine 

occupancy. The inventories will be conducted for lands within 300 feet of proposed 

surface disturbance. 

(2) In suitable habitat, the project infrastructure will be designed to minimize impacts. 

(3) Within occupied habitat, the project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct 

disturbance and to minimize indirect impacts to populations and individual plants. 

The nearest proposed surface disturbance to a plant will be at least 300 feet away. 

Clarifications

The following clarifications and minor corrections made to the information included in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS are reflected in the attached Approved RMP: 

(1) Under Management Decision MCA—3: The fourth and sixth bullets (Recreational 

and Wildlife) references have been added to cross-tracked decisions of the Approved 

RMP. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

25

(2) Under Management Decision FIRE—6: Reference to the USFWS has been added 

for clarification. 

(3) Under Management Decision FIRE—7: Clarification and Figure references have 

been added to the decision.

(4) Under Management Decision FIRE-–10: The NFPORS acronym has been spelled 

out. 

(5) Under Management Decision LAR—21: Reference to LAR—20 has been added for 

clarification. 

(6) Under Management Decision GRA—10: The Figure reference has been added. 

(7) Under Management Decision WC—2: It has been clarified that the decision only 

pertains to the 106,178 acres of wilderness characteristics lands. 

(8) Under Management Decision WSA—5: It has been clarified that WSAs are closed to 

OHV travel.

(9) Under the References section: The Trinity Consultants’ July 2005 Report has been 

added.

Errata to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS

(1) As a result of protest issues brought forward and granted, the response to comments 

LR21 and SS47 in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS is changed to clarify that the 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and Clean Air Act 

must be met whether or not leases pre-date the acts. The BLM must meet the 

requirements for protection of threatened and endangered species, not “try to resolve 

resource conflicts”. 

(2) Figure 30 in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (Alternative A – Special Designations) did 

not provide the correct coverage for Bitter Creek, Coyote Basin, White River, or 

Browns Park potential ACECs due to a GIS error. The correct coverage is depicted in 

the Draft RMP/Draft EIS on Figure 22. 

F. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING THE 

APPROVED RMP 

The BLM is tasked to provide multiple use management for public lands by the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and numerous other laws and regulations that govern the 

management of public lands. Due to the diversity of community needs and stakeholders affected 

by management of BLM lands, there has been both support and opposition to certain components 

of the Proposed Plan. BLM's objective in choosing Alternative A as the Preferred Alternative, 

and later using it as the base for the Proposed Plan (with minor modifications selected from the 

range of alternatives) was to address these diverse needs and concerns in a balanced manner and 

provide a practical and workable framework for management of public lands. The BLM is 

ultimately responsible for preparing a plan consistent with its legal mandates that reflects its 

collective professional judgment, and incorporates the best from competing viewpoints and 

ideas. The Approved RMP (the Proposed Plan as clarified and modified in consideration of 

public comments and internal review) provides a balance between those reasonable measures 

necessary to protect the existing resource values and the continued public need for use of public 

lands within the planning area. Both local and national interests were taken into account in 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

26

arriving at this balance. The practical application of decisions was considered in light of land 

ownership patterns and the degree of federal control over the resources in a given area. 

Approval of a plan that provides a balance to meet both resource concerns and social and 

economic concerns in the planning area was a major factor in its selection. The Proposed Plan 

was selected because it proposed management that will improve and sustain properly functioning 

resource conditions while considering needs and demands for existing or potential resource 

commodities and values. In the end, resource use is managed by integrating ecological, 

economic, and social principles in a manner that safeguards the long term sustainability, 

diversity and productivity of the land. 

All Surface Disturbing Activities

Stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities are referred to 

throughout the Approved RMP and provide protection to resource values or land uses by 

establishing authority for delay, site changes, or the denial of operations. The stipulations apply, 

where appropriate and practical, to all surface-disturbing activities associated with land-use 

authorizations, permits, and leases issued on BLM lands. As a result, protections for resource 

values are applied in a consistent manner to all activities. The stipulations are subject to 

exceptions, modifications, and waivers that are a means of adapting the stipulations to meet 

changing circumstances. The stipulations in the Approved RMP, along with the exceptions, 

modifications, and waivers, are provided in Appendix K. 

Air Quality

BLM does not have regulatory control over air quality issues, either on public lands or on Tribal 

or state lands. BLM relies on the agency with jurisdiction over air quality to set regulatory 

standards and criteria to protect the air quality in a particular area. Once these standards are 

established, BLM references them in its permitting documents and ensures that all permitted 

activities on public lands refer to the appropriate agency's standard. With this regulatory 

framework in place the Approved RMP, by necessity, does not make any air quality decisions. 

Instead, the Approved RMP references standards set by the State of Utah (Appendix O). Where 

the State of Utah standards are inapplicable (e.g., over Tribal lands), BLM will work with the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that the appropriate federal standards are 

included or referenced in permitting documents. Finally, the Approved RMP establishes goals 

and objectives for air quality that reflect the standards set by the State or the EPA. 

The Approved RMP allows the VFO to ensure that authorizations granted to use public lands and 

the BLM’s own management programs comply with and support applicable local, state, and 

federal laws, regulations, and implementation plans pertaining to air quality. 

Cultural Resources

BLM has completed the formal Section 106 consultation with the Utah State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO). The July 17, 2008, letter from the SHPO concurred with BLM’s 

recommendation of No Adverse Effect from any actions proposed in the PRMP/FEIS (see 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

27

Appendix P). The Approved RMP will reduce imminent threats to significant cultural resources 

from natural and human-caused deterioration or potential conflicts with other resources. 

Native American organizations were invited to participate at all levels of the planning process for 

the Vernal RMP. As part of the RMP/EIS scoping process, by letter dated in November 2002, 

Utah State Director initiated consultation for land-use planning with 37 tribal organizations. In 

the letter, the BLM requested information regarding any concerns the organizations might have 

within the planning areas, specifically requested input concerning the identification and 

protection of culturally significant areas and resources located on lands managed by the Vernal 

Field Office, and offered the opportunity for meetings. Between January 2003 and December 

2003, all 37 tribal organizations were contacted to determine the need for additional or future 

consultation for the study areas identified in the consultation letter. Meetings were arranged 

when requested. 

In consulting with tribes or tribal entities, the BLM emphasized the importance of identifying 

historic properties having cultural significance to tribes (commonly referred to as Traditional 

Cultural Properties (TCPs)). The BLM held meetings with four tribal governments between 

January 19, 2003, and April 28, 2003, but no TCPs were identified. The BLM was represented 

at most of these meetings by the Field Office manager and archaeologist. During these meetings, 

tribal organizations were invited to be a cooperating agency in the development of the land-use 

plan. The Ute Indian Tribe was granted cooperating agency status. 

 

Based on telephone conversations, correspondence, and meetings, 12 Native American 

governments requested to be contacted for future projects in the Vernal Field Office. Three 

governments said that they did not need to be contacted for future projects and 16 governments 

did not respond to the initial consultation letter or telephone calls. 

Fire Management

The Fire Management decisions in the Approved RMP provided goals, objectives, standards, and 

guidelines that ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations and policies. 

A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-compliant Fire Management Plan (FMP) was 

completed for the VPA in 1998. The FMP reflects the goals and objectives for vegetation 

management and fire’s role in maintaining healthy ecosystems and is incorporated into the 

Approved RMP. The FMP was updated in 2005 and will be signed once the ROD has been 

signed for the VFO. The Approved RMP allows the VFO to support the goals and objectives of 

the FMP. 

Forage

In 1989, the BLM and the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) identified a 

need to pursue alternatives to restore and maintain properly functioning ecosystems in the Upper 

Book Cliffs area. These needs included wildlife and livestock forage and primitive outdoor 

experiences. Privately owned ranches in the Upper Book Cliffs became available for purchase. 

The Nature Conservancy and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation were able to purchase two 

ranches in the area. The BLM and the UDWR reached agreement at that time for the allocation 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

28

of the AUMs from the two ranches to be allocated to wildlife, while other grazing permittees on 

the allotments would continue to graze in accordance with their permitted use. The Approved 

RMP allocates the active livestock AUMs permitted to The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (4,232) 

and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) (4,026) to wildlife. The change of AUMs from 

livestock to wildlife and the resulting management of the canyon bottoms and riparian zones will 

help improve the lands and maintain the BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management for the area. For this reason, the overall change of 8,250 

AUMs from livestock to wildlife provides for improved wildlife herd management within the 

Book Cliffs area while providing appropriate forage for livestock. 

Lands and Realty Management

The Approved RMP allows several utility corridors of varying widths which provide ample 

opportunities and flexibility for the upgrading, addition, and expansion of utility needs (see 

Figure 6a). The Approved RMP provides a viable energy corridor for oil, gas, and hydrogen 

pipelines as well as electricity transmission and distribution facilities as specified by the WestWide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. At the same time, 

the decision still affords protection for natural resources by limiting surface disturbance to within 

the various corridor widths, especially in sensitive areas. 

The Approved RMP designates 55,808 acres as exclusion areas (all within seven WSAs, which is 

a non-discretionary decision). In addition, 106,178 acres distributed across 15 areas of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics will be managed as ROW avoidance areas. These 

exclusion and avoidance areas are in lands with sensitive natural resources such as: 

• Highly sensitive visual resources, 

• Heavily used recreation areas, 

• Pronghorn antelope kidding habitat, 

• Bighorn sheep rutting and lambing habitat, 

• Mule deer migration and fawning 

• Rocky Mountain elk calving habitat, 

• Raptor nesting 

The designation of exclusion and avoidance areas in the Approved RMP provides a balance 

between granting rights-of-way and protecting important natural resources. 

According to Section 102(a) of FLPMA, all public lands will be retained in Federal ownership 

unless it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest. 

Furthermore, Section 203(a) of FLPMA provides for sale of public lands if one of the following 

criteria is met: 

(1) The tract is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands and is not 

suitable for management by another Federal agency; 

(2) Such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for 

that or any other Federal purpose; or 

(3) Disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited 

to, expansion of communities and economic development that cannot be achieved 

prudently or feasibly on land other than public land. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

29

The public lands in the Vernal Field Office that have been identified for consideration for 

disposal by sale in the Approved RMP meet one or more of these criteria. 

A prerequisite for entering into the exchange of Federal for non-Federal lands is the BLM 

determination that such an exchange is in the public interest. To make this determination, 

general criteria have been developed in the Approved RMP for both disposal of Federal lands 

and acquisition of non-Federal lands. Every exchange proposal during the life of the Approved 

RMP will meet the criteria for disposal and acquisition. The value(s) of acquisition must 

outweigh the value(s) of disposal for the proposal to be in the public interest and an exchange to 

be considered. 

Livestock and Grazing Management

The Approved RMP responds to issues related to managing for healthy rangelands and riparian 

and upland vegetation while still providing for livestock grazing and fish and wildlife habitat by 

making most of the planning area available for livestock grazing, as long as BLM Utah 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management continue to be met. 

This resulted in a narrow range of alternatives that were considered in the land use planning 

process. 

According to BLM policy, decisions about season of use, stocking densities, forage allocation, 

and utilization are made using BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Management during the grazing permit renewal process. These are implementationlevel decisions based on monitoring and inventory of range conditions and evaluation of such 

data. Changes in specific livestock management practices are, therefore, minimal in the 

Approved RMP. 

The planning decisions made in the Approved RMP are limited to whether an allotment is 

available or not available for grazing during the life of the plan. The 160 allotments within the 

VFO designated for livestock grazing encompass approximately 1,691,116 acres of BLM land. 

On seven allotments (Marshall Draw, Red Creek Flat, Rye Grass, Sears Canyon, Taylor Flat, 

Warren Draw South, and Watson-Diamond Mountain with a total of 37,127 acres), cattle are 

permitted on a temporary, non-renewable basis; however, such use is discretionary.

The Approved RMP provides the best balance in allowing grazing to occur while protecting 

important natural and cultural resources.

Minerals and Energy Resources

The Vernal Planning Area is entirely within the Uinta Basin which is recognized nationally for 

oil and gas resources. The Uinta Basin is the highest oil and gas producing area in the State of 

Utah. A significant portion of this production is derived from federally administered lands. As 

specified as in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and BLM policy, the oil and gas leasing 

stipulations in the Approved RMP are the least restrictive necessary to protect sensitive resource 

values while allowing for development. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

30

The Approved RMP specifies restrictions for permitted activities to resolve concerns regarding 

the impacts of these uses. These conditions apply not only to oil and gas leasing, but also apply, 

where appropriate, to all other surface disturbing activities associated with land-use 

authorizations, permits, and leases, including other mineral resources. For example, rights-ofway exclusion and avoidance areas are consistent with areas closed to oil and gas leasing or with 

a no surface occupancy stipulation, respectively. 

The Approved RMP manages oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities with the 

following stipulations: 

• Unavailable – 190,434 acres 

• Open (subject major constraints such as No Surface Occupancy [NSO]) – 86,789 

acres 

• Open (subject to moderate constraints such as Timing Limitations[TLs]/Controlled 

Surface Use [CSU]) – 890,280 acres 

• Open (subject to standard terms and conditions) – 750,131 acres 

As stated above, 190,434 acres are unavailable to oil and gas leasing. These include: 

• 53,058 acres that lie within 6 WSAs (Book Cliffs Mountain Browse ISA, Bull 

Canyon, Daniels Canyon, Diamond Breaks, West Cold Springs and Winter Ridge) 

• 2,750 acres of Flume Canyon WSA in the Moab Field Office administered by the 

Vernal Field Office (48,050 acres of Flume Canyon WSA are administered by the 

Moab Field Office) 

• 99,498 acres that lie within 14 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics – This 

acreage figure does not include 6,680 acres located in the White River non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics area that will be open to leasing but subject to 

major constraints (NSO). 

• 35,128 acres within the Hill Creek Extension – These lands are federal mineral 

estate/tribal trust surface that are considered to be sensitive cultural and wildlife lands 

by the Ute Tribe. The VFO and the Ute Tribe collaboratively delineated this acreage. 

Wilderness Study Areas are closed to oil and gas leasing by law and constitute a nondiscretionary decision. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (in all but the White 

River) are closed to oil and gas leasing by a discretionary decision because it is not reasonable to 

apply a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation. The discretionary closed areas involve large 

blocks of land where oil and gas resources are physically inaccessible by current directional 

drilling technology from outside the boundaries. This is an example of applying the least 

restrictive stipulation necessary to protect resources while allowing for oil and gas development. 

Sensitive resources protected by the application of a no surface occupancy stipulation in the 

Approved RMP include, but are not limited to: 

• 0.25-mile zone around Greater sage-grouse leks 

• High use recreation areas such as Pelican Lake 

• The White River non-WSA lands managed to protect, preserve and maintain their 

wilderness characteristics 

• Some Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (Lears Canyon, Nine Mile Canyon, 

and Pariette) 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

31

These NSO areas (86,789 acres) include many of the better known landscapes found in the 

Vernal Planning Area. An NSO stipulation is the least restrictive necessary to protect the 

important resources within these areas from surface disturbing activities. 

Those resources that can be protected by timing limitations or controlled surface use stipulations 

in the Approved RMP include wildlife habitat, sensitive soils, and visual resources. Timing 

limitation and controlled surface use stipulations are also applied in the Approved RMP to 

protect special status species as well as BLM considered sensitive species. The stipulations for 

special status species were developed in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and are non-discretionary based on law and policy. 

The timing limitation stipulations in the Approved RMP are applied to crucial big game wildlife 

and raptor habitats identified by the BLM and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. The 

areas with timing limitations are open to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing 

activities but will be closed during identified timeframes that are important to the health of the 

species such as winter range and birthing periods, unless a waiver, exception or modification to 

the stipulation applies. 

Timing limitation stipulations have also been applied in the Approved RMP to protect sensitive 

soils from surface disturbing activities during times when these soils are susceptible to erosion. 

Surface disturbing activities in sensitive soils during wet periods can cause deep rutting and 

runoff problems which lead to increased erosion. In addition, a controlled surface use stipulation 

is applied in the Approved RMP to protect fragile soils on steep slopes from erosion. This 

stipulation prohibits construction on slopes greater than 30 percent unless an engineering plan 

can demonstrate that erosion on these slopes will be prevented. 

A controlled surface use stipulation in the Approved RMP is applied to areas managed with 

VRM Class II objectives to protect these sensitive viewsheds. This stipulation protects high 

quality visual resources, including segments of the Lower and Upper Green River, the White 

River non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics, and the majority of the Red Mountain-Dry 

Fork and Nine Mile Canyon ACECs. A controlled surface use stipulation is also applied to the 

lands surrounding Dinosaur National Monument to protect viewsheds from key observation 

points within the Monument. The controlled surface use stipulation for VRM II areas requires 

that the level of change to the landscape be low. Activities can be seen, but should not attract the 

attention of the casual observer. 

The timing limitation and controlled surface use stipulations in the Approved RMP allow for oil 

and gas development and other surface disturbing activities while providing protection for 

wildlife habitats, sensitive soils, and high quality visual resources. These stipulations are the 

least restrictive necessary for the protection of these resources. 

The Approved RMP provides for a substantial amount of mineral revenue based on estimated oil 

and gas production while protecting the most important resources within the planning area. 

Additionally, the stipulations imposed in the Approved RMP will not unreasonably interfere with 

the potential development of mineral resources. High development potential areas for these 

mineral resources are generally not located where development is precluded (NSO and Closed 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

32

areas). Therefore, the Approved RMP provides the best balance between protection of resources 

and commodity use and development. 

In 2002, the BLM prepared a projected reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) scenario to 

project environmental impacts across a 15-year period. This RFD was reviewed in 2008 for oil 

and gas development and BLM determined during this review that the RFD only projects 

environmental impacts for up to five years. Development projections included in-depth reviews 

of potential for occurrence, past well production, current well production, and future potential for 

production. During this planning effort (beginning with public meetings in 2001 and 2002 for 

scoping purposes through the notification in the Federal Register on January 14, 2005, of the 

availability of the Draft RMP/EIS), the RFD scenario, which is a planning tool and not a 

prediction or limit to development, did not track completely with the pace of development in the 

Uinta Basin. The BLM has carefully monitored industry trends and surmises that the RFD used 

as an analytical tool in this planning effort can be considered accurate up to approximately five 

years from the time this Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. Within the next five-year 

timeframe, the BLM will monitor the impacts to resources of continued development in the VPA 

and ensure that the impacts disclosed in the Proposed RMP analysis are not exceeded by the pace 

of development. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts on uses as a result of focused management, such as the protection, preservation and 

maintenance of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, were disclosed in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS, and considered in conjunction with impacts to resource values such as the 

nationally recognized and high production of oil and gas resources. There are 106,178 acres 

within 15 areas (Beach Draw, Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels 

Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Lower Flaming Gorge, 

Moonshine Draw, Mountain Home, Stuntz Draw, Vivas Cake Hill, White River, and Wild 

Mountain) that are carried forward for protection of their wilderness characteristics. All areas 

except for White River are unavailable for oil and gas leasing. The White River area is managed 

with an NSO stipulation, and no waivers, exceptions or modifications for oil and gas leasing will 

apply. All are considered avoidance areas for rights-of-way. 

Most of the areas are managed for wilderness characteristics because they are adjacent to lands 

that are already being managed for wilderness values in the Dinosaur National Monument and 

WSAs. These areas include: Beach Draw, Bull Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, 

Dead Horse Pass, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Moonshine Draw, Stuntz Draw, and 

Vivas Cake Hill. The size and proximity to other lands managed for wilderness values make 

them more suitable for effectively protecting, preserving, and maintaining their wilderness 

characteristics. In addition, managing these areas for wilderness characteristics (which is 

discretionary) is compatible with other management actions in the Approved RMP. Thus, all 

areas are managed for primitive recreation opportunities which coincide perfectly with managing 

these areas for wilderness characteristics. 

All areas except for White River have only low to moderate potential for the occurrence of oil 

and gas resources. The White River has high potential for the occurrence of oil and gas 

resources, and is therefore managed under a NSO stipulation. This still allows for the oil and gas 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

33

resources to be extracted without surface disturbance. This continues to protect the wilderness 

characteristics of the area. 

The VFO received information from the public on non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that total 277,596 acres. About 171,418 acres of these lands in all or parts of 11 

areas that were found to have wilderness characteristics during the inventory reviews but were 

not selected for management of those characteristics in the Approved RMP. The reasons for this 

decision were varied and complex. Those areas were not selected because they are considered to 

have high potential for oil and gas resources and currently have a large portion of the lands 

leased. The table below explains why each area was not carried forward: 

Name Acres Rationale for Not Being Carried Forward 

Bitter Creek 33,488 The area is considered high potential for oil and gas (O&G) 

development. 23,569 acres (70%) of the total area is 

currently leased for O&G development. Wilderness 

characteristics could not be protected, preserved or 

maintained. 

Cripple Cowboy 13,603 The area is considered high potential for O&G development. 

11,519 acres (85%) of the total area is currently leased to 

O&G development. Wilderness characteristics could not be 

protected, preserved or maintained. 

Desolation Canyon 63,118 The area is considered high potential for O&G development. 

41,949 acres (66%) of the total review area is currently 

leased to O&G development. Wilderness characteristics 

could not be protected, preserved or maintained. 

Hells Hole Canyon 2,709 The area is considered high potential for O&G development. 

2,260 acres (83%) of the total area is currently leased for 

O&G. Wilderness characteristics could not be protected, 

preserved or maintained. 

Hideout Canyon 1,113 The area is considered high potential for O&G development. 

154 acres (14%) of the total area is currently leased for 

O&G. Interest in leasing for this area remains high. 

Lower Bitter Creek 11,417 The area is considered high potential for O&G development. 

8,039 acres (70%) of the total area is currently leased for 

O&G. Wilderness characteristics could not be protected, 

preserved or maintained. 

Mexican Point 1,277 The area is considered high potential for O&G development. 

635 acres (50%) of the total area is currently leased for 

O&G. Interest in leasing for this area remains high. 

Rat Hole Ridge 11,367 The area is considered high potential for O&G development. 

8,288 acres (73%) of the total area is currently leased for 

O&G. Wilderness characteristics could not be protected, 

preserved or maintained. 

Sweet Water Canyon 6,994 The area is considered high potential for O&G development. 

5,143 acres (74%) of the total area is leased for O&G. 

Wilderness characteristics could not be protected, preserved 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

34

Name Acres Rationale for Not Being Carried Forward 

or maintained. 

Wolf Point 11,802 The area is considered high potential for O&G development. 

7,999 acres (68%) of the total area is currently leased for 

O&G. Wilderness characteristics could not be protected, 

preserved or maintained. 

The White River non-wilderness land with wilderness characteristics will be retained but with a 

reduction in acreage to 6,680 acres and with an NSO stipulation. The acres not retained are 

considered to have high potential for oil and gas development with significant interest in 

additional leasing. 

The Approved RMP provides the best balance in allowing for uses to occur while providing for 

protection of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

In future references, lands managed in the Approved RMP as non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics will be referred to as BLM natural areas. This change does not represent a new 

designation or a new decision. Rather, BLM wants to recognize these discretionary decisions 

with a better, simpler reference. Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas are formal 

designations that are managed in a prescribed manner. To avoid confusing these official 

designations with discretionary agency decisions, BLM has chosen a new reference to 

distinguish between formal designations (e.g., Wilderness Areas) and a discretionary 

management category (BLM natural areas). According to the Approved RMP, BLM natural 

areas will be managed to protect, preserve, and maintain values of primitive recreation, the 

appearance of naturalness, and solitude. 

Recreation: Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs)

The Approved RMP responds to recreation issues by providing Special Recreation Management 

Areas for visitors who come to the Vernal planning area. These visitors come from all over the 

nation, as well as the world, to specifically enjoy the attractions in the planning area. These 

visitors engage in an array of non-motorized and motorized recreation activities, many of which 

conflict with each other. Recreational activities include backpacking, boating (canoeing, 

kayaking, and rafting), camping, dirt biking, enjoying natural and cultural features, fishing, fourwheel driving, hiking, horseback riding, hang gliding, hunting, mountain biking, OHVing, rock 

climbing, and scenic driving, among others. 

The Vernal economy does derive some benefit from recreation-based businesses. About 6 

percent of the employment in Vernal is directly related to the leisure and hospitality business 

sector, with 998 jobs in that sector (source: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Economic 

Development, 2008). Commercial outfitters, through special recreation permits, provide services 

for many activities including rafting, hiking, climbing, four wheel driving, OHVing, horseback 

riding, hunting, and mountain biking. Maintaining a wide variety of recreational opportunities is 

important to the Vernal economy and the businesses that are dependent upon them. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

35

The seven Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) designated in the Approved RMP are 

in areas where high recreation use is currently occurring. Each of the SRMAs will manage for 

the type and range of recreational activities and opportunities that lie within a given SRMA: 

• Blue Mountain SRMA (42,729 acres) will be managed for OHV use, special 

recreational activities (e.g., hang gliding, rock climbing), and competitive events. 

• Browns Park SRMA (18,490 acres) will offer a wide variety of land and water 

opportunities. 

• Fantasy Canyon SRMA (69 acres) will offer opportunities for self-guided touring and 

hiking. 

• Nine Mile SRMA (44,168 acres) will be managed to protect high-value cultural 

values and scenic quality. 

• Pelican Lake SRMA (1,014 acres) will offer water-based recreational opportunities. 

• Red Mountain-Dry Fork SRMA (24,285 acres) will continue to provide opportunities 

for OHV and non-motorized trail activities. 

• White River SRMA (2,831 acres) will offer water-based recreational opportunities. 

In addition, each SRMA provides management direction for recreation uses as well as protection 

of the cultural and natural resources found in the SRMA. The SRMAs designated in the 

Approved RMP enable the BLM to more actively manage the intensity, diversity, and potential 

incompatibility of recreation uses while protecting the resources that visitors come to enjoy. 

The Books Cliffs will not be designated as an SRMA. The Book Cliffs area is heavily developed 

with oil and gas projects and a majority of it is currently leased for oil and gas development. 

Unlimited and unconfined recreation will continue without management attention afforded 

through an SRMA. In order to protect high-value, old-growth pinyon pines, special management 

actions include the following: 

• Enhancing habitat utilizing forest manipulation and tree spraying’ restricting 

woodcutting around old growth pinyon 

• No surface occupancy (NSO) for old growth pinyon pine area 

The Approved RMP provides the greatest range of recreational opportunities while reducing user 

conflicts, providing recreation business opportunities, and protecting resources. 

Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

Other management decisions in the Approved RMP prevented the need to designate some areas 

as ACECs because adequate protection was already in place. In some instances, such as Main 

Canyon, WSAs overlay the potential ACEC and management under the Interim Management 

Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP) more than adequately protects the relevant and 

important (R&I) values of the potential ACEC. If the WSAs are released from wilderness 

consideration, the Approved RMP states that all activities inconsistent with the goals and 

objectives of the Approved RMP will be deferred until a plan amendment is completed. Any 

plan amendment will have to provide protection to the relevant and important values identified. 

 

The Approved RMP designates seven ACECs that were found to have relevance and importance 

values which were not protected with standard BLM management options. The seven ACECs 

total 131,700 acres. These ACECs are in areas where special management was required to 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

36

protect the R&I values of the ACEC. The following table provides a list of the ACECs 

designated in the Approved RMP, their R&I values, and acreage: 

ACEC Carried Forward in the 

Approved RMP 

R&I Values Acres 

Browns Park high value scenery, wildlife habitat, cultural and 

historic resources 

18,490

Lears Canyon relict plant communities 1,375

Lower Green River Corridor riparian habitat, scenery 8,470

Nine Mile Canyon cultural resources, high quality scenery, special 

status species 

44,168

Pariette Wetlands special status bird and plant habitat, wetlands 

ecosystem 

10,437

Red Creek Watershed watershed 24,475

Red Mountain-Dry Fork relict plant communities, high value 

archaeological and paleontological sites, 

watershed, crucial deer and elk habitat 

24,285

Special management for the above ACECs is identified in the Approved RMP to protect the 

relevant and important (R&I) values. For example, the Pariette Wetlands are managed to protect 

the R&I special status bird and plant habitat as well as wetlands ecosystem values. Management 

actions include a NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities, 

excluding land treatments, OHVs limited to designated routes, and avoidance for ROWs. These 

special management actions are necessary to protect the R&I values. Establishing the Pariette 

Wetlands as an ACEC gives priority to managing the resource values identified in this area. 

The following table provides a list of the potential ACECs that were not designated or reduced in 

size in the Approved RMP, their relevance and importance values, and planning decisions that 

protect those values. 

Potential ACEC 

not Designated in 

Approved RMP 

Relevance & 

Importance Values 

Management Protection Provided in the Approved RMP 

Bitter Creek 

(147,425 acres) 

• old growth 

forest and 

watershed 

• cultural and 

historic 

resources 

• ecosystem for 

wildlife and 

migratory 

birds 

The BLM identified old growth forest, significant cultural 

and historic resources, important watershed, and critical 

ecosystem for wildlife and migratory birds as relevant and 

important values for the Bitter Creek Potential ACEC. 

The BLM determined that special management attention 

is not required to protect the potential ACEC because 

standard management prescriptions are sufficient to 

protect the relevant and important values from risk of 

degradation. 

The old growth pinyon juniper identified as a relevant and 

important value for the Bitter Creek ACEC will be 

protected by limiting leasing for oil and gas development 

to no surface occupancy for the old growth pinyon pine 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

37

Potential ACEC 

not Designated in 

Approved RMP 

Relevance & 

Importance Values 

Management Protection Provided in the Approved RMP 

Bitter Creek 

(147,425 acres) 

(continued) 

area (160 acres). These management actions will preserve 

pinyon pine habitat, with indirect positive benefits to 

wildlife that use that type of habitat. Additionally, these 

management actions will also result in decreased fire risk 

and improved water quality in streams in the Bitter Creek 

Watershed. 

Cultural and historic resources for this area are protected 

by law, regulation, and policy. Burial sites, associated 

burial goods, and sacred items are protected in accordance 

with the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act (ARPA). Should National 

Register-eligible cultural resources be found during an 

inventory, impacts to them would generally be reduced by 

cultural site avoidance. If the BLM determines that 

cultural resource sites cannot be avoided, the BLM will 

initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) to develop a program for mitigation base 

on agreed upon stipulations after consultation between 

Vernal FO, the SHPO, and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation. 

The important watershed values are protected by 

extensive prescriptions on riparian areas. Such areas are 

managed to preclude surface disturbing activities which 

will protect natural systems by precluding new surface 

disturbing activities within active flood plains, wetlands, 

public water reserves or 100 meters of riparian areas. The 

BLM will manage to achieve proper functioning condition 

(PFC) as a minimum acceptable riparian goal for 

riparian/wetland areas. The BLM would utilize mitigation 

measures to achieve these goals including, but not limited 

to: (1) keeping construction of all new stream crossings to 

a minimum; (2) Designing and constructing stream 

crossings with culverts to allow fish passage, where 

needed; (3) Requiring the design and construction of all 

stream crossings to ensure minimal impacts to riparian 

and aquatic habitat; and (4) relocating existing routes out 

of riparian areas where feasible or necessary to restore 

watershed and riparian stability. Additionally, a variety of 

management actions with regard to livestock grazing will 

be implemented to meet riparian goals and objectives as 

outlined in the BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

38

Potential ACEC 

not Designated in 

Approved RMP 

Relevance & 

Importance Values 

Management Protection Provided in the Approved RMP 

Bitter Creek 

(147,425 acres) 

(continued) 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management including 

fencing, herding, change of livestock class, temporary 

closures, and/or change of season for livestock grazing. 

Migratory birds are protected in accordance with the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as Executive Order 

13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies To Protect 

Migratory Birds), which incorporates conservation 

measures for the protection of migratory birds, as outlined 

in the Utah Partners-In-Flight Avian Conservation 

Strategy and other scientific information, into all surfacedisturbing activities. 

Appendix K describes various surface stipulations to be 

used during surface-disturbing activities to protect wildlife 

and wildlife habitat. As described in Appendix K Table 1, 

these stipulations include the following: 

• Closed or no surface occupancy (NSO), controlled 

surface use (CSU) and timing limitations (TL) for 

special status species. 

• TL, CSU, and NSO raptor buffers as well as habitat 

mitigation to protect raptor nesting areas and foraging 

habitat; TL for antelope fawning areas; crucial elk 

calving and deer fawning habitat; deer migration 

corridors; and TL and CSU for crucial deer and elk 

winter range. 

Special status species are also protected through 

compliance with the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). The BLM will manage all listed 

Threatened and Endangered (T&E) plant species and the 

habitats upon which they depend in such a manner as to 

conserve and recover these species to the point where 

protection under the ESA is no longer necessary. In 

collaboration with the USFWS, DWR, and other partners, 

develop and implement habitat management plans or 

conservation strategies for sensitive species. As 

additional data are collected over the life of the RMP, land 

managers would continually re-evaluate population and 

habitat status. Management emphasis would be to 

accumulate ecological information and distributional data 

to enhance the BLM’s ability to protect, conserve, 

recover, and manage these species in the future. The 

BLM would continue to implement the specific goals and 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

39

Potential ACEC 

not Designated in 

Approved RMP 

Relevance & 

Importance Values 

Management Protection Provided in the Approved RMP 

Bitter Creek 

(147,425 acres) 

(continued) 

objectives of all Recovery Plans, Conservation Plans and 

Strategies, and activity level plans. Recovery Plan 

revisions or new Recovery Plans would also be 

implemented. The BLM also provides specific lease 

notices for oil and gas development and conservation 

measures for each of species on Utah’s Threatened and 

Endangered Species List. See Appendix L. 

Based on the prescriptions outlined above, the relevant 

and important values identified for the Bitter Creek 

potential ACEC will continue to be adequately protected 

under the Approved RMP.

Browns Park 

(34,231 acres 

not designated) 

• high value 

scenery 

• wildlife 

habitat 

• cultural and 

historic 

resources 

The 34,231 acres not designated as an ACEC in the 

Approved RMP will continue to have the relevant and 

important values protected. VRM Class II objectives 

protect 27,141 acres of the area not designated; VRM 

Class I objectives in West Cold Spring WSA (3,200 acres) 

and Diamond Breaks WSA (3,900 acres) protect the 

remainder of the acreage with R&I values. In addition, 

motorized OHV travel is limited to designated roads; this 

will also help reduce the impacts to visual resources, 

cultural resources and wildlife habitat. Although the area 

is judged as low potential for oil and gas, 20,154 acres are 

closed to leasing, 1,230 acres are under a no surface 

occupancy stipulation and 12,850 acres are under a 

controlled surface use or timing limitation to protect 

crucial mule deer and elk winter ranges. 

Cultural and historic resources are protected by law, 

policy, and procedure. Prior to approval of actions which 

may affect cultural resources, Class II inventories and 

consultation with SHPO will occur. 

Riparian areas, as discussed under Bitter Creek (above), 

are managed to preclude surface disturbing activities 

within riparian areas which will protect natural systems. 

Thus, the relevant and important values will continue to 

be protected. 

Coyote Basin 

• white-tailed 

prairie dog 

complex 

In the Approved RMP, limiting OHV travel to designated 

routes, and applying oil and gas leasing with controlled 

surface use will limit surface disturbance that will protect 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

40

Potential ACEC 

not Designated in 

Approved RMP 

Relevance & 

Importance Values 

Management Protection Provided in the Approved RMP 

(124,161 acres) habitat for the white-tailed prairie dogs. 

The Black-footed ferret experimental reintroduction 

occurs within Coyote Basin. The ferret lives in prairie 

dog burrows and feeds on the prairie dog. The prairie dog 

is afforded protection as a consequence of the ferret 

recovery plan. 

Special status species for this area are protected by law, 

policy, and procedure. Thus, the relevant and important 

values will continue to be protected. 

Four Mile 

Wash 

(50,280 acres) 

• high value 

scenery 

• riparian 

ecosystem 

• special status 

fish 

The high value scenery riparian ecosystem and special 

status fish species are all directly attributed to the river 

corridor. In the Approved RMP impacts to scenery in 

Four Mile Wash are restricted by VRM Class I (1,551 

acres) and Class II (13,012 acres), objectives, limiting 

OHV travel to designated routes, and oil and gas leasing 

with NSO in the river corridor. 

The remaining acres located outside of the river corridor 

are VRM Class III and IV areas, considered to have 

moderate to high potential for oil and gas resources, and 

currently have a large portion of the lands leased. These 

areas are located above the canyon rim and do not contain 

high quality scenic values. VRM Class III and IV areas 

will be managed with timing limitations and controlled 

surface use and standard stipulations. Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) are used as appropriate to reduce visual 

impacts (i.e, masking, well site location, painting, etc.). 

Riparian areas are managed to preclude surface disturbing 

activities which will protect natural systems. Riparian 

areas, as discussed under Bitter Creek (above), are 

managed to preclude surface disturbing activities within 

riparian areas which will protect natural systems. 

The BLM will continue to work with USFWS and others 

to ensure that plans and agreements are updated as 

necessary to reflect the latest scientific data. Recovery 

plans have been finalized for bonytail, Colorado 

pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker). The 

Endangered Species Act protects the endangered fish. 

Thus, the relevant and important values will continue to 

be protected. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

41

Potential ACEC 

not Designated in 

Approved RMP 

Relevance & 

Importance Values 

Management Protection Provided in the Approved RMP 

Lower Green 

River 

Expansion 

(1,700 acres) 

• high value 

scenery 

• riparian 

ecosystem 

Impacts to scenery in the Lower Green River Expansion 

are restricted by VRM Class II objectives (1,700 acres), 

limiting OHV travel to designated routes, and oil and gas 

leasing with NSO in the river corridor. Riparian areas are 

managed to preclude surface disturbing activities within 

the riparian areas which will protect natural systems. 

Thus, the relevant and important values will continue to 

be protected. 

Main Canyon 

(100,915 acres) 

• cultural and 

historic 

resources 

• riparian 

ecosystem 

• natural 

systems

Cultural and historic resources are protected by law, 

policy, and procedure. Prior to approval of actions which 

may affect cultural resources, Class II inventories and 

consultation with SHPO will occur. 

Riparian areas are managed to preclude surface disturbing 

activities within riparian areas which will protect natural 

systems. Thus, the relevant and important values will 

continue to be protected. 

Middle Green 

River 

(6,768 acres) 

• high value 

scenery 

• riparian 

ecosystem 

Impacts to scenery in the Middle Green River are 

restricted by VRM Class II objectives (6,768 acres), 

limiting OHV travel to designated routes, and oil and gas 

leasing with NSO in the river corridor. 

Riparian areas are managed to preclude surface disturbing 

activities within riparian areas which will protect natural 

systems. Thus, the relevant and important values will 

continue to be protected. 

Nine Mile 

Canyon 

(37,000 acres) 

• cultural 

resources 

• high quality 

scenery 

• special status 

species 

Cultural and historic resources in this area are protected 

by law, policy, and procedure. 

The relevant and important values of scenery only apply 

within the Nine Mile Canyon itself and are protected by 

VRM Class II objectives from canyon rim to canyon rim 

within the river corridor. OHV travel is limited to 

designated routes, which protects all of the relevant and 

important (R&I) values. The canyon bottom is NSO to 

protect the R&I values of cultural, visual, and special 

status species. Because scenic R&I values are not 

attributed to areas above the rim, there is no need to 

restrict oil and gas leasing for visual purposes. In this area 

above the canyon rim: 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

42

Potential ACEC 

not Designated in 

Approved RMP 

Relevance & 

Importance Values 

Management Protection Provided in the Approved RMP 

• Approximately 26,797 acres would be open to leasing 

subject to the terms and conditions of the standard 

lease form. 

