Record of Decision

Approved Resource Management Plan AND

Bureau of Land Mangagement

MOAB FIELD OFFICE

OCTOBER 2008

BLM
Bureau of Land Management

BLM-UT-PL-09-001-1610

UT-060-2007-04

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 

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

will provide guidance for the management of over 1,821,000 acres of public land and 1,850,000

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

Grand and San Juan Counties in southeastern 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 copies 

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 1, 2008 and subject to a 30-day protest 

period that ended on September 1, 2008. Twenty-one 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., coal leasing, 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 Moab Field Office website at: 

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

MOAB FIELD OFFICE 

RECORD OF DECISION 

AND 

APPROVED 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

October 2008 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Moab Field Office 

Moab, Utah 

Cooperating Agencies: 

State of Utah 

Grand County 

San Juan County 

Moab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................... iii

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

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

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

Moab Planning Area ................................................................................................................. 2 

B. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 3

Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................. 4 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis ............................................................. 9 

C. RESULTS OF PROTEST PERIOD ..................................................................... 14

D. THE DECISION ................................................................................................... 15

What the Decision/RMP Provides .......................................................................................... 16 

What the Decision/RMP Does Not Provide ............................................................................ 17 

Implementation Decisions ...................................................................................................... 18 

E. NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS .................................... 20

Modifications .......................................................................................................................... 20 

Clarifications ........................................................................................................................... 21 

F. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING THE APPROVED RMP .. 22

All Surface Disturbing Activities .............................................................................................. 22 

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 23 

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 23 

Lands and Realty ................................................................................................................... 24 

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................... 25 

Minerals .................................................................................................................................. 25 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics .................................................................. 27 

Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 29 

Soil and Water ........................................................................................................................ 30 

Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................................... 30 

Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers ...................................................................... 34 

Travel Management ............................................................................................................... 36 

Vegetation (including Riparian, Noxious, and Invasive Plants) .............................................. 37 

Visual Resource Management ............................................................................................... 37 

Wildlife .................................................................................................................................... 37 

G. CONSISTENCY AND CONSULTATION REVIEW .............................................. 39

Governor’s Consistency ......................................................................................................... 39 

NHPA Section 106 Consultation ............................................................................................ 39 

Native American Consultation ................................................................................................ 40 

Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act ................................................... 40 

H. MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................. 40

I. PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION ........................................................... 40

J. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..................................................................................... 41

K. AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN ............................................................................ 42 

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................. 45

A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 45

B. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES .................................... 45
Moab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

ii 

State of Utah .......................................................................................................................... 45 

County Land Use Plans.......................................................................................................... 45 

Other Federal Plans ............................................................................................................... 45 

Endangered Species Recovery Plans .................................................................................... 46 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) ......................................................................... 46 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Western Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS (PEIS) ....... 46 

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

Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and the U.S Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest 

Service concerning Oil and Gas Leasing Operations ............................................................. 46 

Other BLM Plans and Policies ................................................................................................ 47 

Habitat Management Plans (HMP) ......................................................................................... 47 

C. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................. 48

General Implementation Schedule of “One-Time” Actions ..................................................... 49 

Maintaining the Plan ............................................................................................................... 49 

Changing the Plan .................................................................................................................. 50 

D. PLAN EVALUATION ........................................................................................... 50

E. MANAGEMENT DECISIONS .............................................................................. 51

Air Quality (AQ) ...................................................................................................................... 52 

Cultural Resources (CUL) ...................................................................................................... 54 

Fire Management (FIRE) ........................................................................................................ 58 

Health And Safety (HAZ) ........................................................................................................ 63 

Lands And Realty (LAR)......................................................................................................... 65 

Livestock Grazing (GRA)........................................................................................................ 68 

Minerals (MIN) ........................................................................................................................ 73 

Non-WSA Lands With Wilderness Characteristics (WC) ....................................................... 78 

Paleontology (PAL) ................................................................................................................ 79 

Recreation (REC) ................................................................................................................... 81 

Riparian (RIP)......................................................................................................................... 99 

Soil And Water (SOL-WAT) .................................................................................................. 102 

Special Designation: Areas Of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ............................ 106 

Special Designations: National Trails And Backways (TRA) .............................................. 109 

Special Designations: Wild And Scenic Rivers (WSR) ........................................................ 110 

Special Designations: Designated Wilderness (DW) .......................................................... 114 

Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) ....................................................... 115 

Special Status Species (SSS) .............................................................................................. 117

Travel Management (TRV) ................................................................................................... 126

Vegetation (VEG) ................................................................................................................. 131 

Visual Resources Management (VRM) ................................................................................ 134 

Wildlife And Fisheries (WL) .................................................................................................. 136 

Woodlands (FOR) ................................................................................................................ 144 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 146

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 153

LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................... 167

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ 168

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................... 169

Appendix A: Stipulations and Environmental Best Practices Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other 

Surface-disturbing Activities 

Appendix B: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion Memorandum 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

iii 

Appendix C: State Historic Preservation Office Letter of Concurrence 

Appendix D: Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management 

Appendix E: Moab RMP Monitoring Plan 

Appendix F: Tentative Implementation Schedule 

Appendix G: Land Tenure Adjustments and Withdrawal Criteria 

Appendix H: Film Permits: Minimum Impact Criteria 

Appendix I: Lands Identified for Disposal in the Moab RMP 

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

Appendix K: Identification of Wilderness Characteristics on Non-WSA Lands Managed by the Moab BLM 

Appendix L: Moab Field Office Recreation Rules 

Appendix M: Special Recreation Management Areas: Goals, Settings, Outcomes, and Management 

Prescriptions 

Appendix N: Travel Plan Development 

Appendix O: Hydraulic Considerations for Pipelines Crossing Stream Channels Tech Note 423 

Appendix P: Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process 

Appendix Q: Conservation Measures for Threatened and Endangered Species of Utah from the Use Plan 

Programmatic BAs and Section 7 Consultation 

Appendix R: Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats in Utah 

Appendix S: Desired Future Conditions for Vegetation 

Appendix T: Drought Classification System 

Appendix U: Additional Wildlife Information 

LIST OF MAPS ........................................................................................................... 170

Map 1: Moab Planning Area 

Map 2: Designated Routes 

Map 3: Designated Motorcycle/ATV Routes 

Map 4: Designated Mountain Bike Single Track Trails 

Map 5: Existing Withdrawals from Mineral Entry 

Map 6: Utility Corridors 

Map 7: Lands Identified for Disposal 

Map 8: Grazing Allotments 

Map 9: Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing, Rutting and Migration Habitat 

Map 10: Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat 

Map 11: Areas Not Available for Livestock Grazing 

Map 12: Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations 

Map 13: Known Potash Leasing Areas 

Map 14: Salable Minerals Sites 

Map 15: Non-WSA Lands Inventoried for Wilderness Characteristics 

Map 16: Non-WSA Lands Managed for Wilderness Characteristics 

Map 17: Special Recreation Management Areas 

Map 18: Recreation Focus Areas 

Map 19: Steep Slopes (over 30 Percent) in Bookcliffs 

Map 20: Moderate to High Saline Soils 

Map 21: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Map 22: Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Map 23: Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas 

Map 24: Endangered Colorado River Fish Critical Habitat 

Map 25: Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat 

Map 26: Bald and Golden Eagle Habitat 

Map 27: Sage Grouse Habitat 

Map 28: Prairie Dog Sensitive Species Habitat 

Map 29: Ferruginous Hawk and Burrowing Owl Habitat 

Map 30: Off Highway Vehicle Designations 

Map 31: Visual Resource Management 

Map 32: Pronghorn Habitat 

Map 33: Deer and/or Elk Habitat 

Map 34: Areas Not Available for Woodland Harvest and Wood Cutting
Moab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan – List of Acronyms 

iv 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

AML Abandoned mine lands 

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

AMR Appropriate Management Response 

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

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 

CAA Clean Air Act (of 1970) 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CFS Cubic Feet Per Second (a unit of water flow) 

COA Conditions of Approval 

CSU Controlled Surface Use 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DFC Desired Future Condition 

DOGM (Utah) Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 

DOI (United States) Department of the Interior 

DPC Desired Plant Community 

DWFC Desired Wildland Fire Conditions 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act (of 1975) 

ERMA Extended Recreation Management Area 

ESA Endangered Species Act (of 1973) 

ESR Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act (of 1976) 

FMP Fire Management Plan 

FMZ Fire Management Zone 

FO Field Office 

FR Federal Register 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

HMA Herd Management Area 

HMP Habitat Management Plan 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan – List of Acronyms 

v 

IMP Interim Management Policy 

IR Indian Reservation 

KPLA Known Potash Leasing Areas 

LTA Land Tenure Agreement 

LUP Land Use Plan 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MFO Moab Field Office 

MPA Moab Planning Area 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

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

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (of 1969) 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOA Notice of Availability (published in the Federal Register) 

NOI Notice of Intent (published in the Federal Register) 

NPS National Park Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

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

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River System 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 

ORV Outstandingly Remarkable Value 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition (of riparian/wetland areas) 

R&I Relevance and Importance 

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

RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan 

RDCC (Utah) Resource Development and Coordinating Committee 

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

RHS Rangeland Health Standards 

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 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SITLA (Utah) School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

SMA Surface Management Agency 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

SRP Special Recreation Permit 

TCP Traditional Cultural Property 

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

UAAQS Utah Ambient Air Quality Standards 

UAC Utah Administrative Code 

UDAQ Utah Department of Air Quality 

UDEQ Utah Division of Environmental Quality 

UDOGM Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan – List of Acronyms 

vi 

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation 

UDWQ Utah Division of Water Quality 

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

UGS Utah Geological Survey 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USC United States Code 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

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

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 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 Moab Field Office as presented in the attached Resource 

Management Plan (RMP). This RMP was described as the Proposed Plan in the August 2008 

Proposed Moab 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 clarifications and modifications made to 

address protests received on the plan. The attached Moab Field Office 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 the existing land-use plan (LUPs) and prepare 

a new RMP for the Moab Field Office (MFO) 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 MFO and its allocation of 

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

purpose of this plan revision is as follows: 

• To consolidate the existing LUP and its amendments. 

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

reconsider the mix of resource allocations and management decisions designed to balance 

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

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

resulting 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), its implementing regulations, and other applicable laws. 

Need 

A revision to the 1985 Grand RMP is necessary because there have been many shifts in resources, 

health and demand, as well as modifications to policy since 1985. Circumstances and policies 

relevant to the future management of public lands and allocation of resources under the multipleuse and sustained yield mandate are of particular importance. The BLM completed detailed 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 2 

evaluations of the 1985 Grand RMP in 2002 and determined the plan needed revision (BLM 

2002). 

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 demographics have changed, as have public 

awareness and use of lands within the planning area. Specifically, there is a need to evaluate 

management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increases in recreation and 

visitor use, including scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in oil and 

gas development. Land use plan decisions may be changed only through the amendment or 

revision process. 

Moab Planning Area

The Moab planning area (MPA) is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the 

Colorado Plateau physiographic province (Map 1). It is located in southeastern Utah and 

includes all of Grand County and the northern third of San Juan County. Geographically, the 

MPA is bounded by the Book Cliffs to the north, the Utah-Colorado state line to the east, Harts 

Point and Lisbon Valley to the south, and the Green River to the west. Major waterways within 

the MPA include the Colorado River, the Dolores River, and the Green River. Elevations within 

the MPA range from approximately 13,000 feet above mean sea level in the La Sal Mountains to 

approximately 3,900 feet above mean sea level at Mineral Bottom along the Green River. 

The MPA encompasses Arches National Park, Dead Horse Point State Park, the La Sal 

Mountains of the Manti-La Sal National Forest, and abuts the Uintah/Ouray Indian Reservation. 

The MPA shares boundaries with lands administered by the BLM Richfield, Vernal, Monticello, 

Grand Junction, Uncompahgre, Dolores, and Price Field Offices, as well as with Canyonlands 

National Park. 

The MPA comprises approximately 2,756,065 acres of land, of which approximately 1,822,562 

acres is public land administered by the BLM (Table 1). In addition, the Moab Field Office also 

manages approximately 29,680 acres of subsurface mineral estate within the MPA and manages 

leasable minerals on 141,250 acres under U.S. Forest Service lands on the Manti-La Sal National 

Forest. The BLM Vernal FO presently manages 33,331 acres of public land at the top of the 

Book Cliffs along the northern portion of the MPA because access is easier to this area from the 

Vernal FO. Decisions for these 33,331 acres are contained in the Vernal RMP. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 3 

Table 1. Surface Ownership/Administration of Lands within the MPA (acres)

Ownership/Administration Grand County San Juan County Total 

BLM 1,529,390* 293,172 1,822,562*

Indian Lands 197,992 0 197,992 

Department of Defense 1,631 0 1,631 

National Park Service 76,396 0 76,396 

Private 101,976 56,294 158,270 

State Trust Lands 283,613 56,608 340,221 

State Parks, County, City, 

Wildlife, and Outdoor 

Recreation Areas 

 16,339 1,068 17,407 

USDA Forest Service 57,298 83,942 141,240 

Acreage of Water 168 178 346 

Total 2,264,803 491,262 2,756,065 

*

This total includes the 33,331 acres managed by the BLM Vernal FO. 

Also contained within the MPA are several communities, diverse terrain, and scenic landscapes 

that figure prominently in the settlement, history, culture, and recreational enjoyment of southern 

Utah. Many occupational pursuits historically associated with this region of the Intermountain 

West-including farming, ranching, mining, tourism, retail trade, transportation, and constructionare still practiced by residents within the MPA. Major communities in the MPA are Moab, La 

Sal, Castle Valley, Thompson, Crescent Junction, and Elgin. Major transportation routes include 

Interstate 70 (I-70), U.S. Highway 191, and State Routes 279 (Potash State Scenic Byway), 128 

(Colorado River State Scenic Byway), and 313 (Dead Horse Mesa State Scenic Byway). 

B. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES 

Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in detail in the Moab Draft 

RMP/EIS (USDI-BLM 2007) and in the Proposed RMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM 2008). The 

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

resource programs influencing land management. All alternatives incorporated the 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 management under any of the alternatives would comply with federal laws, 

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

alternatives. 