• Approximately 209 acres would be open to leasing 

subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

• Approximately 17,162 acres would be open to leasing 

subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

Special status species are also protected through 

compliance with the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). The BLM will manage all listed T&E 

plant species and the habitats upon which they depend in 

such a manner as to conserve and recover these species to 

the point where protection under the ESA is no longer 

necessary. In collaboration with the USFWS, DWR, and 

other partners, develop and implement habitat 

management plans or conservation strategies for sensitive 

species. As additional data are collected over the life of 

the RMP, land managers would continually re-evaluate 

population and habitat status. Management emphasis 

would be to accumulate ecological information and 

distributional data to enhance the BLM’s ability to 

protect, conserve, recover, and manage these species in 

the future. The BLM would continue to implement the 

specific goals and objectives of all Recovery Plans, 

Conservation Plans and Strategies, and activity level 

plans. Recovery Plan revisions or new Recovery Plans 

would also be implemented. The BLM also provides 

specific lease notices for oil and gas development and 

conservation measures for each of species on Utah’s 

Threatened and Endangered Species List. See Appendix 

L. 

Thus, the relevant and important values will continue to 

be protected. 

White River 

(47,130 acres) 

• high value 

scenery 

• riparian 

ecosystem 

• unique 

geologic 

Because the high value scenery is attributed to the river 

corridor itself and will be protected by VRM II, there are 

no R&I values beyond the river corridor. VRM Class II 

areas correspond to either no leasing or NSO stipulations 

for oil and gas leasing. 

Impacts to scenery in the White River are restricted by 

VRM Class II objectives (15,913 acres). This includes 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

43

Potential ACEC 

not Designated in 

Approved RMP 

Relevance & 

Importance Values 

Management Protection Provided in the Approved RMP 

formation 

• historic area 

6,680 acres that are part of the White River non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics and 2,831 acres 

which are part of the White River SRMA. For oil and gas 

leasing, the VRM Class II area would be protected with 

NSO (13,243 acres) in the river corridor. OHV travel 

would be limited to designated routes. The remaining 

acres outside those mentioned above have a VRM Class 

III or IV. 

The geological formation (Goblin City) and historic area 

are located within the river corridor and likewise managed 

with VRM Class II. Cultural and historic areas (including 

Goblin City) are protected by law, policy, and procedure. 

The only current access to Goblin City is via a hiking trail 

that begins at the primitive camp site located next to the 

river. 

The remaining acres consist of VRM Class III and IV 

areas, are considered to have high potential for oil and gas 

resources, and currently have a large portion of the lands 

leased. VRM Class III areas will be managed with timing 

limitations and controlled surface use (4,359 acres) and 

standard stipulations (3,554 acres). VRM Class IV areas 

will also be managed with timing limitations and 

controlled surface use (392 acres) and standard 

stipulations (22,776 acres). BMPs are used as appropriate 

to reduce visual impacts (i.e, masking, well site location, 

painting, etc.) 

Riparian areas, as discussed under Bitter Creek (above), 

are managed to preclude surface disturbing activities 

within riparian areas which will protect natural systems. 

Thus, the relevant and important values will continue to 

be protected. 

Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs)

Under the Approved RMP, two river segments of the Green River totaling approximately 52 

miles of river are carried forward as suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 

River System in order to protect the free-flowing nature and outstandingly remarkable values 

associated with the river segments, subject to valid existing rights. The Upper Green River 

segment (22 miles) extends from Little Hole to the Utah State line. The Lower Green River 

segment (30 miles) extends from the public land boundary south of Ouray to the Carbon County 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

44

line. There is a tentative classification of "Scenic" for both river segments. The Upper and 

Lower Green River will largely be protected from disturbance related to mineral development by 

either being closed to mineral leasing or by no surface occupancy stipulations. 

Both suitable river segments will be in a limited or closed OHV category, with most of the 

segments limited to designated routes. Outstandingly remarkable values will be protected by 

limiting OHV use to designated routes or closing river corridors to OHV use. The Upper Green 

River segment is entirely protected with a Class II VRM category. The Lower Green River is 

protected with both Class I and II VRM categories. 

Eligible river segments that were not carried forward as suitable in the Approved RMP were 

found not suitable for a myriad of reasons. For example, unless public land is somehow involved 

in a proposed land use, BLM has no control of potential modifications of the shoreline or other 

development (including development related to the perfection of water rights) on non-public 

lands. State and local governments were not in favor of additional segments being determined to 

be suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

For those river segments that are not recommended suitable for wild and scenic river designation 

under the Approved RMP, many other prescriptions will still afford protection to the river 

corridor, and associated outstandingly remarkable values. For example: 

• Surface disturbance restrictions in riparian zones and floodplains will protect river 

shoreline and water quality. 

• Actions proposed to protect riparian obligate and aquatic wildlife species and their 

habitat will protect river values. 

• Vegetation treatments implemented to restore riparian and upland vegetation 

communities will enhance watershed health, water quality and quantity, wildlife 

habitat, and recreation settings and experiences.

In addition, BLM looks forward to working with the State of Utah, local and tribal governments, 

and other federal agencies during the next phase of the Wild and Scenic River process. BLM 

will work cooperatively with the above entities in a statewide study to reach consensus regarding 

recommendations to Congress for the inclusion of rivers into the NWSR system. BLM will also 

continue to work with affected local, state, federal, and tribal partners to identify in-stream flows 

necessary to meet critical resource needs, including values related to the subject segments, so 

that they may be identified for inclusion into future recommendations to Congress. 

Vegetation

The Approved RMP gives priority to riparian vegetation where surface disturbing activities are 

precluded within 100 meters of riparian areas. The Approved RMP provides specifications for 

Desired Future Conditions for vegetation resources to ensure ecological diversity, stability, and 

sustainability. Due to the persistent drought conditions in this region over the past several years, 

criteria for restricting activities during these drought conditions are provided in the Approved 

RMP. The Approved RMP reiterates the BLM’s policy to control noxious weed species and to 

prevent the infestation and spread of invasive species. The Approved RMP emphasizes the 

reestablishment and restoration of vegetated areas during project activities using native seed 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

45

mixes wherever possible. The requirements of related Executive Orders, regulation, and policy 

will be met in the Approved RMP regarding noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

Travel: Roads and Trails

The Approved RMP responds to the issue of OHV use by designating all BLM lands as open, 

closed, or limited. Out of about 1.73 million acres within the planning area: 

• 6,202 acres are open to cross-country travel 

• 78,595 acres are closed to motorized travel 

• 1,640,725 acres are limited to designated routes 

Areas open to OHV travel (6,202 acres) in the Approved RMP are located in four areas: 

• Red Wash (1,901 acres) 

• Twelve Mile Bench (2,656 acres) 

• Jensen Hills (931 acres) 

• Buckskin Hills (714 acres) 

These areas have been traditionally used by OHV recreation users for several years. 

Manageability is limited due to the surface land owner pattern. Because the areas are fairly well 

defined and small in size, there is little potential for additional resource damage. 

Areas closed to OHV travel (78,595 acres) include: 

• All WSAs and the Book Cliffs Mountain Browse Instant Study Area (ISA) 

• White River area (SRMA, river corridor) 

• Lears Canyon ACEC 

• Nine Mile Acquired Area 

• The upper portion of the Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics 

The five WSAs and the one Instant Study Area are managed as exclusion areas for rights-of-way. 

As a result, the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation will be enhanced and the 

potential for impairment of wilderness values by motorized activities is eliminated.

The limited area (1,640,725 acres) in the Approved RMP pertains to the majority of the planning 

area. The Approved RMP responds to travel management and access issues by providing a 

network of transportation routes within the limited designation that tie into roads administered by 

the counties, National Park Service, the Forest Service, State of Utah, Ute Tribe, and private land 

owners. The Limited designation in the Approved RMP replaces the large amount of area 

currently available for cross-country travel within the planning area. As a result, the Approved 

RMP provides a substantial amount of protection to natural (vegetation, soils, scenery, riparian, 

and wildlife) and cultural resources by essentially eliminating cross-country travel which is 

detrimental to these resources. The Approved RMP allows for motorized access and 

opportunities within the Limited designation while still providing protection for sensitive 

resources and non-motorized recreation users. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

46

The areas designated in the Approved RMP as open, limited, and closed provide the best balance 

between OHV opportunities and protection of sensitive resources. OHV travel would be limited 

to designated routes or closed except for managed open areas. 

Visual Resource Management

The Vernal Field Office is home to nationally recognized scenery in northeastern Utah. These 

settings attract thousands of visitors each year who come to Vernal to enjoy the landscape. 

Scenic attractions in the Vernal planning area include Desolation Canyon, Fantasy Canyon, 

Goblin City, John Jarvie Historical Site, Nine Mile Canyon, and the Green and White River 

corridors. The Approved RMP provides protection for these and other scenic attractions, thus 

safeguarding the visitation and tourism industry, which is a significant contributor to the Vernal 

economy. At the same time, VRM class objectives of III and IV are applied as necessary to 

allow for exploration, development, and associated infrastructure to support oil and gas resources 

in high potential areas in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, while 

protecting sensitive resources, where appropriate. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

The Approved RMP responds to issues regarding wildlife by providing restrictions to uses in 

crucial wildlife habitat areas. BLM uses the State Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 

crucial habitat boundaries to apply these restrictions because UDWR is the entity with 

jurisdiction and expertise over wildlife in Utah. The crucial habitat identified in the Approved 

RMP for deer, elk, bighorn sheep and other big game species is the result of the State’s 

combination of two previous UDWR categories of habitat – “critical” and “high value”. The 

State uses the term “crucial” habitat as a trigger to initiate a close examination of proposed 

projects in order to determine the appropriate management response. BLM and the State 

recognize that some of the land within the defined area, depending on season and timing, may 

not support the respective species for various reasons. The BLM will coordinate with the State 

on issues related to crucial habitat to determine stipulations necessary to address impacts to the 

subject wildlife species. Following consultation, the BLM may grant an exception, modification, 

or waiver. BLM and the State will execute a protocol to implement this provision. 

In addition, protective management measures have been developed in coordination with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the UDWR to protect all the special status species within the 

planning area, including those that are threatened or endangered. 

Informal Section 7 consultation, as directed by the Endangered Species Act, subsequent 

regulations, and BLM policy, was conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

throughout the development of the RMP. The BLM submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) 

and requested initiation of formal consultation on August 22, 2008. The USFWS responded with 

a Biological Opinion (BO) on October 24, 2008, completing the formal Section 7 consultation 

process. The BO concurred with the determinations made in the BA regarding potential effects 

on listed threatened and endangered species located within the planning area. The BO cover 

letter is in this Record of Decision (ROD) as Appendix N and the entire BO is on the attached 

CD. The BA and the BO contain committed conservation measures that have been incorporated 

into the ROD and will be a part of the implementation of the Approved RMP. These are 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

47

committed measures that will be included as part of the proposed action of any subsequent site 

specific activities authorized by the RMP. Should any changes be made in any of the 

conservation measures identified in the BA and BO, Section 7 consultation with USFWS will be 

re-initiated. 

The BLM, in coordination with the USFWS developed the majority of these committed 

conservation measures as part of a programmatic Section 7 consultation that was completed in 

2007. Some modifications and additional measures were developed during the consultation 

process specific to the Vernal RMP. All site specific level actions potentially impacting listed 

species or their critical habitat will implement these measures. Incorporating these measures will 

ensure that the BLM is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and will meet necessary 

management and recovery goals. If BLM determines that any deviations, modifications, or 

waiver of these conservation measures may be necessary on a given project, re-initiation of 

Section 7 consultation with USFWS will be necessary. BLM notes that the Biological Opinion 

(Appendix N and attached CD), provides a number of recommended conservation measures that 

are beyond the scope of this Approved RMP, but may be considered in tiered consultation with 

this programmatic opinion when project-specific analysis is conducted in the future. These 

recommended conservation measures are optional measures, additional to the committed 

mitigation contained in the Approved RMP, that BLM will consider at the appropriate time and 

as deemed necessary to manage and recover listed and candidate plant and animal species 

occurring within the planning area. 

The Approved RMP also incorporates resource protection measures and recommended Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) to maintain, protect, and enhance habitats that will support a 

diversity of non-listed sensitive fish, wildlife, and plant species. The intent of these measures is 

to achieve and maintain suitable habitat for desired population levels and distribution within the 

area covered by the RMP. The BLM will continue to work cooperatively with UDWR (which 

has jurisdiction over sensitive wildlife species) to maintain and establish crucial habitat 

management strategies as reflected in the Approved RMP. These species are managed as 

necessary to protect them and their habitat from loss in accordance with the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (FLPMA), BLM management guidelines, and policy contained in the 6840 

Manual. 

The Approved RMP provides the least restrictive stipulations necessary to protect wildlife 

species while still allowing for resource uses. 

G. CONSISTENCY AND CONSULTATION REVIEW 

Consistency of the Approved RMP with other local, State, Tribal and federal plans and policies 

(which sometimes conflict amongst themselves) was also considered as a factor in selection of 

the Approved RMP. The Approved RMP is consistent with plans and policies of the Department 

of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management, other federal agencies, state government, and 

local governments to the extent that the guidance and local plans are also consistent with the 

purposes, policies, and programs of federal law and regulation applicable to public lands. 

Chapter 5 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS provides a full discussion of consistency with all 

involved entities. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

48

Governor’s Consistency

The Governor's Office did not identify any inconsistencies concerning state or local plans, 

policies, and programs following the 60-day Governor's Consistency Review of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS (initiated August 22, 2008, in accordance with planning regulations at 43 CFR 

Part 1610.3- 2(e), and concluded on October 24, 2008). 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Consultation

The Vernal Field Office has completed its consultation on the Proposed RMP Final EIS with the 

Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as required by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. A letter was received from the Utah SHPO on July 17, 2008, after 

reviewing BLM’s decisions in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. In the letter, the SHPO concluded 

that the decisions in the Proposed RMP will have no adverse affects on historic properties. 

Because there has been no appreciable change between the Proposed RMP and the Approved 

RMP, no further SHPO consultation is required and all decisions in the Approved RMP will have 

no adverse affects on historic properties. The letter of concurrence from the SHPO is found in 

Appendix P. 

Native American Consultation

The BLM has engaged in consultation with Native American representatives throughout the 

planning process. Native American consultation is an ongoing process that will continue after 

the ROD is signed. 

The RMP/EIS scoping process was initiated in November 2002 when the BLM Utah State 

Director mailed letters to 37 tribal organizations. All 37 tribes were contacted by an 

ethnographer under contract on behalf of BLM to (1) ensure that the appropriate tribal contact 

had received the consultation letter, and (2) determine the need for additional or future 

consultation for the study areas identified in the consultation letter. Meetings were arranged 

when requested. Of the 37 organizations contacted, four requested meetings to discuss the 

traditional cultural resources study. 

Based on telephone conversations, correspondence, and meetings made by the ethnographer: 

• 12 Native American tribes requested to be contacted for future projects in the Vernal 

Field Office. 

• 3 Native American tribes said that they did not need to be contacted for future 

projects. 

• 5 Native American tribes did not specify the need for future consultation. 

• 16 Native American tribes did not respond to the initial consultation letter or 

telephone calls. 

• 1 Native American tribe requested to be contacted for future projects in the Price 

Field Office. 

Based on the consultation with all tribes for the Draft RMP/Draft EIS, BLM was not provided 

any additional information in developing the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

49

In addition, the Ute Indian Tribe has participated in the Vernal RMP as a Cooperating Agency. 

The Tribe filed protest on the Proposed RMP/Final EIS concerning split estate mineral issues in 

the Hill Creek Extension. The protest was denied by the BLM Director because it did not 

present any protest issues that resulted in a change to the Approved RMP. 

Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Informal Section 7 consultation, as directed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), subsequent 

regulations, and BLM policy, was conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

throughout the development of the RMP. Formal consultation with the USFWS was initiated on 

August 22, 2008. As required by Section 7(a) of the ESA, the Vernal Field Office prepared a 

Biological Assessment (BA) to evaluate the listed species in its planning area. The BA analyzed 

the potential impacts on six endangered, two threatened, and one candidate species which could 

result from implementing management actions authorized under the proposed land use plan for 

the Field Office. The Vernal Field Office determined that some of the proposed actions "may 

affect, and are likely to adversely affect" the listed species and "may affect" designated critical 

habitat. The USFWS prepared a Biological Opinion (BO), in which they concurred with BLM’s 

determination on October 24, 2008, and is included in Appendix N and attached CD. The 

USFWS further determined that implementation of the RMP, including committed mitigation 

measures, would not jeopardize the existence of any of the listed species. 

H. MITIGATION MEASURES 

Measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm were built into the Approved RMP where 

practicable. Many of the standard management provisions will minimize impacts when applied 

to activities proposed in the planning area. The BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management (see Appendix F) will be used as the base standards to 

assess the health of BLM lands in the planning area. Best management practices (BMPs) will be 

used (when applicable) for a number of uses including livestock grazing, forest activities, 

mining, oil and gas development, and other surface disturbing activities (see Appendices A and 

B). Additional measures to mitigate environmental impacts may also be developed during 

subsequent NEPA analysis at the activity level planning and project stages. Throughout the 

decisions in the Approved RMP, mitigation was used as a means to avoid and minimize 

environmental harm. 

I. PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Monitoring is the repeated measurement of activities and conditions over time. Evaluation is a 

process in which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to see if management goals and 

objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. Monitoring data gathered over 

time is examined and used to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting 

stated objectives, and if not, why. Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on 

whether to continue current management or what changes need to be made in management 

practices to meet objectives. 

The two types of monitoring that are tied to the planning process include implementation and 

effectiveness monitoring. Land use plan monitoring is the process of: 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

50

(1) Tracking the implementation of land use planning decisions 

(2) Collecting and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of 

land use planning decisions. 

The two types of monitoring are described below: 

(1) Implementation Monitoring: Implementation monitoring is the most basic type of 

monitoring and simply determines whether planned activities have been implemented 

in the manner prescribed by the plan. Some agencies call this compliance monitoring. 

This monitoring documents BLM’s progress toward full implementation of the land 

use plan decision. There are no specific thresholds or indicators required for this type 

of monitoring. 

(2) Effectiveness Monitoring: Effectiveness monitoring is aimed at determining if the 

implementation of activities has achieved the desired goals and objectives. 

Effectiveness monitoring asks the question: Was the specified activity successful in 

achieving the objective? This requires knowledge of the objectives established in the 

RMP as well as indicators that can be measured. Indicators are established by 

technical specialists in order to address specific questions, and thus avoid collection 

of unnecessary data. Success is measured against the benchmark of achieving desired 

future conditions established by the plan. 

Regulations at 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that the proposed plan establish intervals and standards, 

as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluation of the plan, based on the sensitivity of the resource 

decisions involved. Progress in meeting the plan objectives and adherence to the management 

framework established by the plan is reviewed periodically. CEQ regulations implementing 

NEPA state that agencies may provide for monitoring to assure that their decisions are carried 

out and should do so in important cases (40 CFR 1505.2(c)). To meet these requirements, the 

BLM will review the plan on a regular schedule in order to provide consistent tracking of 

accomplishments and provide information that can be used to develop annual budget requests to 

continue implementation. 

Land use plan evaluations will be used by BLM to determine if the decisions in the RMP, 

supported by the accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid. Evaluation of the RMP will 

generally be conducted every five years per BLM policy, unless unexpected actions, new 

information, or significant changes in other plans, legislation, or litigation triggers an evaluation. 

Land use plan evaluations determine if decisions are being implemented, whether mitigation 

measures are satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the related plans of other 

entities, whether there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions should be changed 

through amendment or revision. Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated. 

Specific monitoring and evaluation needs are identified by resource/uses throughout the 

Approved RMP. 

The monitoring plan is included for each resource under Management Decisions in the Approved 

RMP. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

51

J. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Introduction

The public participation process for the RMP/EIS has been ongoing throughout the development 

of the RMP/EIS and will continue to the Record of Decision. It includes a variety of efforts to 

identify and address public concerns and needs. In addition to formal public participation 

activities, informal contacts occur frequently with public land users, industry, and interested 

persons through meetings, field trips, telephone calls, or letters. All public participation 

applicable to the RMP/EIS has been documented and analyzed as part of the planning process 

and kept on file in the Vernal Field Office. 

One of the BLM’s primary objectives during development of the Vernal Field Office RMP was 

to understand the views of various publics by providing opportunities for meaningful 

participation in the resource management planning process. The following summarizes the 

efforts made by the VFO to involve the public. In-depth information on these efforts is included 

in both the Draft Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS and the Proposed Vernal Field Office RMP/Final 

EIS in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination. 

Scoping and Notice of Intent to Plan (NOI)

This planning process began in March 2001 with the publication in the Federal Register of a 

Notice of Intent to plan (NOI). The NOI announced the BLM's intent to conduct land-use 

planning for the public lands administered by the Vernal Field Office by preparing an RMP and 

associated EIS. The NOI began what is known as the scoping process and invited the general 

public as well as Federal, State, and local government agencies and Indian tribes to identify 

potential issues and submit concerns regarding the intended planning effort. 

The scoping period began on March 12, 2001 and ended December 31, 2001. In order to solicit 

public input regarding the development and scope of RMP\EIS alternatives, five scoping 

meetings were held throughout Utah in late October and early November 2001. Information 

obtained during the public scoping and information obtained by BLM and submitted by 

cooperating agencies, other federal, state and local agencies, and Indian tribes is utilized to form 

the scope of the RMP/EIS. Scoping meetings were held at the following locations: 

 Location Date 

Duchesne, Utah October 17, 2001 

Vernal, Utah October 18, 2001 

Salt Lake City, Utah October 25, 2001 

Manila, Utah November 1, 2001 

Green River, Utah November 8, 2001 

In addition to the NOI, BLM conducted additional outreach for specific program information, 

including by mailing directly to a BLM-maintained mailing list several planning bulletins to 

solicit specific information regarding issues such as public meetings, dates, travel planning, fluid 

mineral leasing, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Wild and Scenic River 

segments (WSR), and wilderness characteristics. The BLM-maintained mailing list for this 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

52

planning effort has been and will continue to be reviewed and updated until the BLM issues the 

PRMP/FEIS and ROD. 

Notice of Availability (NOA) of Draft RMP/EIS and Proposed Plan Final EIS

In January 2005, the BLM filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) its Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS for the Vernal Field Office. On January 14, 2005 the BLM and EPA published a 

Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register; the later date marked the beginning of the 

formal 90-day public review comment period. The Draft RMP/Draft EIS states that BLM is 

revising its current land-use plan and proposes several alternative ways of managing public lands 

within the Vernal Planning Area. The Draft RMP/Draft EIS was designed to provide a 

comprehensive look at the impacts to natural and cultural resources from various planning 

alternatives. The formal 90-day public comment period ended on April 4, 2005. The BLM 

notified approximately 990 individuals regarding the release of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. Also, 

provided hard copies and CDs of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS directly to cooperating agencies, 

other federal, state, and local agencies, tribal representatives, the Utah BLM Resource Advisory 

Committee members Hard copies and CDs also were made available to the public, and the Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS was placed on the BLM's website. The Vernal FO received approximately 360 

letters, emails and faxes on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. 

On December 13, 2005, the BLM published in the Federal Register a NOA of the Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS to list proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and specific 

associated resource use limitations for public lands in Daggett, Duchesne, Uintah and Grand 

Counties, Utah. They provided a 60-day comment period on the potential ACECs. The 

comment period ended February 11, 2006. The Vernal FO received approximately 2,094 letters, 

emails and faxes on the ACEC Notice of Availability. 

On May 24, 2007, the BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare Supplemental Draft 

RMP/EIS. The Supplement to the Draft RMP/Draft EIS presents an analysis of the effects of 

managing non-Wilderness Study Area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics in a 

protective manner. On October 5, 2007, the BLM and EPA published a Notice of Availability in 

the Federal Register; for the Supplement to the Draft RMP/Draft EIS the date marked the 

beginning of the formal 90-day public review comment period. The comment period ended on 

January 3, 2008. The VFO received approximately 191 letters, emails and faxes on the 

Supplemental EIS. 

On August 22, 2008, the BLM and the Environmental Protection Agency published of Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register which announced the publication of the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS. The public was informed of the availability of the Proposed RMP/FEIS via news releases, 

the planning website and the RMP mailing list. The Proposed RMP/FEIS as well as all the 

background documents were available on the Vernal RMP planning website. A 30-day protest 

period commenced on August 22, 2008 and ended on September 22, 2008. In addition, a 60-day 

Governor’s Consistency Review period ran concurrently with the first half of the protest period. 

In-depth information on these efforts is included in both the Vernal Draft RMP/Draft EIS and 

Vernal Proposed RMP/FEIS in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination. 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

53

Mailing List

As directed by 43 CFR 1610.2(d), the BLM has established and maintained a list of "individuals 

and groups known to be interested in or affected by a resource management plan." This list was 

initially developed by the Vernal Field Office mailing list and supplemented/updated throughout 

the planning process. Scoping meeting participants were given the option to be added to the 

mailing list. In addition, individuals were able to add themselves to the project mailing list by 

registering on the project website, as well as through requests to be placed on the mailing list by 

contacting the BLM. 

The mailing list was used during the distribution of postcards and updates throughout the 

planning process. Postcards were mailed to the entire list, announcing the availability of the 

Draft RMP/EIS, Supplemental Draft RMP/Draft EIS, and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. There 

are currently over 1,400 individuals, organizations, and agencies included on the mailing list. 

Public Meetings

During the 90-day public comment period, the BLM held public meetings in five cities in two 

states in an effort to inform the interested and affected public about the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. 

The table below lists the open house locations and dates. The open houses were geared to 

provide information to the public on the content of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS as well as to 

provide guidance on commenting on the document and answer questions. Each open house 

included a visual presentation that provided an overview of the planning process and a 

comparison of major elements contained in the alternatives. Attendees were then encouraged to 

visit with BLM representatives and managers regarding questions or concerns about the Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS. The public was provided with the opportunity to submit written comments at 

the open houses. 

 Location Date 

Vernal, Utah February 8, 2005 

Duchesne, Utah February 9, 2005 

Manila, Utah February 10, 2005 

Grand Junction, Colorado February 22, 2005 

Salt Lake City, Utah February 25, 2005 

Public meetings were not held on the release of the ACEC NOA or Supplemental Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS. 

Website

Information regarding the Vernal land-use plan was made available to the public on a website 

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

The website serves as a virtual repository for documents related to development of the Vernal 

RMP including news releases and bulletins, background documents, schedule, the land-use 

planning process, preliminary issues, maps (figures), photos, and the draft and final RMP/EIS. 

The documents are available in .pdf format to ensure that they are available to the widest range 
Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

54

of users. During the scoping period, the website allowed members of the public to add 

themselves to the project mailing list or to submit comments/concerns to be considered in the 

scoping process. In addition, during the public comment period on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS, the 

website served as one of the ways in which the public could submit comments. 

Continuing Involvement

The BLM will continue to actively seek the views of the public, using techniques such as news 

releases and web-site information to ask for participation and inform the public of new and 

ongoing project proposals, site-specific planning, and opportunities and timeframes for 

comment. The BLM will also continue to coordinate, both formally and informally, with the 

numerous federal, state, tribal, and local agencies and officials interested and involved in the 

management of public lands in Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties and a portion of Grand 

County within the planning area. 

K. AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN 

• Copies of the Record of Decision and the Vernal Approved Resource Management 

Plan are available by request from the following locations: 

BLM Vernal Field Office 

170 South 500 East 

Vernal, Utah 84078 

• By contacting the Vernal field Office by phone at: 

(435) 781-4400 

• Or on the Vernal Field Office website at: 

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


Vernal Approved Resource Management Plan 

56

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This Approved RMP replaces the Book Cliffs RMP approved in May 1985 and the Diamond 

Mountain RMP approved in December 1994 and is now the base land use plan for public lands 

administered by the BLM's Vernal Field Office. The Approved RMP adopts the management 

described in Proposed Plan and the Management Common to All Alternatives section presented 

in the Proposed Vernal Field Office RMP/Final EIS (USDI-BLM 2008), with adjustments as 

described in the Notice of Minor Modification and Clarification sections of the ROD. 

B. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER BLM PLANS AND POLICIES 

Management of federal and state lands immediately adjacent to public land administered by the 

BLM was considered in the formulation of the Approved RMP and land-use allocations. As 

cooperating agencies in development of the Vernal Field Office RMP, Uintah, Daggett, and 

Duchesne counties have evaluated consistency with appropriate county plans as the Proposed 

Plan/Final EIS has been developed. The Ute Indian Tribe and the State of Utah also had 

cooperating agency status in the development of the Vernal Field Office RMP. The main major 

planning documents, management plans and implementation plans of other federal, state, local, 

and tribal governments considered in development of the RMP are listed below. (Note: This may 

not be a complete list.) 

County Land Use Plans

Daggett County, Utah Daggett County General Plan 

Duchesne County, Utah 

Duchesne County General Plan 

Duchesne County Public Land 

Implementation Plan 

Grand County, Utah Grand County General Plan 

Uintah County, Utah 

Uintah County General Plan 

Uintah County Plan for Management of the 

Book Cliffs Resource Area Ordinance No. 9-

25-2000A, Wild Horse Habitat on Public 

Land 

Garfield County, Colorado Garfield County General Plan 

Moffat County, Colorado Moffat County General Plan 

Rio Blanco County, Colorado Rio Blanco County General Plan 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming Sweetwater County General Plan 
Vernal Approved Resource Management Plan 

57

State of Utah Plans

Division of State Parks and Recreation, Steinaker and Red Fleet State Plans 

1999. Uintah Basin Water Plan 

2001. Utah's Water Resources: Planning for the Future 

2003. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

Other Federal Plans

Ashley National Forest Land-Use Plan 

Dinosaur National Monument Plan 

Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Plan 

Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge Plan 

Price BLM Field Office RMP 

Moab BLM Field Office RMP 

Green River BLM Wyoming Field Office RMP 

Little Snake BLM Colorado Field Office RMP 

White River BLM Colorado Field Office RMP 

Park City Management Framework Plan (Salt Lake City Field Office BLM Utah) 

Activity Plans

1979. Desolation & Gray Canyons on the Green River—River Management Plan 

1988–1989. John Jarvie Historic District Site Management Plan, completed in 

1988 and amended in 1989 

1996. Green River Management Plan; Joint Management Plan; VFO and Ashley 

National Forest 

Habitat Management Plans

1979. Myton Habitat Management Plan 

1983. Diamond Mountain/Ashley Creek Habitat Management Plan 

1987. Browns Park Habitat Management Plan 
Vernal Approved Resource Management Plan 

58

Endangered Species Recovery Plans

1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan 

1987. The Recovery Implementation Plan for the Endangered Fish Species in the 

Upper Colorado River Basin 

1999. Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Plan Amendment 

1990. Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan 

1990. Humpback Chub Recovery Plan 

1990. Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Recovery Plan 

1991. Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan 

1999. Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan 

1995. Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan 

1995. Draft Ute Ladies-tresses Recovery Plan 

2003. Conservation and Research Plans for Four Plant Species in Northeastern 

Utah (White River Beardtongue, Goodrich Beardtongue, Graham Beardtongue, 

and Horseshoe Milkvetch) 

Existing Environmental Impact Statements

1983. Uinta Basin Synfuels Development EIS 

1983. Wild and Scenic River Study, Green and Yampa Rivers EIS 

1984. Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Regional EIS 

1985. PR Spring Combined Hydrocarbon Lease Conversion EIS 

1990. Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness EIS 

2005. Final Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 

2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Castle 

Peak and Eight Mile Flat Oil and Gas Expansion Project 

2008. Westwide Energy Corridor (WWEC) PEIS/ROD 

Documents Incorporated by Reference

1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM 

Lands in Thirteen Western States and associated Records of Decision. BLM 

Wyoming State Office, Casper Wyoming (BLM-WY-ES-91-036-4320) 

2007. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and associated 

Record of Decision. USDI, Bureau of Land Management (FES 07-21) 
Vernal Approved Resource Management Plan 

59

2007. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic Environmental Report. USDI, BLM (FES 07-21) 

Since the start of this RMP revision, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 

369 of the Energy Policy Act requires the Secretary of Interior to "complete a programmatic 

environmental impact statement for a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands 

resources on public lands, with an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands within 

each of the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming." On December 13, 2005, the BLM 

published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register initiating a Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) to support a commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program on 

federal lands in these three states. Since that time, the scope of the PEIS has been revised. The 

BLM is no longer using the PEIS as the document that supports the NEPA requirements for 

leasing. Given that the development technologies for in situ production of oil shale are just 

emerging, there is a lack of information regarding resource use and associated impacts. 

Consequently, the BLM has changed this document to a resource allocation document that 

identifies the BLM-managed lands for which applications to lease oil shale and tar sands 

resources will be accepted in the future. However, although applications will be accepted, 

additional NEPA analysis will be performed before any leasing of the area will be considered. 

The President's comprehensive National Energy Policy, issued in May 2001, directed the 

Secretary to: “...examine land status and lease stipulation impediments to federal oil and gas 

leasing, and review and modify those where opportunities exist (consistent with the law, good 

environmental practice and balanced use of other resources).” 

In April 2003, the BLM specified four EPCA integration principles as follows: 

• Environmental protection and energy production are both desirable and necessary 

objectives of sound land management practices and are not to be considered mutually 

exclusive priorities. 

• The BLM must ensure the appropriate amount of accessibility to energy resources 

necessary for the nation's security while recognizing that special and unique nonenergy resources can be preserved. 

• Sound planning will weigh the relative resource values consistent with the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act. 

• All resource impacts, including those associated with energy development and 

transmission, will be mitigated to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. 

The VFO is located partially within the Uinta–Piceance oil and gas basin, one of seven areas 

identified as priority basins in the EPCA inventory. The VFO and their contractors conducted an 

extensive review of the inventory data regarding energy resources within the planning area. That 

data is profiled in the Proposed Vernal RMP and consists primarily of two types of information 

as outlined in EPCA: 1) data on oil and gas resources (volumetric data), and 2) data on leasing 

constraints. This data is considered an important part of the BLM's administrative record for the 

RMP. 

The EPCA volumetric data is documented in the Affected Environment section of the Vernal 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The BLM also considered many other sources of energy-related data, 

including United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Utah Geologic Survey (UGS) 

information, industry information, as well as some academic work completed on oil and gas 
Vernal Approved Resource Management Plan 

60

plays and areas with potential for occurrence of mineral resources. This information is part of the 

more detailed Mineral Potential Report prepared in support of the planning effort. 

In 2002, the BLM prepared a projected reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) scenario to 

project environmental impacts across a 15-year period; this RFD has been modified (2008) for 

oil and gas development only to project environmental impacts for up to 5 years. Development 

projections included in-depth reviews of potential for occurrence, past well production, current 

well production, and future potential for production. During the pendency of this planning effort 

(beginning with public meetings in 2001 and 2002 for scoping purposes through the notification 

in the Federal Register on January 14, 2005, of the availability of the Draft RMP/EIS), the RFD 

scenario, which is a planning tool and not a prediction or limit to development, did not track 

completely with the pace of development in the Uinta Basin. The BLM has carefully monitored 

industry trends and believes that the RFD used as an analytical tool in this Proposed RMP can be 

considered accurate up to approximately 5 years from the time the Record of Decision (ROD) is 

signed. 

Within the next 5-year timeframe, the BLM will monitor the impacts to resources of continued 

development in the VPA and ensure that the impacts disclosed in this Proposed RMP are not 

exceeded by the pace of development. 

The BLM also conducted additional support work regarding energy-related management and 

energy benefits in the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS), as well as the 

Socioeconomic Baseline Report; these characterize the significant beneficial impacts of energy 

and mineral development for the Uinta Basin. 

Also, as part of EPCA, a review was provided outlining existing leasing constraints within the 

focus areas. 

Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (designation of West-wide energy corridors) is 

being implemented via the current development of an interagency, Programmatic EIS (PEIS). 

The Final PEIS could amend numerous RMPs in the western U.S., providing decisions that will 

address numerous energy corridor-related issues, including the use of existing corridors (with 

enhancements and upgrades), identification of new corridors, supply and demand considerations, 

and compatibility with other corridor and project planning efforts. 

In the event there are inconsistencies or discrepancies between previously Approved RMPs and 

this Approved RMP, the decisions contained in the Approved RMP will be followed. The Vernal 

Field Office will continue to tier to statewide, national, and programmatic EISs and other NEPA 

and planning documents, as well as consider and apply Best Management Practices or other 

management protocols contained in other planning documents after appropriate site-specific 

analysis. 

All future resource authorizations and actions will conform to, or be consistent with the decisions 

contained in this Approved RMP. All existing operations and activities authorized under permits, 

contracts, cooperative agreements or other authorizations will be modified, as necessary, to 

conform with this plan within a reasonable timeframe. However, this plan does not repeal valid 

existing rights on public lands. A valid existing right is a claim or authorization that takes 

precedence over the decisions developed in this plan. If such authorizations come up for review 

and can be modified, they will also be brought into conformance with the plan. 
Vernal Approved Resource Management Plan 

61

While the Final EIS for the Vernal Field Office RMP constitutes compliance with NEPA for the 

broad-scale decisions made in this Approved RMP, the BLM will continue to prepare 

Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impacts Statements (EISs) where 

appropriate as part of implementation level planning and decision-making. 

C. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

Plan implementation is a continuous and active process. Decisions presented in the Management 

Decisions section of this Approved RMP are of three types: Immediate, One-Time, and LongTerm. 

Immediate Decisions: These decisions go into effect upon signature of the Record of Decision 

and Approved RMP. These include decisions such as the allocation of lands as available or 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing, ACEC designations, and OHV designations. Immediate 

decisions require no additional analysis and provide the framework for any subsequent activities 

proposed in the planning area. Proposals for actions such as oil and gas leasing, land 

adjustments, and other allocation-based actions will be reviewed against these 

decisions/allocations to determine if the proposal is in conformance with the plan. 

One-Time Decisions: These types of decisions include those that are implemented after 

additional site-specific analysis is completed. Examples are implementation of the 

recommendations to withdraw lands from locatable mineral entry, or development of a habitat 

management plan, or a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) plan. One-time decisions 

usually require additional analysis and are prioritized as part of the BLM budget process. 

Long-Term Guidance/Life of Plan Direction: These decisions include the goals, objectives, 

and management actions established by the plan that are applied during site-specific analyses and 

activity planning. This guidance is applied whether the action is initiated by the BLM or by a 

non-BLM project proponent. Long- term guidance and plan direction is incorporated into BLM 

management as implementation level planning and project analysis occurs (for example, as a 

result of the watershed assessment process or receipt of a land use application). 

Priorities for implementation of "one-time" RMP decisions will be based on several criteria, 

including: 

• Current and projected resource needs and demands 

• National and Statewide BLM management direction and program emphasis and 

funding 

General Implementation Schedule of “One-Time” Actions

Decisions in this plan will be implemented over a period of years depending on budget and staff 

availability. After issuing the ROD/Approved Plan, BLM will prepare an Implementation Plan 

that establishes tentative timeframes for completion of “one-time” actions identified in the 

Approved Plan. Most of these actions require additional analysis and site specific activity 

planning. This schedule will not include the decisions which are effective immediately upon 

approval of the plan (usually allocations), or the actions which describe the ongoing management 

that will be incorporated and applied as site-specific proposals are analyzed on an ongoing basis. 
Vernal Approved Resource Management Plan 

62

This schedule will assist BLM managers and staff in preparing budget requests and in scheduling 

work. However, the proposed schedule must be considered tentative and will be affected by 

future funding, changing program priorities, non-discretionary workloads, and cooperation by 

partners and external publics. Periodic review of the plan will provide consistent tracking of 

accomplishments and provide information that can be used to develop annual budget requests to 

continue implementation. 

Maintaining the Plan 

Land use plan decisions and supporting information can be maintained to reflect minor changes 

in data, but maintenance is limited to refining, documenting, and/or clarifying previously 

approved decisions. Some examples of maintenance actions include: 

• Correcting minor data, typographical, mapping, or tabular data errors 

• Refining baseline information as a result of new inventory data (e.g., changing the 

boundary of an archaeological district, refining the known habitat of special status 

species or big game crucial winter ranges, or adjusting the boundary of a fire 

management unit based on updated fire regime condition class inventory, fire 

occurrence, monitoring data, and/or demographic changes) 

• Applying an existing oil and gas lease stipulation to a new area prior to the lease sale 

based on new inventory data (e.g., apply an existing protective stipulation for sagegrouse to a newly discovered sage-grouse lek). 

The BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, 

research, other agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data and/or support new 

management techniques, best management practices, and scientific principles. Adaptive 

management strategies may be used when monitoring data is available as long as the goals and 

objectives of the plan are met. Where monitoring shows land use plan actions or best 

management practices are not effective, minor modifications or adjustments may occur without 

amendment or revision of the plan as long as assumptions and impacts disclosed in the analysis 

remain valid and broad-scale goals and objectives are not changed. 

Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records. Plan maintenance does not require 

formal public involvement, interagency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making 

new land use plan decisions. 

Changing the Plan 

The Approved RMP may be changed, should conditions warrant, through a plan amendment or 

plan revision process. A plan amendment may become necessary if major changes are needed or 

to consider a proposal or action that is not in conformance with the plan. The results of 

monitoring, evaluation of new data, or policy changes and changing public needs might also 

provide the impetus for an amendment. Generally, an amendment is issue-specific. If several 

areas of the plan become outdated or otherwise obsolete, a plan revision may become necessary. 

Plan amendments and revisions are accomplished with public input and the appropriate level of 

environmental analysis conducted according to the Council on Environmental Policy procedure 

for implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. 
Vernal Approved Resource Management Plan 

63

D. PLAN EVALUATION 

Evaluation is a process in which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to see if management 

goals and objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. Land use plan 

evaluations determine if decisions are being implemented, whether mitigation measures are 

satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the related plans of other entities, whether 

there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions should be changed through 

amendment or revision. Monitoring data gathered over time is examined and used to draw 

conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, why. 

Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current 

management or to identify what changes need to be made in management practices to meet 

objectives. 

BLM will use land use plan evaluations to determine if the decisions in the RMP, supported by 

the accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid in light of new information and monitoring data. 

Evaluation of the RMP will generally be conducted every five years, unless unexpected actions, 

new in-formation, or significant changes in other plans, legislation, or litigation triggers an 

evaluation. The following estimated evaluation schedule will be followed for the Vernal Field 

Office RMP: 

• September 2013 

• September 2018 

• September 2023 

• September 2028 

Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H1601-1) or other appropriate guidance in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated. 

E. MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 

This section of the Approved RMP presents the goals and objectives, land use allocations, and 

management actions established for public lands managed by the BLM's Vernal Field Office. 

These management decisions are presented by program area. Not all types of decisions were 

identified for each program. For instance, only Goals and Objectives were identified in the 

Abandoned Mine Lands Section, and thus only Goals and Objectives are described in that 

section. A Monitoring Plan is provided in Appendix Q and describes for each program how the 

program management decisions will be tracked to ensure implementation 

Data used in development of the Approved RMP are dynamic. The data and figures used 

throughout the Approved RMP are for land use planning purposes and will be refined as sitespecific planning and on-the-ground implementation occurs. Updating data is considered plan 

maintenance which will occur over time as the RMP is implemented (see Section C of the 

Approved Plan). 

Note: All acreages presented in the Approved RMP are estimations, even when presented to the 

nearest acre. 
Vernal Approved Resource Management Plan 

64

This section organizes the resources in the same sequence as were Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27 of 

the Proposed RMP/EIS. For ease of identification into the future, each program area has an 

identified abbreviation and each decision in that program is numbered in coordination with the 

abbreviation. The following table lists the program name with its abbreviation: 

Management Common to All Decisions—MCA 

Abandoned Mine Lands—AML 

Air Quality—AQ 

Cultural Resources—CUL 

Fire and Fuels Management—FIRE 

Forage—FOR

Lands and Realty—LAR 

Livestock and Grazing—GRA 

Minerals and Energy Resources—MIN 

• Leasable Minerals—MLE 

• Locatable Minerals—MLO 

• Saleable Minerals and Mineral Materials—MSA

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics—WC 

Paleontological Resources—PAL 

Rangeland Improvements—RNI

Recreation Resources—REC 

• Special Recreation Management Area—SRMA 

• Trail Maintenance and Development—TMD 

Riparian Resources—RIP

Soil and Water Resources—SOLW 

Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern—ACEC 

Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers—WSR 

Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas—WSA 

Special Status Species—SSS 

Travel Management: Roads and Trails—TRC 

Vegetation—VEG 

Visual Resources Management—VRM 

Wild Horses—WHB 

Wildlife and Fisheries—WL 

Woodlands and Forest Resources—WDF

Figures depicting the management decisions are located behind the Approved RMP for easy 

reference. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Management Common to All Decisions 

65

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL DECISIONS (MCA)

Goals and Objectives: 

• BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Management, described below, apply to all resource programs and authorized 

activities: 

(1) Upland soils exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve site 

productivity, considering the soil type, climate, and landform. 

(2) Riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition. Stream channel 

morphology and functions are appropriate to soil type, climate, and landform. 

(3) Desired species, including native, threatened, endangered, and special-status 

species, are maintained at a level appropriate for the site and species involved. 

(4) The BLM will apply and comply with water quality standards established by the 

State of Utah (R317-2) and the Federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water 

Acts. Activities on BLM lands will support the designated beneficial uses 

described in the Utah Water Quality Standards (R317-2) for surface water and 

groundwater. 

• Joint monitoring and evaluation strategies will be implemented by the BLM and 

permittees to measure progress in accordance with BLM Utah Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management based on site-specific 

conditions. Site-specific conditions must be documented in order to warrant 

modification of prescriptions. 

• The BLM recognizes that not all activities authorized by implementation of the 

Approved RMP will comply with BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management. All authorized activities will require 

reclamation and rehabilitation actions to ensure sustainability and productivity of the 

site. 

• Assure that counties and others, such as Native American tribes whose interests might 

be affected have a sufficient opportunity for productive participation in the BLM’s 

planning and resource management decision-making. 

Management Decisions: 

Climate Considerations 

MCA-1 

The BLM will continue to regularly monitor and evaluate climatic and vegetative data. This data 

will be shared and compiled with other land managing agencies of the VPA. Using a cooperative 

and collaborative approach, should the analysis of such data reveal a substantial shift (either 

upward or downward) in both the timing and level of production of native rangelands, either 

planning-area-wide or on specific sites within the VPA, the BLM will initiate actions to ensure 

any permitted/allowed use of such resources will not adversely affect the long-term productivity 

of such areas. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Management Common to All Decisions 

66

Education, Interpretation, and Research 

MCA-2

The BLM will work with its partners, including local school districts and universities to develop 

a variety of opportunities to promote education, research, and interpretation on public lands. 

Fire, Drought, and Natural Disasters 

MCA-3

The BLM will coordinate Appropriate Management Responses (AMRs) with affected parties 

where natural resources may be impacted by fire, drought, insects and diseases, or natural 

disasters. A variety of emergency or interim actions may be necessary to minimize land health 

degradations, such as: 

• Increased mitigation measures to ensure reclamation 

• Limitations on energy field activities 

• Reduced forage allocations 

• Restrictions on recreational uses (see the Recreation section in MCA-4) 

• Reductions in the number of livestock 

• Changes to wildlife management (see the Wildlife Management section in MCA-4) 

MCA-4 

Current BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management

will be incorporated, as appropriate, across all resource programs as a minimum. Management 

prescriptions in the form of constraints to use, terms and conditions, and stipulations may be 

needed to sustain rangeland health and viability. Management prescriptions will consider the 

following: 

• Livestock Grazing – Use will be allowed in both quantity and timing that will not 

result in a downward shift in rangeland health. The BLM will work cooperatively to 

affect a grazing strategy specific to a grazing permittee’s individual grazing 

allotment(s), and make changes to the grazing authorizations as appropriate within the 

limits of the existing permit and in accordance with the grazing regulations. In the 

case of drought, the last recourse for the BLM will be to temporarily close the range, 

or portions of it, to livestock grazing. 

• Off Highway/Road Vehicles (OHV) – OHV use during period of prolonged dryness 

will be further restricted to existing routes; or, if site-specific conditions warrant, 

closure to OHVs will be implemented to minimize vehicle-induced injury or damage 

to rangeland and/or woodlands and forest and to minimize the potential of spark 

caused fires. 

• Recreation – During periods of prolonged dryness or drought, the BLM, in 

cooperation with local and state fire management agencies, will limit campfires to 

established fire rings or fully contained fires. The last resort will be to close the public 

lands to campfires of any kind. 

• Surface-disturbing Activities – These will be closely monitored to ensure compliance 

with authorizations/permits, conditions of approval, or terms and conditions. Actions 

minimizing new surface disturbance allowed by regulations, as well as actions 

insuring successful reclamation, will be of paramount concern. During periods of 

drought, the BLM will require additional actions such as changes to standard seed 

mix compositions, amounts of seed, and method of application. Methods to ensure 
Vernal Approved RMP – Management Common to All Decisions 

67

successful revegetation following disturbance may include hydro-mulching, 

installation of drip irrigators, or fencing to exclude ungulate grazing/browsing. 

• Wild Horse Management – Wild or feral horses will be gathered and removed. Forage 

allocation has been allocated until removal. 

• Wildlife Management – During periods of prolonged dryness or drought, to the extent 

that wildlife grazing ungulate populations cannot be sustained due to competition for 

water and available forage, the BLM will enter into discussions with the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) regarding herd numbers and overall 

management options to ensure that rangeland health is maintained and to address the 

effects of drought.

Integrated Pest Management 

MCA-5 

Appropriately manage noxious and invasive weeds and prevent introduction of new invasive 

species through the implementation of a comprehensive weed program per national guidance and 

local weed management plans, including coordination with partners; prevention and early 

detection; education; inventory and monitoring; and using the principles of integrated pest 

management. 

MCA-6 

All projects that involve ground-disturbing activities shall incorporate best management practices 

(BMPs) for control of weeds with an emphasis on prevention. 

MCA-7 

Use of pesticides and herbicides shall comply with the applicable federal and state laws. 

Pesticides and herbicides shall be used only in accordance with their registered uses and within 

limitations imposed by the Secretary of the Interior. 

MCA-8 

Prior to the use of pesticides, project proponents shall obtain from the Authorized Officer written 

approval of Pesticide Use Proposal, which is a plan showing the: 

• The type and quantity of material to be used 

• The pest(s) to be controlled 

• The method of application 

• The location of storage and disposal of containers 

• Any other information deemed necessary by the Authorized Officer 

Emergency use of pesticides shall be approved in writing by the Authorized Officer prior to use. 

In addition, within 24 hours of any pesticide application, a Pesticide Application Record must be 

completed. A similar procedure is required for the release of biological control agents. 

Management Prescriptions 

MCA-9 

The VPA includes a wide array of geographical landscapes and ecosystems. The expansive 

nature of the RMP mandates a broad scale of decision-making.
Vernal Approved RMP – Management Common to All Decisions 

68

Surface Stipulations Applicable to All Surface Disturbing Activities 

MCA-10 

Surface stipulations (including exceptions, modifications, and waivers) are found in Appendix K 

and will be applied to all land use authorizations, permits, and leases issued on BLMadministered lands. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Abandoned Mine Lands 

69

ABANDONED MINE LANDS (AML) 

Goals and Objectives: 

• In conformance with the BLM’s long-term strategies and National Policies regarding 

Abandoned Mine Lands (AML), this RMP recognizes the need to work with our 

partners toward identifying and addressing physical safety and environmental hazards 

at all AML sites on public lands. In order to accomplish this long-term goal, the 

following criteria will be established to assist in determining priorities for site and 

area mitigation and reclamation. 

• The criteria that will be used to establish physical safety hazard program priorities 

are: 

 AML physical safety program’s highest priority will be the cleaning up of 

those AML sites where: 

 A death or injury has occurred 

 The site is situated on or in immediate proximity to developed recreation 

sites and areas with high visitor use. 

 Upon formal risk assessment, a high or extremely high risk level is 

indicated. 

 AML will be factored into future recreation management area designations, 

land-use planning assessments, and all applicable use authorizations. 

 The site is presently listed or is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mine 

Land Inventory System (AMLIS). 

 AML hazards shall be, to the extent practicable, mitigated or remediated on 

the ground during site development. 

• The criteria used to establish water-quality-based AML program priorities are: 

 The state has identified the watershed as a priority based on: 

 One or more water laws or regulations 

 Threat to public health or safety 

 Threat to the environment 

 The project reflects a collaborative effort with other land managing agencies. 

• The project will be funded by contributions from collaborating agencies. 

• These priorities will be maintained and updated as needed in the state AML strategy. 

• The BLM Utah State Office will continue to consult and collaboratively work 

together with the State of Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM) 

concerning the Abandoned Mine Land program. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Air Quality 

70

AIR QUALITY (AQ)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Ensure that authorizations granted to use public lands and the BLM’s own 

management programs comply with and support applicable local, state, and federal 

laws, regulations, and implementation plans pertaining to air quality. 

Management Decisions: 

AQ-1 

Prescribed burns will be consistent with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) 

permitting process and timed to minimize smoke impacts. 

AQ-2 

The BLM is required to be in compliance with all local, state, federal and tribal air quality 

regulations and will do so with Utah regulations, including Utah Administrative Code (UAC) 

Regulations as determined applicable by the State of Utah. 

AQ-3 

The BLM will be in compliance with sections R307-205-3 and R307-205-4 of the UAC that deal 

with fugitive dust and offer some dust abatement mechanisms. 

AQ-4 

UAC R446-1, the best air quality control technology, provided by the Utah Division of Air 

Quality (UDAQ), will be applied as needed to meet air quality standards. 

AQ-5 

The BLM will comply with UAC Regulations R307-205-5 through R307-205-7, which prohibit 

the use, maintenance, or construction of roadways without taking appropriate dust abatement 

measures. Compliance will be obtained through special stipulations as a requirement on new 

projects and through the use of dust abatement control techniques in problem areas. 

AQ-6 

The BLM will comply with the current Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) between the BLM, USFS, and UDAQ. The MOA (in accordance with UAC regulation 

R446-1-2.4.4), requires reporting size, date of burn, fuel type, and estimated air emissions from 

each prescribed burn. 

AQ-7 

The BLM will continue to work cooperatively with state, federal, and tribal entities in 

developing air quality assessment protocols to address cumulative impacts and regional air 

quality issues. 

AQ-8 

The BLM will continue to work cooperatively with the Utah Airshed Group to manage emissions 

from wildland and prescribed fire activities. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Air Quality 

71

AQ-9 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are enforced by the Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (UDEQ-DAQ), with EPA oversight. Special 

requirements to reduce potential air quality impacts will be considered on a case-by-case basis in 

processing land use authorizations. 

AQ-10 

The BLM will utilize BMPs and site specific mitigation measures, when appropriate, based on 

site specific conditions, to reduce emissions and enhance air quality. Examples of these types of 

measures can be found in the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force Report of Mitigation Options, 

November 1, 2007. A copy of the State of Utah letter regarding air quality mitigation strategies 

may be found in Appendix O. 

 

AQ-11 

Project specific analyses will consider use of quantitative air quality analysis methods (i.e. 

modeling), when appropriate as determined by the BLM, in consultation with state, federal, and 

tribal entities. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Cultural Resources 

72

CULTURAL RESOURCES (CUL)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Preserve and protect a representative array of significant cultural resources, including 

but not limited to traditional cultural properties, traditional use areas, rock art, and 

ceremonial sites, and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present 

and future generations. 

• Preserve and protect cultural resources in accordance with existing laws, regulations, 

and Executive Orders (EO), in consultation with designated contacts from Native 

American tribes and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to ensure that they 

are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations. 

• Preserve and conserve cultural resources by conducting activities in a way that protect 

values and provide for the following benefits: 

 Conservation for future use 

 Education 

 Interpretation 

 Public use 

 Research 

Management Decisions: 

CUL-1 

Protect burial sites, associated burial goods, and sacred items in accordance with the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA). 

CUL-2 

Evaluate cultural resources according to National Register criteria (36 CFR Part 60.4) and assign 

cultural resources to appropriate use categories as the basis for management decisions. 

CUL-3 

Encourage public/volunteer involvement in the management of cultural resources by establishing 

site stewardship and other programs. 

CUL-4 

Specific plans will be developed for culturally sensitive areas unless included in other integrated 

activity plans. Such plans will include protective measures, Native American consultation, and 

regulatory compliance. These plans will also include but not be limited to: 

• Developing a site monitoring system 

• Identifying sites in need of stabilization, restoration, and protective measures (e.g., 

fences, surveillance equipment) 

• Developing research designs for selected sites/areas 

• Designating sites/areas for interpretive development 

• Identifying areas for cultural inventory where federal undertakings are expected to 

occur 

• Developing specific mitigation measures 
Vernal Approved RMP – Cultural Resources 

73

The plan will designate sites, districts, landmarks, and landscapes that will be nominated for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

CUL-5 

Limit land-disturbing activities within selected Native American traditional cultural and religious 

sites for continued use by tribes. Traditional cultural sites will be selected in consultation with 

interested Native American tribes and communities. 

CUL-6 

Consult with Native American tribes for the protection of areas and items of traditional life-ways 

and religious significance that includes but is not limited to burials, rock art, traditional use areas, 

religiously active areas, and sacred sites. 

CUL-7 

Pursue appropriate National Register designation, including but not limited to currently eligible 

sites under current policy and guidance. 

CUL-8 

Conduct an inventory according to professional standards commensurate with the land-use 

activity, environmental conditions, and the potential for cultural resources. 

CUL-9 

Proactively reduce hazardous fuels or mitigate the potential hazard around archaeological and 

cultural sites that are susceptible to destruction by fire from prescribed fire activities. 

CUL-10 

Conduct consultation process to identify both the resource management concerns and the 

strategies for addressing them through an interactive dialogue with appropriate Native American 

communities. 

CUL-11 

Reduce or eliminate imminent threats from natural or human-caused deterioration or conflict 

with other resource uses. 

CUL-12 

Identify priority geographic areas for new field inventory based upon a probability for 

unrecorded significant resources. 

CUL-13 

Ensure that all authorizations for land and resource use will comply with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, consistent with and subject to the goals and objectives 

identified at the beginning of this section for the proactive use of cultural properties in the public 

interest. 

CUL-14 

The BLM, in coordination with the appropriate county, will continue to identify, evaluate, and 

nominate historic routes for inclusion into the National Register of Historic Places. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Cultural Resources 

74

CUL-15 

When new sites are discovered, interim protection may be applied, if warranted. 

CUL-16 

Provide for legitimate field research by qualified scientists and institutions. 

CUL-17 

Allow for reconstruction, stabilization, maintenance, and interpretation of selected sites for 

public enjoyment and education. 

CUL-18 

Continue to implement, maintain, and revise as necessary the Nine Mile Canyon 

Recreation/Cultural Management Plan that includes developing interpretive facilities at 

appropriate archeological and cultural sites at Nine Mile Canyon in cooperation with the Price 

Field Office (PFO), the Nine Mile coalition team, and the counties. Promote collaborative 

partnerships to assist in meeting management goals and objectives for cultural resources. 

CUL-19 

Should National Register–eligible cultural resources be found during an inventory, impacts to 

them will be mitigated, generally through avoidance. If it is determined the cultural resources 

cannot be avoided; consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be 

initiated. A program on mitigation will be developed via consultation between VFO, the SHPO, 

and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 

CUL-20 

VFO will continue to allocate cultural sites, including ethnographic properties, to one of six 

management categories: 

• Conservation 

• Discharged 

• Experimental 

• Public 

• Scientific 

• Traditional 

CUL-21 

Implement regular patrols as feasible to monitor and protect known cultural sites. 

CUL-22 

Establish and implement protective measures for sites, structures, objects, and traditional use 

areas that are important to Native American tribes with historical and cultural connections to the 

land, in order to maintain the view shed, intrinsic values, and the auditory, visual, and aesthetic 

settings of the resources. Protection measures for undisturbed cultural resources and their natural 

setting will be developed in compliance with regulatory mandates and Native American 

consultation. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Cultural Resources 

75

CUL-23 

Nominate eligible sites, districts, landscapes, and traditional cultural properties for inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places. Manage National Register listed and eligible sites for 

their local, regional, and national significance. 

CUL-24 

On- and off-site interpretive facilities will be developed at appropriate archeological, historical, 

and cultural sites in a manner that will not adversely impact the site. 

John Jarvie Historic Site 

CUL-25 

Revise the 1989 plan for John Jarvie Historic Site to provide for: 

• Maintaining the integrity of the National Historic District through reconstruction, 

stabilization and restoration of important cultural features, and the elimination or 

separation of other features that are not culturally significant 

• Providing adequate protection and management of site 

• Managing the site for public education and enjoyment by developing educational and 

interpretive programs and keeping the site open for public viewing during normal 

visitor use periods 

Uinta Foothills Area 

CUL-26 

The Uinta Foothills area will be open for oil and gas leasing, subject to timing and controlled 

surface-use stipulations or No Surface Occupancy (NSO) to protect cultural sites that include 

lithic scatters, burials, tool manufacturing sites, structures, and rock shelters. 

CUL-27 

OHV travel in the Uinta Foothills area will be limited to designated routes to protect cultural 

sites that include lithic scatters, burials, tool manufacturing sites, structures, and rock shelters. 

Little Hole and Devils Hole Areas 

CUL-28 

The Little Hole and Devils Hole areas will be open for oil and gas leasing, subject to Controlled 

Surface Use (CSU) stipulations to protect cultural sites that include lithic scatters, burials, tool 

manufacturing sites, structures, and rock shelters. 

CUL-29 

OHV travel in the Little Hole and Devils Hole areas will be limited to designated routes to 

protect cultural sites that include lithic scatters, burials, tool manufacturing sites, structures, and 

rock shelters. 

Upper Willow Creek Area 

CUL-30 

The Upper Willow Creek area of the Book Cliffs will be open for oil and gas leasing, subject to 

timing limitations to protect crucial big game habitat and Controlled Surface Use (CSU) 
Vernal Approved RMP – Cultural Resources 

76

stipulations to protect high-density cultural sites that include pictographs, petroglyphs, burials, 

and storage crypts, and to preserve the unique representation of the Archaic Period of the area. 

CUL-31 

OHV travel in the Upper Willow Creek area of the Book Cliffs will be limited to designated 

routes to protect high-density cultural sites that include pictographs, petroglyphs, burials, and 

storage crypts and to preserve the unique representation of the Archaic Period of the area. 

Four Mile Wash Area 

CUL-32 

The Four Mile Wash area will be open for oil and gas leasing, subject to timing limitations to 

protect crucial big game habitat and Controlled Surface Use (CSU) or No Surface Occupancy 

(NSO) stipulations to protect traditional sacred properties. 

CUL-33 

OHV travel in the Four Mile Wash Area will be limited to designated routes to protect traditional 

sacred properties. 

Non-WSA Land with Wilderness Characteristics 

CUL-34 

Excavation of cultural sites in non-WSA lands that are managed for wilderness characteristics 

will be permitted when compatible with the goals and objectives for management of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Fire and Fuels Management 

77

FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT (FIRE)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Firefighter safety and public safety will be the first priority in every fire management 

activity. Property values and critical resource values will be the next priority. 

• The primary goal and objective of fire management is to help restore natural systems 

to their proper functioning condition by restoring fire to its legitimate role in the 

ecosystem, including managing wildland fire for other resource benefits. 

• For Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas, the objective will be to reduce hazardous 

fuels adjacent to these at-risk areas through mechanical, prescribed fire, or chemical 

treatments, or a combination thereof. The BLM will develop WUI Projects in 

partnership with the State of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, and Daggett, Duchesne, 

Uintah, and Grand Counties. 

Management Decisions: 

FIRE-1 

The BLM will attempt to restore natural fire regimes in fire dependent/adapted ecosystems 

primarily through the use of prescribed fire and managed wildland fire. Where social and/or 

resource constraints preclude or limit the use of fire, mechanical and/or chemical treatments will 

be used. 

FIRE-2 

The Fire Management Plan (FMP) has been updated and amended to meet the direction and 

objectives of the Approved RMP. The FMP has been revised to comply with the Interagency 

Template for Fire Management Plans and identifies Fire Management Units (FMUs) that 

describe the mix of management activities that can be used to meet the desired future conditions 

and land use objectives. 

 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

FIRE-3 

Following any wildland fire event, the BLM will select an Interdisciplinary Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R) team that will evaluate any burned areas to determine if 

ES&R treatments are needed. ES&R treatments will follow the procedures outlined in the BLM 

Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (H-1742-1, 02/12/2007). If 

the interdisciplinary team determines that ES&R treatments are necessary, the team will develop 

an ES&R plan with site-specific measures designed to minimize resource losses, both on-and 

off-site, following the wildfire. Consideration will be given to sensitive resource values in 

preparation of the ES&R plan, including WSAs, special emphasis areas, critical soils, cultural 

resources, and special status species habitat. ES&R treatments may include, but will not be 

limited to seeding, seedbed preparation practices, fencing, chemical applications, water retention 

structures, and control of livestock, and wildlife grazing. Site-specific ES&R plans will be tiered 

to the existing Normal Fire Year Rehabilitation Plan for the VPA. Criteria for developing ES&R 

actions are determining: 

• Areas where the risk of imminent soil loss is high 

• Areas that contain T&E Species or state sensitive species habitat 
Vernal Approved RMP – Fire and Fuels Management 

78

• Areas that contain municipal watersheds 

• Areas where there is a high potential for invasive species establishment 

Hazardous Fuels 

FIRE-4 

Hazardous fuel reduction activities will be implemented primarily through the use of prescribed 

fire and managed wildland fire. In some cases, chemical and/or mechanical treatments will be 

used in conjunction with fire. Where social and/or resource constraints preclude the use of fire, 

mechanical and/or chemical treatments will be used. 

FIRE-5 

Criteria for developing hazardous fuel reduction priorities will consist of the following: 

• Areas of Fire Regime Condition Class 2 and 3 

• Areas where the potential risk of losing keystone ecosystem species is present 

• Areas where threats to private/public property exist 

FIRE-6 

All fire-management planning activities will comply with the National Fire Plan, including the 

streamlined USFWS Section 7 Consultation procedures. 

FIRE-7 

Fire Management Categories (Figure 2a), Fire Regimes (Figure 3a), and Fire Condition Classes 

(Figure 4a) for the VPA have been designated and mapped. The Fire Management Plan (FMP) 

will be updated and amended to meet the direction of the Vernal RMP and adjusted to meet the 

Department of the Interior’s Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. 

FIRE-8 

In partnership with the State of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, and the counties, the BLM will 

develop WUI Projects. 

FIRE-9 

The VPA is divided into fire management categories. Fire suppression activities and the 

Appropriate Management Response (AMR) will be implemented through the guidance 

developed under the ABCD polygons as outlined in BLM Land-Use Planning Handbook (H1601-1). 

Criteria used in development of the categories were determined through an Interdisciplinary 

Team of resource specialists. Criteria for each category is described below: 

• Category A – Areas where unplanned fire is not desired at all. This category includes 

the salt desert shrub vegetation type where the risk of cheatgrass invasion is high 

following fire events. Also included are the major river corridors where fire results in 

the loss of Fremont cottonwood, a keystone species in present decline. Other 

constraints to fire management activities include cultural resource sites, high 

recreational use, and highly developed oil and gas fields. 

• Category B – Areas where unplanned fire is not desired because of current conditions. 

Prescribed fire use is allowed to obtain resource management objectives; 
Vernal Approved RMP – Fire and Fuels Management 

79

mechanical/chemical treatments will be utilized where social and/or resource 

constraints preclude the use of prescribed fire. This category includes the five 

identified WUI areas for the VFO, including adjacent urban interfaces, cultural 

resources, crucial deer winter range, and crucial Greater sage-grouse habitat. Within 

this habitat, Wyoming sagebrush is identified as a keystone species, which has been 

in a continual state of decline due to widespread drought and invasive species 

encroachment. 

• Category C – Areas where wildland fire is desired. Prescribed fire is allowed and may 

be extensive to obtain resource management objectives; mechanical/chemical 

treatments will be utilized where social and/or resource constraints preclude the use 

of prescribed fire. This category contains the pinyon-juniper vegetation type, along 

with aspen/Douglas fir, mountain browse, and non-crucial areas of sagebrush. Other 

constraints to fire management activities include a limited amount of oil and gas 

development, non-crucial Greater sage-grouse habitat, a limited amount of T&E 

species habitat, and a limited amount of cultural resources. 

• Category D – Areas where wildland fire is desired, and there are few or no constraints 

for its use. This category contains non-crucial Greater sage-grouse habitat, a limited 

amount of T&E species habitat, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and 

a limited amount of cultural resources. 

 Hazardous Fuel Targets Wildland 

Fire Use 

Targets 

Allowable 

Wildland Fire 

Acres Burned per 

Decade 

Category Prescribed 

Fire 

(acres) 

Mechanical

(acres) 

Chemical

(acres) Acres Acres 

A 1,000 5,000 5,000 0 2,100 

B 19,570 10,000 10,000 0 21,000 

C 82,738 20,000 20,000 75,000 151,500 

D 53,117 0 0 30,000 30,000 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 

FIRE-10 

WUI areas within the VFO area have been identified in the National Fire Plan Operations and 

Reporting System (NFPORS). These are communities/developed areas that are located within the 

vicinity of federal lands and are at risk from potential wildland fire events. Hazardous fuels 

adjacent to these at-risk areas will be reduced through mechanical, prescribed, or chemical fire or 

a combination of these treatments. The priority areas identified for WUI projects are Browns 

Park, Deadman Bench, Deep Creek, Diamond Mountain, and Dry Fork. 

Other 

FIRE-11 

Prescribed burning will be allowed for approximately 156,425 acres per decade. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Fire and Fuels Management 

80

FIRE-12 

The use of prescribed fire in non-WSA lands that are managed for wilderness characteristics will 

be permitted for forest, woodland, and vegetation treatments, and for reduction of fuels, when 

compatible with the goals and objectives for management of the areas. 

FIRE-13 

Fire lines and other surface disturbances will be rehabilitated following completion of the 

burning operation. 

FIRE-14 

Wildfire suppression operations will be permitted in non-WSA lands that are managed for 

wilderness characteristics. 

FIRE-15 

Fire lines and other surface disturbances will be rehabilitated following completion of 

suppression operations. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Forage 

81

FORAGE (FOR)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Maintain or improve the total forage resource using techniques that are compatible 

with the use and development of other resources and that will maintain, meet, or 

make substantial progress towards meeting BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management. 

Management Decisions: 

FOR-1 

Monitoring will be used in all localities to determine the amount of forage available for 

livestock, wildlife, and wild horses until the wild horses are gathered and removed. Results of 

monitoring will be used to adapt management strategies to prevent deterioration of rangelands, to 

achieve desired resource conditions, and to meet other resource objectives. 

FOR-2 

Any adjustment in forage assignments in all localities to either livestock or wildlife will be based 

on analysis of monitoring data, including long-term vegetation trend, actual use, climate, and 

utilization. Additionally forage will not be allocated in areas where forage production is less than 

25 pounds per acre, which equates to 32 acres per AUM. Areas that are seldom or never grazed 

by livestock due to physical factors such as slopes greater than 50% and areas that are in excess 

of four miles from water will not be included in the livestock forage allocation. An exception for 

areas in excess of four miles from water will be if water is hauled or the area will be grazed when 

snow is on the ground. Adjustments will involve permittees and will be implemented through 

documented mutual agreement or decision. 

FOR-3 

Increases or reductions for all localities associated with joint monitoring of base allocations will 

be evaluated against the established grazing permits and UDWR herd unit objectives to 

determine needed adjustments to animal numbers, adjustments in seasons of use, etc. Unless 

specified elsewhere in the plan, changes in forage allocation will be as follows: 

• When all other management options have been exhausted and it is determined that 

BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management

are not being met, reductions will be made to the species of grazing animal shown to 

be causing the problem. 

• If additional forage is determined to be available, it will be proportionally allocated to 

grazing animals according to their dietary need or will be allocated to watershed, 

riparian, or other resource values, unless specified elsewhere in the plan. 

• Increases in available forage resulting from conservation practices, improved range 

condition, or development of improvements by the livestock permittee, DWR, or 

other organizations, will be credited to that entity unless specified elsewhere in the 

plan. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Forage 

82

FOR-4 

Should a permittee apply for reinstatement of suspended use in all localities, it will only be 

considered if: 

• Adjustment of suspended use will follow policy, regulation, and guidelines 

• The allotment/s is/are being grazed at full permitted use in order to adequately assess 

the carrying capacity of the range resource. 

• Adequate monitoring data is in place to assess AUMs. 

• A signed agreement is in place that outlines at least a subsequent five-year monitoring 

protocol. 

FOR-5 

AUMs will be adjusted downward for livestock, wildlife, or wild horses (or any combination 

thereof) in all localities when monitoring shows that rangeland objectives are not being met and 

that the long-term forage availability is not adequate to support the permitted uses. 

FOR-6 

If it is determined through monitoring that livestock grazing in all localities is beneficial to other 

resource values, it will be allowed on 16 miles of river corridor along the Upper Green River in 

Browns Park following an adequate evaluation and assessment. If such use is allowed, it will be 

of short duration and will not detract from recreation and/or riparian values along the river. 

FOR-7 

Grazing preference is retired on the following allotments: 

• Marshall Draw 

• Red Creek Flat 

• Rye Grass 

• Sears Canyon 

• South Warren Draw 

• Taylor Flat 

• Watson 

Applications for livestock grazing will only be approved on a non-renewable, short duration 

basis following an adequate evaluation and assessment to determine if it will enhance wildlife 

values. 

FOR-8 

When the Approved RMP becomes effective, the active AUMs permitted to The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) (4,232) and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) (4,026) will be 

allocated to wildlife. Ranchers (grazing permittees) other than TNC and RMEF also have permits 

in the allotments where these AUMS are relinquished; they will continue to graze cattle in 

accordance with their permitted use. 

FOR-9 

Up to 50% utilization of forage on uplands for all localities will be allowed, unless otherwise 

specified by a management plan. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Forage 

83

FOR-10 

AUMs will be allocated for all localities as follows: 

• 138,402 AUMs for livestock 

• 104,865 AUMs for wildlife 

• 2,340 AUMs for wild horses 

Bonanza Locality 

FOR-11 

Sheep and/or cattle and pronghorn allocations will be reduced proportionately in the Bonanza 

locality if forage allocation reductions are needed to progress toward rangeland health. 

Pronghorn use will not be reduced below 502 AUMs. 

FOR-12 

If additional forage allocation is available, forage increases will be divided proportionately in the 

Bonanza locality between livestock and big game. Wildlife AUMs that are made available will 

go to pronghorn and deer. 

FOR-13 

The Bonanza Herd Area will not be managed for wild horses. 

FOR-14 

If forage allocation reductions are needed to progress toward rangeland health, sheep and/or 

cattle and pronghorn allocations in the Bonanza Herd Area will be reduced proportionately. 

Pronghorn use will not be reduced below 239 AUMs. 

FOR-15 

In the Bonanza locality if additional forage allocation is available, forage increases will be 

divided proportionately between sheep and wildlife. Wildlife AUMs that are made available will 

go to pronghorn and deer. 

Book Cliffs Locality 

FOR-16 

1,325 unallocated AUMs in the Book Cliffs locality that were acquired by acquisition of private 

lands (Cripple Cowboy) will be reserved for watershed. Although wildlife and livestock will not 

be excluded from utilizing these lands in the Book Cliffs locality, no additional AUMs will be 

allocated to wildlife or livestock. 

FOR-17 

*As a planning maintenance action, this decision was combined with FOR-16 in Dec. 2008. 

FOR-18 

The Winter Ridge Herd Area and Hill Creek Herd Management Area will not be managed for 

wild horses. Upon removal, the 2,340 AUMs no longer needed for wild horses will be allocated 

through a future planning process. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Forage 

84

FOR-19 

If monitoring shows that reductions are necessary because of wildlife and livestock conflicts, 

reductions in grazing use will be divided proportionately between livestock and big game in the 

Book Cliffs locality.

FOR-20 

In the Book Cliffs locality outside of the Winter Ridge Herd Area and Hill Creek Herd 

Management Area, additional forage in cattle allotments will be allocated as follows: 

• 60% of the additional forage will be allocated to reinstate suspended cattle AUMs and 

40% of the additional forage will be allocated for wildlife 

• After restoring all suspended AUMs, additional forage will be allocated 

proportionately between livestock and wildlife 

FOR-21 

In the Book Cliffs locality outside of the Winter Ridge Herd Area and Hill Creek Herd 

Management Area, additional forage in sheep allotments will be divided proportionately between 

sheep and big game. 

FOR-22 

In the Winter Ridge Herd Area and Hill Creek Herd Management Area, additional forage will be 

divided proportionately between livestock and big game. If big game does not need additional 

forage, it will be given to livestock. 

Blue Mountain Locality

FOR-23 

If monitoring indicates forage assignments cannot be met, then livestock permitted use and 

wildlife use will be reduced proportionately in the Blue Mountain locality. The first year 

livestock reductions will be made with an initial 10% adjustment. Five-year agreements will be 

developed and signed outlining the process for phased reductions to the desired level. 

FOR-24 

If in the Blue Mountain locality, additional AUMs are realized through management changes 

and/or livestock-oriented vegetation treatments will be divided proportionately between livestock 

and big game. 

Diamond Mountain Locality 

FOR-25 

If monitoring indicates forage assignments cannot be met, then livestock and wildlife use will be 

reduced proportionately in the Diamond Mountain locality. The first year livestock reductions 

will be made with an initial 10% adjustment. Five-year agreements will be developed and signed 

outlining the process for phased reductions to the desired level. 

FOR-26 

In the Diamond Mountain locality, additional AUMs will be provided as follows: 

• In the northern half of the Diamond Mountain locality (Diamond Mountain and 

Browns Park), additional AUMs will be provided to livestock until wildlife demands 

require them. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Forage 

85

• In the southern half of the Diamond Mountain locality (Ashley Valley and Myton 

Bench), forage increases will be divided proportionately between livestock and big 

game on non-crucial wildlife areas.
Vernal Approved RMP – Lands and Realty 

86

LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT (LAR)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Accommodate community growth and development when it is determined that it is in 

compliance with other goals and objectives of the plan. 