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

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

met using a variety of approaches across the alternatives. Each alternative allowed some 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 scenarios 

for programs not tied to major planning issues and/or mandated by law often contain minor or no 

differences in management between alternatives. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 4 

Alternative A (the No Action Alternative) is the continuation of the 1985 Grand RMP (as 

amended) and is provided as a baseline for comparison. Alternative B 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 D emphasizes commodity development and provides the 

greatest economic benefit from mineral development, and imposes the fewest restrictions on 

public land uses. Alternative C, (the Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS and largely the 

baseline for the Proposed Plan in 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 is referred to as the No Action Alternative. This alternative would have 

continued present management practices defined in the existing land use plan. Direction 

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

sometimes superseding provisions of the Grand RMP. Alternative A was not selected because it 

does not meet the purpose and need for the management of public lands in the MPA. The 

decisions in the 1985 RMP 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 1985 Grand RMP does not address many recent issues, nor does it address the increased 

levels of controversy some existing resource issues are facing. Special status species, including 

threatened and endangered species, are not fully addressed within the parameters of Alternative 

A. Alternative A designates 1,183,660 acres as open to OHV use. This large open acreage 

within the planning area (which now receives close to 2 million visitors) results in unacceptable 

resource damage which is contrary to BLM policy. In addition, the No Action Alternative does 

not designate ACECs, recommend suitable Wild and Scenic River segments, or consider natural 

areas to protect and preserve their wilderness characteristics. 

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

landscapes. Commodity production and human activities would be more constrained than in 

other alternatives. This alternative provides more opportunities for non-motorized recreation. 

Compared to all alternatives, Alternative B protects the most land area for sensitive resources, 

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

river segments suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River system, and 

protects, preserves and maintains all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. It is also 

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

leasing). Although Alternative B is the environmentally preferable alternative, there are many 

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

Alternative B is outlined below for the major management actions. 

Lands and Realty - Utility Corridors: Alternative B provides a 100 foot wide utility corridor. 

The narrow width of this corridor provides maximum protection for resources such as soils, 

vegetation, and wildlife habitat but limits utility development and expansion. The opportunities 

and flexibility for the upgrading, addition, and expansion of utility needs are severely restricted 

by the narrow width of the utility corridor in this alternative. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 5 

In Alternative B, 671,444 acres are managed as exclusion areas for rights-of-way and 342,931 

acres are managed as avoidance areas for rights of way. Managing 55 percent of the planning 

area with major restrictions on BLM rights-of-way for pipelines, roads and powerlines could 

severely limit development of and access to oil and gas leases as well as restricting the 

development of other necessary infrastructure. 

Livestock Grazing: Alternative B removes the entire Professor Valley allotment from grazing in 

order to address a safety issue along Highway 128. Over 300,000 vehicles per year travel this 

stretch of highway and this volume of traffic is not compatible with open grazing. However, 

removing the entire allotment to solve the highway safety issue is unnecessarily restrictive. 

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

the following stipulations: Closed - 671,444 acres; No Surface Occupancy (NSO) - 342,931 

acres; Timing Limitations/Controlled Surface Use - 543,751 acres; Open (subject to standard 

terms and conditions) - 264,344 acres. Alternative B 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 55 percent of the 

acreage in the planning area and this acreage would be essentially unavailable to oil and gas 

development and other surface disturbing activities. The timing and controlled surface use 

stipulations in Alternative B would add another 30 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 85 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 B provides the least amount of mineral royalty revenue ($1,037,540) and the least 

amount of mineral property taxes ($321,440) because of these restrictions on mineral 

development. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative B manages 266,471 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 B have conflicts 

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

leased for oil and gas, making it impractical to protect wilderness characteristics values. The 

management of all the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in Alternative B is overly 

restrictive on other resources and uses on the public lands. 

Recreation: Alternative B establishes 11 Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

which are managed to highlight non-motorized activities, generally. In addition, 20 Recreation 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 6 

Management Zones (Focus Areas) within these SRMAs emphasize various types of nonmotorized recreation. The Moab planning area is known for a multitude of recreational 

activities, attracting about 2 million visitors a year. These visitors engage in numerous activities 

not provided for in Alternative B, such as many forms of motorized activity (jeeping, dirt biking, 

ATVing) and specialized sports such as mountain bike freeriding and BASEjumping. 

Alternative B does not provide for the full range of recreational activities known to occur in the 

planning area or for the businesses that depend upon these activities. 

Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Alternative B designates all 

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

Concern (ACECs). Management of 9 of these potential ACECs in Alternative B is unnecessary 

to protect the relevant and important values. For example, the relevant and important value of 

wildlife in the Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog potential ACEC is protected in Alternative B by 

applying a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing 

activities on 117,481 acres of prairie dog habitat. Prairie dogs can be adequately safeguarded by 

using a protective buffer around identified prairie dog colonies. Another example of overly 

restrictive management in Alternative B is applying a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities to protect the scenic values in the Canyon 

Rims potential ACEC. Scenic values in this area can be sufficiently protected by the application 

of a controlled surface use stipulation that would mitigate visual impacts. In addition, many 

ACECs overlap WSAs where the relevant and important values are already protected through 

Interim Management Policy management. The multiple special designation layering is 

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

Management Policy management. 

Special Designations – Wild and Scenic Rivers: Alternative B recommends as suitable all 29 

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

river segments found suitable in Alternative B include scenery and river related non-motorized 

recreation 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 management for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

As a consequence, Alternative B would impose unnecessary restrictions that provide no 

additional management protections that are not otherwise available through existing or 

alternative management options. 

Travel Management: Alternative B specifies the following OHV designations: 347,424 acres 

closed; 1,475,074 acres limited to designated routes and 0 acres for open OHV use. Although 

Alternative B provides for primitive recreation opportunities, it does not meet the needs of all 

recreational users. There are no open OHV areas provided for cross country motorized travel. In 

areas where OHV use is limited to designated roads and trails, there are no designated dirt bike 

routes, no new mountain bike singletrack trails, and new construction of mountain bike routes 

would not be allowed. In addition, Alternative B does not provide access to many popular 

recreational destinations and facilities. Therefore, Alternative B does not provide a travel plan 

that meets the needs of all recreational users. For details about route designations, see the 

Implementation Decisions, Section D, of the ROD. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 7 

Wildlife: Alternative B provides the maximum protection for wildlife habitats by considering 

the most broadly defined habitats for various species. In addition, Alternative B is the most 

restrictive to uses within these broader habitats. The timing limitations imposed in Alternative B 

are longer and cover larger acreages than are necessary for sustaining the species. 

In summary, Alternative B 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. Alternative B is 

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

including the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the Energy Policy Act, and it does not 

give adequate accommodation of local needs, customs and culture. 

Alternative C was selected as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Moab 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 laws, regulations and policies pertaining to BLM managment. As a result of 

public comment, internal review, and cooperating agency coordination on the Draft RMP/EIS, 

Alternative C 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 D emphasizes commodity production and human activities. Commodity 

production and human activities would be less constrained in Alternative D. Alternative D, like 

Alternative A, designates no areas as ACECs, no suitable Wild and Scenic River segments, and 

no acres managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Other than Alternative A, 

Alternative D 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 D 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 D is outlined below for the major management actions. 

Lands and Realty - Utility Corridors: Alternative D provides a 5,280 foot wide utility corridor. 