• Improve management opportunities for resource protection, resource development, or 

administration of public lands. 

• Process applications, permits, operating plans, mineral exchanges, leases, and other 

use authorizations for public lands in accordance with policy and guidance. 

• Manage public lands to support goals and objectives of other resources programs, 

respond to public requests for land use authorizations, and acquire administrative and 

public access where necessary. 

• Dispose of lands that are effectively unmanageable due to size, location, etc. 

• Acquire lands that will enhance management objectives of this RMP. 

• Give land exchanges with the State of Utah priority consideration to resolve inholding 

issues. 

• Grant the State of Utah reasonable access to state lands for economic purposes, on a 

case-by-case basis, as per the State of Utah v. Andrus, October 1, 1979 (Cotter 

Decision). 

 

Management Decisions: 

LAR-1 

Consider new major communication sites on an as-needed basis. 

LAR-2 

Acquisitions, exchanges, easements, or disposals will be considered, using Land Tenure 

Adjustment (LTA) criteria on a case-by-case basis, between willing buyers and sellers. 

LAR-3 

The BLM will retain lands within its administrative jurisdiction, except where necessary to 

accomplish one or more of the following objectives: 

• Improve management of natural resources through consolidation of federal, state and 

private lands 

• Secure key property necessary to protect special status species including threatened 

and endangered species, promote biological diversity, increase recreational 

opportunities, and preserve archaeological, paleontological and historical resources 

LAR-4 

Implement specific acquisitions authorized by Acts of Congress by acquiring minimal nonfederal lands or interest in lands. 

LAR-5 

When opportunities occur, acquire isolated tracts of non-federal land from willing sellers within 

special management areas to consolidate ownership and eliminate non-federal in-holdings. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Lands and Realty 

87

LAR-6 

The following criteria will be used when evaluating proposed land use authorizations: 

• Land use authorizations will not be approved in any designated exclusion areas. 

• Land use authorizations in avoidance areas may be authorized provided they are 

considered consistent with the current management objectives; those that are not will 

either be rejected or will necessitate a plan amendment prior to approval. 

• Habitat for listed T&E species will be retained in federal ownership. Exceptions may 

be considered in exchanges with the State of Utah and others with consultation and 

concurrence with the USFWS. 

Disposals 

LAR-7 

Public lands within the VFO will be considered for disposal through methods such as sale, 

exchange, state indemnity selection, Airport and Airway Improvement Act, Color-of-Title Act, 

State Selections under the Enabling Act, Recreation and Public Purpose Act patent, other lesserused authorities, or as directed by special legislation. 

LAR-8 

All disposal actions will be coordinated with adjoining landowners, local governments, and 

current land users. Approximately 33,359 acres of public lands for disposal are identified on 

Figure 6a and Appendix S. Any lands to be disposed of by sale will follow the regulations found 

in FLPMA Section 203 and will require a plan amendment. 

Easements 

LAR-9 

Acquire public access to approximately 70,700 public acres for recreational purposes in the 

following areas: 

• High Priority: Allen Draw, Ashley Creek drainages, Jackson Draw, Moon Shine 

area, Nine Mile, Red Mountain, Red Mountain East and West, Spring Creek, Warren 

Draw, White River, Wild Mountain-South Pot Creek. 

• Moderate Priority: Argyle Ridge, Ashley Creek Recreation Site, Blue Mountain, 

Dead Horse Draw, Horseshoe Bend, Hoy Mountain, Jensen Canyon, and Little Sulfur 

Canyon. 

• Low Priority: East Nine Mile Canyon, Marshall Draw, Sears Canyon, and West 

Little Mountain. 

Exchanges/Acquisitions 

LAR-10 

Public lands will be considered for disposal by exchange provided the exchange will result in 

more efficient federal management of the public lands. Land exchanges will be based on fair 

market value determined for the federal and non-federal lands as defined in Uniform Appraisal 

Standards for Federal Acquisitions and by current BLM policy. 

LAR-11 

Non-federal lands (42,550 acres) will be considered for acquisition through exchange of suitable 

public land on a case-by-case basis where acquisition of the non-federal lands will contain 

resource values equal to or greater than the public lands being exchanged (see Figure 6a). 
Vernal Approved RMP – Lands and Realty 

88

LAR-12 

Exchanges with the State of Utah will be given a priority consideration. There are a significant 

number of state land sections administered by the School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration (SITLA) scattered throughout the RMP area. Many of these state lands are inholdings located within designated resource management areas identified in this RMP. SITLA 

has indicated their desire to exchange SITLA lands within these BLM management areas for 

BLM-administered lands elsewhere in the RMP area. The BLM recognizes the opportunity for 

mutually beneficial land tenure adjustments and will apply the RMP Land Tenure Adjustment 

Criteria. 

LAR-13 

Non-federal lands to be acquired through both Bureau- and public-initiated exchanges must be in 

the public interest and have at least one of the following characteristics: 

• Acquisition will facilitate access to public lands and resources and/or contribute to a 

more efficient and manageable land ownership pattern. 

• Acquisition will facilitate implementation of the RMP management actions. 

• Acquisition of the non-federal lands will maintain or enhance public uses and values, 

with priority given to acquiring riparian/wetlands; lands with high recreation use 

and/or wildlife values; sensitive plant or animal habitat; and lands with significant 

cultural sites and/or paleontological localities or within other special designations. 

• Acquisitions that will meet other conditions pursuant to FLPMA Section 206 or 43 

CFR 2200. 

LAR-14 

Acquired lands will be managed in accordance with management objectives identified for 

adjacent lands unless resource considerations require a plan amendment. 

Fencing Requirements for Paved Highways 

LAR-15 

All applications to pave routes will be evaluated in site-specific NEPA analysis to determine the 

need for fencing. 

Land Access 

LAR-16 

Public access to the White River will be pursued at the mouth of Cowboy Canyon, Bonanza 

Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road. 

LAR-17 

An easement for the old Uintah Railroad bed from the Utah /Colorado line to Watson along 

Evacuation Creek will not be pursued. 

LAR-18 

Acquisition of Indian trust lands in Bitter Creek and Willow Creek will be pursued if the Ute 

Indian Tribe is willing. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Lands and Realty 

89

LAR-19 

Acquisition of Indian trust lands near the confluence of South and Sweetwater Canyon will be 

pursued if the Ute Indian Tribe is willing. 

Land Tenure Adjustments (LTAs) 

LAR-20 

Land ownership changes will be considered on lands not specifically identified in the Approved 

RMP (Figure 6a) for disposal or acquisition if the changes are in accordance with resource 

management objectives and other RMP decisions, determined to be in the public interest, and 

will accomplish one or more of the following criteria: 

• The changes are determined to be in the public interest. The public will benefit from 

land resources coming into public ownership, while at the same time accommodating 

the needs of local and state governments, including the needs for public purposes, 

community growth and the economy. 

• The changes result in a gain of important manageable resources on public lands such 

as crucial wildlife habitat, significant cultural sites, mineral resources, water sources, 

listed species by habitat, or areas key to productive ecosystems. 

• The changes ensure public access to lands in areas where access is needed and cannot 

otherwise be obtained. 

• The changes will promote more effective management and meet essential resource 

objectives through land ownership consolidation. 

• The changes result in acquisition of lands that serve regional or national priorities 

identified in applicable policy directives or legislation. 

LAR-21 

If one or more of the above criteria (see LAR-20) are not met, proposed land ownership changes 

outside of designated transfer areas will not be approved or will require a plan amendment unless 

it was determined to be in the best interests of the affected landowners and the public. 

LAR-22 

Non-federal lands located within sensitive areas will be acquired through donation, purchase, or 

land exchange. Land acquisitions will be negotiated from willing landowners. 

LAR-23 

Acquire fee title or interest in non-federal lands with priority placed on lands with critical 

resource values (e.g., water rights, scenic easements, Greater sage-grouse leks). 

LAR-24 

No lands acquired through land tenure adjustments will be classified or opened for agricultural 

entry or leasing in the RMP planning area. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

LAR-25 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics will be retained in federal ownership (106,178 

acres). 
Vernal Approved RMP – Lands and Realty 

90

LAR-26 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics will be managed as Rights-Of-Way avoidance 

areas. 

Other Methods of Acquisition 

LAR-27 

In addition to acquiring non-federal lands through land exchanges, VFO will acquire lands by 

direct purchase utilizing programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 

when funding is available, donation, or legal settlement. Such land will be vested in the U.S. in 

perpetuity unless otherwise directed by Bureau or Congressional policy. 

Recreation and Public Purpose Act (R&PP) 

LAR-28 

Lands conveyed to state or local governments or non-profit organizations under the Recreation 

and Public Purpose Act (R&PP) Act may include those identified in LTAs. In addition, requests 

for lands other than those identified will be considered for disposal provided the proposed use 

will provide a greater public benefit than that which the current management provides, and that 

the action is otherwise consistent with this RMP. Examples may include, but are not limited to 

local government or non-profit recreational and public purpose facilities such as public shooting 

ranges, landfills, motocross, and racetracks.

LAR-29 

All Recreation & Public Purposes (R&PP) lease areas will be unavailable for leasing or open to 

leasing subject to major constraints such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations. 

Rights-of-Way (ROWs)/Easements 

LAR-30 

All future ROW applications involving projects that are less than the major project thresholds 

described above will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Future ROWs will be consolidated in 

corridors where reasonable and economically feasible. 

LAR-31 

Future ROWs that cross the Lower or Upper Green River will be placed in the Four Mile Bottom 

Area or at the Head of Little Swallow Canyon. 

LAR-32 

Generally, future ROWs will be located adjacent to existing routes and within existing R/W 

granted routes, when facilities are compatible, as much as possible. 

LAR-33 

Easements will be acquired from willing landowners to gain access to public lands. 

LAR-34 

Lands are also available for major water development ROWs on a case-by-case basis with 

special restrictions depending on the scope of the project and resource concerns identified during 

the processing of any project proposal in compliance with NEPA. Major ROW projects such as 
Vernal Approved RMP – Lands and Realty 

91

hydroelectric dam and wind farm ROWs may be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the project 

is consistent with the goals and objectives or other land management prescriptions. If it is not in 

compliance with the land management prescriptions, then it will require a plan amendment. 

LAR-35 

Authorization of any right-of-way for wind or solar energy will incorporate BMPs as applicable 

and provisions contained in the Final Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) (June 24, 2005) and the joint PEIS. 

Sales 

LAR-36 

Any lands to be disposed of by sale that are not identified in this RMP will require a plan 

amendment. Land sales will reserve all minerals as required by FLPMA except where sale of the 

mineral interests will not be consistent with the requirements of Section 209 FLPMA. 

LAR-37 

If the public lands have no known mineral values, the mineral estate will be disposed of pursuant 

to the authority of Section 209(b) of FLPMA. 

LAR-38 

In instances where the surface estate is already in private ownership and the mineral estate is 

reserved to the U.S., the surface owner may purchase the reserved mineral estate, provided that 

the criteria under 43 CFR 2720 are met. 

LAR-39 

Lands identified for consideration for disposal will be used for a variety of other authorized 

activities, based on the need for future community growth and development. 

Transportation/Utility Corridors 

LAR-40 

This Approved RMP is consistent with existing right-of-way (ROW) corridors, including the 

Western Utility Group (WUG) updates to the Western Regional Corridor Study (Figure 6a), and 

will designate additional corridors subject to physical barriers, and sensitive resource values. 

Sensitive resource values include, but are not limited to: 

• ACECs 

• Areas possessing high scenic quality 

• Cultural and paleontological resources 

• Riparian areas 

• Sensitive soils 

• Threatened and endangered species habitat 

LAR-41 

These approved transportation/utility corridors are the preferred location for future major linear 

ROWs which meet the following criteria: 

• Pipelines with a diameter greater than 20 inches 

• Transmission lines (not distribution) with a voltage capacity of 69 kV or greater 
Vernal Approved RMP – Lands and Realty 

92

• Paved routes or routes consisting of more than two lanes 

• Significant canals, ditches, or conduits requiring a permanent width greater than 50 

feet 

LAR-42 

Major linear ROWs meeting the above thresholds that are proposed outside of the preferred, 

designated corridors may require a plan amendment.

LAR-43 

The Vernal Approved RMP will be consistent with decisions identified in the Westwide Energy 

Corridor (WWEC) PEIS/ROD. 

Trespass Resolution 

LAR-44 

Intentional trespass resolution will be limited to removal and /or restoration as appropriate. 

Unintentional trespass resolution may include: 

• Authorization under ROW grant, commercial/agricultural lease, or permit 

• Disposal of the affected land through sale or exchange 

• Removal, depending on the nature of the trespass 

LAR-45 

In all such trespass cases, administrative costs incurred by the BLM for investigating and 

resolving trespasses will be collected. All trespass incidents resolved by issuance of ROW 

grants, leases, or permits will be subject to payment by the holder/lessee/permittee of rent based 

on market value. Trespass cases resolved by land sales will be based on fair market value, and 

land exchanges will be completed on an equal value basis. 

Withdrawals 

LAR-46 

Review existing withdrawals and classifications on BLM-administered lands on a case-by-case 

basis to determine their need and consistency with the intent of the withdrawals in accordance 

with section 204(l) of FLPMA, and recommend continuing, modifying, or terminating as 

applicable (Figure 6a). 

LAR-47 

Any lands becoming unencumbered by withdrawals or classifications will be managed according 

to the decisions made in this RMP. If the RMP has not identified management prescriptions for 

these lands, they will be managed in a manner consistent with adjacent or comparable public 

lands within the VPA. If the unencumbered lands fall within two or more management scenarios 

where future-planning criteria may not be clear, a plan amendment may be required. 

LAR-48 

The following areas are recommended for locatable mineral withdrawal: 

• Book Cliffs Mountain Browse Instant Study Area (400 acres) 

• Green River Scenic Corridor in Browns Park (8,208 acres) 

• Lears Canyon relict vegetation areas (1,375 acres) 
Vernal Approved RMP – Lands and Realty 

93

• White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (6,720 acres) 

• White River SRMA (2,831 acres) 

• Developed and potential recreation sites (5,000 acres) 
Vernal Approved RMP – Livestock and Grazing 

94

LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT (GRA)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Achieve appropriate utilization of the range by livestock and wildlife through 

management prescriptions and administrative adjustments. 

Management Decisions: 

Criteria for Changing Class of Livestock 

GRA-1 

Requests from permittees to convert class of livestock will be handled as follows: 

• On crucial deer winter ranges, cattle are preferred. 

• In areas where fencing will be required, conversion will be contingent upon signed 

fence agreement and fences will be in place prior to issuance of permit to graze. The 

applicant(s) requesting the conversion will be responsible to fund the fencing and 

cattle guards/gates and to construct and maintain fences. (Consistent with Vernal 

District Grazing Advisory Board and Vernal BLM joint Rangeland Improvement (RI) 

Policy dated 12/08/1992). 

• In areas where grazing will be along paved routes, evaluate and determine the need 

for fencing. Applicants will be required to fence the road if it is determined necessary 

to protect human and livestock health and safety. 

• Areas with riverine/lotic systems may require additional management actions such as, 

but not limited to, fencing of streams. 

• Prior to the authorization of any livestock conversions in WSAs, the impacts from 

any necessary rangeland improvements projects will be assessed. Conversions in 

WSAs will be made in compliance with H-8550-1 Interim Management Plan (IMP) 

Chapter 3 Guidelines for Specific Activities. The IMP is to direct activities within the 

WSAs until such time as Congress acts on the WSA designations. 

Grazing in River Corridors 

GRA-2 

As opportunities arise, such as voluntary relinquishment, consider changes to livestock use to 

assure management objectives are met. 

GRA-3 

Where livestock conflicts with other uses of the river, mitigate through management or other 

actions. 

GRA-4 

Identify criteria for acceptable levels of livestock grazing use along river bottoms (see Riparian 

Resources decision). 

GRA-5 

If grazing is causing resource degradation, to the extent that BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management are not being met and progress is not being 

made, monitoring data show that livestock grazing is the most significant factor, and all other 
Vernal Approved RMP – Livestock and Grazing 

95

options have been exhausted, close those riparian areas that do not satisfactorily respond to 

changes in management. 

Nine Mile Acquired Area 

GRA-6 

Lands acquired by acquisition of properties in the Nine Mile Acquired Area will not be grazed to 

enhance riparian and watershed values. 

Relinquishment of Preference 

GRA-7 

Voluntary relinquishments of grazing permits and preference, in whole or in part, by a permittee 

in writing to the BLM will be handled on a case-by-case basis. The BLM will not recognize as 

valid, relinquishments which are conditional on specific BLM actions and the BLM will not be 

bound by them. Relinquished permits and the associated preference will remain available for 

application by qualified applicants after the BLM considers if such action will meet BLM Utah 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management and is compatible 

with achieving LUP goals and objectives. Prior to re-issuance of the relinquished permit, the 

terms and conditions may be modified to meet LUP goals and objectives and/or site-specific 

resource objectives. 

GRA-8 

However, upon relinquishment, the BLM may determine through a site-specific evaluation and 

associated NEPA analysis, that the public lands involved are better used for other purposes. 

Grazing may then be discontinued on the allotment through an amendment to the existing LUP 

or a new LUP effort. Any decision issued concerning discontinuance of livestock grazing is not 

permanent and may be reconsidered and changed through future LUP amendments and updates. 

GRA-9 

Prior to approving changes in permitted seasons of use, the following will be mandatory: 

• Compliance with the standards for range management (see BLM Utah Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management) 

• Preparation, signature, and implementation of a monitoring plan 

• Signature of permittee accepting the grazing management practices determined 

necessary by the Authorized Officer to approve the change 

• Agreement by permittee to management practices that provide for the physiological 

requirements of desired plants 

GRA-10 

Requests from a permittee to change seasons of use will be a priority if all of the following 

criteria were met: 

• Changes enhance or meet resource objectives contained in the Vernal RMP 

• Allotment(s) are scheduled for assessment the same year a request is made 

• Funding for the assessment is voluntarily provided by sources other than the BLM 

GRA-11 

Develop management plans and/or grazing agreements for livestock allotments to allow 

flexibility in grazing management which may include consolidation of allotments, change in 
Vernal Approved RMP – Livestock and Grazing 

96

seasons of use, and reduction and/or consolidation of grazing allotments and pastures (Figure 

7a). 

GRA-12 

Until all wild horses have been removed, livestock permittees with allotments within Herd 

Management Areas will be required to have a current health certificate, including documentation 

of annual vaccinations for infectious diseases for all horses, mules, or burros used in their 

grazing operation. 

Seasons of Use 

GRA-13 

Livestock grazing will be allowed under the discretion of the VFO in Area 1. 

GRA-14 

Livestock grazing will be allowed from 6/1 through 10/31 or 5/1 with a deferment in Area 2. 

GRA-15 

Livestock grazing will be allowed from 5/1 through 12/31 in Area 3. 

GRA-16 

Livestock grazing will be allowed from 5/1 through 6/1 in Area 4.

GRA-17 

Livestock grazing will be allowed from 5/1 through 6/1 and 10/1 through 2/28 in Area 5. 

GRA-18 

Livestock grazing will be allowed from 10/1 through 4/1 or 5/1 with a deferment in Area 6. 

GRA-19 

Livestock grazing will be allowed from 4/1 through 5/31 and/or 9/1 through 10/31 in Area 7. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Minerals and Energy 

97

MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES (MIN): LEASABLE MINERALS (MLE), 

LOCATABLE MINERALS (MLO), AND SALEABLE MINERALS AND MINERAL 

MATERIALS (MSA)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Meet local and national non-renewable and renewable energy and other public 

mineral needs. 

• Support a viable long-term mineral industry related to energy development while 

providing reasonable and necessary protections to other resources. 

• The following principles will be applied: 

 Encourage and facilitate the development by private industry of public land 

mineral resources in a manner that satisfies national and local needs and 

provides for economical and environmentally sound exploration, extraction 

and reclamation practices. 

 Process applications, permits, operating plans, mineral exchanges, leases, and 

other use authorizations for public lands in accordance with policy and 

guidance. 

 Monitor salable and leasable mineral operations to ensure proper resource 

recovery and evaluation, production verification, diligence, and inspection and 

enforcement of contract sales, common use areas, community pits, free use 

permits, leases and prospecting permits. 

• The plan will recognize and be consistent with the National Energy Policy by: 

 Recognizing the need for diversity in obtaining energy supplies 

 Conserving sensitive resource values 

 Improving energy distribution opportunities 

Management Decisions: 

Mineral and Energy Resources (MIN)

MIN-1 

In accordance with an UDEQ-DAQ letter dated June 6, 2008, (see Appendix O requesting 

implementation of interim nitrogen oxide control measures for compressor engines) the BLM 

will require the following as a Lease Stipulation and a Condition of Approval for Applications 

for Permit to Drill: 

• All new and replacement internal combustion oil and gas field engines of less than or 

equal to 300 design-rated horsepower must not emit more than 2 grams of NOx per 

horsepower-hour. This requirement does not apply to oil and gas field engines of less 

than or equal to 40 design-rated horsepower. 

• All new and replacement internal combustion oil and gas field engines of greater than 

300 design rated horsepower must not emit more than 1.0 gram of NOx per 

horsepower-hour. 

MIN-2 

Mineral and energy resource exploration and development surface-disturbing activities will be 

allowed in the VPA unless precluded by other program prescriptions. The stipulations identified 

for surface-disturbing activities in Appendix K will generally apply to these activities. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Minerals and Energy 

98

Alternative Energy 

MIN-3 

The plan will recognize the opportunity for alternative energy development such as wind, solar, 

and geothermal. BMPs will be developed from PEISs such as ones completed or initiated for 

wind and solar energy. 

MIN-4 

Individual alternative energy proposals will be evaluated based on conformance with other 

program goals and objectives stated in the plan. 

Light and Sound 

MIN-5 

The BLM will seek to minimize light and sound pollution within the VPA using the best 

available technology such as installation of multi-cylinder pumps, hospital sound-reducing 

mufflers, and placement of exhaust systems to direct noise away from noise sensitive areas (e.g., 

sensitive habitat, campgrounds, river corridors, and Dinosaur National Monument). Light 

pollution will be mitigated by using methods such as limiting height of light poles, timing of 

lighting operations (meaning limiting lighting to times of darkness associated with drilling and 

work over or maintenance operations), limiting wattage intensity, and constructing light shields. 

If a determination is made that natural barriers or view sheds will meet these mitigation 

objectives, the above requirements may not apply. 

Oil and Gas 

MIN-6 

Approximately 53,111 acres within the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge will be closed to oil and 

gas leasing. 

MIN-7 

Mitigation of oil and gas impacts developed under the Approved RMP and applied to leases 

issued after the date of this RMP in the form of stipulations will adhere to the BLM’s standard 

format. Stipulations necessary to protect the resource will contain provisions/criteria to allow for 

the waiver, exception, or modification of the stipulation if warranted. 

MIN-8 

The Approved RMP will provide for a variety of oil and gas operations and geophysical 

explorations. These activities will be allowed in the VPA unless precluded by other program 

prescriptions. The stipulations identified for surface-disturbing activities in Appendix K will 

generally apply to these activities. 

MIN-9 

Approximately 188,500 acres of split estate lands (federal minerals-Tribal surface) within the 

Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation are included in the acreage 

figures found in the Oil and Gas Section. Further consultation with the Ute Indian Tribe resulted 

in identification of stipulations for the Hill Creek Extension. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Minerals and Energy 

99

MIN-10 

Approximately 750,131 acres will be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the 

standard lease form. 

MIN-11 

Approximately 890,280 acres will be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints, such as 

TLs and CSU. 

MIN-12 

Approximately 86,789 acres will be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as No 

Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations. 

MIN-13 

Approximately 190,434 acres will be unavailable for leasing. 

MIN-14 

No geophysical exploration will be allowed in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

except that hand-carried geophone lines will be permitted. 

Combined Hydrocarbon Areas/Special Tar Sand Areas 

MIN-15 

Management decisions regarding combined hydrocarbon areas/special tar sand areas are deferred 

to the PEIS that is being prepared. 

Leasable Minerals (MLE)

Gilsonite and Phosphate 

MLE-1 

36,846 acres along 172 miles of Gilsonite veins will be available for prospecting, leasing, and 

development of Gilsonite (additional veins located through field study or prospecting not shown 

on Figure 9a will also be available if such are within "open" category lands). 

MLE-2 

76,208 acres will be open to phosphate prospecting, leasing, and development with standard and 

special stipulations within the phosphate occurrence areas. 

Locatable Minerals (MLO)

MLO-1 

Operations on lands open to mineral entry (as well as on claim locations that pre-date 

withdrawal) must be conducted in compliance with the 43 CFR 3809 and 3715 regulations. The 

three level of operations under these regulations include casual use, notice and, plan of operation. 

A plan will have to be filed for operations usually conducted under notice in: 

• Areas in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and areas designated for 

potential addition to the system 

• Designated ACECs 

• Areas designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System and 

administered by the BLM 
Vernal Approved RMP – Minerals and Energy 

100

• Areas designated as “closed” to OHV use as defined in 43 CFR 8340-5 

• Any lands or waters known to contain federally proposed or listed threatened or 

endangered species or their proposed or designated crucial habitat 

• National Monuments and National Conservation Areas administered by the BLM; see 

43 CFR 3809.11(c) 

• A plan must be submitted for any bulk sampling of 1,000 tons or more of presumed 

ore for testing (see 43 CFR 3809.11(b)). 

Saleable Minerals and Mineral Materials (MSA)

MSA-1 

All existing mineral material sites will be evaluated to determine continual need and to ensure 

that they are accommodating user needs. 

MSA-2 

Mineral material common use areas, community pits, free-use permits, competitive and noncompetitive contract sales, and testing and sampling of mineral materials may be authorized by 

the BLM in “open” areas. 

MSA-3 

389,788 acres will be available for mineral material disposal with standard and special 

stipulations. 

MSA-4 

Close non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to the disposal of mineral materials 

(106,178 acres). 
Vernal Approved RMP – Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

101

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS (WC)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Protect, preserve, and maintain the wilderness characteristics (i.e., appearance of 

naturalness, outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation or 

solitude) of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (see Figure 12a). 

• Manage these primitive and backcountry landscapes for their undeveloped character 

and provide opportunities for primitive recreational activities and experiences of 

solitude. 

Management Decisions: 

WC-1 

Approximately 106,178 acres will be managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

for the following areas: 

• Beach Draw 

• Bourdette Draw 

• Bull Canyon 

• Cold Spring Mountain 

• Daniels Canyon 

• Dead Horse Pass 

• Diamond Breaks 

• Diamond Mountain 

• Lower Flaming Gorge 

• Moonshine Draw 

• Mountain Home 

• Stuntz Draw 

• Vivas Cake Hill 

• White River 

• Wild Mountain 

WC-2 

The 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics will be managed with the 

following common prescriptions: 

• VRM Category II 

• Closed to oil and gas leasing, except for the White River area which will be open to 

leasing, subject to major constraints, (NSO) 

• Closed to solid mineral leasing 

• Closed to disposal of mineral materials 

• Closed to woodland product harvest 

• Avoidance area for rights-of-way 

• OHVs will be limited to designated routes, except for the upper portion of the Lower 

Flaming Gorge wilderness characteristics area, which will be closed. 

• No motorized vehicles will be allowed to travel on a single path up to 300 feet from 

designated routes to access a camp. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

102

• Retain public lands in federal ownership 

WC-3 

When compatible with the goals and objectives for management of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics: 

• Permit vegetation and fuel treatments using prescribed fire, mechanical and chemical 

treatments, and other actions compatible with the Healthy Lands Initiative (HLI). 

• Permit construction of wildlife water and livestock facilities, and minimal recreation 

facilities.
Vernal Approved RMP – Paleontological Resources 

103

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES (PAL)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Locate, evaluate, and manage paleontological resources, and protect them where 

appropriate. 

• Facilitate suitable scientific, educational, and recreational uses of fossils. 

• Ensure that significant fossils are not inadvertently damaged, destroyed, or removed 

from public ownership as a result of surface disturbance or land exchanges. 

• Foster public awareness and appreciation of the area’s paleontological heritage. 

Management Decisions: 

PAL-1 

Recreational collectors may collect and retain reasonable amounts of common invertebrate and 

plant fossils for personal, non-commercial use. Surface disturbance must be negligible, and 

mechanized tools will not be used. 

PAL-2 

Vertebrate fossils may be collected only under a permit issued to qualified individuals. 

Vertebrate fossils include bones, teeth, eggs, and other body parts of animals with backbones 

such as dinosaurs, fish, turtles, and mammals. Vertebrate fossils also include trace fossils, such 

as footprints, burrows and dung. 

PAL-3 

Fossils collected under a permit remain the property of the federal government and must be 

placed in a suitable repository (such as a museum or university) identified at the time of permit 

issuance. 

PAL-4 

Lands identified for disposal or exchange will be evaluated to determine whether such actions 

will remove significant fossils from federal ownership. In areas where surface disturbance, either 

initiated by the BLM or by other land users, may threaten significant fossils, the BLM will 

follow its policy (see the Paleontological Resource Management Handbook H-8270-1) to assess 

any threat and mitigate damage. 

PAL-5 

The BLM will work with local communities, interest groups, individuals, and other agencies to 

enhance the public’s understanding and enjoyment of paleontological resources. 

PAL-6 

Where scientifically significant fossils are threatened by natural hazards or unauthorized 

collection, the BLM will work with permittees and other partners to salvage specimens and 

reduce future threats to resources at risk. 

PAL-7 

Implement regular patrols as feasible to protect areas where unauthorized use may occur. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Paleontological Resources 

104

PAL-8 

Modify the existing General Agreement between the VFO, the NPS, the Vernal Field House of 

Natural History, and the Friends of Paleontology Chapter to encourage protection of 

paleontological resources planning-area wide. The modified agreement will ensure proper 

storage and curation of paleontological resources and include methods to promote interpretation 

and education. 

PAL-9 

Areas with significant fossils will be identified through predictive modeling and broad-scale 

sampling. Assessment and mitigation will be required as needed in these areas. 

PAL-10 

Information on fossils and collecting rules will be provided to the public through websites, 

publications, and personal contacts. 

PAL-11 

Written and web-based information will be provided about fossils, hobby collecting, and local 

interpretive sites to promote visitor education. 

PAL-12 

Paleontological Resources Use permits will be issued for scientific study, promoting or 

supporting investigations in poorly known areas. 

PAL-13 

Collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils will be allowed for personal, noncommercial use. 

PAL-14 

Areas for hobby collection will be identified, publicized, and monitored. 

PAL-15 

Areas with rare and significant invertebrate and plant fossils will be closed to hobby collection. 

PAL-16 

Permit excavation of fossils in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, when compatible 

with the goals and objectives for management of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Rangeland Improvements 

105

RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS (RNI)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Restore, maintain, and/or improve rangeland conditions and productivity to maintain, 

meet or make substantial progress towards meeting BLM Utah Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management while meeting forage 

obligations in grazing permits and grazing preference decisions, as well as wildlife 

habitat. 

Management Decisions: 

RNI-1 

Specific improvements to rangeland health will include, but are not limited to, vegetation 

treatments, fencing, spring development, reservoirs, guzzlers, pipelines, and wells. 

RNI-2 

Part or all of the following measures will be implemented to meet resource objectives for habitat 

enhancement: 

• Fencing (69 Miles) 

• Vegetation Treatment (34,640 Acres) 

• Water Developments: 

 812 Guzzlers/Reservoirs 

 Pipeline (38 Miles) 

 51 Wells/Springs 

RNI-3 

Permit use of prescribed fire in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for vegetation 

treatments, when compatible with the goals and objectives for management of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Rehabilitation of fire lines and other surface disturbances 

will follow completion of the burning operation. 

RNI-4 

Permit construction of rangeland improvements in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, when compatible with the goals and objectives for management of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Recreation Resources 

106

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES (REC): SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

AREAS (SRMA) AND TRAIL MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT (TMD)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Ensure the continued availability of quality outdoor recreation opportunities and 

experiences that are not readily available from other sources; protect the health and 

safety of visitors; protect natural, cultural, and other resources; encourage public 

enjoyment of public lands; and enhance recreational opportunities. 

• Work collaboratively with affected user groups and organizations, state and local 

officials, and other interested parties to provide for site-specific or area-specific 

comprehensive integrated activity level planning. 

• Ensure there is a spectrum of recreation opportunities and settings through 

comprehensive integrated activity level planning. Such plans will include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

 Recreation use allocations 

 Group size or seasonal limitations 

 Opportunities for dispersed or organized camping, including large events 

 Facility development 

 Opportunities for interpretation or other signage 

 Campfire restrictions 

 Establish limits of acceptable change or other environmental indicators in 

order to provide for adaptive management. 

Management Decisions: 

Recreation Resources

REC-1 

Continue to implement public education and environmental awareness programs such as Tread 

Lightly and the Leave No Trace. 

REC-3 

BLM lands within Dry Fork Canyon will be closed to the shooting of firearms. 

REC-4 

Areas not managed as SRMAs will be managed for dispersed recreational uses that require 

minimum facility development. 

REC-5 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis. All 

proposed applications for permits will be evaluated to determine compliance with the goals and 

objectives of this plan. 

REC-6 

Continue to implement the 1979 Green River Management Plan for Desolation and Gray 

Canyons to protect the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark within VFO and the 
Vernal Approved RMP – Recreation Resources 

107

Upper Green Recreation Management Plan to provide appropriate use levels while protecting 

other resources. 

REC-7 

The Upper Green River from Little Hole to the Colorado state line will allow no surfacedisturbing activities within line of sight up to one-half mile, whichever is closer, except within 

established corridors or unless related to recreational infrastructure support. 

REC-8 

All developed recreation sites within VFO will be closed to the shooting of firearms, closed to 

grazing, and all forms of surface-disturbing activities not directly related to recreation 

development. 

REC-9 

Special recreation permit holders using horses in connection with their operation within Herd 

Management Areas will be required to have them tested for Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA) 

until all wild horses have been gathered and removed from the area. 

REC-10 

Special recreation permit holders using horses from out of state will be required to test them for 

EIA per state law. 

REC-11 

If cave resources are identified on public lands, then the VFO will develop a cave management 

plan that results in appropriate management to protect them from damage. 

REC-12 

Maintain or expand infrastructure of all recreational sites, including, but not limited to, cabins, 

restrooms, campsites, and trail head development and ensure their safety for public use. 

REC-13 

Stabilize and preserve Chipeta, Moonshine, Rat Hole, and Trujillo cabins.

REC-14 

BLM-contracted fixed wing and helicopter aircraft will not be authorized to fly over Dinosaur 

National Monument unless warranted by an emergency situation or approved in advance. 

REC-15 

The following recreation management guidelines were developed to help achieve and maintain 

healthy public lands as defined by the BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management. They are listed below with the standard that they apply to: 

• Rangeland Health Standard 1

 Upland soils exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve 

site productivity, considering the soil type, climate, and landform. 

 Designate areas for intensive recreational use or cross-country motorized 

travel where disturbance of soil and vegetation is acceptable, either because 
Vernal Approved RMP – Recreation Resources 

108

impacts are insignificant and/or temporary or because the value of intensive 

use of the land outweighs whatever ecological changes may occur. Decisions 

on such designation shall take into account conflicts with other users as well 

as adverse effects on archaeological or historical sites, T&E species habitat, 

wildlife habitat, or social values such as beauty, solitude, and quiet. 

 In all other areas, travel routes and other disturbances shall be kept to the 

minimum necessary to provide access and visitor facilities appropriate to the 

area. Through blocking, signing, and public education, unneeded travel routes 

shall be eliminated and rehabilitated and unplanned development of new ones 

discouraged. 

 It may be necessary to manage some areas to be entirely free of planned travel 

routes. 

• Rangeland Health Standard 2

 Riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition. Stream 

channel morphology and functions are appropriate to soil type, climate, and 

landform. 

 Where feasible, and consistent with user safety, developed travel routes shall 

be located/relocated away from sensitive riparian and wetland areas. 

 Camping in riparian areas shall be avoided and must be managed, monitored, 

and modified as conditions dictate to reduce vegetation disturbance and 

sedimentation. 

 Stream crossings will be limited to the number dictated by the topography, 

geology, and soil type. Design any necessary stream crossings to minimize 

sedimentation, soil erosion, and compaction. 

• Rangeland Health Standard 3

 Desired species, including native, T&E and special status species, are 

maintained at a level appropriate for the site and species involved. 

 Protect against the establishment and/or spread of noxious or other weeds 

from intensive recreation, including the use of riding and pack animals, 

hiking, motorized, or other mechanized vehicles. 

 Conduct an educational campaign to inform recreational users about the 

damage caused by noxious weeds and how their spread can be minimized. 

 Where appropriate, apply restrictions, (i.e., do not permit surface-disturbing 

activities). 

 Protect wildlife and plant and/or habitat by: 

- Preserving connectivity and avoiding fragmentation. 

- Controlling recreational activities that will interfere with critical wildlife 

stages such as nesting, reproduction, or seasonal concentration areas. 

- Avoiding creation of artificial attractions such as the feeding of wild 

animals or improper disposal of garbage. 

- Where necessary, control recreational use by changing location or kind of 

activity, season, intensity, distribution, and/or duration in order to protect 

plant and animal communities, especially those containing special status 

species, including listed T&E or candidate species. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Recreation Resources 

109

• Rangeland Health Standard 4

 The BLM will apply and comply with water quality standards established by 

the State of Utah (R. 317-2) and the federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking 

Water Acts. Activities on BLM lands will fully support the designated 

beneficial uses described in the Utah Water Quality Standards (R. 317-2) for 

surface water and groundwater. 

 Manage recreational uses in coordination with other uses on public lands to 

comply with applicable water quality standards by: 

 Identifying areas where recreational activities may seriously impair water 

quality. 

 Establishing thresholds for numbers, types, and duration of visitor use, and 

when those thresholds are reached, by developing facilities and/or possibly 

limiting or relocating use. 

 Monitor and control disposal of human or domestic animal waste, trash, and 

other pollutants to prevent serious impairment of water quality. 

REC-16 

Additional cabins for permitted/administrative use can be constructed at or near the existing 

Chipeta, Trujillo, Moonshine, Rat Hole, and Wolf Den cabins and at Westwater Point, Dick 

Canyon, and other locations. 

REC-17 

Permit construction of minimal recreation facilities in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, when compatible with the goals and objectives for management of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

REC-18 

The BLM will work in conjunction with the National Park Service to minimize noise and light 

pollution adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument using best available technology. Movement 

of operations to mitigate sound and light impacts will be required to be at least 200 meters from 

the Monument boundary unless otherwise designated by oil and gas leasing constraint or a 

determination is made that natural barriers or view sheds will meet these mitigation objectives. 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA)

SMRA-1 

Blue Mountain (42,729 acres) will be managed as an SRMA. An integrated activity plan will be 

developed and implemented consistent with overall management objectives. Recreation activities 

will be identified in the plan; these activities will include but are not limited to hang-gliding 

(competitive and special events), rock climbing, historic interpretation, and OHV use on 

designated routes. 

SMRA-2 

The non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the Blue Mountain SRMA will be 

managed for primitive and non-motorized/non-mechanized forms of recreation, and the settings 

required to support those types of activities and experiences. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Recreation Resources 

110

SMRA-3 

Browns Park (18,490 acres) will continue to be managed as an SRMA. An activity management 

plan will be developed and implemented consistent with overall management objectives. In the 

recreation portion of the plan, the following uses will be emphasized: 

• Camping 

• Comprehensive trail system for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and OHV use 

• Cultural and historic interpretation 

• Facility development 

• Fisheries 

• Hunting 

• Riparian 

• Scenic vistas 

• Special status species resource values 

• Water based recreation 

• Water quality 

• Wildlife viewing opportunities 

SMRA-4 

Fantasy Canyon (69 acres) will be managed as an SRMA. An activity management plan will be 

developed and implemented consistent with overall management objectives. In the recreation 

portion of the plan, the following uses will be emphasized: 

• Guided or self-guided tours 

• Health and human safety considerations 

• Hiking 

• Interpretation 

• Protection of the unique geological formations 

SMRA-5 

Nine Mile Canyon (44,168 acres) will continue to be managed as an SRMA. An activity 

management plan will be developed and implemented consistent with overall management 

objectives. In the recreation portion of the plan, protection of high-value cultural resources and 

scenic vistas will be emphasized. 

SRMA-6 

Pelican Lake (1,014 acres) will continue to be managed as an SRMA. An activity management 

plan will be developed and implemented consistent with overall management objectives. In the 

recreation portion of the plan, water-based activities such as boating and fishing will be 

emphasized. The area will be open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints such as No 

Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations and closed to mineral materials sales. 

SRMA-7 

Red Mountain-Dry Fork (24,285 acres) will be managed as an SRMA to provide for 

maintenance and development of OHV or non-OHV trails, minimal facilities necessary for 

human health and safety, watershed values, relict vegetation communities, and crucial deer and 

elk winter habitat. An activity management plan for the SRMA will be developed to determine 

what areas are appropriate for day use only. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Recreation Resources 

111

SRMA-8 

The White River (2,831 acres) will be managed as an SRMA from where the river exits the 

White River non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics and to where the river leaves Section 

18, T10S, R23E. An integrated activity management plan will be developed and implemented 

consistent with overall management objectives. Recreational activities will be identified in the 

activity plan. These activities will include but are not limited to canoeing, rafting, primitive 

camping, and hiking. No Surface Occupancy (NSO) will be allowed within line of sight from the 

centerline, up to one-half mile either side of the river, whichever is less, from where the river 

enters Section 28, T10S, R23E, to where it leaves Section 18, T10S, R23. 

SRMA-9 

The activity management plans to be developed for Blue Mountain, Fantasy Canyon, and Pelican 

Lake will address appropriate levels of use and facility development. 

SRMA-10 

The Book Cliffs will not be managed as an SRMA. Unlimited and unconfined recreation will 

continue to be provided for in the Book Cliffs area. 

Trail Maintenance and Development (TMD)

TMD-1 

Motorized camping vehicles will be allowed to travel off designated routes on a single path up to 

300 feet to access an existing disturbed dispersed campsite, except in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and WSA lands. In designated travel route areas, an activity level plan 

will be used to identify areas suitable for camping that will allow motorized vehicles to travel 

from those designated routes. The BLM will monitor dispersed camping activities and will work 

with user groups to address adverse environmental conditions if warranted. If use is such that 

undue environmental impacts are taking place, the BLM will close and rehabilitate damaged 

areas. If monitoring indicates that developed camping is needed, the BLM will evaluate the 

viability of developed campsites. 

TMD-2 

Where routes will remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use will continue on a 

conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs (“ways” when located within WSAs – 

see Glossary) will continue as long as the use of these routes does not impair wilderness 

suitability, as provided by the IMP (BLM 1995). If Congress designates the area as wilderness, 

the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or non-compliance are found through 

monitoring efforts to impair the area’s suitability for wilderness designation, the BLM will take 

further action to limit use of the routes, or close them. The continued use of these routes, 

therefore, is based on user compliance and non-impairment of wilderness values. 

TMD-3 

Establish signed pull-off wildlife viewing areas along the Book Cliffs Divide Ridge Road. 

TMD-4 

Mountain bike use will be limited to designated roads and trails.
Vernal Approved RMP – Recreation Resources 

112

TMD-5 

Atchee Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, and Seep Ridge Routes will be designated as BLM Back 

Country Byways. Appropriate interpretive and educational literature and signage will be 

developed. 

TMD-6 

Up to 400 miles of hiking, horseback riding, and mechanized (non-motorized) trails will be 

signed, improved, and/or developed in the following areas: 

• Bitter Creek 

• Boulevard Ridge 

• Burnt Timber Canyon 

• Centennial Book Cliffs Trail 

• Chipeta Canyon 

• Daniels Canyon 

• Devils Hole 

• Green River 

• Dry Fork 

• Ely/Rainbow Park 

• Home Mountain 

• Little Mountain 

• Nine Mile 

• Rat Hole Canyon 

• Spitzenberg/Warren Ridge 

• Taylor Canyon 

• Westwater Point 

• Willow Creek 

• Yellow Pine 

• Other additional trails 

TMD-7 

Up to 800 miles of motorized routes will be signed, improved, and/or developed. 

TMD-8 

OHV use for big game retrieval off designated routes will not be allowed. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Riparian Resources 

113

RIPARIAN RESOURCES (RIP)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Maintain, restore, improve, protect, and expand riparian-wetland areas so they are in 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) and meet BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for their productivity, biological 

diversity, and sustainability, and achieve an advanced (late-climax seral stage) 

ecological status, except where resource management will require an earlier 

ecological status for such purposes as vegetation diversity. 

• PFC is the minimum acceptable riparian goal. However, PFC may not provide the 

streamside and aquatic conditions to meet goals for other resources. These include, 

but are not limited to, fisheries habitat, migratory bird habitat, unique recreational 

values, and/or forage. Specific objectives and management actions such as those 

stated below will be implemented in order to meet riparian goals. 

 Maintain the natural configuration of all streams. 

 Stream bank damage caused by livestock shall be less than 10% of a stream 

segment within an allotment/pasture. 

 Site-specific plans, where appropriate, will be prepared in collaboration with 

affected livestock operators, the UDWR, the Central Utah Water Conservancy 

Districts, and other interested parties, agencies, or organizations to identify 

desired plant communities, establish specific management objectives, and 

recommend practices to be employed to achieve desired results. 

 Monitoring and evaluation strategies will be implemented to measure progress 

in accordance with BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management. 

• Certain situations may occur that will allow the BLM to modify specific grazing 

objectives set forth in this plan.

Management Decisions: 

RIP-1 

Appropriate management actions to meet riparian objectives will include but not be limited to: 

• Change of livestock class 

• Change of season 

• Fencing 

• Herding 

• Temporary closures 

RIP-2 

Allow no new surface-disturbing activities within active flood plains, public water reserves, or 

100 meters of riparian areas unless: 

• There are no practical alternatives. 

• Impacts will be fully mitigated. 

• The action is designed to enhance the riparian resources. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Riparian Resources 

114

RIP-3 

Acquire and expand riparian-wetland areas through exchange, donation, or purchase as 

opportunities arise. 

RIP-4 

Restore and/or re-establish cottonwood, willow, and other riparian species along major riparian 

and other wetland areas. 

RIP-5 

Development of springs and seeps to improve livestock and wildlife distribution will be designed 

and constructed to protect ecological processes and functions. 

RIP-6 

Restrict or mitigate those surface-disturbing activities that will adversely affect wetlands. 

RIP-7 

Adjust livestock management practices on riparian areas that do not satisfactorily respond to 

improved grazing management after all other options have been pursued. 

RIP-8 

Where feasible, fence spring sources and any other areas that may need special protection (such 

as amphibian ecosystems) on a site-by-site basis. 

RIP-9 

The following mitigation measures will be included as applicable: 

• Keep construction of all new stream crossings to a minimum. Stream crossings with 

culverts will be designed and constructed to allow fish passage, where needed. All 

stream crossings will be designed and constructed to keep impacts to riparian and 

aquatic habitat to a minimum. 

• Relocate existing routes out of riparian areas where feasible or necessary to restore 

watershed and riparian stability. 

RIP-10 

As identified in the preliminary riparian inventory, maintain 295 miles and 3,674 acres of 

riparian areas currently in PFC. Improve 133 miles and 1,452 acres functioning at risk and 79 

miles and 1,213 acres not in PFC. 

RIP-11 

The following management strategies will be employed in riparian areas that are not achieving 

proper functioning condition: 

• Key streamside herbaceous riparian vegetation, where stream bank stability is 

dependent upon it, will have a minimum stubble height at the end of the growing 

season capable of trapping and assuring retention of sediment during high flows. 

• Management actions will be based on residual stubble height or utilization of current 

year's growth at the end of the growing season. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Riparian Resources 

115

• An initial management action will be to set a stubble height of 4 inches or 30% 

utilization on key species if riparian conditions in that reach are to be maintained and 

6 inches or <20% utilization if riparian conditions need to be improved. 

• This initial stubble height or utilization level will need to be monitored to verify if it 

provides for maintenance or improvement objectives, with adjustments in allowable 

utilization or stubble height being made as needed. 

RIP-12 

Key herbaceous riparian vegetation in riparian areas, other than the stream banks, will not be 

grazed more to less than a minimum stubble height than will allow for the trapping and retention 

of sediment during high water events. 

• Management actions will be based on residual stubble height or utilization of current 

year’s growth at the end of the growing season. An initial management action that has 

been shown to obtain riparian goals is to set a stubble height of 4 inches or 30% 

utilization if riparian conditions in that reach are to be maintained and 6 inches or 

<20% utilization if riparian conditions need to be improved. This initial stubble 

height or utilization level will need to be monitored to verify if it provides for 

maintenance or improvement objectives, with adjustments in allowable utilization or 

stubble height being made as needed. 

RIP-13 

Key riparian woody vegetation will not be browsed more than the amount that will allow for the 

adequate recruitment to maintain or recover the woody component. Specifically, more plants in 

the combined sprout and young categories will be managed for than in the combined mature and 

dead categories. 

• Management actions will be based on utilization of the current annual twig growth 

that is within reach of the animals. An initial management action that has been shown 

to obtain riparian goals is to set a woody vegetation utilization level of 30%. The 

specific utilization will need to be monitored to verify if it provides for maintenance 

or improvement objectives, with adjustments in allowable utilization being made as 

needed. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Soil and Water Resources 

116

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES (SOLW)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Eliminate or reduce discharge of pollutants into surface waters and achieve water 

quality that provides protection and propagation of fish, amphibians, wildlife, 

livestock, and recreation in and on the water. Implement BMPs, as applicable, 

adopted by UDEQ to limit surface discharges into water. Implement BMPs, as 

applicable, adopted by Utah Division of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) to limit 

surface discharges into water. 

• Restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the area’s 

waters as required by the State of Utah’s and EPA’s water quality standards. 

• Restore and maintain soil quality and long-term productivity through the 

implementation of applicable BMPs, guidelines for rangeland health and other soil 

protection measures. 

• Reduce salinity loading where possible to accomplish the goals outlined in the 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (CRBSCA). 

• Design pipeline crossings through riparian areas and across stream channels to 

minimize impacts to these resources. Pipeline crossings of perennial, intermittent, and 

ephemeral stream channels will be constructed to withstand 100-year floods to 

prevent breakage and subsequent accidental contamination of runoff during high flow 

events. Guidance may be updated over the life of the plan, but current technical 

guidance and specific recommendations regarding surface and subsurface crossings 

can be found in Appendix B. 

• Operate under the unified policy to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems on 

federal lands (Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and 

Resource Management). This policy guides protection of water quality and aquatic 

ecosystem health through the reduction of polluted runoff, the improvement of natural 

resources stewardship, and an increase in public involvement in watershed 

management on federal lands. 

Management Decisions: 

SOLW-1 

Collaborate with the USFS, state, counties, Native American tribes, and the Division of Water 

Rights when possible to protect and enhance priority watersheds. 

SOLW-2 

Cooperate with states and Native American tribes to review processes for issuing and renewing 

use authorizations and licenses when these uses/licenses may affect watershed condition and 

water quality. Revise these processes if necessary to ensure that they address watershed 

protection, improvement, and monitoring and water quality compliance needs. 

SOLW-3 

Continue partnership with State of Utah, Daggett County, UDWR, USFS, Wyoming Fish and 

Game, and Rock Springs BLM to develop a watershed activity plan for Red Creek in Daggett 

County. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Soil and Water Resources 

117

SOLW-4 

Restore and protect water quality and severe and critical erosion areas by restricting or mitigating 

surface disturbance. 

SOLW-5 

Comply with standards identified in “The Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development” (Gold Book) unless otherwise specified in the plan. 

SOLW-6 

The BLM will adhere to criteria outlined in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. 

SOLW-7 

The BLM implements multiple types of water uses on public lands that require water rights from 

the State of Utah, such as livestock watering, wildlife watering and habitat, wild horse watering, 

recreation facilities, and fire suppression. The BLM will continue to implement actions to 

maintain its current water rights for these purposes, such as filing proofs of beneficial use, filing 

diligence claims, changing existing water rights to fit new uses and projects, and filing protests 

as necessary to protect existing BLM water rights. The BLM will also file for new water rights in 

accordance with and when allowed under state water law procedures. Situations in which the 

BLM will file for new water rights include locations where existing water rights are insufficient 

or not in place to support the water use, or when existing water rights cannot be changed to 

support the water use on public land. 

SOLW-8 

Work in partnership with the State of Utah and others to reduce potential effects of selenium 

loading on the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge and Pariette Wetlands. 

SOLW-9 

Ensure the physical presence and legal availability of water on public lands. Ensure that those 

waters meet or exceed established federal and state water quality standards for specific uses, and 

mitigate activities to prevent water quality and watershed degradation. 

SOLW-10 

Reduce sediment and salinity production on important watersheds and critical soils through 

intensive management and construction measures to reduce water degradation of the Green 

River, White River, and their tributaries. 

SOLW-11 

The State of Utah’s Non-Point Source Management Plan will be used as a standard to reduce 

potential non-point source of pollution impacts. Coordinate with the Utah Division of Water 

Quality as needed. 

SOLW-12 

On a case-by-case basis, major water developments will be permitted if they are consistent with 

the plan. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Soil and Water Resources 

118

SOLW-13 

Measures will be taken to identify and avoid biological soil crust areas when possible by 

considering the following factors: 

• Disturbance type 

• Duration 

• Event 

• Frequency 

• Intensity 

• Timing 

Monitor on-going investigations regarding the values of biological soil crusts and relationships 

of other ecosystem parameters. 

SOLW-14 

Specific activities that will include biological crust considerations will be prescribed fire, postfire management, invasive weed control, energy development, grazing, OHV use, and range 

improvement projects. Biological crusts will be considered along with all other resource values 

in site-specific NEPA analyses. 

SOLW-15 

The “Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development” (Gold Book), 

will be used as a guide for surface-disturbing proposals on steep slopes/hillsides. Specific to oil 

and gas activities, steep hillsides shall be avoided in the construction of routes, pipelines, and 

flowlines. If surface-disturbing activities cannot be avoided on slopes 21-40%, an approved plan 

will be required prior to construction and maintenance that will include: 

• An erosion control strategy 

• GIS modeling 

• Proper survey and design by a certified engineer 

SOLW-16 

For slopes greater than 40%, no surface disturbance will be allowed unless it is determined that it 

will cause undue or unnecessary degradation to pursue other placement alternatives. 

SOLW-17 

Old agricultural fields will be irrigated and existing ditches and diversion structures will be 

restored on acquired lands in Bitter Creek and Rat Hole Drainages. New ditches and diversion 

structures will be constructed, as well. 

SOLW-18 

Implement BMPs adopted by UDEQ to limit surface discharges into water. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Designations: 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

119

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

(ACEC)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Designate and manage areas as ACECs where special management attention is 

required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or 

scenic values; fish and wildlife resources; or other natural system or processes, or to 

protect life and safety from natural hazards. 

Management Decisions: 

ACEC-1 

The proposed Bitter Creek area will not be designated as an ACEC. 

ACEC-2 

Browns Park (18,490 acres) will continue to be designated as an ACEC. A comprehensive 

integrated activity plan will be developed/implemented that will address protection of high-value 

scenic views, wildlife habitat, and cultural and historic resources. OHV use will be closed or 

limited to designated routes. Visual Resources will be managed as Class I and Class II. 

For oil and gas leasing within Browns Park: 

• Zero acres will be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard 

lease form. 

• Approximately 3,137 acres will be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints 

such as TLs and CSU. 

• Approximately 5,165 acres will be open to leasing subject to major constraints such 

as NSO stipulations. 

• Approximately 10,188 acres will be unavailable for leasing. 

ACEC-3 

The proposed Coyote Basin area will not be designated as an ACEC. 

ACEC-4 

The proposed Four Mile Wash area will not be designated as an ACEC. 

ACEC-5 

Lears Canyon (1,375 acres) will continue to be designated as an ACEC. A comprehensive 

integrated activity plan will be developed/implemented that will address protection of relict 

vegetation. OHV use will be closed or limited to designated routes. Visual Resources will be 

managed as Class II. 

For oil and gas leasing within Lears Canyon: 

• Zero acres will be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard 

lease form. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Designations: 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

120

• Zero acres will be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and 

CSU. 

• 1,375 acres will be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO 

stipulations. 

• Zero acres will be unavailable for leasing. 

ACEC-6 

The Lower Green River Corridor (8,470 acres) will continue to be designated as an ACEC. No 

Surface Occupancy (NSO) will be allowed within line of sight or up to one-half mile from the 

centerline of the river, whichever is less. OHV use will be limited to designated routes. Visual 

Resources will be managed as Class II. 

For oil and gas leasing within the Lower Green River Corridor: 

• Zero acres will be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard 

lease form. 

• Zero acres will be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and 

CSU. 

• Approximately 8,470 acres will be open to leasing subject to major constraints such 

as NSO stipulations. 

• Zero acres will be unavailable for leasing. 

ACEC-7 

The Lower Green River Expansion (1,700 acres) will not be designated as an ACEC. No Surface 

Occupancy (NSO) will be allowed within line of sight or up to one-half mile from the centerline 

of the river, whichever is less. OHV use will be limited to designated routes. Visual Resources 

will be managed as Class II. 

ACEC-8 

The proposed Main Canyon area will not be designated as an ACEC. 

ACEC-9 

The proposed Middle Green River area will not be designated as an ACEC. 

ACEC-10 

Nine Mile Canyon (44,168 acres) with a boundary along the upper rim will continue to be 

designated as an ACEC. The area will be managed to enhance cultural and special status plant 

species while enhancing scenic vistas, recreation, and wildlife resource values. A comprehensive 

integrated activity plan will be developed and implemented. OHV use will be limited to 

designated routes. Visual Resources will be managed as Class II and Class III. 

For oil and gas leasing within Nine Mile Canyon: 

• Approximately 26,797 acres will be open to leasing subject to the terms and 

conditions of the standard lease form. 

• Approximately 209 acres will be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such 

as TLs and CSU. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Designations: 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

121

• Approximately 17,162 acres will be open to leasing subject to major constraints such 

as NSO stipulations. 

• Zero acres will be unavailable for leasing. 

ACEC-11 

Pariette Wetlands (10,437 acres) will continue to be designated as an ACEC. A comprehensive 

integrated activity plan will be developed/implemented that will address protection of special 

status bird and plant species and habitat, wetlands ecosystem, waterfowl production, and soil. 

OHV use will be limited to designated routes. Visual Resources will be managed as Class III. 

For oil and gas leasing within Pariette Wetlands: 

• Zero acres will be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard 

lease form. 

• Zero acres will be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and 

CSU. 

• About 10,437 acres will be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO 

stipulations. 

• Zero acres will be unavailable for leasing. 

ACEC-12 

The Red Creek Watershed (24,475 acres) will continue to be managed as an ACEC. A 

comprehensive integrated activity plan will be developed / implemented. Manage the watershed 

to continue the reduction of sedimentation into Red Creek, and the downstream Green River, by 

stabilizing channels and stream banks to lessen erosion, and by maintaining or increasing 

vegetation cover throughout the watershed and enhance wildlife habitat values. OHV use will be 

limited to designated routes. Visual Resources will be managed as Class II, Class III, and Class 

IV. 

For oil and gas leasing within the Red Creek Watershed: 

• Approximately 6,899 will be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of 

the standard lease form. 

• Approximately 12,362 acres will be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints 

such as TLs and CSU. 

• Approximately 162 acres will be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as 

NSO stipulations. 

• Approximately 5,052 acres will be unavailable for leasing. 

ACEC-13 

The Red Mountain-Dry Fork Complex (24,285 acres) will continue to be managed as an ACEC. 

A comprehensive integrated activity plan will be developed / implemented. Special management 

attention will include maintenance and development of OHV or non-OHV routes, minimal 

facilities development necessary for human health and safety, and protection of watershed 

values, relict vegetation communities, and crucial deer and elk winter habitat. OHV use will be 

limited to designated routes. VRM will be managed as Class II, III, or IV. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Designations: 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

122

For oil and gas leasing within the Red Mountain-Dry Fork Complex: 

• Approximately 495 acres will be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions 

of the standard lease form. 

• Approximately 21,802 acres will be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints 

such as TLs and CSU. 

• Approximately 1,988 acres will be open to leasing subject to major constraints such 

as NSO stipulations. 

• Zero acres will be unavailable for leasing. 

ACEC-14 

The proposed White River corridor area will not be designated as an ACEC. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Designations: 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

123

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Determine eligibility and suitability for designation into the National Wild and Scenic 

River System. 

Management Decisions: 

WSR-1 

Continue to manage previously recommended segments of the Upper Green and Lower Green 

Rivers to protect their outstandingly remarkable values and the tentative scenic classification 

until such time that a designation decision is made. 

WSR-2 

New river segments found suitable and recommended for designation will be managed in 

accordance with the Wild and Scenic River Act to prevent impairment of outstandingly 

remarkable values within line of sight up to one-quarter mile from high water mark on each side 

of the river not to exceed 320 acres per mile (see Appendix C). 

WSR-3 

The BLM will work with the State of Utah, local and tribal governments, and other federal 

agencies, in a statewide study, to reach consensus regarding recommendations to Congress for 

the inclusion of rivers in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Besides applying 

consistent criteria across agency jurisdictions, the joint study will avoid subdividing of river 

segments in logical watershed units in the state. The study will evaluate, in detail, the possible 

benefits and effects of designation on the local and state economies, agricultural and industrial 

operations and interests, outdoor recreation, natural resources (including the outstandingly 

remarkable values for which the river was deemed suitable), water rights, water quality, water 

resource planning, and access to and across river corridors within, and upstream and downstream 

from the proposed segments(s). Actual designation of river segments will only occur through 

congressional action or as a result of Secretarial decision at the request of the Governor in 

accordance with provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (the Act). The BLM will work 

with the state, local, and tribal governments, and the agencies involved to coordinate its decision 

making on wild and scenic river issues and to achieve consistency wherever possible. 

WSR-4 

The BLM recognizes that water resources on most river and stream segments within the State of 

Utah are already fully allocated. Before stream segments that have been recommended as 

suitable under this Approved RMP are recommended to Congress for designation, the BLM will 

continue to work with affected local, state, federal, and tribal partners to identify in-stream flows 

necessary to meet critical resource needs, including values related to the subject segments(s). 

Such quantifications will be included in any recommendation for designation. The BLM will 

then seek to jointly promote innovative strategies, community-based planning, and voluntary 

agreements with water users, under state law, to address those needs. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Designations: 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

124

WSR-5 

Should designations occur on any river segment as a result of Secretarial or congressional action, 

existing rights, privileges, and contracts will be protected. Under Section 12 of the Act, 

termination of such rights, privileges, and contracts may happen only with the consent of the 

affected non-federal party. A determination by the BLM of eligibility and suitability for the 

inclusion of rivers on public lands to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System does not create new 

water rights for the BLM. Federal reserved water rights for new components of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System are established at the discretion of Congress. If water is reserved by 

Congress when a river component is added to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, it will come 

from water that is not appropriated at the time of designation, in the amount necessary to protect 

features that led to the river’s inclusion into the system. The BLM's intent will be to leave 

existing water rights undisturbed and to recognize the lawful rights of private, municipal, and 

state entities to manage water resources under state law to meet the needs of the community. 

Federal law, including Section 13 of the Act and the McCarren Amendment (43 U.S.C. 666), 

recognizes state jurisdiction over water allocation in designated streams. Thus, it is the BLM's 

position that existing water rights, including flows apportioned to the State of Utah interstate 

agreements and compacts, including the Upper Colorado River Compact, and developments of 

such rights will not be affected by designation or the creation of the possible federal reserved 

water right. The BLM will seek to work with upstream and downstream water users and 

applicable agencies to ensure that water flows are maintained at a level sufficient to sustain the 

values for which affected river segments were designated. 

WSR-6 

The segment of the Upper Green River from Little Hole to the Utah state line will continue to be 

managed as previously recommended as a suitable scenic segment to protect its outstandingly 

remarkable values. Management will include: 

• Oil and Gas Leasing – Closed and NSO 

• Mineral Materials – Closed 

• OHV – Closed and limited to designated routes. 

• VRM – Class II 

WSR-7 

The segment of the Lower Green River from the public land boundary south of Ouray to the 

Carbon County line will continue to be managed as previously recommended as a suitable scenic 

segment to protect its outstandingly remarkable values. Management will include: 

• Oil and Gas Leasing – NSO 

• Mineral Materials – Closed 

• OHV – Limited to designated routes 

• VRM – Class I and II 

WSR-8 

The segment of Argyle Creek between its headwaters and the Carbon County line will not be 

identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Designations: 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

125

WSR-9 

The segment of Bitter Creek between the Utah state line and where it enters private property will 

not be identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

WSR-10 

The segment of Evacuation Creek between the Utah state line and the White River will not be 

identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

WSR-11 

The segment of the Middle Green River, between SR-45 and the boundary of the Ouray National 

Waterfowl Refuge will not be identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. 

WSR-12 

The segment of Nine Mile Creek within Duchesne County between the Green River and the 

Duchesne County Line (13 miles) will not be identified as suitable for designation into the 

National Wild and Scenic River System. 

WSR-13 

The segment of Nine Mile Creek within Duchesne County between the Carbon County line and 

its confluence with Gate Canyon will not be identified as suitable for designation into the 

National Wild and Scenic River System. 

WSR-14 

The White River Segments A, B, and C will not be identified as suitable for designation into the 

National Wild and Scenic River System. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Designations: 

Wilderness Study Areas 

126

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Preserve the wilderness character of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) until Congress 

designates them or releases them. 

• Manage the existing WSAs listed below (55,808 acres) as directed in the Interim 

Management Policy (IMP) for Lands under Wilderness Review (H-8550-1) in a 

manner that does not impair their suitability for designation as wilderness. Allow 

temporary uses that create no new surface disturbance nor involve permanent 

placement of structures. 

• Temporary, non-disturbing activities, as well as activities governed by valid existing 

rights, may generally continue in WSAs. 

• WSAs include the following: 

 Book Cliffs Mountain Browse Instant Study Area (400 acres) 

 Bull Canyon (600 acres) 

 Daniels Canyon (2,496 acres) 

 Diamond Breaks (3,900 acres) 

 Flume Canyon (2,750 acres within the Vernal planning area) 

 West Cold Springs (3,200 acres) 

 Winter Ridge (42,462 acres) 

Management Decisions: 

WSA-1 

WSAs are right-of-way exclusion areas. 

WSA-2 

WSAs are closed to oil and gas leasing. 

WSA-3 

Fire activities and projects in WSAs will follow the IMP. 

WSA-4 

All WSAs will be managed as VRM Class I (55,808 acres). 

WSA-5 

WSAs are closed to OHV travel. 

WSA-6 

Should any WSA, in whole or in part, be released from wilderness consideration, such released 

lands will be managed in accordance with the goals, objectives, and management prescriptions 

established in this RMP, unless otherwise specified by Congress in its releasing legislation. The 

BLM will examine proposals in the released areas on a case-by-case basis, but will defer all 

actions that are inconsistent with RMP goals, objectives, and prescriptions, until it completes a 

land use plan amendment. (Because any released lands will continue to be managed consistent 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Designations: 

Wilderness Study Areas 

127

with the prescriptions identified in this plan, unless and until the plan is amended, no separate 

analysis is required to address impacts to the released lands.) 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Status Species 

128

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES (SSS)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Conserve and protect special status species and enhance their habitats. 

• Conserve and recover all state special status species, including federally listed species 

and the ecosystems on which they depend. 

• Implement the management recovery measures necessary to increase populations of 

special status species, including federally listed animal species, and restore them to 

their historic ranges by enhancing, protecting, and restoring known and potential 

habitat and the ecosystems on which they depend. 

• Mitigate or reduce long-term habitat fragmentation through avoidance and sitespecific reclamation to return areas to productive levels. 

• Manage all listed T&E plant and animal species and the habitats upon which they 

depend in such a manner as to conserve and recover these species to the point where 

protection under the ESA is no longer necessary. 

• Manage non-listed sensitive species and the habitats upon which they depend in such 

a manner as to preclude the need to list them as either threatened or endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act. The guidance for this management is put forth in the 

BLM 6840 Manual. 

• Implement the specific goals and objectives of recovery plans, conservation 

agreements and strategies, and approved activity level plans. The BLM will continue 

to work with USFWS and others to ensure that plans and agreements are updated as 

necessary to reflect the latest scientific data. 

• Implement the direction contained in the Northwest National Fire Plan Project Design 

and Consultation Process and the Counterpart Regulations, including Alternative 

Consultation Agreements. 

• Continue to work with USFWS and others to ensure that plans and agreements are 

updated as necessary to reflect the latest scientific data. Recovery plans have been 

finalized for six species: 

 Black-footed ferret (1999) 

 Mexican spotted owl (1995) 

 Bonytail (1990) 

 Colorado pikeminnow (1991) 

 Humpback chub (1990) 

 Razorback sucker (1999) 

 Two recovery plans were finalized for the peregrine falcon species and the 

bald eagle, which has been delisted. 

• Implement the management necessary to increase populations of special status 

species, including federally listed animal species, and restore them to their historic 

ranges by enhancing, protecting, and restoring known and potential habitat. 

• In cooperation with UDWR and USFWS, continue to implement the goals of the 

Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan by augmenting existing population in the Snake 

John Wash area. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Status Species 

129

Management Decisions: 

SSS-1 

The BLM will continue to implement the specific goals and objectives of all recovery plans, 

conservation plans and strategies, and activity level plans. Recovery Plan revisions or new 

Recovery Plans will also be implemented. 

SSS-2 

The BLM will continue to work with USFWS and others to ensure that plans and agreements are 

updated as necessary to reflect the latest scientific data. Recovery plans have been finalized for 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus, shrubby reed–mustard, and clay reed-mustard. A draft plan is being 

developed by the USFWS for Ute ladies’ tresses. A Conservation Plan has been prepared for 

Horseshoe milkvetch (Astragalus equisolensis), Goodrich beardtongue (Penstemon goodrichii), 

Graham beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii), and White River beardtongue (Penstemon scarious

var. albifluvis). 

SSS-3 

Where special status plant species, including listed T&E plant species, occur on public lands in 

the VPA, the BLM will collaborate with affected and or appropriate local, state, and federal 

agencies and researchers in the implementation of approved recovery plans and conservation 

strategies to protect, stabilize, and recover such species and their habitats. In addition to on-theground actions, strategies will be developed to provide public education on species at-risk, 

significance and importance of the species to the human and biological communities, and reasons 

for protective measures that will be applied to the lands involved. Continue or develop 

monitoring studies in order to determine population dynamics and trends. 

SSS-4 

Continue and complete inventories and map current occupied and potential habitats for all listed 

and non-listed special status plant and animal species. 

SSS-5 

Develop relevant species-specific plans utilizing USFWS guidelines where applicable. This may 

include habitat management plans, conservation agreements, or other suitable plans. 

SSS-6 

In collaboration with the USFWS, UDWR, and other partners, develop and implement habitat 

management plans or conservation strategies for sensitive species. 

SSS-7 

As additional data are collected over the life of the RMP, land managers will continually reevaluate population and habitat status. Management emphasis will be to accumulate ecological 

information and distributional data to enhance the BLM’s ability to protect, conserve, recover, 

and manage these species in the future. 

SSS-8 

The BLM will work with UDWR and other partners to implement conservation actions identified 

in the State Wildlife Action Plan (Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy) (UDWR, 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Status Species 

130

2005), which identified priority wildlife species and habitats, assessed threats to their survival, 

and identified long-term conservation action needs (per WO IM 2006-114). 

SSS-9 

Collaborate with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies to promote public education on 

species, their importance to the human and biological community, and reasons for protective 

measures that will be applied to the lands involved. 

SSS-10 

Conservation measures developed during the consultation on existing LUPs (June 2007) will be 

implemented as part of committed mitigation on new oil and gas leases. Appendix L contains 

lease notices developed from the conservation measures. 

SSS-11 

Enhance habitat and remove or control of non-native fish that threaten various life stages of the 

special status species fish. 

SSS-12 

The BLM will manage the black-footed ferret consistent with the 1999 Black-footed Ferret 

Reintroduction Plan Amendment and those portions of the Cooperative Plan for the 

Reintroduction and Management of Black-footed Ferret in Coyote Basin, Uintah County, Utah 

that are consistent with the black-footed ferret plan amendment. 

SSS-13 

In conjunction with the USFWS and UDWR, participate in the development of a conservation 

plan for the white-tailed prairie dog. 

SSS-14 

Implement recovery plans actions for bonytail (1990), Colorado pikeminnow (1991), humpback 

chub (1990), and razorback sucker (1999). 

SSS-15 

Implement Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River cutthroat trout in the states 

of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (signed April 2001), or more recent revisions of this agreement 

of which the BLM is a signatory. The following measures from the agreement will be 

implemented: 

• Monitor vegetation with low level infra-red photography 

• Continue macro-invertebrate sampling 

• Fencing 

• Stream bank stabilization 

• Stream flow modifications 

• Pursue in flow agreements 

SSS-16 

Per the Conservation Agreement/Conservation and Sportfishing Management Strategy for the 

Colorado River cutthroat trout, habitat will be provided, maintained and/or enhanced in Beaver, 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Status Species 

131

Bitter, Crouse, Davenport, Jackson, Sears, Sweetwater Creeks, Tolivers, and Upper Willow 

(Browns Park), including tributaries for the reintroduction of Colorado River cutthroat trout. 

SSS-17 

Implement range-wide conservation agreement for bluehead sucker (Catastomus discobolus), 

flannelmouth sucker (Catastomus latipinnis), and roundtail chub (Gila robusta). 

SSS-18 

Implement the following mitigation measures for the yellow-billed cuckoo: 

• Restore and conserve riparian areas and develop specific riparian vegetation 

objectives that will benefit bird species dependent on riparian areas 

• Fence riparian areas to reduce or eliminate grazing pressure on young trees, 

especially willow and cottonwood. 

• Apply rotation grazing or consider eliminating hot-season grazing in riparian areas to 

allow young trees to become established. 

• Control or eliminate non-native plant species in riparian habitats. 

SSS-19 

Protect and restore cottonwood bottoms for Bald Eagle winter habitat along the Green and White 

rivers, at Pelican Lake, and at the Cliff Creek Bald Eagle roost site, as well as any new roost sites 

discovered in the future. 

SSS-20 

In cooperation with UDWR, maintain burrowing owl and short-eared owl nesting habitat and 

maintain/enhance prey-base habitat. 

SSS-21 

In cooperation with UDWR, maintain and enhance white-tailed prairie dog and other foraging 

habitat to provide primary food sources for the Ferruginous Hawk. 

SSS-22 

Implement the following mitigation measures for the Mexican spotted owl: 

• Establish Protected Activity Centers (PACs) at all known Mexican Spotted Owl nest 

sites. 

• Maintain habitat to support small mammal populations as a prey base for Mexican 

Spotted Owls in occupied and suitable owl habitats. 

• Retain large down logs, large trees, and snags as prey habitats in occupied and 

suitable Mexican Spotted Owl habitats. 

SSS-23 

To enhance use by peregrine falcon, protect and enhance riparian habitat in Pariette Draw, as 

well as along the Green River, White River, Bitter Creek, and other drainages. 

SSS-24 

Raptor management will be guided by the use of Best Management Practices for Raptors and 

Their Associated Habitats in Utah (Utah BLM, 2006, Appendix A), utilizing seasonal and 
Vernal Approved RMP – Special Status Species 

132

spatial buffers, as well as mitigation, to maintain and enhance raptor nesting and foraging 

habitat, while allowing other resource uses. 

SSS-25 

No surface-disturbing activities within 0.25 mile of active Greater sage-grouse leks will be 

allowed year-round. No permanent facilities or structures will be allowed within two miles when 

possible. 

SSS-26 

No surface-disturbing activities within two miles of active Greater sage-grouse leks will be 

allowed from March 1 through June 15. 

SSS-27 

Within 0.5 mile of known active leks, the best available technology will be used to reduce noise, 

e.g., installation of multi-cylinder pumps, hospital sound-reducing mufflers, and placement of 

exhaust systems. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Travel Management: Roads and Trails 

133

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT: ROADS AND TRAILS (TRC)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Establish working partnerships with local and state agencies, user groups, commercial 

providers, and other interested parties that will facilitate effective OHV program 

development, including the planning for and implementation of successful trail 

systems and use areas. 

• Provide areas for OHV and motorized use, while protecting other resource values. 

• The Approved RMP will comply with the BLM’s National OHV Policy. 

Management Decisions: 

TRC-1 

In collaboration with interested parties, the BLM will make future route adjustments based on 

access needs, recreational opportunities, and natural resource constraints. These adjustments will 

occur only in areas with open and/or limited route designations and will be analyzed at the 

activity planning level. 

TRC-2 

The BLM, in preparing its RMP designations and its implementation-level travel management 

plans, is following policy and regulation authority found at: 

• 43 CFR Part 8340 

• 43 CFR Subpart 8364 

• 43 CFR Subpart 9268 

TRC-3 

Where the authorized officer determines that OHVs are causing or will cause considerable 

adverse impacts, the authorized officer shall close or restrict such areas. The public will be 

notified. 

TRC-4 

The BLM will impose limitations on types of vehicles allowed on specific designated routes if 

monitoring indicates that a particular type of vehicle is causing disturbance to the soil, wildlife 

habitat, cultural or vegetative resources, especially by off-road travel in an area that is limited to 

designated routes. 

TRC-5 

Where routes will remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use will continue on a 

conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs (“ways” when located within WSAs — 

see Glossary) will continue as long as the use of these routes does not impair wilderness 

suitability, as provided by the IMP (BLM 1995). If Congress designates the area as wilderness, 

the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or non-compliance are found through 

monitoring efforts to impair the area’s suitability for wilderness designation, the BLM will take 

further action to limit use of the routes, or close them. The continued use of these routes, 

therefore, is based on user compliance and non-impairment of wilderness values. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Travel Management: Roads and Trails 

134

TRC-6 

As per the State of Utah v. Andrus, October 1, 1979 (Cotter Decision), the BLM will grant the 

State of Utah reasonable access to state lands for economic purposes, on a case-by-case basis. 

TRC-7 

Nine Mile Canyon will continue to be managed as a National Backcountry Byway. 

TRC-8 

Crouse Canyon will be managed as a State of Utah Scenic Byway. 