The width of this corridor provides maximum flexibility for utility companies but could result in 

extensive potential impacts to resources such as soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat as a result 

of utility development. 

In Alternative D, 350,219 acres (all within WSAs) are managed as exclusion areas for rights-ofway and 84,772 acres are managed as avoidance areas for rights of way. The exclusion areas for 

WSAs are non-discretionary, and the 84,772 acres of avoidance areas are not sufficient to 

adequately protect the important natural resources that have been identified within the planning 

area. In particular, the exclusion and avoidance areas in Alternative D are not sufficient to 

protect the municipal watersheds of Moab and Castle Valley, highly sensitive visual resources, 

heavily used recreation areas, bighorn sheep migration, lambing, and rutting habitats, and the 

relevant and important values in potential ACECs. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 8 

Livestock Grazing: Alternative D allows grazing on 79,833 acres that have been identified as 

having conflicts with wildlife, special status species, riparian habitat, watershed health and 

recreation. Alternative D was not selected because, under this alternative, these issues would 

remain unresolved. 

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

the following stipulations: Closed – 350,219 acres (all non-discretionary since it is entirely 

within WSAs); No Surface Occupancy – 84,772 acres; Timing Limitations/Controlled Surface 

Use -590,442 acres; Open (subject to standard terms and conditions) - 797,031 acres. 

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

Alternative D 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 the 

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

Alternative D is not sufficient to protect the municipal watersheds of Moab and Castle Valley, 

highly sensitive visual resources, heavily used recreation areas, bighorn sheep migration, 

lambing, and rutting habitats, and the relevant and important values in potential ACECs. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative D does not manage any nonWSA 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 D establishes six SRMAs which are managed to emphasize motorized 

activities. The Moab planning area is known for a multitude of recreational activities, attracting 

about 2 million visitors a year. These visitors engage in numerous non-motorized activities not 

specifically provided for in Alternative D such as hiking, rafting, horseback riding, backpacking, 

and mountain biking. The seven recreation focus areas managed under Alternative D do not 

provide sufficient opportunities for these popular non-motorized activities. 

In Alternative D, in many heavily used recreation areas such as Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges, 

the Dolores River Canyons, Lower Gray Canyon, and the South Moab area there is no SRMA 

management, and consequently no focus areas. As a result, recreation use and opportunities 

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

resources in these areas. Alternative D does not provide for the full range of recreational 

activities known to occur in the planning area or for the businesses that depend upon these 

activities. 

Special Designations – ACECs: Alternative D does not designate any of the 14 areas determined 

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

Alternative D are not sufficient to protect the majority of the relevant and important values of 

these potential ACECs. For example the relevant and important value of scenery in the Shafer 

Canyon ACEC is managed as VRM Class III under Alternative D. This visual management 

class is not sufficient to protect the scenic values of one of the most photographed landscapes in 

the state of Utah, the lands below Dead Horse Point State Park. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 9 

Special Designations – Wild and Scenic Rivers: Alternative D recommends none of the eligible 

river segments as suitable for potential designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers. As a result, 

Alternative D would not provide adequate protection to many of the eligible river segments. The 

free-flowing nature of the eligible river segments could be jeopardized and the outstandingly 

remarkable values identified for many of these segments could be subject to adverse impacts 

from oil and gas development and other surface disturbing activities. 

Travel Management: Alternative D specifies the following OHV designations: 57,351 acres 

closed, 1,762,083 acres limited to designated routes, and 3,064 acres open to cross country OHV 

use. The open cross country OHV acreage in the White Wash Sand Dune area extends beyond 

the unvegetated sand dunes and would result in degradation to soils, vegetation, visual, and 

wildlife resources. Alternative D designates user-made dirt bike and mountain bike trails in 

areas with sensitive natural resources. In addition, it designates routes that intrude upon 

primitive recreational opportunities in both WSAs and other areas used heavily by hikers. 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. For details about route designations, see the Implementation Decisions in 

Section D of the ROD. 

Wildlife: Alternative D provides the least protection for wildlife habitats by considering the 

smallest acreages as habitat for various species and the minimum in timing limitations. The 

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

sustaining the species. For example, 46,319 acres of the 130,419 acres identified by the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources and the BLM as desert bighorn sheep habitat are protected in 

Alternative D with a minimal timing limitation. Alternative D does not provide sufficient 

protection for wildlife habitats. 

In summary, Alternative D 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, and would 

have reduced management flexibility by foregoing a number of special designations such as 

ACECs, and WSRs. In addition, recreational opportunities provided through SRMA-focused 

management and the management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

foregone. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis

Livestock Grazing Adjustments Alternative 

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

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

grazed on allotments within the Moab Field Office to benefit wildlife and protect and promote 

land health including soils, hydrologic cycles and biotic integrity. 

BLM policy regarding adjustments to the levels of livestock use authorized is to monitor and 

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

as indicated by this data to help assure that Rangeland Health Standards (RHS) and resource 

objectives are met. Regulations at 43 CFR 4130.3 require that the terms and conditions under 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 10 

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

(Standards for Rangeland Health) and further that “livestock grazing use shall not exceed the 

livestock carrying capacity of the allotment.” It would be inappropriate and unfeasible to 

estimate and allocate the available forage, design specific management practices and determine if 

changes to the kind of livestock are necessary for each allotment in the Moab Field Office or in 

the area as a whole in the RMP/EIS. Such changes would not be supportable considering the 

type and amount of data required and the analysis necessary to make such changes. 

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

conditions under which they are managed are implementation decisions (H-1610-1, Appendix A, 

page 15). BLM assesses RHS, conducts monitoring and inventories, and evaluates these data on 

a periodic basis, normally on an allotment and/or watershed basis. After NEPA analysis, 

necessary changes to livestock management and implementation of Utah’s Guidelines for 

Rangeland Management are implemented through a proposed decision in accordance with 43 

CFR 4160. These decisions determine the exact levels of use by livestock in conformance with 

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

this alternative has been dismissed from further consideration in this land use plan revision. 

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, which directs the BLM to provide for 

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

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

dependent upon the public range. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that public lands be managed 

on a "multiple use and sustained yield basis" (FLPMA Sec. 302(a) and Sec. 102(7)) and includes 

livestock grazing as a principal or major use of public lands. While multiple use does not require 

that all lands be used for livestock grazing, complete removal of livestock grazing on the entire 

planning area would be arbitrary and would not meet the principle of multiple use and sustained 

yield. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 11 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Leasing Alternative 

During scoping and/or the comment period for the DRMP/EIS, it was suggested that BLM 

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

equivalent of the “No Action Alternative” that must be analyzed in all EISs. 

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

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

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

leases and either buying them back from the lessee, or allowing them to expire on their own 

terms. The first option (buying back), is outside the scope of any RMP. This is a political 

decision that BLM has no authority to undertake in planning. As a result, BLM does not 

regularly include a “No Leasing Alternative.” 

The purpose and need for the land use plan is to identify and resolve potential conflicts between 

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

Field Office area. Leasing of the public lands for oil and gas exploration and production is 

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

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

achieve resource goals and objectives. A field office-wide “No Leasing Alternative” would be 

an unnecessarily restrictive alternative for mineral exploration and production on the public 

lands. 