TRC-9 

The Flaming Gorge–Uintas Scenic Byway and the Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highway will 

be managed as National Scenic Byways. 

TRC-10 

The Chipeta Canyon Road will be open up to the Chipeta cabin. 

TRC-11 

Newly permitted routes will be obliterated and/or returned to their original condition when they 

no longer serve their permitted purpose or public interest. 

TRC-12 

Routes causing resource damage will be repaired by maintenance, upgrade, or realignment. BLM 

routes will be closed if none of the items mentioned above is economically feasible. 

TRC-13 

OHV travel will be limited to designated routes or closed except for managed open areas as 

follows: 

• Acres that will be open to OHV travel: 6,202 

• Acres that will be limited to OHV travel: 1,640,725 

• Acres that will be closed to OHV travel: 78,595 

The closed areas include: 

• All WSAs and Instant Study Areas 

• The White River area (SRMA, river corridor) 

• The Lears Canyon ACEC 

• The Nine Mile Acquired Area 

• The upper portion of the Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics 

TRC-14 

4,860 miles will be designated as OHV travel routes.
Vernal Approved RMP – Vegetation 

135

VEGETATION (VEG)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Ensure that management of native and naturalized plant species enhances, restores, 

and does not reduce the biological and genetic diversity of natural ecosystems. 

• Maintain and/or enhance soil and watershed conditions and forage production. 

• Achieve a desired ecological stage or desired plant community structure. 

• Appropriately control and manage noxious weeds, poisonous and invasive plants, and 

insects. 

• Protect special status plant species and their habitats. 

Management Decisions: 

VEG-1 

Allow mechanical, fire, biological, or chemical control of noxious weeds and insect infestations 

within the resource planning area with restrictions to protect desired ground cover and water 

quality. Use the type of manipulation appropriate to and consistent with other land use 

objectives. 

VEG-2 

Continue implementation of noxious weed and invasive species control actions as per national 

guidance and local weed management plans in cooperation with state, federal, affected counties, 

adjoining private landowners and other partners or interests directly affected. 

VEG-3 

Utilize principles of integrated pest management for control and management of noxious weeds 

and invasive species. This includes prevention, control through mechanical, cultural, biological, 

and chemical methods. 

VEG-4 

Manage the vegetation to attain the ecological stage that will benefit wildlife in crucial habitat 

and livestock grazing. Manage vegetation in remaining areas that results in high vegetation 

species diversity. 

VEG-5 

Allow mechanical, fire, biological, cultural, or chemical methods for vegetation manipulation, 

using the type of manipulation appropriate to and consistent with other land use objectives, and 

incorporating standard operating procedures and BMPs, as applicable, to protect other resources. 

VEG-6 

Continue implementation of noxious weed and invasive species control actions as per national 

guidance and local weed management plans in cooperation with state, federal, affected counties, 

adjoining private landowners and other partners or interests directly affected. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Vegetation 

136

VEG-7 

This decision was a duplicate of VEG-4. 

VEG-8 

Use of pesticides and herbicides shall comply with the applicable federal and state law. Prior to 

the use of pesticides, project proponents shall obtain from the Authorized Officer written 

approval of Pesticide Use Proposal, which is a plan showing the type and quantity of material to 

be used; pest(s) to be controlled; method of application; location of storage and disposal of 

containers; and any other information deemed necessary by the Authorized Officer. Emergency 

use of pesticides shall be approved in writing by the Authorized Officer prior to use. In addition, 

within 24 hours of any pesticide application, a Pesticide Application Record must be completed. 

A similar procedure is required for the release of biological control agents. 

VEG-9 

Manage the vegetation to attain the ecological stage that will: 

• Ensure sustainability 

• Meet authorized use allocations (livestock, wildlife). 

• Ensure species diversity 

VEG-10 

Manage the following vegetative types to achieve the desired mix of seral stages, as outlined 

below: 

 Existing Seral Stages by 

Vegetation Type 

Desired Seral Stages by 

Vegetation Type 

Vegetation Type % 

Late 

% 

Mid 

% 

Early 

# 

Acres 

% 

Late 

% 

Mid 

% 

Early 

# 

Acres 

Aspen 90 5 5 2,927 45 30 25 2,927

Black Sagebrush 70 20 10 241,416 80 15 5 241,416

Desert Shrub 65 10 25 351,766 80 15 5 351,766

Douglas Fir 80 15 5 137,997 60 20 20 137,997

Four Wing Salt Bush 75 15 10 145,012 55 30 15 145,012

Gardner’s Salt Bush 80 15 5 58,704 90 5 5 58,704

Greasewood 90 5 5 61,213 55 30 15 61,213

Mountain Browse 85 10 5 109,987 55 30 15 109,987

Mountain Sagebrush 70 20 10 78,000 55 30 15 78,000

Pinyon-Juniper 80 10 10 614,518 60 25 15 614,518

Riparian 75 15 10 8,974 90 5 5 8,974

Wyoming Sagebrush 75 20 5 377,817 55 30 15 377,817

Source: Steve Strong, VFO, 2002 

VEG-11 

In order to help control noxious weeds power washing will be required for permitted uses. 

VEG-12 

Users of BLM-administered land will be required to use certified weed-free feed such as hay, 

straw, mulch, hay cubes, pellets, and grain. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Vegetation 

137

VEG-13 

Restore or rehabilitate up to 200,000 acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat over the life of the plan. 

Such vegetation treatment plans will consider the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (WAFWA) Guidelines for Management of Sage-grouse Populations and Habitats and 

State and Local Conservation Plans. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Visual Resources Management 

138

VISUAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (VRM)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Manage the public lands (see Figure 16a) in such a way as to preserve those scenic 

vistas, which are deemed to be most important: 

 In their impact on the quality of life for residents and communities in the 

areas. 

 In their contribution to the quality of recreational visitor experiences. 

 In supporting the regional tourism industry and segments of the local 

economy dependent on public land resources. 

• Seek to complement the rural, agricultural, historic, and urban landscapes on 

adjoining private, state, and tribal lands by maintaining the integrity of background 

vistas on the public lands. 

Management Decisions: 

VRM-1 

Maintain or improve the scenic quality of the landscape and design and mitigate visual intrusions 

consistent with the objectives established for the specific visual resource management classes 

outlined in the BLM Handbook – Visual Resource Inventory (H-8410-1). 

VRM-2 

Approximately 57,776 acres will be managed as VRM Class I. All WSAs and the Instant Study 

Area are included as VRM Class I. 

VRM-3 

Approximately 259,734 acres will be managed as VRM Class II. 

VRM-4 

Approximately 759,977 acres will be managed as VRM Class III. 

VRM-5 

Approximately 642,450 acres will be managed as VRM Class IV. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Wild Horses 

139

WILD HORSES (WHB)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Provide for interim management of wild horses (see Figure 17a) as the goals and 

objectives of the Approved RMP for gathering and removal is completed. 

Management Decisions: 

Bonanza Herd Area 

WHB-1 

The Bonanza Herd Area will not be managed for wild horses. Any horses present on Federal 

lands are in trespass. The Bonanza Herd Area delineation will continue. 

WHB-2 

Gap fences will not be constructed. 

WHB-3 

Additional water developments will not be provided for wild horses. 

WHB-4 

Up to 15 reservoirs outside of, but in close proximity to, the Bonanza Herd Area (HA) boundary 

will not be fenced. 

Hill Creek Herd Area 

WHB-5 

All wild horses will be removed. The Hill Creek Herd Area will be declared unpopulated, and 

the Herd Management Area (HMA) designation will be removed. The area will only be managed 

as an HA with no specific management plan for wild horses. Any horses present after the wild 

horses are removed are in trespass. 

WHB-6 

No horse grazing permits will be issued on public lands within the former HMA or immediate 

areas to grazing permittees, including the Ute Indian Tribe. 

WHB-7 

A Nation-to-Nation agreement with the Ute Indian Tribe and a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) with adjacent private property owners will be entered into for the gathering of and 

phasing out of wild and feral horses on federal lands. 

WHB-8 

A gathering plan will be prepared for the removal of wild horses that will be made available for 

adoption under the BLM's Adopt-A-Horse program. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Wild Horses 

140

Winter Ridge Herd Area 

WHB-9 

All wild horses will be removed and, the Winter Ridge Herd Area will be declared unpopulated. 

The area will only be managed as an HA with no specific management plan for wild horses. Any 

horses present after the wild horses are removed are in trespass. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Wildlife and Fisheries 

141

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES (WL)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Provide, maintain, enhance, and protect habitats for a diversity of fish and wildlife 

species within the VPA. 

• Maintain, restore, enhance, and protect crucial habitats for all fish and wildlife 

species and restore degraded habitats. Manage for unfragmented blocks of continuous 

habitat that will provide the life cycle requirements of a variety of wildlife species. 

• Identify species and habitats most in need of conservation. 

• Coordinate with UDWR and other partners to accomplish the population and habitat 

goals and objectives of current, revised, and/or future big game Herd Management 

Plans that are consistent with and meet the goals and objectives of this LUP. 

Management Decisions: 

WL-1 

The BLM will consider habitat banking (i.e., off-site mitigation) as a method to compensate for 

habitat loss due to surface-disturbing activities. 

WL-2 

Coordinate with Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to prepare an annual 

operating plan for predator control within the VPA. 

WL-3 

Enlist APHIS’ continued support to provide predator control within the black-footed ferret 

reintroduction area and provide carnivore samples for on-going disease monitoring. 

WL-4 

The VFO will assist in implementing the strategic plan for Utah’s Initiative on Blue Ribbon 

Fisheries by managing aquatic and riparian habitats along the Green River, from the Ashley 

National Forest border to the Colorado/Utah border, for a quality cold-water sport fishery and 

Pelican Lake for a quality warm water sport fishery. In addition, any aquatic and riparian habitats 

along other waters identified as Blue Ribbon Fisheries will be managed for quality sport 

fisheries. The VFO will implement this initiative to the extent consistent and appropriate with the 

Vernal RMP and other land use authorizations. 

WL-5 

Reduce habitat fragmentation (see Figure 19a) by requiring oil and gas field development plans 

and encouraging such activities as well clustering, multiple drilling from a single pad, utilization 

of existing routes and pipelines, and other measures to minimize surface impacts. 

WL-6 

In accordance with Executive Order 13186, incorporate conservation measures for the protection 

of migratory birds, as outlined in the Utah Partners-In-Flight Avian Conservation Strategy and 

other scientific information, into all surface-disturbing activities. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Wildlife and Fisheries 

142

WL-7 

Manage habitat to prevent the need for additional listing of species under the Endangered 

Species Act and to contribute to the recovery of those species already listed. 

WL-8 

The BLM will approach compensatory mitigation on an “as appropriate” basis where it can be 

performed on-site, and on a voluntary basis where it is performed off-site, or, in accordance with 

current guidance. 

WL-9 

Minor adjustments to crucial wildlife habitat boundaries (see Figure 18a) periodically made by 

the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) will be accommodated through plan 

maintenance. 

WL-10 

Wildlife habitat improvement projects will require consultation with UDWR on job design, 

construction techniques, and project feasibility. 

WL-11 

Work with permittees to provide water to wildlife on all BLM water developments, including 

troughs, after livestock are removed from an allotment or pasture. Wildlife escape devices will 

be installed on all new and existing water troughs in the VPA. 

WL-12 

Existing Habitat Management Plans (e.g., Browns Park, Myton, and Diamond Mountain-Ashley 

Creek) will continue to be implemented and revised, and new ones will be developed as 

necessary. 

WL-13 

Develop antelope and upland game guzzlers on a case-by-case basis considering the effects to 

migratory birds, wildlife, and livestock. 

WL-14 

Encourage coordination with oil and gas companies to inform the BLM and USFWS of plans for 

workovers in order to protect species from disturbances during critical time periods. 

WL-15 

Do not allow activities that will result in adverse impacts to antelope from May 1 through June 

30 on currently identified 7,800 acres of antelope fawning ground in Antelope Flat. This 

restriction does not apply if antelope are not present or if impacts will be mitigated through other 

management actions. This restriction also does not apply to maintenance and operations of 

existing facilities.

WL-16 

Modify existing fences on public lands where wildlife are adversely affected. Work with other 

surface management agencies or surface owners toward modifying wildlife-restricting fences 

that border public lands to improve natural movement of wildlife. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Wildlife and Fisheries 

143

WL-17 

All applications to pave roads will be evaluated in the site-specific NEPA analysis to determine 

the need for fencing. Applicants receiving a ROW grant will be required to fence the road if it is 

determined necessary to protect human and livestock health and safety. 

WL-18 

In order to protect crucial elk calving and deer fawning habitat, exploration, drilling, and other 

development activity will not be allowed from May 15 through June 30. Maintenance of 

producing wells will be allowed. 

WL-19 

Activities that would result in adverse impacts to deer and elk within crucial winter range would 

not be allowed from December 1 through April 30. 

• This restriction would not apply if deer and/or elk are not present, or if it is 

determined through analysis and coordination with UDWR that impacts could be 

mitigated 

• Factors to be considered would include snow depth, temperature, snow crusting, 

location of disturbance, forage quantity and quality, animal condition, and expected 

duration of disturbance. 

WL-20 

Within crucial deer winter range, no more than 10% of such habitat will be subject to surface 

disturbance and remain un-reclaimed at any given time. 

WL-21 

Raptor management will be guided by the use of "Best Management Practices for Raptors and 

Their Associated Habitats in Utah" (Utah BLM, 2006, Appendix A), utilizing seasonal and 

spatial buffers, as well as mitigation, to maintain and enhance raptor nesting and foraging 

habitat, while allowing other resource uses. 

WL-22 

Cooperate with utility companies, UDWR, and USFWS to prevent electrocution of raptors. 

WL-23 

Spatial and temporal buffers applied to disturbances in the vicinity of nesting raptors will be 

tailored to the individual raptor species involved and based on factors such as line of sight 

distance between nest and disturbance, type and duration of disturbance, nest structure security, 

sensitivity of the species to disturbance, observed responses to related disturbances, and the 

amount of other disturbances already occurring in the vicinity. 

WL-24 

Pursue a partnership between industries, local governments, USFWS, UDWR, the BLM, USFS, 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and others as appropriate to establish a raptor 

management fund to be utilized for raptor population monitoring and habitat enhancement.
Vernal Approved RMP – Wildlife and Fisheries 

144

WL-25 

In consultation with UDWR, promote appropriate habitat enhancement to contribute to 

maintaining a healthy predator population within the existing suitable habitat, while considering 

human safety, economic concerns, and other wildlife species. 

WL-26 

Placement of bear bait on public land will require a permit. 

WL-27 

Improve or increase forage through vegetation treatments that will setback the seral stage of 

crucial use areas, and, if necessary, re-seed areas with a variety of native and adapted non-native 

plant species. 

WL-28 

It is preferred that surface-disturbing actions within crucial deer winter range will be located in 

pinyon juniper rather than browse where both vegetation types occur. 

WL-29 

Acquire and protect crucial wildlife habitat through sale or exchange. 

WL-30 

Establish new and maintain all existing guzzlers and other water sources to improve habitat and 

distribution in the VPA. 

WL-31 

No surface-disturbing activities will be allowed from April 15 through May 31 within McCook 

and Monument Ridge mule deer migration corridors (Figure 18a). 

WL-32 

For neotropical migratory birds, provide habitat for the cavity-nesting non-game wildlife species 

and other species that utilize standing snags during a portion of their life cycles. 

WL-33 

In cooperation with permittees, manage grazing to allow regeneration of riparian tree species and 

to protect natural water sources for the habitat of neotropical migratory birds. 

WL-34 

Prevent the spread of non-native plants, especially cheatgrass, salt cedar, and Russian olive to 

maintain and enhance the habitat of neotropical migratory birds. 

WL-35 

Strive for a dense understory with a reduction in salt cedar and improvement of cottonwood 

regeneration to maintain and enhance the habitat of neotropical migratory birds.

WL-36 

Reintroduction of native fish and wildlife species into appropriate habitats will be accomplished 

through coordination with UDWR, counties, and interested publics through appropriate public 
Vernal Approved RMP – Wildlife and Fisheries 

145

participation processes. Reintroductions will involve, but may not be limited to, native species 

such as Rocky Mountain big horn sheep, moose, bison, and Colorado River cutthroat trout, and 

wild turkey. 

WL-37 

Implement the guidelines outlined in the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Reintroduction 

Cooperative Agreement between the BLM, Diamond Mountain Resource Area, Vernal District 

and UDWR Northeastern Region (1993), and the Vernal District Rocky Mountain Big Horn 

Sheep Guidance Plan (1987). 

WL-38 

Allotments near current or potential Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat, where future 

transplants are likely to occur, will be considered for conversion from domestic sheep grazing to 

cattle grazing, as cattle are the preferred livestock within 10 miles of bighorn sheep habitat areas. 

Conversion will only be done in cooperation with affected parties. 

WL-39 

Potential reintroduction of gray wolves will be made in consultation with the UDWR, USFWS, 

the Ute Indian Tribe, counties, and private landowners through the Resource Advisory Council 

process for public involvement. The BLM will follow the State of Utah’s management plan for 

wolves (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication #05-17 Prepared by the Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources and The Utah Wolf Working Group). 

WL-40 

Habitat and forage will be provided for the emigration and/or reintroduction of Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep in the following areas: 

• Ashley Gorge 

• Beaver Creek/Willow Creek Area 

• Big Brush Creek 

• Browns Park/Green River Corridor that includes Red Creek Canyon 

• Crouse Canyon 

• Diamond Mountain ridgetops 

• Goslin Mountain 

• Island Park /Dry Fork area 

• Little Brush Creek 

• Nine Mile Canyon 

• Richard's Mountain 

• Sears Creek Canyon 

• Teepee Mountain 

• Toliver's Creek 

• White River 

• Upper Book Cliffs (Willow Creek drainage upstream from Wood Canyon and the 

Bitter Creek drainage upstream from the Sweetwater confluence) 

Forage required for Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep will be included in the AUMs allocated for 

wildlife. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Wildlife and Fisheries 

146

WL-41 

The BLM will continue to work cooperatively with UDWR and other entities to revise and 

implement the Book Cliffs Bison Management Plan. 

WL-42 

Habitat and forage will be provided for the emigration and/or reintroduction of moose 

populations. Forage required for moose will be included in the AUMs allocated for wildlife. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Appendices 

147

WOODLANDS AND FOREST RESOURCES (WDF)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Follow national BLM Forest Health and Forest Management Standards and 

Guidelines to assess conditions and guide management actions for the forest and 

woodland resource. 

• Allow public utilization of forest and woodland species before/after vegetative 

treatments that will be conducted to achieve desired future conditions. Allow the 

utilization of forest and woodland species as a tool for vegetative treatments. 

• Manage forests and woodlands for long-term healthy habitat for animal and plant 

species, forest and woodland health, and riparian restoration and enhancement. 

Provide for timber production where feasible and compatible with forest health and 

other resource management objectives. 

• Restore productivity and biodiversity in forest, woodland, and riparian areas. Allow 

for the harvest of pinyon/juniper for fuel wood, biomass, posts, pinyon nuts, 

Christmas and ornamental live trees, and special forest products. Manage 

pinyon/juniper to control encroachment and to improve wildlife habitat, woodland 

health, and watershed conditions. 

• Manage oak by sustaining and enhancing some of the trees in the older age classes in 

areas that are suitable for maintaining and increasing acorn yields. Manage aspen to 

maintain diversity of age classes and to allow for species reestablishment. 

• Encourage utilization of woodland products, including biomass, from lands that will 

be converted to other resource uses and salvage of woodland products where 

compatible with other resource management objectives. 

• Pursue partnerships to provide social and economic benefits to local residents, 

businesses, and future generations. Encourage stewardship contracting in some areas 

to achieve various resource management objectives. 

• Identify, maintain, and restore forest and woodland old-growth stands to a pre-fire 

suppression condition. The VFO will adopt the USFS old-growth definitions and 

identification standards as per the USFS document “Characteristics of Old-Growth 

Forests in the Intermountain Region (April 1999).” In instances where the area of 

application in the previous document does not apply to specific species (for example, 

Pinus edulis), use the document, “Recommended Old-Growth Definitions and 

Descriptions, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, (Sept.1992).” 

Management Decisions: 

WDF-1 

Develop a forest and woodland management plan incorporating the goals and objectives listed 

below: 

• Allow for reforestation of forest and woodland sites after disturbances, where needed 

for stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, and succession of ecosystems; restoration 

of native species; and seed sources lost in a stand replacement fire or other stand 

replacing events. 

• Areas determined to need re-seeding will be treated with a variety of plant species 

that are desirable for wildlife habitat, livestock, and watershed management, while 
Vernal Approved RMP – Appendices 

148

maintaining vegetation species diversity. The use of site adapted native plant species 

is encouraged. 

• Forests and woodlands will be managed using timber harvest and/or woodcutting in 

conjunction with pre-commercial thinning, prescribed fire, chaining and other 

techniques to achieve site-specific objectives of restoring and maintaining forest 

health, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat; insect and disease control; as a tool for 

hazard fuel reduction and WUI projects; riparian restoration and; and other resource 

management goals. 

• Forest and woodland treatments and harvests will continue to be designed in 

accordance with silvicultural prescriptions. Irregular boundaries of treatment and 

harvest areas will be required to reduce the detrimental impacts to the scenic values. 

• Pinyon-juniper and oak management will be implemented to maintain commodity 

production, enhance resource values, and reduce pinyon-juniper dominance. Priority 

areas for pinyon-juniper treatments will be aspen stands, productive grasslands, 

forested areas, and shrublands where loss of vegetative diversity is likely. The 

treatments will be conducted to provide a mosaic pattern to meet wildlife habitat 

requirements. 

• Oak stands on suitable sites will be managed to maintain and increase the size, vigor 

and productivity of individual trees to increase acorn yields. Methods may include 

cutting, pruning, and burning. 

• Aspen stands will be managed to maintain or enhance distribution, density, 

regeneration and sustainability, and to favor regeneration of aspen where deemed 

appropriate. Stands will be managed for maintenance or enhancement using a variety 

of methods, including harvest cutting or burning. 

• Allow for the harvesting, cutting, and pruning, of forest and woodland species that are 

a hazard to public safety, private property, structures, and cultural resources. 

• Allow for the collection of common native seed and non-barrel cacti, except in 

periods of low vegetative or seed production. 

WDF-2 

Allow for the maintenance and enhancement of relict stands, picnic areas, and other stands of 

special significance by methods such as chemical, mechanical, and prescribed fire. 

WDF-3 

Allow for the management of cottonwood and other species to restore, enhance, and maintain 

riparian vegetation. 

WDF-4 

Forests and woodlands will be managed to maintain and restore ecosystems to a condition in 

which biodiversity is preserved and occurrences of fire, insects, disease and other disturbances 

will not exceed levels normally expected in healthy forests and woodlands. 

WDF-5 

Relict stands will be maintained for biological and genetic diversity. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Appendices 

149

WDF-6 

Forests and woodlands will be managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield 

without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment; 

use of forest, woodland, and certain vegetation products in areas specified for this use, and other 

areas will be allowed to meet RMP goals. 

WDF-7 

The National Healthy Forest Initiative will be implemented. 

WDF-8 

The National Fire Plan will be implemented by conducting treatments to reduce fuel loadings, 

fire severity, and restoring historical disturbance regimes. Materials from such treatments, 

including those from hazard fuel reduction projects and wildland urban interface projects will be 

utilized. 

WDF-9 

A proactive program of woodland management will be initiated for the salvage of forest and 

woodland products that are dead and/or dying due to fire, disease, insect-kill, or other 

disturbance with the management intent of promoting healthy forest and woodlands. 

WDF-10 

Up to 546,152 acres of forest and woodland will have treatments or be harvested. 

WDF-11 

No vegetation removal will occur in WSAs. 

WDF-12 

Special management actions for the old-growth pinyon area in Bitter Creek would include: 

• Establishing a research/monitoring program 

• Restricting wood-cutting around old-growth pinyon 

• NSO for old-growth pinyon (160 acres)
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

150

REFERENCES 

Archer, Scott F. 2001a. Telephone conversation among BLM, SWCA, and Trinity staff on 

December 5, 2001 conference call. 

Archer, Scott F. 2001b. States’ Acceptable Ambient Concentration Levels and guidelines 

provided to Sean McEldowney, Trinity Consultants, in a December 13, 2001 facsimile. 

Archer, Scott F. 2002. Conversation with Trinity staff on December 17, 2002. 

Bartel, Kim 2002. Conversation between Kim Bartel, Vernal BLM Field Office and David 

Harris, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Vernal, Utah, 2 April 2002. 

Bechard, M. J., R. L. Knight, D. G. Smith, and R. E. Fitzner. 1990. Nest sites and habitats of 

sympatric hawks (Buteo spp.) in Washington. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:159-170. 

Belsky AJ, Matzke A, Uselman S. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian 

ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-

431. 

Blackett, R. 1996. "Tar Sand Resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah. A Catalog of Deposits." Utah 

Geological Survey Open File Report 335. 

Bowker, J.M.; Harvard, J.E., III; Bergstrom, John C.; Cordell, H. Ken; English, Donald B.K.; 

Loomis, John B. “The Net Economic Value of Wilderness”, The Multiple Values of 

Wilderness: 161–181. USFS, Southern Research Station, 2005. 

Braun, C.E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge. 2002. Oil and gas development in western 

North America: effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sagegrouse. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 

67:337-349. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2002. Website: http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) April 1983a. Book Cliffs Management Situation Analysis. 

Chapter 5, Wildlife and Wild Horses. BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. page 23. 

BLM. 1984. Bookcliffs Final EIS. Utah BLM, Vernal District. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement on the Book Cliffs Resource Management Plan. 

BLM. 1985. Manual 3031-Energy and Mineral Resources Assessment. Rel. 3-115. June 19, 

1985. 

BLM. May 1985. Record of Decision and Rangeland Program Summary for the Book Cliffs 

Resource Management Plan. BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 

BLM. July 1985. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Book Cliffs Resource 

Management Plan. BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. July. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

151

BLM. 1988. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, BLM Handbook H-1790-1. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C., October 

1988. 

BLM. 1990. Diamond Mountain Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 

BLM. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 

Thirteen Western States and associated Records of Decision. BLM Wyoming State 

Office, Casper Wyoming. 1991. (BLM-WY-ES-91-036-4320) 

BLM. 1992. BLM Handbook 8400 – Visual Resource Management. 

BLM. 1993a. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. BLM, Proper Functioning 

Condition Work Group, TR 1737-9. 51 pp. 

BLM. 1993b. Diamond Mountain RMP and EIS. Utah BLM, Vernal District. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, March 1993, Diamond Mountain Resource 

Area Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1 

BLM. 1993. Wild and Scenic Rivers - Policy and Program Direction, for Identification, 

Evaluation, and Management, BLM Manual 8351. US Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management. December 22, 1993. 

BLM. April 1994a. Diamond Mountain Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record 

of Decision. 

BLM. 1994b. Manual 3060. Mineral Reports, Preparation and Review. Rel. 3-284. 

BLM. 1994. H08160-1 – General Procedure Guidance for Native American Consultation. 

Available at http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/handbooks/h8160-1.html. 

BLM. 1995. Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review. BLM Handbook 

H-8550-1. Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento. 

BLM. 1996. Woodland Product Policy. Instruction Memorandum No. UT080-97-01, Change 1. 

Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 

BLM. 1997. Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Their Companion Rules: Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM in Utah. Bureau of 

Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. May. 

BLM. 1998. General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management (H-8270-

1). United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Manual. 

BLM. 1999. Costilla Energy Inc. Hill Creek Unit Wellfield Development EA/RMP Plan 

Amendment. December. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

152

BLM. 1999b. Utah Wilderness Inventory. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt 

Lake City. 

BLM. 2000. BLM Manual H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook. United States, Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

BLM. 2000. Vernal Field Office Fire Management Plan. US Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Vernal Field Office. 

BLM. 2000. Vernal Field Office Fuels Management Plan. US Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Vernal Field Office. 

BLM. July 2001. Book Cliffs Resource Management Plan Amendment Involving the Bonanza 

Wild Horse Herd Area. EA No. UT 080-1999-56. BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, 

Utah. 

BLM. 2001. Glenwood Springs Field Office Information. Webpage: 

http://www.co.blm.gov/gsra/officeinfo.htm Last Modified: September 26, 2001. 

Glenwood Springs, CO. 

BLM. 2001. BLM Manual 6840, revised – Special Status Species Management. January 17, 

2001. 

BLM. 2002. "Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Planning Area Encompassing 

Approximately 5.1 million Acres, Duchesne, Dagget, Uintah, and Grand Counties", Utah, 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior. 

BLM. 2003a. Meeting of air quality stakeholders to discuss the dispersion modeling protocol. 

Meeting notes. February 11, 2003. 

BLM. 2003b. Socioeconomic Profile - Pinedale. Pinedale FO, Pinedale Wyoming. January 2003. 

BLM. 2004a. Development scenario questionnaire (developed by BLM NSTC-AQ staff), 

completed by GSFO personnel 4/17/04; transmitted via email from Steve Bennett to 

Craig Nicholls. April 17, 2004. 

BLM. 2004b. Development scenario questionnaire (developed by BLM NSTC-AQ staff), 

completed by VFO (Utah) personnel 4/12/04; transmitted via email from Dave Moore to 

Craig Nicholls, 4/12/04. 

BLM. 2004. Telephone Conversation with Ed Forsman, BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah 

and Deb Reber, SWCA Environmental Consultants. August 19, 2004. 

BLM. 2004. Personal communication with Robert Specht, BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, 

Utah, and Eric McCulley, SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2004. 

BLM. 2004. Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Planning Area. Final Mineral Report. 

Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Field Office. June. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

153

BLM. 2005. Land Use Planning Handbook, BLM Handbook H-1601-1. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. March 2005. 

BLM. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Castle Peak and 

Eight Mile Flat Oil and Gas Expansion Project: Newfield Rocky Mountains Inc. Vernal 

Field Office. Vernal, Utah. Fall 2005. 

BLM. 2007. Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009. Potential Fossil Yield Classification 

(PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands. October 15, 2007. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. 

BLM. 2007. Updated Utah Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Director’s Sensitive Plant 

and Animal Species List. Instruction Memorandum No. UT 2007-078 dated September 

26, 2007 Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office. 

BLM. 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and associated Record of 

Decision. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 2007 (FES 07-21). 

BLM. 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic Environmental Report. USDI, Bureau of Land Management (FES 

07-21). 

BLM. 2007. Northeast National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska Draft Supplemental Integrated 

Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. August 2007. US Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage. Available on the Internet: 

http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/npra_general/ne_npra/ne_npra_supplement.html. 

BLM 2008. West Tavaputs Plateau Natural Gas Full Field Development Plan: Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement: UT-070-05-055. Price Field Office, Price, Utah. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

1996. Interagency Technical Reference: Sampling Vegetation Attributes. USDI, USDA. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

1996. Interagency Technical Reference: Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements. 

USDI, USDA. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

1998. Technical Reference 1737-15 Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to 

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. 

USDI and USDA. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

2003. Technical Reference 1737-16 Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to 

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. 

USDI and USDA. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

154

Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. Technical Report 1730-2 

Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management, US Department of the Interior. 

Carper, Elizabeth, and Ottersberg, Eri. 2002. Significance of a CALPUFF Near-Field Analysis. 

Air and Waste Management Association (A&WMA) Pacific Northwest International 

Section (PNWIS) Annual Conference. November 2002. Tacoma, Washington. 

Cashion, W. 1967. "Geology and Fuel Resources of the Green River Formation Southeastern 

Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado." USGS Professional Paper 548. 

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. (CDPHE). 2004. Personal 

communication with Chip Hancock, 4/15/2004. 

Chenoweth, W. 1992. "Uranium Mining in the Uinta Basin, Utah." In Hydrocarbon and Mineral 

Resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado: Utah Geological Association 

Guidebook 20 (Eds. Fouch, Y., V. Nuccio, and T. Chidsey, Jr.). 

Chick, Nancy. 2002. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution 

Control Division. Roan Plateau EIS comments. December 20, 2002. 

Chow, V.T. 1959. Open-channel hydraulics: McGraw Hill, New York, 680 pages. 

Connelly, John W., Steven T. Knick, Michael A. Schroeder, and San J. Stiver. 2004. 

Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Crawford, A. 1960. "Gilsonite and Related Hydrocarbons of the Uinta Basin, Utah", Reprint No. 

18-a, Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey. 

Deloria, V., and R. Stoffle. 1998. Native American Sacred Sites and the Department of Defense. 

University of Colorado and Arizona. Submitted to the United States Department of 

Defense, Washington D.C. 

Department of Transportation. 1997. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. [Docket No. RSPA-97-2879] Pipeline Safety: Rapid Isolation of 

Ruptured Sections of Gas Transmission Pipelines AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety, 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT 

Doelling, H. and R. Graham. 1972. "Eastern and Northern Utah Coal Fields: Vernal, Henry 

Mountains, Sego, La Sal-San Juan, Tabby Mountain, Coalville, Henry's Fork, Goose 

Creek and Lost Creek." Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Monograph Series 

No. 2. 

Duncan, Clifford. 1992. Report Prepared for the BLM Concerning Proposed Road Improvement 

Between Ouray and Cisco, Utah. Ouray to Interstate 70 Highway Draft EIS. September. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

155

Earth Tech Inc. 2001a. CALPUFF Modeling System Webpage: 

http://www.src.com/calpuff/calpuff1.htm Last Modified: December 10, 2001. Concord, 

MA. 

Earth Tech, Inc. 2001b. CALMET Codes and Related Processors [Version 5.2, 000602d] 

Webpage: http://earthtec.vwh.net/download/cmet.htm Last Modified: October 12, 2001. 

Concord, MA. 

Earth Tech, Inc. 2001c. CALPUFF Codes and Related Processors [Version 5.5, 010730_1] 

Webpage: http://earthtec.vwh.net/download/cpuff.htm Last Modified: October 12, 2001. 

Concord, MA. 

Edwards, T.C., A. Falconer, R.D. Ramsey, C.G. Homer, S.D. Basset, and D.W. Wight. 1996. 

Utah GAP Analysis: an environmental information system. Utah State University, Logan, 

UT. 

Energy Information Administration. 2006 Website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/. Accessed March 

23, 2006. 

Environmental Protection Area (EPA). 1992. Screening procedures for estimating the air quality 

impact of stationary sources, revised. EPA-454/R-92-019. Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. October. 

EPA. 1995a. User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models: 

Volume I - User Instructions. EPA-454/B-95-003a. Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. September. 

EPA. 1995b. SCREEN3 Model User’s Guide. EPA-454/B-95-004. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. September. 

EPA. 1995d. Federal Register Notice. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans. 40 CFR Parts 50 & 51. Volume 60, Number 153, pg 40469. 

August 9. 

EPA. 1997. Integrated Risk Information System database. Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

EPA. 1998. Draft Residual Risk Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. April 14. 

EPA. 1999a. Residual Risk Report to Congress. Document Number: EPA-453/R-99-001. Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. March 1999. PDF 

file available for download at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/meta/m8690.html

EPA. 1999b. Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Rule. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. April. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

156

EPA. November 19, 2001. USA Air Quality Nonattainment Areas. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. Website: http://www.epa.gov/airs/nonattn.html 

EPA. 2002. AIRData Webpage: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/ Last Modified: February 7, 2002. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 

EPA. 2003. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) web site. 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html. or see http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0270.htm 

EPA. 2005. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions; Final Rule. 

40CFR, Part 51. (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf). 

November 9. 

Eubanks, Ellen C. Dexter Meadows and Jill S. Cremer. 2002. A Soil Bioengineering Guide for 

Streambank and Lakeshore Stabilization. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Technology and Development Program, San Dimas, CA. 

Executive Order No. 1988 Floodplain Management. 42 F.R. 26951. May 24, 1977. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/eo11988.html/. 

Fitzgerald, J.P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver 

Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado, Niwot. 

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998, Stream corridor restoration – 

principle, processes, and practices: National Technical Information Service, Order No. 

PB98-158348INQ, Washington, D.C. 

Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG). 2000. Phase I Report 

dated December 2000). USDI-National Park Service, Air Resources Division. Denver, 

CO. Available at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/ard/flagfree/FLAG--FINAL.pdf. 

Federal Register Notice. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans. 40 CFR Parts 50 & 51. Volume 60, Number 153, pg 40469. 

August 9. 

Fleischner, Thomas L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. 

Conservation Biology 8(3): 629-644. 

Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF), 2000. Prescribed Fire Position Paper. Florida Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Internet website: http://flame.fldof.com/Env/RX/position.html 

Forman, R., and L. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their Major Ecological effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. 

Syst. Vol. 29, pp. 207-31. 

Fox, D.G.; Bartuska, A.M.; Byrne, J.G.; Cowling, E.; Fisher, R.; Likens, G.E.; Lindberg, S.E.; 

Linthurst, R.A.; Messer, J.; and Nichols, D.S. 1989. A Screening Procedure to Evaluate 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

157

Air Pollution Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas. General Technical Report RM-168. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort 

Collins, CO. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/aq/natarm/screen.pdf 

Gelbard J. L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid 

landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):420-432. 

Glisson, B. 2007. Final report for Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus wetlandicus

Hochstätter) reconnaissance survey of habitat areas along the Green River, Utah. 

Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, West Valley City, 

Utah. June 21, 2007. 6 pp. with additional maps and appendices. 

Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 2007. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude 

Bands. Datasets and Images. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, Analysis Graphs and 

Plots. New York, New York. Available on the Internet: 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif. 

Habich, Edward F. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring Technical Reference 1734-7: Ecological 

Site Inventory. USDI Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology 

Center, Denver, CO. 

Hansen, W.R. 1969. The geology of the Uinta Mountains: United States Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1291, 144. 

Havstad, K.M. 1994. Sheep Grazing as a Rangeland Improvement Tool, Sheep and Goat 

Research Journal: Special Issue: The Role of Sheep Grazing in Natural Resource 

Management, pp. 72-78. 

Hersey, Kent R. and Anis Aoude. 2006. Utah Big Game Annual Report. State of Utah, 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. Publication No. 07-22. 

Holmes, T.L., R.L. Knight, L. Stegall, and G.R. Craig. 1993. Responses of wintering grassland 

raptors to human disturbance. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:461-468. 

Holzworth, G. C. 1972. Mixing Heights, wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution 

Throughout the Contiguous United States. Office of Air Programs AP-10, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 

Huntington, Matthew H. and John D. Echeverria, Ed. 1991. The American Rivers Outstanding 

Rivers List. Second Edition. Washington, DC: American Rivers, Inc. 

IMPROVE. 2002. IMPROVE Optical Data Webpage: 

http:///vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/IMPROVE/Data_IMPOptical.htm. USDINational Park Service/Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (Colorado 

State University). Fort Collins, CO. 

Interagency Wild & Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. 1997. Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Reference Guide. BLM, NPS, USFWS, USFS, and State Representatives. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

158

Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM). 1998. Phase 2 Summary Report 

and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts. EPA-454/R-98-019, 

December 1998. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Basis (Summary for Policymakers). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England 

and New York, New York. Available on the Internet: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007, Summary for Policymakers. Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the IPCC. 

Irby, L. R., R. J. Mackie, H. Ihsle Pac, and W. F. Kasworm. 1987. Management of mule deer in 

relation to oil and gas development in Montana's overthrust belt. Pages 113-121. Issues 

and Technology in the Management of Impacted Wildlife. Thorne Ecological Institute 

Isaacson, Alan, E. 2003. “The Structure of Utah’s Natural Gas Industry. University of Utah: 

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Volume 63 Numbers 11 & 12. 