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

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

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

issue or conflicts have been identified during this land use planning effort which requires the 

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

BLM’s Land use Planning Handbook (BLM Manual Rel. 1-1693), Appendix C, item H, requires 

that land use plans identify areas as open or unavailable for leasing. 

Given the potential range of decisions available in the DRMP/DEIS, the analyzed alternatives 

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

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

As mentioned in the no grazing discussion, a “No Leasing Alternative” should not be confused 

with the “No Action Alternative” for purposes of NEPA compliance. Leasing and No Leasing 

on the public lands has previously been analyzed in several NEPA documents. In 1973, the 

Department of Interior published the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Federal 

Upland Oil and Gas Leasing Program (USDI, 1973). The proposed action was to lease Federal 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 12 

lands for production of oil and natural gas resources. Alternatives included in the No Action 

Alternative, which at initiation of the program was “No Leasing.” To supplement that EIS, the 

BLM prepared a series of Environmental Assessments (then titled “Environmental Analysis 

Records or EARs”) including the Grand Resource Area Oil and Gas Program Environmental 

Analysis Record (EAR), 1988 which addressed oil and gas leasing for the public lands in the 

Moab Field Office area. Alternatives again included the No Action or “No Leasing” alternative. 

The outcome was a category system for leasing which categorized all public and Forest Service 

lands into four groups: 1) open to leasing with standard lease stipulation, 2) special stipulations 

to address special concerns, 3) no surface occupancy and 4) no leasing. Since completion of the 

EAR in 1988, oil and gas leasing in the Moab Field Office area has been an ongoing federal 

program under the established categories. 

The Council on Environmental Quality (Section 1502.14(d) of NEPA) requires the alternatives 

analysis in an EIS to “include the alternative of no action,” but explains that there are two 

distinct interpretations of “no action” that must be considered, depending on the nature of the 

proposal being evaluated. “The first situation might involve an action such as updating a land 

management plan where ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations 

will continue, even as new plans are developed. In these cases “no action” is “no change” from 

current management direction or level of management intensity. To construct an alternative that 

is based on no management at all would be a useless academic exercise. Therefore, the “no 

action” alternative may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present course of action 

until that action is changed.” (CEQ Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 3). Therefore, for 

the MFO DRMP/DEIS, the “No Action Alternative” continues the status quo which is to lease 

under the oil and gas stipulations (formerly categories) established in the Grand Resource Area 

RMP. 

The Red Rock Heritage Travel Plan Alternative 

An alternative that proposes to remove nearly all travel routes from areas proposed for 

wilderness by external groups from the Travel Plan that would accompany this RMP would not 

meet the purpose and need of the Approved RMP. NEPA requires that agencies study, develop, 

and describe appropriate alternatives to recommend courses of action in any proposal which 

involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. 

On September 7, 2004, BLM received a Travel Plan alternative from Red Rock Heritage (RRH). 

The narrative explains the philosophy and objectives underlying its plan and offers rationale for 

not designating specific routes for motorized travel within the BLM Travel Plan. RRH 

emphasizes that the primary objective of its plan is a "fair allocation of recreational 

opportunities" between motorized and non-motorized uses. RRH specifically states that the best 

practical alternative for comparing travel plans on this dimension is by "measuring the 

percentage of the field office area within various distances of the nearest motorized trail." RRH 

suggests that the appropriate percentage to achieve this goal is approximately 25 percent. 

Near the end of the narrative, RRH provides data with such computations at varying distances 

from motorized routes, contrasting its plan with the BLM-verified Grand County inventory. The 

Grand County inventory has 2,000 more miles of routes identified than is in the Grand County 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 13 

Travel Plan. BLM adopted the Grand County Travel Plan as its baseline for this land use 

planning effort, and it is used as the comparison for RRH. 

The BLM agrees with RRH that an equitable allocation between non-motorized and motorized 

recreation is a desirable outcome of the BLM Travel Plan. BLM believes, however, that the RRH 

plan is not a viable alternative, for several reasons: 

The RRH plan's roadless polygons match almost identically with wilderness proposals submitted 

by Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) and/or other interest groups. To achieve this 

“roadlessness,” RRH has recommended for closure virtually all roads within these proposed 

wilderness polygons, without specific mention or regard for purpose and need.1

 This results in 

several hundred miles of County "B" roads being recommended for closure. BLM has 

determined that these roads, which are constructed, regularly maintained by mechanical means, 

and serve specific purposes and needs, should be included in all alternatives of the BLM Travel 

Plan. 

RRH includes School & Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) in all its analyses. 

BLM cannot mange travel on SITLA lands, and BLM confines its analysis to public lands 

managed by the MFO. 

RRH focuses its analyses on lands south of I-70, which leaves out those portions of the MPA 

where opportunities for non-motorized recreation are most available. BLM believes this division 

is arbitrary, and will focus its analyses on the entire MPA. 

RRH analyses are done only in comparison to the Grand County route inventory. BLM's 

analyses will encompass the travel plans carried forward under the alternatives considered in the 

Draft EIS. 

RRH states that any travel plan presented as an alternative to its plan should "achieve the same 

degree of balance (i.e., 25 percent of the MPA more than a mile from a road, 12 percent more 

than two miles, etc.)." BLM agrees that an equitable allocation between motorized and nonmotorized use is a desirable outcome of the BLM travel plan. However, the BLM cannot justify 

using an arbitrary percentage to achieve this goal. 

RRH uses only a portion of what is commonly referred to as the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS). RRH limits its ROS analysis to physical separation, but ROS also looks at such 

facets as topography and social interactions (e.g., likelihood of meeting others) within the 

broader analysis. The MFO chose not to use ROS as a management tool for decision making in 

this RMP because the varied topography of the MPA results in ROS analysis, using physical 

separation only, misrepresenting opportunities for primitive, non-motorized recreation. The RRH 

Travel Plan mirrors the Red Rock Wilderness proposal, which encompasses over 46 percent of 

public lands in the MPA. RRH assumes that if currently available motorized routes were 

eliminated, these areas would be eligible for the protection of their wilderness characteristics. 

1

 Per BLM Instruction Memorandum 275, Change 1 (9/29/03), BLM is prohibited from establishing new wilderness 

areas. BLM may choose to manage certain areas to protect wilderness characteristics, but is not required to do so. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 14 

In its narrative, RRH discusses numerous specific routes, as well as areas, that it recommends 

that BLM not designate as available for motorized travel. Rather than discuss each route or area 

individually, several general comments are appropriate: 

• Almost all of these routes and areas lie within RRH wilderness proposals. In its comments, 

there is repeated emphasis on the need to set aside areas for non-motorized recreation and, if 

necessary, to "create a rare remote and wild area." Current BLM policy prohibits the creation 

of new wilderness study areas, although it does allow managing areas to protect wilderness 

characteristics. Several of the areas cited in RRH's proposal were found by BLM in 1999 to 

lack wilderness character. Many of the specific routes identified by RRH were either 

described as roads in the BLM 1999 inventory or described as roads at the time of the 

establishment of the original WSAs. Roads, by definition, are an impact on wilderness 

characteristics. 

• Other resource concerns are usually mentioned (e.g., wildlife, sensitive soils, riparian), but no 

specific data is presented to support the contention (unstated) that a particular existing route 

is causing the problem cited. 

• Several of the routes specified are county B roads, which are constructed and maintained and 

receive regular use. 

For the reasons outlined above, the RRH Travel Plan in total is eliminated from further analysis. 

C. RESULTS OF PROTEST PERIOD 

The BLM received 21 protest letters with standing during the 30-day protest period provided on 

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

accordance with 43 CFR Part 1610.5-2. Of these, 13 letters from organizations presented valid 

protest points. Protesting parties with valid protests included: 

San Juan County Commission; Utah Rivers Council; Western Watersheds Project, Inc.; 

Colorado 500 Legal Defense Fund and Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition; The 

Center for Water Advocacy; Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance; ECOS 

Consulting; Campbell Hansmire Sheep Akbash Dogs; Blue Ribbon Coalition, Inc.; 

Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States; Sierra Club Utah Chapter; 

Gurney & Gurney, LLC; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), Center for Native 

Ecosystems, The Wilderness Society (TWS), Grand Canyon Trust, Red Rock Forests, 

Sierra Club - Utah Chapter, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Public Employees for 

Environmental Responsibility (PEER) - Southwest Chapter. 

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. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 15 

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. One protest was granted in part, resulting in modifications to the decisions in 

the Approved RMP. In addition, minor adjustments and clarifications were made and have been 

explained in the Notice of Minor Modification and Clarification section later in this ROD. 

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 

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

the Grand Resource Area Resource Management Plan approved in 1985, and amendments 

thereto (USDI, BLM 1985). 

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

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

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

are either land use planning decisions or implementation decisions, and are effective upon 

signature of the ROD. 

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 environments. 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; and 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 16 

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 (Desired Future Conditions) 

• Land Use Allocations 

• 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. 

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

available 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 

many 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 stipulations, guidelines, best management practices (BMPs), 

and design features. 

The primary management decisions in the Approved RMP are to: 

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

according to the special management prescriptions identified for each area. 

• Designate 11 river segments as suitable for consideration as part of the National Wild and 

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

outstandingly remarkable values. 

• Protect, preserve, and maintain the wilderness characteristics on non-WSA lands for 47,761 

acres in three areas. 

• Manage 11 Wilderness Study Areas as VRM Class I and either closed or limited to 

designated ways for OHV use.

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

Preservation Act. 

• Place BLM-administered lands in fire management categories.

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

 Designate 1,481,334 acres as limited to off-highway vehicle use, 

 Designate 339,298 acres as closed to off-highway vehicle use, 

 Designate 1,866 acres in 1 area as open to cross country off-highway vehicle use. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 17 

• Designate 10 Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and identify 30 recreation 

management zones (Focus Areas). 

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

 Make an estimated 1.45 million acres of the 2.76 million acres of the federal mineral 

estate available for oil and gas leasing. 

 Make an estimated 427,273 acres available for oil and gas leasing under standard 

lease terms; an estimated 806,994 acres are available subject to Controlled Surface 

Use or Timing Limitation stipulations; and an estimated 217,480 acres are available 

subject to a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation. 

 Make approximately 370,250 acres unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

• Designate 370,250 acres as exclusion areas for rights-of-way and 217,480 acres as avoidance 

areas for rights-of-way. 

• Designate the I-70 and Moab Canyon utility corridors. Combine the two corridors south of 

Spanish Valley into a single corridor. 

• Continue the existing withdrawal of approximately 78,333 acres from locatable mineral 

entry. 

• Establish which areas are available or unavailable to livestock grazing: 

 Make an estimated 1,690,481 acres available to livestock grazing and an estimated 

132,047 acres not available to livestock grazing. 

• Protect the Castle Valley (10,321 acres) and Mill Creek-Spanish Valley (9,667 acres) 

watersheds by precluding surface disturbing activities. 

• Minimize watershed damage to sensitive soils in the Mancos Shale (330,142 acres) by 

applying timing limitations on surface disturbing activities. 

• Protect the special status species habitats of the Greater sage-grouse (3,068 acres), Gunnison 

sage-grouse (175,727 acres), white-tailed prairie dog (117,481 acres), and Gunnison prairie 

dog (10,700 acres). 

• Protect the big game habitats of pronghorn (293,741 acres), desert bighorn sheep (101,897 

acres), Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (194,560 acres), and deer and/or elk (349,955 acres). 

• Designate the following VRM management classes: 

 Designate 358,911 acres as VRM Class I, 

 Designate 365,566 acres as VRM Class II, 

 Designate 829,158 acres as VRM Class III, 

 Designate 268,133 acres as VRM Class IV. 

• Prohibit wood harvest and wood gathering on 652,386 acres to protect resource values. 

What the Decision/RMP Does Not Provide

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

the BLM Moab 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. 

RMP decisions for the surface estate only apply to BLM managed lands, even where these 

private or state lands are shown on a map included in the RMP. 

• The Approved RMP does not affect valid existing rights. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 18 

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

continue to be managed under the Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness 

Review. 

• The existing Three Rivers Withdrawal continues under the Approved RMP. 

• “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 employ 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. 

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

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 Map 2, Map 3 and Map 4 are effective upon issuance of this Record of Decision 

(ROD). All area designations are complete upon signature of the ROD in accordance with 43 

CFR 8342.3(b). 

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

route’s purpose and need 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. Twenty one 

interdisciplinary team meetings were held and included representatives of Grand and San Juan 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 19 

Counties, to evaluate all the routes inventoried within the planning area. About 6,199 miles of 

routes were inventoried as baseline and considered for designation. Each route segment was 

evaluated for purpose and need and resource conflicts. A total of 2,079 miles of routes were 

determined to have no purpose and need and are not designated for motorized travel. An 

additional 427 miles of routes were determined to have resource conflicts that outweighed the 

purpose and need for the route. Therefore, these 427 miles of routes are not designated for 

motorized travel. The identified resource conflicts and the miles of routes not designated in the 

Approved RMP are as follows: cultural – 16.6 miles; non-motorized recreation – 59.8 miles; 

riparian – 50.1 miles; soils – 167.5 miles; wilderness values - 80.8 miles; wildlife – 51.8 miles. 

The route evaluation process resulted in the designation of 3,693 miles of full sized vehicle 

routes in the Approved RMP. The same process was followed for routes submitted by the public 

for motorcycles, All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs), and bicycles resulting in the designation of 313 

miles of routes for motorcycles (and in some cases ATVs) and 22.5 miles of bicycle singletrack 

trails in the Approved RMP. 

Some routes designated in the Approved RMP are disputed by groups favoring non-motorized 

recreation. The most controversial route is the 18 mile long Ten Mile Wash route, which is a 

designated route in the Approved RMP. Although very popular with motorized users, the route 

poses potential resource conflicts with cultural resources, wildlife, and riparian resources. The 

area has experienced off-route vehicle travel in the past which has resulted in impacts primarily 

to riparian and vegetation resources. The BLM has found that the resource impacts can be 

mitigated by clearly signing and flagging the desired route on the ground. Other controversial 

routes that are designated in the Approved RMP include the Hey Joe route along the Green River 

and a route within Hellroaring Canyon. These two routes pose potential resource conflicts with 

non-motorized recreationists and riparian areas. However, the routes were determined to have an 

overriding purpose and need in that they are identified in guidebooks or are part of the Moab 

Jeep Safari route system. External groups also dispute the BLM’s designation of routes in areas 

such as Deadman Point and Mineral Point, citing conflicts with non-motorized recreation and 

wilderness characteristics. In the Approved RMP, the BLM has chosen not to manage for these 

values which essentially remove the resource conflicts. 