November/December 2003. 

Jennings, M.E., Thomas, Jr., W.O., and Riggs, H.C., 1994, Nationwide summary of U.S. 

Geological Survey regional regression equations for estimating magnitude and frequency 

of floods the ungaged sites, 1993: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 94-4002, 196 pages. 

Johnson, M. 1973. "Placer Gold Deposits of Utah." USGS Bulletin 1357. 

Karpowitz, J. 1984. Book Cliffs big game inventory and production study. Utah Dept. of Nat. 

Resour., Vernal, UT Publ. No. 84-10. 

Lakes Environmental Software (Lakes). 2002. User’s Guide: ISC-AERMOD View. 

Lagasse, P.F., Schall, J.D., and Richardson, E.V., 2001, Stream stability at highway structures: 

Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 20, Third Edition, FHWA NHI 01-002, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 

Lyon L.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. J. of Forestry 

79:658-660. 

Lyon, A. G. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage-grouse nest 

initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(2):486-491. 

Lyon, L.J., T.N. Lonner, J.P. Weigand, C.L. Marcum, W.D. Edge, J.D. Jones, D.W. McCleery, 

and L.L. Hicks. 1985. Coordinating elk and timber management. Final report. Montana 

Cooperative Elk-Logging Study 1970-185. Montana Dept. Fish and Wildlife. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

159

Machovec, Chuck. 2002. Modeling Protocol Comments- Vernal and Glenwood Springs 

Resource Management Plans. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 

Air Pollution Control Division. December 26, 2002. Denver, CO. 

McMurtrie, Deborah. (Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)). 

Molinas, A., 1990, Bridge stream tube model for alluvial river simulation (BRI-STARS), user’s 

manual: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project No. HR 15-11, 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 

Montana State University. 2003. “Frequently Asked Questions: Coal Bed Methane 

Development.” Montana State University: Department of Land Resources and 

Environmental Sciences. Website: 

http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/methane/cbmfaq.shtml#whatiscoalbedmethane. 

Accessed April 10, 2006. 

Mosely, Jeffery C. 1994. Prescribed Sheep Grazing to Enhance Wildlife Habitat on North 

American Rangelands. Sheep and Goat Research Journal: Special Issue: The Role of 

Sheep Grazing in Natural Resource Management, pp. 79-91. 

National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: 

Highlights of National Academies Reports. Division on Earth and Life Studies. National 

Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. Available on the Internet: 

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf. 

National Energy Policy Development Group, May 2001. "National Energy Policy. Reliable, 

Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America's Future". 

National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle use on Public Lands, 

January 2001. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1998. Summary of ISCST3 Modeling for Naval Oil Shale Reserve 

Natural Gas Development in the Bureau of Land Management Glenwood Springs 

Resource Area. Air Quality Division. December. 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory, USDI, National Park Service, 1995. 

Olendorff, R. R. 1993. Biology and management of ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis): a review. 

Occasional Papers Number 1. Raptor Research and Technical Assistance Center, U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, USA. 

Olson, B.E. and J.R. Lacey. 1994. Sheep: A Method for Controlling Rangeland Weeds. Sheep 

and Goat Research Journal: Special Issue: The Role of Sheep Grazing in Natural 

Resource Management, pp. 105-112. 

Orth, Tom. 2002. Telephone conversation with Trinity staff on June 14, 2002. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

160

Phillips, Blaine. 2002 Personal communication. [In-person conversation about the Vernal 

District MSA and RMP between Mr. Phillips and Mr. Dave Moore of the BLM-Vernal 

Field Office and Sheri Murray Ellis, Matthew T. Seddon, and Molly Molenaar of SWCA, 

in Vernal, November 9, 2001.] Notes on file at SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants, 

Salt Lake City. 

Pitchford, Marc L., and William C. Malm. 1994. Development and Applications of a Standard 

Visual Index. Atmospheric Environment 28(5): 1,049–1,054. 

Pruitt, R. 1961. "The Mineral Resources of Uintah County." Utah Geological and Mineralogical 

Survey Bulletin 71. 

Rairigh, K. 2002. Telephone conversation between Mr. Ken Rairigh, Wyoming DEQ, and Yu 

Shan Huang, Trinity Consultants, on January 4, 2002. 

Reed, Alan D. and Michael D. Metcalf. 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern 

Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. 

Rhodenbaugh, Molly and Virginia Newton. 2000. The Browns Park Road Project, Daggett 

County, Utah: Phase II Native American Consultation and the Identification of 

Traditional Cultural Places. Cultural Resources Report 00-29. SWCA, Inc. 

Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City. 

Richardson, E.V., and Davis, S.R., 2001, Evaluating scour at bridges: Hydraulic Engineering 

Circular No. 18, Fourth Edition, FHWA NHI 01-001, Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, D.C. 

Richardson, E.V., Simons, D.B. and Lagasse, P.F., 2001, Highways in the river environment: 

Report FHWA NHI 01-004, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulic Design Series 

No. 6, Washington, D.C. 

Sawyer, H., Nielson, R., Strickland, D., and McDonald, L., 2005, 2005 Annual Report. Sublette 

Mule Deer Study (Phase II): Long-term monitoring plan to assess potential impacts of 

energy development on mule deer in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area. Western 

Ecosystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, WY. 

Sawyer, H., Nielson, R.M., Lindzey, F., and McDonald, L., 2006, Winter Habitat Selection of 

Mule Deer Before and During Development of a Natural Gas Field. Journal of Wildlife 

Management, 70(2): 396-403. 

Schillie, E., 2002. Personal Communication. SF Phosphate, LLC. June. 

Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimatis, and R.J. Yamartino. 2000. “A Users Guide for the CALPUFF 

Dispersion Model (Version 5); Description of the MESOPUFF II Chemical Mechanism.” 

Earth Tech, Inc. Concord, MA. Available at http://earthtec.vwh.net/download/calpuff.pdf 

Seidel, J. W. 1977. Elk calving behavior in west central Colorado. Pp. 38–40 in Proc. Western 

States Elk Workshop, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

161

Shimkin, Demitri B. 1986. Eastern Shoshone. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d’Azevedo, 

pp. 308-335. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, W. C. Sturtevant, general 

editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Simon, A., 1989, A model of channel response in distributed alluvial channels: Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms 14(1): 11-26. 

Simon, A., 1992, Energy, time and channel evolution in catastrophically disturbed fluvial 

systems: in Geomorphic systems: geomorphology, ed. J.D. Phillips and W.H. Renwick, 

vol. 5, pp. 345-372. 

Simons, Li and Associates, 1982, Engineering analysis of fluvial systems: SLA, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Sipes, S. D. and V. J. Tepedino. 1995. Reproductive biology of the rare orchid, Spiranthes 

diluvialis: breeding system, pollination, and implications for conservation. Cons. Biol. 9: 

929-938. 

Smith, Michael D., R.S. Krannich and L.M. Hunter. 2001. Growth, Decline, Stability, and 

Disruption: A Longitudinal Analysis of Social Well-Being in Four Western Rural 

Communities. Rural Sociology 66(3):425-450. 

Society for Range Management. 1998. Glossary of Terms used in Range Management. Edison 

Press, Denver, CO. 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 2001. Scoping Comments submitted by Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance , The Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, and 

Utah Rivers Council, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Spangler, Jerry D.1995 Paradigms & Perspectives: a Class I Overview of Cultural Resources in 

the Uinta Basin and Tavaputs Plateau. Uinta Research: Salt Lake City. 

Sprott, Richard W. 2003. Utah Department of Environmental Quality Memorandum No. DAQP003-03 to Yu Shan Huang. January 17, 2003. 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in 

Utah, May 1997. 

State of Utah (Utah). 1996. Wild and Scenic River Review in the State of Utah Process and 

Criteria for Interagency Use. Process and Criteria for Interagency Use, July 1996.

State of Utah (Utah). 2003. Standards of Water Quality for Waters of the State. Rule R317-2. 

Stern, K. 1960. Native Bitumens, Pyrobitumens, and Asphaltic Type Petroleum Bitumens", In, 

Industrial Minerals and Rocks (Nonmetallics other than Fuels), Seely W. Mudd Series, 

The Am. Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, pp. 631-635. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

162

Strong, S. 2002a. Personal communication with C. Garrett (SWCA, Inc. Environmental 

Consultants) regarding RMP development. 12 March. 

Strong, S. 2002b. Personal communication with C. Garrett (SWCA, Inc. Environmental 

Consultants) regarding riparian functions. 26 April 

SWCA. 2006. Sclerocactus wetlandicus and S. brevispinus surveys. Unpublished data. 

SWCA. 2007. Sclerocactus wetlandicus and S. brevispinus surveys. Unpublished data. 

Thomas, B.E., and Lindskow, K.L., 1983, Methods for estimating peak discharge and flood 

boundaries of stream in Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 83-4129, 77 pages. 

Thomas, B.E., Hjalmarson, H.W., and Waltemeyer, S.D., 1993, Methods for estimating 

magnitude and frequency of floods in the southwestern United States: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 93-419, 193 pages. 

Trinity Consultants (Trinity), and Nicholls, Craig (BLM). 2004. Air Quality Assessment Report - 

Vernal and Glenwood Springs Resource Management Plans. August 2004. 

Trinity Consultants (Trinity), and Nicholls, Craig (BLM). 2005. Air Quality Assessment Report - 

Vernal and Glenwood Springs Resource Management Plans. July 2005. 

Trombulak, S., and C. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30. 

Trudell, L. G., John W. Smith, Thomas N. Beard, and Glenn M. Mason. 1983. Primary Oil-Shale 

Resources of the Green River Formation in the Eastern Uinta Basin, Utah, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Laramie Energy Technology Center, DOE/LC/RI-82-4. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993, Scour and deposition in rivers and reservoirs, user’s 

manual, HEC-6: Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA. 

United States Census (U.S. Census), 2000 Census of Population. Website: 

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. 

U.S. Congress. 1968. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. October 2, 1968. Title 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287. 

U.S. Congress. 1969. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. January 

1, 1970. 

U.S. Congress. 1971. Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Public Law 92-195. 

U.S. Congress. 1973. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Public Law 93-205. December 28, 1973. 

U.S. Congress. 1976. Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976. Public Law 94-597. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

163

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of the Henry’s Fork Area, 

Parts of Daggett and Summit Counties, Utah and Uinta and Sweetwater Counties, 

Wyoming. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1990. 

USDA. 1999. Soil Survey of the Uintah Area, Utah, Parts of Daggett, Grand, Uintah Counties. 

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1999. 

USDA and United States Department of the Interior (USDI). 2001. Review and Update of the 

1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. U.S. Department of the Interior and the 

U.S. Agriculture Department. 

USDA. 1992. Recommended Old-Growth Definitions and Descriptions, USDA Forest Service 

Southwestern Region, (Sept.1992). 

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2002a. USGS Digital 

Elevation Model Data. National Cartographic Information Center. Reston, VA. Web 

page: http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/guide/usgs_dem 

USDI-USGS. 2002b. Land Use and Land Cover Data. National Cartographic Information 

Center. Reston, VA. Webpage: http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/Webglis/glisbin/guide.pl/glis/ 

hyper/guide/1_250_lulc 

USFS. 1993. Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain Region (April 1993). 

USFWS. 1990. Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Endangered and Threatened Species: 

Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Federal Register 

Volume 66, No. 22 p. 8530-8553. 

USFWS. 2005. Biological Opinion for Castle Peak Eightmile Flat Oil and Gas Expansion 

Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, West Valley City, Utah. 6-

UT-05-012-05-600. July 6, 2005. 

U.S. Forest Service. 1897. Organic Administration Act of 1897. 16 U.S.C. §§ 473-478, 479-482 

and 551. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

United States Forest Service (USFS) 2000. “Screening Methodology for calculating ANC 

Change to High Elevation Lakes.” Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/aq/natarm/r2/ANC_Change_Screening_Guidance.pdf 

USGS, 1984.Water Supply Paper 2224 - Quantity and Quality of Streamflow in the Southeastern 

Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado, K.L. Lindskov and Briant A. Kimball. 

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). 2002. Mesoscale Meteorological 

Model (MM5) Webpage: http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/mm5-home.html. Last 

Modified: November 12, 1999. Boulder, CO. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

164

Utah Agricultural Statistics. 2001. Website: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/ 

highlights/ut/ut.htm 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2000. Utah Nonpoint Source Pollution 

Management Plan. October. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2002. Utah's 2002 303(d) List of Waters. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City. 

UDEQ. 2004a. E-mail from Dave Prey, Utah DEQ, to Craig Nicholls, BLM NSTC, dated 

4/23/2004. 

Utah Department of Workforce Services (UDWS), Workforce Information. May 2001. Website: 

http://jobs.utah.gov/. 

Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) 2004. Utah Air Quality Attainment and Non-Attainment 

Areas. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality webpage. 

Map in pdf format available for download at: 

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/NPS_Mgmt_Plan_2001.pdf. 

UDAQ 1999. Utah Smoke Management Plan. Appendix A. Memorandum of Understanding for 

Utah Smoke Management Plan and Emissions Inventory Development. March 30,1999 

FS#22-MOU-99-017. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air 

Quality. July 20, 1999. Revised March 23, 2000. 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM). 2002. Website: http://www.ogm.utah.gov/. 

com 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. 2007. The Structure and Economic Impact of Utah's Oil 

and Gas Exploration and Production Industry Phase I - The Uinta Basin. University of 

Utah Bureau of Economic and Business Research. November, 2007 

Utah Division of Travel Development. 2004. 2004 State and County Economic Travel Indicator 

Profiles. State of Utah. 2004. 

Utah Division of Water Resources (UDWaR). 1999. Utah State Water Plan, Uintah Basin. 

December. 

UDWaR. 2000. Utah’s 303(d) List of Water. October. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2000. Utah upland game annual report 1999. 

Publication 00-27. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

UDWR. 2002. Strategic Management Plan for Sage Grouse 2002. Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. Publication Number 02-20. 58 p. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2005. Sage-grouse. Wildlife Notebook Series 

No. 18. December. 
Vernal Approved RMP – References 

165

UDWR. 2007. Utah Conservation Data Center. State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

UDWR Salt Lake City, Utah. [Last accessed October 8, 2007.] Available at: 

http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2008. Utah Big Game Guidebook: A Proclamation of the 

Utah Wildlife Board. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Utah Energy Office. 2003. Website: http://www.energy.utah.gov/. 

Utah Energy Office. 2004. Report: Economic Impact Analysis of the Drilling and Completion of 

a Natural Gas Well in the Uintah Basin. State of Utah: Department of Natural Resources, 

Utah Energy Office. August 2004 

Utah Geologic Survey. 2006. Website: http://geology.utah.gov/sep/. Accessed March 24, 2006. 

Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget. 2008. Utah Population Estimates. State of Utah, 

Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Utah Population Estimates Committee. 

Available at: http://www.qget.state.ut.us/programs/c1.asp?database=MIG&tabletype=a/. 

Utah State Tax Commission. 2003. Website: http://www.tax.utah.gov/

Van Dyke, F., and W.C. Klein. 1996. Response of elk to installation of oil wells. J. Mammalogy 

77:1028-1041. 

Watkins, B.E., Bishop, C.J., Bergman, E.J., Bronson, A., Hale, B., Wakeling, B.F., Carpenter, 

L.H., and Lutz, D.W., 2007. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: Colorado Plateau 

Shrubland and Forest Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Walsh Environmental (Walsh). 2004 "Number of Wells and Vehicular Traffic Adjustments for 

Collocated Wells - RMPA/EIS 20-Year Period of Analysis". Received via e-mail from 

Allen Crockett to Craig Nicholls, 4/26/04. 

Welsh, S.L, N.D. Atwood, L.C. Higgins, and S.Goodrich. 1993. A Utah flora. Great Basin 

Naturalist Memoir No. 9. 894. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2008. RAWS USA Climate Archive. Available at 

http://raws.dri.edu/. 

White, C. M., and T. L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled 

disturbance. Condor 87:14-22. 

Zeveloff, S., and F. Collett. 1988. Mammals of the Intermountain West. University of Utah 

Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. Pp. 288-290. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

166

GLOSSARY 

Activity Plan: A type of implementation plan (see Implementation Plan); an activity plan 

usually describes multiple projects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan 

objectives. Examples of activity plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat 

management plans, recreation area management plans, and allotment management plans. 

Actual Use: A report of the actual livestock grazing use certified to be accurate by the permittee 

or lessee. Actual use may be expressed in terms of animal unit months or animal months. 

Air Pollutant: Any substance in the air that could, if in high enough concentration, harm 

humans, animals, vegetation, or material. Air pollutants may include almost any natural or 

artificial matter capable of being airborne, in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or 

a combination of these. 

Air Quality: The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used most 

frequently in connection with “standards” of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations. 

All-Terrain Vehicle: A wheeled or tracked vehicle, other than a snowmobile or work vehicle, 

designed primarily for recreational use or for the transportation of property or equipment 

exclusively on undeveloped road rights of way, marshland, open country or other unprepared 

surfaces. 

Allotment: An area of land where one or more individuals graze their livestock. Generally 

consists of public land, State land, and private land. Livestock grazing is regulated by BLM who 

determines the number of livestock, class of livestock, and season of use for each allotment 

through the land use planning process. 

Allotment Management Plan: A document prepared in consultation with the lessees or 

permittees involved, which applies to livestock operations on the public lands or on lands within 

National Forests in the eleven contiguous Western States and which: 

• prescribes the manner in, and extent to, which livestock operations will be conducted in order 

to meet the multiple-use, sustained-yield, economic and other needs and objectives as determined for the lands by the Secretary concerned; and 

• describes the type, location, ownership, and general specifications for the range 

improvements to be installed and maintained on the lands to meet the livestock grazing and 

other objectives of land management; and 

• contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the 

Secretary concerned to be consistent with the provisions of this Act and other applicable law. 

Alluvium: General term for clay, silt, sand, or gravel deposited in the bed of a stream during 

relatively recent geologic time, as a result of stream action. 

Alternative: In an EIS, one of a number of possible options for responding to the purpose and 

need for action. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

167

Alternative Dispute Resolution: Any process used to prevent, manage, or resolve conflicts 

using procedures other than traditional courtroom litigation or formal agency adjudication. 

Amendment: The process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and 

decisions of approved RMPs. Usually only one or two issues are considered that involve only a 

portion of the planning area. 

Animal Unit: 

(1) Considered to be one mature cow or approximately 1,000 pounds, either dry or with calf 

up to six months of age, or their equivalent, based on a standard amount of forage 

consumed. 

(2) A standardized unit of measurement for range livestock that is equivalent to one cow, one 

horse, five sheep, five goats, or four reindeer, all over 6 months of age. 

Animal Unit Month: The amount of dry forage required by one animal unit for one month based 

on a forage allowance of 26 pounds per day. 

Animals: Any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation any mammal, fish, 

bird, amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, or other invertebrate, and includes any 

part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof. As used here, the 

words “animals,” “fish or wildlife,” and “wildlife” are interchangeable. 

Annual (plant): A plant whose life cycle is completed in 1 year or season. 

Aquifer: Rock or rock formations (often sand, gravel, sandstone, or limestone) that contain or 

carry groundwater and act as water reservoirs. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): Means areas within the public lands 

where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where 

no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 

cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to 

protect life and safety from natural hazards.

Arid: A term applied to regions or climates where lack of sufficient moisture severely limits 

growth and production of vegetation. The limits of precipitation vary considerably according to 

temperature conditions. 

Assessment: The act of evaluating and interpreting data and information for a defined purpose. 

Authorized Officer: The Federal employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific 

decision. 

Avoidance Areas: Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way and Section 302 

permits, leases, and easements would be strongly discouraged. Authorization made in avoidance 

areas would have to be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated and not is 

otherwise feasible on lands outside the avoidance area. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

168

Back Country Byways: These roads generally do not meet full federal safety standards, 

meaning they are not wide enough, or graded enough, or level enough to be safe year-round, for 

passenger cars. They do, however, meet the highest standard of scenic, recreational and 

historical criteria. 

Beneficial Outcomes: Also referenced as “Recreation Benefits”; improved conditions, 

maintenance of desired conditions, prevention of worse conditions, and the realization of desired 

experiences. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in 

conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the 

land use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be updated or modified without a 

plan amendment if they are not mandatory. 

Big Game: Any species of hoofed wildlife that are hunted, such as elk, deer, desert bighorn 

sheep, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, moose, bison, mountain goats and pronghorn antelope. 

Biological Assessment: The document prepared by or under the direction of BLM concerning 

listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may be present in 

the action area and contains the BLM's determination of potential effects of the action on such 

species and habitat. Biological assessments are required for formal consultations and 

conferences on "major construction projects." They are recommended for all formal 

consultations and formal conferences and many informal consultations where a written 

evaluation of the effects of an action on listed or proposed species and on designated or proposed 

critical habitat is needed. Also referred to as a BA. 

Biological Opinion: The document which includes: 

(1) The opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' and/or the NOAA-Fisheries as to 

whether or not a Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical 

habitat 

(2) A summary of the information on which the opinion is based 

(3) A detailed discussion of the effects of the action on listed species or designated 

critical habitat. 

Depending upon the determination of jeopardy or non-jeopardy, the biological opinion may 

contain reasonable and prudent alternatives, a statement of anticipated take of listed animals and 

conservation recommendations for listed plants. Also referred to as a BO. 

Biological Soil Crusts (cryptogamic, cryptobiotic, microbiotic or microphytic soil crusts): 

Biological Soil Crusts are a complex mosaic of cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses, 

microfungi, and other bacteria. Cyanobacterial and microfungal filaments weave through the top 

few millimeters of soil, gluing loose particles together and forming a matrix that stabilizes and 

protects soil surfaces from erosive forces. These crusts occur in all hot, cool, and cold arid and 

semi-arid regions. They may constitute up to 70% of the living cover in some plant 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

169

communities; however, biological soil crusts have only recently been recognized as having a 

major influence in terrestrial ecosystems. 

Browse: 

(1) The part of shrubs, half shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for animal 

consumption 

(2) To search for or consume browse 

California Puff (CALPUFF): CALPUFF is an advanced non-steady-state meteorological and 

air quality modeling system adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the 

preferred model for assessing long range transport of pollutants and their impacts involving 

complex meteorological conditions. 

Candidate Species: Plant and animal taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

sufficient information on their status and threats to support proposing the species for listing as 

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act but for which issuance of a 

proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing actions. Separate lists for plants, 

vertebrate animals, and invertebrate animals are published periodically in the Federal Register. 

Carrying capacity: The maximum population of a particular species a particular region can 

support without hindering future generations' ability to maintain the same population. 

Casual Use: Mining activities that only negligibly disturb federal lands and resources. Casual 

use generally includes the collecting of geochemical, rock, soil, or mineral specimens using hand 

tools, hand panning, and non-motorized sluicing. It also generally includes use of metal 

detectors, gold spears, and other battery-operated devices for sensing the presence of minerals, 

and hand battery-operated dry washers. Casual use does not include use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, suction dredges, motorized vehicles in 

areas designated as closed to off-road vehicles, chemicals, or explosives. It also does not include 

occupancy or operations where the cumulative effects of the activities result in more than 

negligible disturbance. 

Class I Area: Under the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments, all international parks, parks larger 

than 6,000 acres, and national wilderness areas larger than 5,000 acres that existed on August 7, 

1977. This class provides the most protection to pristine lands by severely limiting the amount of 

additional air pollution that can be added to these areas. 

Climax Plant Community (e.g. climax): The final or stable biotic community in a successional 

series; it is self-perpetuating and in equilibrium with the physical habitat. 

Closed: Generally denotes that an area is not available for a particular use or uses; refer to 

specific definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual 

programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 sets forth the specific meaning of “closed” as it 

relates to off-highway vehicle use, and 43 CFR 8364 defines “closed” as it relates to closure and 

restriction orders. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

170

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal 

government. 

Collaboration: A cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied 

interests, work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and other 

lands. 

Collaborative Partnership and Collaborative Stewardship: Refers to people working 

together, sharing knowledge and resources, to achieve desired outcomes for public lands and 

communities within statutory and regulatory frameworks. 

Competition: The interaction between organisms as a result of the removal or reduction of a 

common, required resource from the environment. Resources may include water, nutrients, 

light, oxygen, carbon dioxide, food and shelter. 

Community Recreation-Tourism Market: A community or communities dependent on public 

lands recreation and/or related tourism use, growth, and/or development. Major investments in 

facilities and visitor assistance are authorized within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to target 

demonstrated community recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management 

actions are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand for specific 

activity, experience, and benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced through 

maintenance of prescribed natural resource and/or community setting character and by 

structuring and implementing management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative actions 

accordingly. 

Conditions of Approval: Conditions or provisions (requirements) under which an Application 

for a Permit to Drill or a Sundry Notice is approved. 

Conformity or Conformance: 

• A resource management action shall be specifically provided for in the plan, or if not 

specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the terms, conditions, and 

decisions of the approved plan or plan amendment. 

• That a proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, if not 

specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or 

standards of the approved land use plan. 

Conservation Agreement: A formal signed agreement between the USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries 

and other parties that implements specific actions, activities, or programs designed to eliminate 

or reduce threats to, or otherwise improve the status of a species. Conservation agreements can 

be developed at a state, regional, or national level and generally include multiple agencies at both 

the state and Federal level, as well as Tribes. Depending on the types of commitments the BLM 

makes in a conservation agreement and the level of signatory authority, plan revisions or 

amendments may be required prior to signing the conservation agreement, or subsequently in 

order to implement the conservation agreement. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

171

Conservation Strategy: A strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to 

the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a 

decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and 

animals that are designated as BLM Sensitive species or that have been determined by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or NOAA-Fisheries to be Federal candidates under the Endangered Species 

Act. 

Consistency: Means that the proposed land use plan does not conflict with officially approved 

plans, programs, and policies of Tribes, other Federal agencies, and state and local governments 

(to the extent practical with Federal law, regulation, and policy). 

Consultation: Exchange of information and interactive discussion; when the “C” in consultation 

is capitalized it refers to consultation mandated by statute or regulation that has prescribed 

parties, procedures, and timelines (e.g. Consultation under National Environmental Policy Act or 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act). 

Contiguous: Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary; lands having only a 

common corner are not contiguous. 

Cooperating Agency: 

• An eligible governmental entity that has entered into a written agreement with the 

BLM establishing cooperating agency status in the planning and NEPA processes. 

BLM and the cooperating agency will work together under the terms of the 

agreement. Cooperating agencies will participate in the various steps of BLM's 

planning process as feasible, given the constraints of their resources and expertise. 

• Assists the lead Federal agency in developing an Environmental Analysis or 

Environmental Impact Statement. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

implementing NEPA defines a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction 

by law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA. Any tribe of Federal, 

State, or local government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a 

cooperating agency by agreement with the lead agency. 

• Means any Federal agency other than a lead agency which has jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal (or 

a reasonable alternative) for legislation or other major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment. The selection and responsibilities of 

a cooperating agency are described in §1501.6. A State or local agency of similar 

qualifications or, when the effects are on a reservation, an Indian Tribe, may by 

agreement with the lead agency become a cooperating agency. 

Corridor: A wide strip of land within which a proposed linear facility could be located. 

Council on Environmental Quality: An advisory council to the President of the United States 

established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews Federal programs for 

their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the president on 

environmental matters. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

172

Criteria: Data and information that are used to examine or establish the relative degrees of 

desirability of alternatives or the degree to which a course of action meets an intended objective. 

Criteria pollutants: Air pollutants designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as 

potentially harmful and for which ambient air quality standards have been set to protect the 

public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate 

matter, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, and lead. 

Critical Habitat: 

(1) the specific areas within the geographical area currently occupied by a species, at the 

time it is listed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, on which are found 

those physical or biological features: 

(i) essential to the conservation of the species, and 

(ii) that may require special management considerations or protection, and 

(2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is 

listed upon determination by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the NOAAFisheries that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 

Critical habitats are designated in 50 CFR Parts 17 and 226. The constituent elements of critical 

habitat are those physical and biological features of designated or proposed critical habitat 

essential to the conservation of the species, including, but not limited to: 

(1) space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; 

(2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; 

(3) cover or shelter; 

(4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; 

and 

(5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic 

geographic and ecological distribution of a species. 

Criteria pollutants: Air pollutants designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as 

potentially harmful and for which ambient air quality standards have been set to protect the 

public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate 

matter, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, and lead. 

Cultural Resources: Nonrenewable evidence of human occupation or activity as seen in any 

area, site, building, structure, artifact, ruin, object, work of art, architecture, or natural feature, 

which was important in human history at the national, state, or local level. 

Cultural Site: Any location that includes prehistoric and/or historic evidence of human use, or 

that has important sociocultural value. 

Cumulative Impact: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

173

Designated Roads and Trails: Specific roads and trails identified by the BLM (or other 

agencies) where some type of motorized vehicle use is appropriate and allowed either seasonally 

or year-long. 

Deferred-Rotation Grazing: Any grazing system, which provides for a systematic rotation of 

the deferment among pastures. 

Deferment (deferred grazing, rotational deferred): The delay of grazing to achieve a specific 

management objective. A strategy aimed at providing time for plant reproduction, establishment 

of new plants, restoration of plant vigor, a return to environmental conditions appropriate for 

grazing, or the accumulation of forage for later use. 

Desired Outcomes: A type of land use plan decision expressed as a goal or objective. 

Desired Plant Community: Of the several plant communities that may occupy a site, the one 

that has been identified through a management plan to best meet the plan's objectives for the site. 

It must protect the site as a minimum. 

Development Well: A well drilled within the known or proven productive area of an oil field 

with expectation of producing oil or gas from the producing reservoir. 

Discretionary Closure: Those lands where the BLM has determined that fluid minerals leasing, 

even with the most restrictive stipulations, would not adequately protect other resources, values, 

or land uses. 

Disturbance Zone: Area of influence around a disturbance causing a change in animal behavior 

such as: leaving the area, increased stress, abandoning young, not breeding, and aberrant 

behavior. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): The draft statement of the environmental 

effects of a major federal action which is required under Section 102 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and released to the public and other agencies for comment and 

review. 

Easement: A right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of another’s real property for 

access or other purposes. 

Ecological Balance: The stability of an ecosystem resulting from interacting processes of its 

components. 

Ecological Site: A kind of land with a specific potential natural community and specific physical 

site characteristics, differing from other kinds of land in their ability to produce distinctive kinds 

and amounts of vegetation and to respond to management. Ecological sites are defined and 

described with information about soil, species composition, and annual production. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

174

Ecological Site Description: A written narrative of the description of soils, climate, vegetation, 

uses, and potential of a kind of land with specific physical characteristics to produce distinctive 

kinds and amounts of vegetation. 

Ecological Site Inventory: A resource inventory that involves the use of soils information to 

map ecological sites and plant communities and the collection of natural resource and vegetation 

attributes. The sampling data from each of these soil-vegetation units, referred to a site write-up 

areas (SWAs), become the baseline data for natural resource management and planning. 

Ecosystem: Includes all the organisms of an area, their environment, and the linkages or 

interactions among all of them; all parts of an ecosystem are interrelated. The fundamental unit 

in ecology, containing both organisms and abiotic environments, each influencing the properties 

of the other and both necessary for the maintenance of life. 

Effect: Environmental change resulting from a proposed action. Direct effects are caused by the 

action and occur at the same time and place, while indirect effects are caused by the action but 

are later in time or further removed in distance, although still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect 

effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the 

pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and 

other natural systems, including ecosystems. Effect and impact are synonymous as used in this 

document. 

Eligible Cooperating Agency: 

• A Federal agency other than a lead agency that is qualified to participate in the 

development of environmental impact statements as provided in 40 CFR 1501.6 and 

1508.5 or, as necessary, other environmental documents that BLM prepares, by virtue of 

its jurisdiction by law as defined in 40 CFR 1508.15, or special expertise as defined in 40 

CFR 1508.26; or

• A federally recognized Indian tribe, a state agency, or a local government agency with 

similar qualifications.

Endangered species: Plant or animal species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant part of their range. 

Endemic species: Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose 

distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Environmental Assessment: A concise public document that analyzes the environmental 

impacts of a proposed federal action and provides sufficient evidence to determine the level of 

significance of the impacts. 

Environmental Impact Statement: A detailed written statement required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act when an agency proposes a major federal action significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

175

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless 

of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no 

group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group should bear a disproportionate 

share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and 

commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, local, and Tribal programs and policies 

(see Executive Order 12898). 

Ephemeral Stream-Flow: A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and 

whose channel is above the water table at all times. 

Erosion: The wearing away of the land/soil by water, wind, ice, or other geological agents. 

Often categorized into sheet erosion (even, overland flow), rill erosion (numerous but small 

channels), and gully erosion (less numerous but more major channels). Natural erosion is that 

which occurs under natural conditions (without the influence of man’s activities). 

Evaluation (plan evaluation): The process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan 

monitoring reports to determine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA analysis are still 

valid and whether the plan is being implemented. 

Exclusion Area: Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way and 302 permits, 

leases, and easements would not be authorized. 

Exotic species: Includes species introduced into an area that may have adapted to the area and 

compete with resident native (indigenous) species. 

Exploration Well: A well drilled in the area where there is no oil or gas production (also known 

as wildcat well). 

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA): Public lands unit identified in land use 

plans containing all acreage not identified as a SRMA. Recreation management actions within 

an ERMA are limited to only those of a custodial nature. 

Fauna: The vertebrate and invertebrate animals of the area or region. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: Public Law 94-579. October 21, 1976, 

often referred to as the BLM’s “Organic Act,” which provides the majority of the BLM’s 

legislated authority, direction, policy, and basic management guidance. 

Federal Register: A daily publication, which reports Presidential and Federal, Agency 

documents. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS): A revision of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement based on public and agency comments on the draft. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

176

Fire Management Plan: A strategic plan that defines a program to manage wild land and 

prescribed fires and documents the fire management program in the approved land use plan; the 

plan is supplemented by operational procedures such as preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch 

plans, prescribed fire plans, and prevention plans. 

Fisheries habitat: Streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish populations. 

Flood Plain: The land area adjacent to a stream which is periodically flooded; an important 

component of a riparian area. 

Fluid Minerals: Oil, gas, and geothermal resources. 

Forage: 

(1) All browse and herbaceous growth available and acceptable to grazing/browsing 

animals. 

(2) Vegetation eaten by animals, especially grazing and browsing animals. 

Formal Consultation: A component of the consultation process under Section 7 of the ESA that 

commences with the BLM's written request for consultation after it has determined that its action 

may affect and is likely to adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitats. 

Fossil: Mineralized or petrified form from a past geologic age, especially from previously living 

things. 

Fragmentation (habitat): The break-up of a large land area (such as a forest) into smaller 

patches isolated by areas converted to a different land type. 

Fuel (fire): Dry, dead parts of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that can burn readily. 

Geographic Information System: A computer system capable of storing, analyzing, and 

displaying data and describing places on the earth’s surface. 

Goal: A broad statement of a desired outcome. Goals are usually not quantifiable and may not 

have established time frames for achievement. 

Grandfather, to: To exempt groups or individuals from provisions of laws or regulations 

because of preexisting conditions, such as exempting mining operations existing before new 

mining regulations are implemented from provisions of those new regulations. 

Grazing: Consumption of forage from rangelands or pastures by livestock, wild horses and 

burros, or wildlife. 

Grazing System: A specialization of grazing management which defines the periods of grazing 

and non-grazing. Descriptive common names may be used; however, the first usage of a grazing 

system name in a publication should be followed by a description using a standard format. This 

format should consist of at least the following: the number of pastures (or units); number of 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

177

herds; length of grazing periods; length of non-grazing periods for any given unit in the system 

followed by an abbreviation of the unit of time used. Examples of grazing systems are deferred 

grazing, deferred-rotation, rotation, rest-rotation, and short duration grazing. 

Groundwater: Subsurface water that is in the zone of saturation. The top surface of the 

groundwater is the “water table.” Source of water for wells, seeps, and springs. 

Guidance: Any type of written communication or instruction that transmits objectives, goals, 

constraints, or any other direction that helps the Field Managers and staff know how to prepare a 

specific resource management plan. 

Guidelines: Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, 

sometimes expressed as best management practices. Guidelines may be identified during the 

land use planning process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan 

specifies that they are mandatory. Guidelines for grazing administration must conform to 43 

CFR 4180.2. 

Habitat: 

(1) The natural abode of a plant or animal that provides food, water, shelter, and other 

biotic, climatic and soils factors necessary to support life. 

(2) The natural environment of a plant or animal, including all biotic, climatic, and 

soil conditions, or other environmental influences affecting living conditions. The 

place where an organism lives. 

Herbaceous: 

(1) Non-woody plant growth. 

(2) Green and leaf-like in appearance or texture; includes grasses, grass-like plants, and 

forbs, with little or no woody component. 

Herd Area (HA): The geographic area identified as having been used by a herd as its habitat in 

1971. 

Herd Management Area (HMA): 

(1) Public land under the jurisdiction of the BLM that has been designated for special 

management emphasizing the maintenance of an established wild horse herd. 

(2) Areas established for wild and free-roaming horses and burros through the land use 

planning process. The Wild Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 requires that 

wild free-roaming horses and burros be considered for management where they were 

found at the time Congress passed the Act. The BLM initially identified 264 areas of 

use as herd management areas. 

Herd Management Area Plan: The area within the HA established for the maintenance of wild 

horse and/or burro herds. BLM considers the appropriate management level for the herd, the 

habitat requirements of the animals, the relationships with other uses of the public and adjacent 

private lands, and the constrains contained within (43 CFR 4710.3-1). The HMA does not 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

178

always include the complete acreage of an HA (and often does not), and depends on conditions 

surrounding each area. 

Impact: A modification of the existing environment caused by an action (such as construction or 

operation of facilities). 

Impacts (or Effects): Environmental consequences (the scientific and analytical basis for 

comparison of alternatives) as a result of a proposed action. Effects may be either direct, which 

are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, or indirect, which are caused by 

the action and are later in time of farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably 

foreseeable, or cumulative. 

Implementation Decisions: Decisions that take action to implement land use plan decisions. 

They are generally appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). 

Implementation Plan: A site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a land use 

plan. An implementation plans usually selects and applies best management practices to meet 

land use plan objectives. Implementation plans are synonymous with “activity” plans. 

Examples of implementation plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat 

management plans, and allotment management plans. 

Indian Tribe: Any Indian group in the conterminous United States that the Secretary of the 

Interior recognizes as possessing tribal status. 

Indicator Species (key species): 

(1) Species that indicate the presence of certain environmental conditions, seral stages, 

or previous treatment. 

(2) One or more plant species selected to indicate a certain level of grazing use. 

Indigenous: Living or occurring naturally in an area; native, endemic people, flora, or fauna. 

Indirect effects: Impacts that are caused by an action, but are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, although still reasonably foreseeable. 

Informal Consultation: a component of the consultation process that includes all discussions, 

correspondence, etc., between the FWS and/or NMFS and the BLM agency or the designated 

non-Federal representative, prior to formal consultation, to determine if a proposed action may 

affect listed species or critical habitat and to use FWS and/or NMFS expertise, if necessary, to 

modify the proposed action to avoid potentially adverse effects. 