There are routes not designated in the Approved RMP which are disputed by groups favoring 

motorized recreation. One route crosses over the top of the Gemini Bridges. Motorized travel to 

and over the natural bridges has resulted in resource damage to vegetation, soils, and visual 

resources as well as in conflicts with non-motorized users. The BLM has designated the route as 

non-motorized and non-mechanized in order to mitigate these resource conflicts. Other 

controversial routes not designated in the Approved RMP include the user-made motorcycle 

routes on Duma Point and Hidden Canyon Rim. The former route has wildlife resource conflicts 

with bighorn sheep escape terrain and the latter route has cultural resource conflicts. 

Inventoried routes within the 11 existing Wilderness Study Areas (349,824 acres) total 82.5 

miles. Out of these miles, 80.8 miles are not designated for motorized travel in the Approved 

RMP. The remaining 1.7 miles of inventoried routes, consisting of 2 ways in 2 different 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), are designated in the Approved RMP because they were 

considered to have an overriding purpose and need. The first route (0.9 miles on the southeast 

corner of the Behind the Rocks WSA) provides access to two named arches which are popular 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 20 

destination points. The second route (0.8 miles on the west side of the Lost Spring Canyon 

WSA) is a permitted Jeep Safari route. These two routes have not resulted in threats to 

wilderness values and are continually monitored. They will continue to be monitored to ensure 

that impairment of wilderness values does not occur. 

In the Approved RMP, a total of about 8 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 and the confluence of Fisher Creek and the Dolores River. These 

routes were found not to have a negative effect on the wilderness characteristics in the area 

because travel on them is very light and the topographical relief found in the area makes them 

largely unnoticeable. 

Many comments were submitted on the Draft RMP/EIS that suggested additions, deletions, and 

modifications to the proposed route system 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 analysis in 

conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the route designation 

process entailed the analysis of thousands of route segments covering over 1.8 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 being developed for 

the RMP. 

E. NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS 

Modifications and clarifications were made to the Approved RMP 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 Plan and continued internal review, the BLM made three 

modifications to the Proposed Plan. As described below, these modifications are not considered 

significant changes. The Management Decisions section of the attached Approved RMP 

includes these modifications: 

1. Greater sage-grouse: The timing limitation stipulation applied within 2 miles of active leks 

has been changed from March 1 to May 15 (Proposed Plan) to March 15 to July 15 

(Approved RMP.) The oil and gas leasing stipulation has been changed in the Approved 

RMP and in Appendix A to reflect this modification. This change makes the Moab planning 

decision consistent with UDWR state policy, BLM conservation strategies and plans, and 

Greater sage-grouse land use plan decisions statewide (see Management Decision SSS-23). 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 21 

2. Gunnison sage-grouse: In the Approved RMP, all surface disturbing activities will be 

prohibited within 0.6 mile of Gunnison sage-grouse leks on a year-round basis. This is a 

change from the Proposed Plan which specified a year-round prohibition of surface 

disturbing activities within 0.5 miles of a lek and a timing limitation stipulation within 2 

miles of a lek. In the Approved RMP, the 0.5 mile restriction has been changed to 0.6 miles 

and the 2 mile restriction surrounding a lek has been removed. The oil and gas leasing 

stipulation has been changed in the Approved RMP and in Appendix A to reflect this 

modification. These changes make the Moab planning decisions consistent with BLM 

conservation strategies and plans and Gunnison sage-grouse land use plan decisions with the 

Monticello field office (see Management Decision SSS-24). 

3. Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing will be allowed on a limited basis in the Ten Mile 

Canyon ACEC downstream from Dripping Springs, with grazing changes subject to future 

monitoring and conformance with Rangeland Health Standards. This change allows the 

permittee (who filed a protest on the plan decision) to continue his operations on a limited 

basis. In addition, the BLM has determined that allowing limited grazing in Ten Mile Canyon 

will not result in detrimental impacts to the relevant and important values identified in the 

ACEC. This change also rectifies the discrepancy between the grazing decision in the 

“Livestock Grazing” section where Ten Mile Canyon is not listed as unavailable to livestock 

grazing and the decision for the “Ten Mile Canyon ACEC” where livestock grazing is 

excluded from Ten Mile Canyon (see Management Decision ACEC-7). 

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. The motorcycle route map in the Proposed Plan (Map 2-11-E-C) showed Tusher-Bartlett 

Wash as available for motorcycle use. The motorcycle map in the Approved RMP (Map 3) 

has been clarified to show that this route is no longer available for any type of motorized or 

mechanized use, including motorcycles. 

2. The motorcycle route map in the Proposed Plan (Map 2-11-E-C) showed routes that were 

available to full sized vehicles as well as to motorcycles. The motorcycle map in the 

Approved RMP (Map 3) has been clarified to show which of the routes are only available for 

motorcycles and ATVs (mapping clarification). 

3. The Proposed Plan did not explain the process for providing for parking for dispersed 

camping. The Approved RMP has been clarified by specifying that parking for dispersed 

camping will be considered as part of implementation of the Travel Plan (see Management 

Decision TRV-6). 

4. The Proposed Plan stated that “Should any Wilderness Study Area (WSA), in part or in 

whole, be released from wilderness consideration, proposals in the released area would be 

examined on a case by case basis. All proposals inconsistent with Interim Management 

Policy (IMP) would be deferred until completion of requisite plan amendments.” This 

language is changed in the Approved RMP to state that “All proposals inconsistent with the 

goals and objectives of the Approved RMP will be deferred until completion of requisite plan 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 22 

amendments.” This change was necessary because if an area is released as a WSA, IMP no 

longer applies (see Management Decision WSA-3). 

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 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 C 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, which reflects its 

collective professional judgment, incorporating 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 the public lands 

within the planning area. Both local and national interests were taken into account in 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 and 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 A. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 23 

Air Quality

The BLM does not have regulatory control over air quality issues, either on public lands or on 

Tribal or state lands. The 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, the 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. Where the State of Utah standards are inapplicable (e.g. over Tribal lands), the 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 established goals and objectives for air quality. 

The Approved RMP allows the Moab FO 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

The 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 the 

BLM’s recommendation of No Adverse Effect from the decisions in the PRMP/FEIS (see 

Appendix C). The Approved RMP will reduce imminent threats to significant cultural resources 

from natural and human-caused deterioration and reduce potential conflicts with other resources. 

Native American organizations were invited to participate at all levels of the planning process for 

the Moab RMP. As part of the RMP/EIS scoping process, by letter dated August 1, 2003, the 

Utah State Director initiated consultation for land-use planning with 34 tribal organizations. In 

the letter, the BLM requested information regarding any concerns the tribal organizations might 

have within the planning areas, specifically requested input concerning the identification and 

protection of culturally significant areas and resources located on lands managed by the Moab 

Field Office, and offered the opportunity for meetings. Between November 2003 and May 2004, 

all 34 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 12 tribal organizations between 

December 2003 and May 2004. 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; however, none of the 

tribal organizations requested to be a cooperating agency. 