Interdisciplinary Team: A group of individuals with different training, representing the 

physical sciences, social sciences, and environmental design arts, assembles to solve a problem 

or perform a task. The members of the team proceed to a solution with frequent interaction so 

that each discipline may provide insights to any stage of the problem and disciplines may 

combine to provide new solutions. The number and disciplines of the members preparing the 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

179

plan vary with circumstances. A member may represent one or more discipline or Bureau 

program interest. 

Intermittent or Seasonal Stream-Flow: A stream that flows only at certain times of the year 

when it receives water from springs or from some surface source such as melting snow in 

mountainous areas. 

Invasive plants: Plants that are not part of (if exotic), or are a minor component of (if native), 

the original plant community or communities that have the potential to become a dominant or codominant species on the site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by 

management interventions, or are classified as exotic or noxious plants under state or federal law. 

Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g. short-term response to drought 

or wildfire) are not invasive plants. 

Invertebrate: Small animals that lack a backbone or spinal column. Spiders, insects, and worms 

are examples of invertebrates. 

Land Classification: A process for determining the suitability of public lands for certain types 

of disposal or lease under the public land laws or for retention under multiple use management. 

Land Use Allocation: The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable 

development that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based 

on desired future conditions. 

Land Use Plan: A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an 

administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of 

land-use-plan-level decisions developed through the planning process, regardless of the scale at 

which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs and MFPs. 

Land Use Plan Decision: Establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. 

Decisions are reached using the BLM planning process in 43 CFR 1600. When they are 

presented to the public as proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They 

are not appeal able to Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Landscape: All the natural features such as grasslands, hills, forest, and water, which distinguish 

one part of the earth’s surface from another part; usually that portion of land that the eye can 

comprehend in a single view, including all of its natural characteristics. 

Leaseable Minerals: Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920. They include coal, phosphate, asphalt, sulphur, potassium, and sodium 

minerals, and oil, gas, and geothermal. 

Lease: 

(1) A legal document that conveys to an operator the right to drill for oil, gas; 

(2) the tract of land, on which a lease has been obtained, where producing wells and 

production equipment are located. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

180

Lease Notice: Provides more detailed information concerning limitations that already exist in 

law, lease terms, regulations, and operational orders. A Lease Notice also addresses special 

items the lessee would consider when planning operations, but does not impose new or 

additional restrictions. 

Lease Stipulation: A modification of the terms and conditions on a standard lease form at the 

time of the lease sale. 

Lek: An assembly area where birds, especially sage grouse, carry on display and courtship 

behavior. 

Limited: Generally denotes that an area or roads and trails are available for a particular use or 

uses. Refer to specific program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for 

application to individual programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning 

of “limited” as it relates to off-highway vehicle use. 

Limited (Areas or Trails) Designated areas or trails where the use of off-road vehicles is 

subject to restrictions, such as limiting the number or types or vehicles allowed, dates and times 

of use (seasonal restrictions), limiting use to existing roads and trails, or limiting use to 

designated roads and trails. Under the designated roads and trails designation, use would be 

allowed only on roads and trails that are signed for use. Combinations of restrictions are 

possible, such as limiting use to certain types of vehicles during certain times of the year. 

Local Government: Any political subdivision of the State and any general purpose unit of local 

government with resource planning, resource management, zoning, or land use regulation 

authority. 

Locatable Minerals: Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking 

mining claims as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of 

gold, silver, and other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale. 

Major Construction Activity: A construction project (or other undertaking having similar 

physical effects) which is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment as referred to in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C)). 

Management Decision: A decision made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management 

decisions include both land use plan decisions and implementation decisions 

Management Opportunities: A component of the analysis of the management situation; actions 

or management directions that could be taken to resolve issues or management concerns. 

Marsh (land): Flat, wet, treeless land usually covered by water and dominated by marsh grasses, 

indigenous rushes, sedges, or other grass-like plants. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

181

Meadow (grassland, pasture, pastureland, rangeland): A tract of grassland where 

productivity of indigenous or introduced forage is modified due to characteristics of the 

landscape position or hydrology. May be characterized as: hay meadow, native meadow, 

mountain meadow, wet meadow, or other designations. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): Usually documents an agreement reached amongst 

federal agencies. 

Mineral: Any solid or fluid inorganic substance that can be extracted from the earth for profit. 

Mineral Entry: The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any minerals it may 

contain. 

Mineral Estate: The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations. 

Mineral Materials: Materials such as common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, 

pumicite, and clay, that are no obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be 

acquired under the Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended. 

Mineral Reserves: Known mineral deposits that is recoverable under present conditions but is 

as yet undeveloped. 

Mineral Rights: Mineral rights outstanding are third-party rights, as interest in minerals not 

owned by the person or party conveying the land to the United States. It is an exception in a 

deed that is the result of prior conveyance separating title of certain minerals from the surface 

estate. 

Mineral Withdrawal: A formal order that withholds federal lands and minerals from entry 

under the Mining Law of 1872 and closes the area to mineral location (staking mining claims) 

and development. 

Minimize: 

(1) To reduce the adverse impact of an operation to the lowest practical level. 

(2) Apply best available technology, management practices, and scientific knowledge to 

reduce the magnitude, extent, and/or duration of impacts. 

Mining Claim: A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, having 

acquired the right of possession by complying with the Mining Law and local laws and rules. A 

single mining claim may contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. 

There are four categories of mining claims: lode, placer, mill site, and tunnel site. 

Mitigation: Steps taken to: 

(1) avoid an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 

(2) minimize an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

182

(3) rectify an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 

(4) reduce or eliminate an impact over time by preserving and maintaining operations 

during the life of the action; and, 

(5) compensate for an impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

Mitigation Measures: 

(1) Methods or procedures that reduce or lessen the impacts of an action. 

(2) Means taken to avoid, compensate for, rectify, or reduce the potential adverse impact 

of an action. 

Monitoring (plan monitoring): The process of tracking the implementation of land use plan 

decisions and collecting and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of 

land use planning decisions. 

Multiple Use: The management of the public lands and their various resource values so that 

they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the 

American people; making the most judicious use of the lands for some or all of these resources 

or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments 

in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some lands for less than all of the 

resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long 

term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including but not 

limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, 

scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various 

resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the lands and the quality of the 

environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not 

necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or greatest unit 

output. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Standards set by the Environmental 

Protection Agency for the maximum levels of pollutants that can exist in the outdoor air without 

unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: An act that encourages productive and enjoyable 

harmony between man and his environment and promotes efforts to prevent or eliminate damage 

to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; enriches the 

understanding or the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation, and 

establishes the Council on Environmental Quality. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers: Rivers designated in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System that are classified in one of three categories, depending on the extent of development and 

accessibility along each section. In addition to being free flowing, these rivers and their 

immediate environments must possess at least one outstandingly remarkable value: scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or other similar values. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: A system of nationally designated rivers and their 

immediate environments that have outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

183

historic, cultural, and other similar values and are preserved in a free-flowing condition (Wild 

and Scenic River Act). 

Native Species: Species that historically occurred or currently occur in a particular ecosystem 

and were not introduced. 

Natural Community: An assemblage of organisms indigenous to an area that is characterized 

by distinct combinations of species occupying a common ecological zone and interacting with 

one another. 

Natural Resources: Water, soil, plants and animals, nutrients, and other resources produced by 

the earth’s natural processes. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds: Birds that travel to Central America, South America, the 

Caribbean, and Mexico during the fall to spend the winter and then return to the United States 

and Canada During the spring to breed. These birds include almost half of the bird species that 

breed in the United States and Canada. 

No Action Alternative: The most likely condition to exist in the future if current management 

direction were to continue unchanged. 

No Surface Occupancy: A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits occupancy or 

disturbance on all or part of the lease surface to protect special values or uses. Lessees may 

exploit the fluid mineral resources under the leases restricted by this constraint through use of 

directional drilling from sites outside the area. 

No Surface Disturbance: In general, this applies to an area where an activity is allowed so long 

as it does not disturb the surface. 

Noxious Weeds: A plant species designated by Federal of State law as generally possessing one 

or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or 

host of serious insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States. 

Objective: A description of a desired condition for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and 

measured and, where possible, have established time frames for achievement. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (off-road vehicle): Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, 

travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: 

• any nonamphibious registered motorboat;\ 

• any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for 

emergency purposes; 

• any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise 

officially approved; 

• vehicles in official use; and 

• any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense 

emergencies. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

184

One-Hundred-Year Flood: A hydrologic event with a magnitude that has a recurrence interval 

of 100 years. 

Open: Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific 

program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual 

programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning of “open” as it relates to 

off-highway vehicle use. 

Open (Areas and Trails): Designated areas and trails where off-road vehicles may be operated, 

subject to operating regulations and vehicle standards or an area where all types of vehicle use is 

permitted at all times, subject to standards set forth in BLM Manuals 8341, 8343 

Open Range: 

(1) Range which has not been fenced into management units 

(2) All suitable rangeland of an area upon which grazing is permitted 

(3) Untimbered rangeland 

(4) Range on which the livestock owner has unlimited access without benefit of land 

ownership or leasing 

Operator: Any person who has taken formal responsibility for the operations conducted on the 

leased lands. 

Outstandingly Remarkable River Values: Values among those listed in Section 1(b) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are “scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, 

cultural, or other similar values. . . .” Other similar values which may be considered include 

botanical, hydrological, paleontological, or scientific. Professional judgment is used to determine 

whether values exist to an outstandingly remarkable degree (Wild and Scenic River Act). 

Overgrazing (overuse): Continued heavy grazing which exceeds the recovery capacity of the 

community and creates a deteriorated range. 

Paleontological Resources (Fossils): The physical remains of plants and animals preserved in 

soils and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are important for 

understanding past environments, environmental change, and the evolution of life. 

Paleontology: A science dealing with the life forms of past geological periods as known from 

fossil remains. 

Particulate Matter (PM): A complex mixture consisting of varying combinations of dry solid 

fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These tiny particles vary 

greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials 

such as metals, soot, soil and dust. 

Perennial: A plant that lives for at least 2 or more years. 

Perennial Stream-flow: A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally 

associated with a water table in the localities through which they flow. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

185

Period of Use: The time of livestock grazing on a range area based on type of vegetation or 

stage of vegetative growth. 

Permit: A revocable authorization to use public land for a specified purpose to for up to 3 years. 

Permitted Use: The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan 

for livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease; expressed in Animal Unit Months. 

Petroglyph: An image recorded on stone, usually by prehistoric peoples, by means of carving, 

pecking or otherwise incised on natural rock surfaces. 

pH: A measure of how acidic or alkaline (basic) a solution is on a scale of 0 to 14 with 0 being 

very acidic, 14 being very alkaline, and 7 being neutral. The abbreviation stands for the potential 

of hydrogen. 

Pictograph: A symbol that represents an object or a concept by illustration. 

Plan of Development: A mandatory plan, developed by an applicant of a mining operation or 

construction project, that specifies the techniques and measures to be used during construction 

and operation of all project facilities on public land. The plan is submitted for approval to the 

appropriate Federal agency before any construction begins. 

Plan of Operations: A plan for mining exploration and development that an operation must 

submit to BLM for approval when more than 5 acres a year will be disturbed or when an operator 

plans to work in an area of critical environmental concern or a wilderness area. A plan of 

Operations must document in detail all actions that the operator plans to take from exploration 

through reclamation. 

Planning Analysis: A process using appropriate resource data and NEPA analysis to provide a 

basis for decisions in areas not yet covered by an RMP. 

Planning Area: A geographical area for which land use and resource management plans are 

developed and maintained. 

Planning Criteria: The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and 

interdisciplinary teams for their use in forming judgments about decision making, analysis, and 

data collection during planning. Planning criteria streamline and simplify the resource 

management planning actions. 

Plant community: A vegetation complex, unique in its combination of plants, which occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences. A plant community is a reflection of integrated 

environmental influences on the site, such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope 

aspect, and precipitation. 

Population: Within a species, a distinct group of individuals that tend to mate only with 

members of the group. Because of generations of inbreeding, members of a population tend to 

have similar genetic characteristics. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

186

Potential Natural Community (PNC): The biotic community that would become established if 

all successional sequences were completed without interference by man under the present 

environmental conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in development. PNCs can include 

naturalized non-native species.

Preferred alternative: The alternative identified in an EIS that has been selected by the agency 

as the most acceptable resolution to the problems identified in the purpose and need. 

Prescribed Fire: 

(1) The introduction of fire to an area under regulated conditions for specific 

management purposes. 

(2) A management ignited wildland fire that burns under specified conditions and in 

predetermined area, and that produces the fire behavior and fire characteristics 

required to attain fire treatment and resource management objectives. 

Prey Base: Populations and types of prey species available to predators. 

Principal or Major Uses: Includes, and is limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and 

wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor 

recreation, and timber production. 

Production Well: A well drilled in a known field that produces oil or gas. 

Project Plan: A type of implementation plan (see Implementation Plan). A project plan 

typically addresses individual projects or several related projects. Examples of project plans 

include prescribed burn plans, trail plans, and recreation site plans. 

Project Area: The area of land upon which an operator conducts mining operations, including 

the area needed for building or maintaining of roads, transmission lines, pipelines, or other 

means of access. 

Properly Functioning Condition (PFC): An attribute of a landform that indicates its ability to 

produce desired natural resources in a sustained way. When used to refer to a riparian area, 

expresses the ability of the ecosystem to dissipate energy, filter sediment, transfer nutrients, 

develop ponds and channel characteristics that benefit fish production, waterfowl, and other uses, 

improve water retention and ground-water recharge, develop root masses that improve 

streambank stability, and support greater biodiversity. In upland landforms, an indication of the 

ecosystem’ ability to sustain the natural, biotic communities. 

Public: Affected or interested individuals, including consumer organizations, public land 

resource users, corporations and other business entities, environmental organizations and other 

special interest groups and officials of State, local, and Indian tribal governments. 

Public Involvement: The opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rule making, 

decision making, and planning with respect to the public lands, including public meetings or 

hearings held at locations near the affected lands, or advisory mechanisms, or such other 

procedures as may be necessary to provide public comment in a particular instance. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

187

Public Lands: Any lands or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, except lands located on the 

Outer Continental Shelf, and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

Public scoping: A process whereby the public is given the opportunity to provide oral or written 

comments about the influence of a project on an individual, the community, and/or the 

environment. 

Quarry: An open or surface working, usually for the extraction of stone, slate, limestone, etc. 

Range Improvement: An authorized physical modification or treatment which is designed to 

improve production of forage; change vegetation composition; control patterns of use; provide 

water; stabilize soil and water conditions; restore , protect and improve the condition of 

rangeland ecosystems to benefit livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. The 

term includes, but is not limited to structures, treatment projects and use of mechanical devices 

or modifications achieved through mechanical means. 

Range Improvement Funds (BLM): A fund established by Congress in FLPMA comprised of 

50 percent of the grazing fees collected by the U.S. Treasury. This fund is used for on-theground rehabilitation, protection, and improvement of the public lands that will arrest rangeland 

deterioration and improve forage conditions with resulting benefits to wildlife, watershed 

protection, and livestock production. 

Rangeland Improvement Projects: Man-made manipulations and structures applied to ro built 

upon rangelands for the purpose of improving productivity or ecosystem function; generally 

reseedings, weed control, water retention structures, stream channel structures, erosion control 

structures, fences, etc. 

Range Inventory: (v.) The systematic acquisition and analysis of resource information needed 

for planning and for management of rangelands. (n.) The information acquired through range 

inventory. 

Rangeland (or Public Rangelands): Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, mountains, canyons, 

forests, woodlands, and riparian areas, that support an understory or periodic cover of herbaceous 

and woody vegetation amenable to production of tangible products such as forage, wildlife 

habitat, water, minerals, energy, plant and animal gene pools, recreational, opportunities, and 

other vegetative products, Also valuable for the production of intangible products such as open 

space, natural beauty, ands study of natural ecosystems. Rangeland includes revegetated 

naturally or artificially to provide a plant community that is managed similarly to natural 

vegetation. 

Rangeland Health: The degree to which the integrity of the soil, the vegetation, the water, and 

air as well as the ecological processes of the rangeland ecosystem is balanced and sustained. 

Integrity is defined as: Maintenance of the structure and functional attributes characteristic of a 

particular locale, including normal variability. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

188

Raptor: Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks such as hawks, owls, vultures, 

and eagles. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario: The prediction of the type and amount of oil 

and gas activity that would occur in a given area. The prediction is based on geologic factors, 

past history of drilling, projected demand for oil and gas, and industry interest. 

Record of Decision: 

(1) A document signed by a responsible official recording a decision that was preceded 

by the preparing of an environmental impact statement. 

(2) A document separate from, but associated with, an Environmental Impact Statement, 

which states the decision, identifies alternatives (specifying which were 

environmentally preferable), and states whether all practicable means to avoid 

environmental harm from the alternative have been adopted, and, if not, why not. 

Recovery plan: Identifies, justifies, and schedules the research and management actions 

necessary to reverse the decline of a species and ensure its long-term survival. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): One of the existing tools for classifying recreation 

environments (existing and desired) along a continuum ranging from primitive, low-use, and 

inconspicuous administration to urban, high-use, and a highly visible administrative presence. 

This continuum recognizes variation among various components of any landscape’s physical, 

social and administrative attributes; and resulting descriptions (of existing conditions) and 

prescriptions (of desired future conditions) define recreation setting character. 

Recreational River Areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road 

or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Recreation Settings: The collective, distinguishing attributes of landscapes that influence, and

sometimes actually determine, what kinds of recreation opportunities are produced. 

Relict: A remnant or fragment of the climax plant community that remains from a former period 

when it was more widely distributed. Synonymous with pristine. 

Resource Area or Field Office: A geographic portion of a Bureau of Land Management district. 

It is the administrative subdivision whose manager has primary responsibility for day-to-day 

resource management activities and resource use allocations and is, in most instances, the area 

for which resource management plans are prepared and maintained. 

Research Natural Area: 

(1) An area where natural processes predominate and which is preserved for research 

and education. Research Natural Areas must meet the relevance and importance 

criteria of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and are designated as Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

189

(2) Special management areas designated either by Congress or by a public or private 

agency to preserve and protect typical or unusual ecological communities, 

associations, phenomena, characteristics, or natural features or processes for 

scientific and educational purposes. They are established and managed to protect 

ecological processes, conserve biological diversity, and provide opportunities for 

observation for research and education. 

Resource Advisory Council: A council established by the Secretary of the Interior to provide 

advice or recommendations to BLM management. 

Resource Use Level: The level of use allowed within an area. It is based on the desired 

outcomes and land use allocations in the land use plan. Targets or goals for resource use levels 

are established on an area-wide or broad watershed level in the land use plan. Site-specific 

resource use levels are normally determined at the implementation level, based on site-specific 

resource conditions and needs as determined through resource monitoring and assessments. 

Resource Management Plan: A land use plan as described by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. The resource management plan generally establishes in a written document: 

• Land areas for limited, restricted or exclusive use; designation, including ACEC 

designation; and transfer from Bureau of Land Management Administration; 

• Allowable resource uses (either singly or in combination) and related levels of 

production or use to be maintained; 

• Resource condition goals and objectives to be attained; 

• Program constraints and general management practices needed to achieve the above 

items; 

• Need for an area to be covered by more detailed and specific plans; 

• Support action, including such measures as resource protection, access development, 

realty action, cadastral survey, etc., as necessary to achieve the above; 

• General implementation sequences, where carrying out a planned action is dependent 

upon prior accomplishment of another planned action; and 

• Intervals and standards for monitoring and evaluating the plan to determine the 

effectiveness of the plan and the need for amendment or revision. 

It is not a final implementation decision on actions which require further specific plans, process 

steps, or decisions under specific provisions of law and regulations. 

Revegetation: Establishing or re-establishing desirable plants on areas where desirable plants 

are absent or of inadequate density, by management alone (natural revegetation) or by seeding or 

transplanting (artificial revegetation). 

Revision: The process of completely rewriting the land use plan due to changes in the planning 

area affecting major portions of the plan or the entire plan. 

Right-of-Way: A permit or an easement which authorizes the use of public lands for certain 

specified purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone lines, electric lines, reservoirs, etc.; 

also, the lands covered by such an easement or permit. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

190

Right-of-Way Corridor: A parcel of land that has been identified by law, Secretarial order, 

through a land use plan or by other management decision as being the preferred location for 

existing and future right-of-way grants and suitable to accommodate one type of right-of-way or 

one or more rights-of-way which are similar, identical or compatible. 

Riparian: 

(1) Referring to or relating to areas adjacent of water or influenced by free water 

associated with streams or rivers on geologic surfaces occupying the lowest position 

on a watershed. 

(2) Occurring adjacent to streams and rivers and directly influenced by water. A riparian 

community is characterized by certain types of vegetation, soils, hydrology, and fauna 

and requires free or unbound water or conditions more moist than that normally found 

in the area. 

Riparian Ecosystems: 

• Those assemblages of plants, animals, and aquatic communities whose presences can 

be either directly or indirectly attributed to factors that are water-influenced or 

related. 

• Interacting system between aquatic and terrestrial situations identified by soil 

characteristics, and distinctive vegetation that requires or tolerates free or unbound 

water. 

Riparian – Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) for Lotic Areas: Riparian/wetland areas 

are in PFC when adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris is present to: 

• dissipate high-energy water flow 

• filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development 

• improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge 

• develop root masses that stabilize streambanks 

• develop diverse fluvial geomorphology (pool and channel complexes) to provide 

habitat for wildlife 

• support greater biodiversity 

Riparian--Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) for Lentic Areas: Lentic riparian-wetland 

areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is present to 

dissipate energies associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent 

sites, thereby: 

• reducing erosion and improving water quality; 

• filtering sediment and aid floodplain development; 

• improving flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; and, 

• developing root masses that stabilize islands and shoreline features against cutting 

action; restrict water percolation; develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide 

the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish 

production, water-bird breeding, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity. 

Riparian – Functioning at Risk (FAR): Riparian-wetland areas are considered to be in 

functioning condition, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible 

to degradation. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

191

Riparian – Non-Functioning (NF): Riparian-wetland areas that are clearly not providing 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large wood debris to dissipate stream energy associated with 

high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc. 

*Though a comprehensive assessment of riparian functioning condition has not been conducted, 

the Vernal Field Office has identified four major invasive plants that are altering riparian 

communities. The BLM has identified tamarisk, Russian olive, tall whitetop, and Russian 

knapweed as plants that are changing the vegetation composition of the Green River System. 

Specifically, Russian olive and tamarisk are out-competing native cottonwoods and willows in 

the riparian zone. Cottonwood stands along the main river systems (the Green and the White) are 

becoming decadent with low recruitment of new trees. 

Riprap: A layer, facing, or protective mound of rubble or stones randomly placed to prevent 

erosion, scour, or sloughing of a structure or embankment; also, the stone used for this purpose. 

Riverine: A system of wetlands that includes all wetland and deep-water habitats contained 

within a channel that lacks trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and emergent mosses or lichens. 

Roadless: Refers to the absence of roads, which have been improved and maintained by 

mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by 

the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road. 

Rock Art: Petroglyphs or pictographs. 

Saleable Minerals: Common variety minerals on the public lands, such as sand and gravel, 

which are used mainly for construction and are disposed of by sales or special permits to local 

governments. 

Scenic Byways: Highway routes, which have roadsides or corridors of special aesthetic, cultural, 

or historic value. An essential part of the highway is its scenic corridor. The corridor may 

contain outstanding scenic vistas, unusual geologic features, or other natural elements. 

Scoping: The process of identifying the range of issues, management concerns, preliminary 

alternatives, and other components of an environmental impact statement or land-use planning 

document. It involves both internal and public viewpoints. 

Season-long Use: Grazing throughout the growing period, with little or no effort to control the 

amount of distribution of livestock use in area/pasture/allotments. 

Seasonal Grazing: Grazing restricted to one or more specific seasons of the year. 

Section 7: The section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, outlining procedures 

for interagency cooperation to conserve Federally listed species and designated critical habitats. 

Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of 

listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

192

Wildlife Service to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing 

actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Other paragraphs of this section establish the requirement to conduct 

conferences on proposed species and candidate species; allow applicants to initiate early 

consultation; require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries to prepare 

biological opinions and issue incidental take statements. Section 7 also establishes procedures 

for seeking exemptions from the requirement of section 7(a)(2) from the Endangered Species 

Committee. 

Section 7 Consultation: The various Section 7 processes, including both consultation and 

conference if proposed or candidate species are involved. 

Section 106 Compliance: The requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act that any project funded, licensed, permitted, or assisted by the Federal Government by 

reviewed for impacts to significant historic properties and that the State Historic Preservation 

Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be allowed to comment on a project. 

Sediment Yield: The amount of sediment produced in a watershed, expressed in tons, acre feet, 

or cubic yards, of sediment per unit of drainage are per year. 

Seep: Wet areas, normally not flowing, arising from an underground water source. 

Sensitive Lands: Any areas recognized in BLM land use or activity plans where BLM has 

determined that a Plan or Operation to provide detailed review of project effects on unique, 

irreplaceable, or outstanding historical, cultural, recreational, or natural resource values, such as 

threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. 

Sensitive species: Plant or animal species susceptible or vulnerable to activity impacts or habitat 

alterations. Species that have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed for classification or 

are under consideration for official listing as endangered or threatened species. 

Seral Stage: The development stages of an ecological succession. Seral state is synonymous 

with successional stage. 

Seral Community: One or a series of biotic communities that follow one another in time on any 

given area. Seral community is synonymous with successional community. 

Significant: 

(1) An effect that is analyzed in the context of the proposed action to determine the 

degree or magnitude of importance of the effect, wither beneficial or adverse. The 

degree of significance can be related to other actions with individually insignificant 

but cumulatively significant impacts. 

(2) The description of an impact that exceeds a certain threshold level. Requires 

consideration of both context and intensity. The significance of an action must be 

analyzed in several contexts, such as society as a whole, and the affected region, 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

193

interests, and locality. Intensity refers to the severity of impacts, which should 

weighted along with the likelihood of its occurrence. 

Slope: A slant or incline of the land surface, measured in degrees from the horizontal, or in the 

percent (defined as the number of feet or meters change in elevation per 100 of the same units of 

horizontal distance); may be further characterized by direction (exposure or aspect). 

Socioeconomic: Pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and 

economic factors. 

Soil: 

(1) The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the immediate surface of the 

earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. 

(2) The unconsolidated mineral matter on the surface of the earth that has been subjected 

to and influenced by genetic and environmental factors of parent material, climate 

(including moisture and temperature effects), macro-and micro-organisms, and 

topography, all acting over a period of time and producing a product-soil that differs 

from the material from which it was derived in many physical, chemical, biological, 

and morphological properties and characteristics. 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA): a public lands unit identified in land use 

plans to direct recreation funding and personnel to fulfill commitments made to provide specific, 

structured recreation opportunities (i.e., activity, experience, and benefit opportunities). Both 

land use plan decisions and subsequent implementing actions for recreation in each SRMA are 

geared to a strategically identified primary market—destination, community, or undeveloped. 

Special Status Species: Includes the following: 

• Candidate Species--species designated as candidates for listing as threatened or 

endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA-Fisheries. A list has 

been published in the Federal Register. 

• Endangered Species--any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

• Listed Species--Species officially listed as threatened or endangered by the Secretary 

of the Interior under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. A final rule for 

the listing has been published in the Federal Register. 

• Proposed Species--species that have been officially proposed for listing as threatened 

or endangered by the Secretary of the Interior. A proposed rule for listing has been 

published din the Federal Register. 

• Sensitive Species--those species designated by a State Director, usually in 

cooperation with the State agency responsible for managing the species and State 

Natural heritage programs, as sensitive. They are those species that: 

 could become endangered in or extirpated from a State, or within a significant 

portion of its distribution; 

 are under status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAAFisheries; 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

194

 are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat 

capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution; 

 are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in population 

or density such that federal listed, proposed, candidate, or Stste listed status 

may become necessary; 

 typically have small and widely dispersed populations; 

 inhabit ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats; or, 

 are State listed but which may be better conserved through application of 

BLM sensitive species status. 

• State Listed Species--Species listed by a State in a category implying but not limited 

to potential endangerment or extinction. Listing is either by legislation or regulation. 

• Threatened Species--any species which is likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Species: Any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants (and in the case of plants, any 

varieties), and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 

interbreeds when mature. 

Species Diversity: The number, different kinds of, and relative abundances of species present in 

a given area. 

Spring: Flowing water originating form an underground source. 

Standard: A description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function required 

for healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., Land Health Standards). To be expressed as a desired 

outcome (goal). 

Stipulations: Requirements that are part of the terms of a mineral lease. Some stipulations are 

standard on all Federal leases. Other stipulations may be applied to the lease at the discretion of 

the surface management agency to protect valuable surface resources and uses. 

Stock Pond (catchment, guzzler, trick tank): A water impoundment made by constructing a 

dam or by excavating a dugout or both, to provide water for livestock and wildlife. 

Stocking Rate: The relationship between the number of animals and the grazing management 

unit utilized over a specified time period. May be expressed as animal units per unit of land area 

(animal units over a described time period/area of land). 

Strategic Plan: A plan that establishes the overall direction for the BLM. This plan is guided by 

the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act or 1993, covers a 5-year 

period, and is updated every 3 years. It is consistent with FLPMA and other laws affecting the 

public lands. 

Succession: The progressive replacement of plant communities on a site which leads to the 

potential natural plant community; i.e., attaining stability. Primary succession entails 

simultaneous succession of soil from parent material and vegetation. Secondary succession 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

195

occurs following disturbances on sites that previously supported vegetation, and entails plant 

succession on a more mature soil. 

Suspended Nonuse: Temporary withholding of a grazing preference from active use. 

Sustainability: The concept that natural processes are functioning in a way that assures the 

sustained yield or commodities and public values to the extent possible considering the 

capability of the land to do so. 

Sustained Yield: The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or 

regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with 

multiple use. 

Take: As defined by the Endangered Species Act, “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 

kill, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The term applies only to fish 

and wildlife. 

• harass as used in the definition of take means to commit an intentional or negligent 

act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to 

such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, which include but 

are not limited to breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 

• harm as used in the definition of take means to commit an act which actually kills or 

injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation 

where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior 

patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 

• incidental take Any taking otherwise prohibited, if such taking is incidental to, and 

not the purpose of, the carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. 

Threatened Species: A plant or animal species likely to become an endangered species 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. 

Timing Limitation (Seasonal Restriction): A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits 

surface use during specified time periods to protect identified resource values. The constraint 

does not apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities unless analysis 

demonstrates that such constraints are needed and that less stringent, project-specific constraints 

would be insufficient. 

Total Preference: The total number of animal units of livestock grazing on public lands, 

apportioned and attached to base property owned of controlled by a permittee of lessee. The 

active preference and suspended preference are combined to make up the total grazing 

preference. 

Trend: The direction of change in ecological status or in resource value ratings observed over 

time. Trend in ecological status is described as "toward" or "away from" the potential natural 

community or as "not apparent." Appropriate terms are used to describe trends in resource value 

ratings. Trends in resource value ratings for several uses on the same site at a given time may be 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

196

in different directions, and there is no necessary correlation between trends in resource value 

ratings and the trend in ecological status. 

Unallotted Lands: Public lands open to grazing which currently have no livestock grazing 

authorized. 

Understory: Plants that grow beneath the canopy of other plants. Usually refers to grasses, 

forbs, and low shrubs under a tree or shrub canopy. 

Undertaking: A project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or 

indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal 

agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, 

license or approval; and those subject to State or local regulation administered pursuant to a 

delegation or approval by a Federal agency. 

Undesirable plants: Species classified as undesirable, noxious, harmful, exotic, injurious, or 

poisonous under state or federal law, but not including species listed as endangered by the 

Endangered Species Act, or species indigenous to the planning area. 

User Day: Any calendar day, or portion thereof, for each individual accompanied or serviced by 

an operator or permittee on the public lands of related waters; synonymous with passenger day or 

participant day. 

Utilization: The proportion or degree of current year's forage production that is consumed or 

destroyed by animals (including insects). Utilization may refer either to a single plant species, a 

group of species, or the vegetation as a whole. Utilization is synonymous with use. This process 

requires a comparison of the amount of herbage left compared with the amount of herbage 

produced during the year. 

Valid Existing Rights: Locatable mineral development rights that existed when the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act were enacted on October 21, 1976. Some areas are 

segregated from entry and location under the Mining Law to protect certain values or allow 

certain uses. Mining claims that existed as of the effective date of the segregation may still be 

valid if they can meet the test of discovery of a valuable mineral required under the Mining Law. 

Determining the validity of mining claims located in segregated lands requires BLM to conduct a 

validity examination and is called a “valid existing rights” determination. 

Vascular plants: Plants that have specialized tissues which conduct nutrients, water, and sugars 

along with other specialized parts such as roots, stems, and reproductive structures. Vascular 

plants include flowering plants, ferns, shrubs, grasses, and trees. 

Vegetation Manipulation Practices: Practices that are directed at changing vegetation 

production, species composition, and erosion control. These practices include root plowing, 

seeding, pitting, chaining, prescribed fire, herbicide application, prescribed grazing and livestock 

exclusion. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

197

Vegetation Type: A kind of existing plant community with distinguishable characteristics 

described in terms of the present vegetation that dominates the aspect or physiognomy of the 

area. 

Vertebrate: An animal with a backbone. Fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are 

vertebrates. 

Visual Resources: The visible physical features of a landscape (topography, water, vegetation, 

animals, structures, and other features) that constitute the scenery of an area. 

Visual Resource Management Classes: Categories assigned to public lands based on scenic 

quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones. There are four classes. Each class has an objective 

which prescribes the amount of change allowed in the characteristic landscape. 

Waiver: Permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies 

anywhere within the leasehold. 

Water Quality: 

(1) The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect to its 

suitability for a particular use. 

(2) The interaction between various parameters that determines the usability or nonusability of water for on-site and downstream uses. Major parameters that affect 

water quality include: temperature, turbidity, suspended sediment, conductivity, 

dissolved oxygen, pH, specific ions, discharge, and fecal coliform. 

Watershed: 

(1) A total area of land above a given point on a waterway that contributes runoff water 

to the flow at that point. 

(2) A major subdivision of a drainage basin. 

Weed: A plant considered undesirable and that interferes with management objectives for a 

given area at a given point in time. 

Wetlands: 

(1) Areas characterized by soils that are usually saturated or ponded (i.e., hydric soils, 

that support mostly hydrophytic plants). 

(2) Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstance do 

support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions. Wetlands include habitats such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. 

Wild Horses and Burros: All unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros using public lands as 

all or part of their habitat. 

Wild, Scenic or Recreational River: The three classes of what is traditionally referred to as a 

“Wild and Scenic River.” Designated river segments are classified as wild, scenic and/or 

recreational, but the segments cannot overlap. 
Vernal Approved RMP – Glossary 

198

Wilderness Characteristics: Features of the land associated with the concept of wilderness that 

specifically deal with naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined 

recreation. These characteristics may be considered in land use planning when BLM determines 

that those characteristics are reasonably present, of sufficient value (condition, uniqueness, 

relevance, importance), and need (trend, risk), and are practical to manage (from IM-2003-275, 

Change 1, Considerations of Wilderness Characteristics in LUP, Attachment 1) 

Wilderness Study Area: A roadless area or island of undeveloped federal land that has been 

inventoried and found to possess wilderness characteristics described under Title VI, Section 603 

of FLPMA and Section 2C of the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Wilderness: A congressionally designated area of undeveloped federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, that is 

protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions and that: 

(1) generally appears to have been affected mainly by the forces of nature, with human 

imprints substantially unnoticeable; 

(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation; 

(3) has at least 5,000 acres or is large enough to make practical its preservation and use in 

an unimpaired condition; and 

(4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historic value. 

Wildfire: Any unwanted wild land fire. 

Wildland Fire: Any nonstructural fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wild land. 

Winter Range: Range that is grazed during the winter months. 

Withdrawal: Withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under 

some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in 

order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public 

purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than 

“property” governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 

U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency. 

Woodland: A land area occupied by trees; a forest, woods. 
Vernal Approved RMP – List of Preparers 

199

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Bureau of Land Management 

Name Title Role 

William Stringer Green River District Office 

Manager 

Project Manager 

Howard 

Cleavinger 

Associate Field Manager Project Manager 

Kelly Buckner Planning and Environmental 

Coordinator 

Project Manager, QA/QC, writer/editor 

Denise Ohler Environmental Administrative 

Assistant 

QA/QC, writer/editor 

Blaine Phillips Archaeologist Cultural Resources, SHPO Consultation 

Jo-Ann Stroh IT Specialist GIS 

Kyle Smith Cartographic Technician GIS 

Amy Torres Wildlife Biologist Special Status Species, Section 7 Consultation, 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Ron Bolander Wildlife Biologist Special Status Species, Section 7 Consultation, 

Wildlife and Fisheries 
Vernal Approved RMP – List of Appendices 

200

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats In Utah, 

August 2006 

Appendix B: Hydraulic Considerations for Pipelines Crossing Stream Channels; Technical 

Note 423 

Appendix C: Wild and Scenic Rivers Overview 

Appendix D: National Registry Sites and Districts 

Appendix E: Withdrawal and Classifications Identified in the Vernal Approved RMP 

Appendix F: BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Management 

Appendix G: Overview of ACEC Relevance and Importance Values 

Appendix H: Disturbances and Fragmentation of Wildlife Habitat 

Appendix I: Visual Resources Management (VRM) Class Objectives 

Appendix J: Grazing Allotments 

Appendix K: Surface Stipulations Applicable to all Surface-Disturbing Activities 

Appendix L: Utah’s Threatened and Endangered Species Lease Notices for Oil and Gas 

Development and BLM-committed Conservation Measures 

Appendix M: Utah Public Lands Study—Key Social Survey Findings for Daggett, Duchesne 

and Uintah Counties 

Appendix N: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion Cover Letter (BO on attached 

CD) 

Appendix O: Letter from the State of Utah Regarding Air Quality Mitigation Strategies 

Appendix P: State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Consultation Letter 

Appendix Q: Approved RMP Monitoring Plan 

Appendix R: Fluid Minerals Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

Appendix S: Public Lands Considered for Disposal 
Vernal Approved RMP – List of Figures 

201

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1a Land Ownership 

Figure 2a Fire Management Categories 

Figure 3a Fire Regime 

Figure 4a Fire Condition Classes 

Figure 5a Forage Assignment Localities and Riparian Inventory 

Figure 6a Lands Considered for Disposal by Sale 

Figure 7a Seasons of Use 

Figure 8a Oil and Gas Leasing 

Figure 9a Mineral Materials/Phosphate/Gilsonite 

Figure 10a Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Areas 

Figure 11a Hill Creek Extension Indian and Federal Minerals 

Figure 12a Non-WSA Lands Inventoried for Wilderness Characteristics 

Figure 13a Special Recreation Management Areas 

Figure 14a Special Designations 

Figure 15a Travel/OHV Areas 

Figure 16a Visual Resource Management 

Figure 17a Wild Horse Herd Areas 

Figure 18a Deer, Elk, and Lynx-Winter Range/Corridor/Zone 

Figure 19a Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation 

Figure 20a Areas Open to Woodcutting