Several tribal organizations requested that an additional meeting be held after the DRMP/EIS 

alternatives were prepared. The Moab FO mailed a draft copy of the range of alternatives to 12 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 24 

tribal organizations in December 2005. In 2006 and 2007, the Moab FO manager and 

archaeologist participated in a second round of meetings with the five tribes who so requested. 

At these meetings, the draft RMP/EIS alternatives were discussed with special emphasis on 

cultural resource issues. A copy of the Moab Draft RMP/EIS was mailed in August 2007 to 12 

tribal organizations. In April 2008, the BLM extended an invitation to meet with tribal 

organizations regarding the PRMP/FEIS. Two tribes accepted this invitation. 

Lands and Realty 

The Approved RMP allows a 2,640 foot wide utility corridor which provides ample opportunities 

and flexibility for the upgrading, addition, and expansion of utility needs. 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 West-Wide 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 2,640 foot 

corridor width. 

The Approved RMP designates 370,250 acres as exclusion areas (of which about 350,000 acres 

are within WSAs, and thus is a non-discretionary decision) and 217,480 acres as avoidance areas 

for rights-of-way. These exclusion and avoidance areas are in lands with sensitive natural 

resources such as wilderness values, municipal watersheds, relict vegetation, high quality 

scenery, and crucial desert bighorn sheep habitat. These areas include Fisher Towers, Mill 

Creek, Beaver Creek, Mary Jane Canyon, Castle Valley, Shafer Basin, Long Canyon, and lands 

along the Green, Colorado, and Dolores Rivers. 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. The public lands in the Moab 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. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 25 

Livestock Grazing

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 Standards for 

Rangeland Health continue to be met. This resulted in a limited set of decisions 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 Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Management during the grazing permit renewal process. These are implementation-level 

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 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 Approved RMP makes 1,690,481 acres (93 

percent) available for grazing and 132,047 acres (7 percent) not available for grazing. The 

Approved RMP includes making livestock grazing unavailable in the Cottonwood, Diamond, 

Bogart, and Pear Park allotments based on prior written agreements with the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources (UDWR). Other allotments such as Between the Creeks, North Sand Flats, 

South Sand Flats, Ida Gulch, and Mill Creek are unavailable to livestock grazing because of 

conflicts with recreation use, municipal watersheds, threatened and endangered plants, riparian, 

wildlife, and cultural resources. 

The Approved RMP also specifies building a fence along the south side of Highway 128, 

removing the conflict with vehicles and cattle. The Approved RMP addresses the safety issue 

while still allowing the majority of the Professor Valley allotment to be grazed. The Approved 

RMP eliminates the grazing of domestic sheep in desert bighorn sheep habitat as specified by 

BLM policy. 

The Approved RMP provides the best balance in allowing grazing to occur while protecting 

important natural and cultural resources.

Minerals 

  

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 and 

with a no surface occupancy stipulation, respectively. 

The Approved RMP manages oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities with the 

following stipulations: Closed - 370,250 acres; No Surface Occupancy – 217,480 acres; Timing 

Limitations/Controlled Surface Use Stipulations - 806,994 acres. The Moab planning area is 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 26 

entirely within two sedimentary basins (Paradox and Uinta Basins) recognized nationally for oil 

and gas resources. As specified in the Energy Policy 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. 

Of the 370,250 acres that are closed to oil and gas leasing, only 25,306 acres are outside 

Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas and therefore constitute a planning decision. Wilderness 

and Wilderness Study Areas are closed to oil and gas leasing by law and constitute a nondiscretionary decision. The 25,306 acres are closed to oil and gas leasing by a discretionary 

decision because it is not reasonable to apply a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation. These 

discretionarily closed areas involve blocks of land so large that oil and gas resources are 

physically inaccessible by current directional drilling technology from outside the boundaries of 

the NSO areas. 

Sensitive resources protected by the application of a no surface occupancy stipulation in the 

Approved RMP include the major river corridors of the Colorado Plateau (Green, Colorado, and 

Dolores Rivers), high use recreation areas such as the Slickrock Trail, popular campgrounds such 

as Horsethief and Ken’s Lake, municipal watersheds (Castle Valley and Mill Creek/Spanish 

Valley), non-WSA lands managed to protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness 

characteristics (Beaver Creek, Fisher Towers, and Mary Jane Canyon), Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (Behind the Rocks, Mill Creek, Ten Mile, Highway 279/Shafer 

Basin/Long Canyon, and a portion of Cottonwood/Diamond Watershed), and crucial desert 

bighorn habitats, including migration corridors. These NSO areas (217,480 acres) include many 

of the landscapes for which Moab is nationally and internationally renowned. They are the 

landscape jewels of the Moab planning area. A NSO stipulation is indeed the least restrictive 

approach necessary to protect the important resources within these iconic 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. The stipulations for special status species were developed in 

cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are non-discretionary based on law and 

policy. 

The timing limitation stipulations in the Approved RMP are applied to crucial big game wildlife 

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 

would be closed during identified timeframes that are important to the health of the species such 

as during winter 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. Surface disturbing activities in sensitive soils 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 27 

during the windy, dry spring months can result in windblown dust that has caused blackouts 

along Interstate 70, an obvious safety problem. 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% unless an engineering plan can 

demonstrate that erosion on these slopes would be prevented. 

A controlled surface use stipulation in the Approved RMP is applied to areas managed with 

VRM Class II objectives. This stipulation protects high quality visual resources, including 

scenic driving corridors such as Utah Scenic Byways 128, 313, and 279, the rims of Canyon 

Rims SRMA, Wilson Arch, the Kane Creek Corridor, and the Gemini Bridges area. A controlled 

surface use stipulation is also applied to the lands surrounding Arches National Park to protect 

viewsheds from key observation points within the Park. 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 opportunity 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 would not 

unreasonably interfere with the potential development of mineral resources. High development 

potential areas for mineral resources are generally not located in areas with sensitive resources 

which are managed as NSO or closed. Therefore, the Approved RMP provides a balance 

between protection of resources and commodity use and development. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts on uses as a result of discretionary 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. 

There are 47,761 acres within 3 areas (Beaver Creek, Fisher Towers, and Mary Jane Canyon) 

that are carried forward in the Approved RMP for protection of their wilderness characteristics. 

They are managed primarily with a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and 

all other surface disturbing activities, and as an avoidance area for rights-of-way. 

Beaver Creek, Fisher Towers, and Mary Jane Canyon are the largest stand-alone blocks of 

undeveloped land of all the areas inventoried for wilderness characteristics in the planning area. 

Mary Jane Canyon and Fisher Towers are contiguous (separated only by the road) and thus 

create an even larger expanse. The size of all three areas makes them more suitable for 

effectively protecting, preserving, and maintaining their wilderness characteristics. In addition, 

managing these areas for wilderness characteristics is compatible with other management actions 

in the Approved RMP. Beaver Creek is entirely within the Dolores River Canyons SRMA, an 

undeveloped SRMA, which is managed for primitive recreation opportunities. Fisher Towers 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 28 

and Mary Jane Canyon are within the Richardson Amphitheater/Castle Rock Hiking, Climbing 

and Equestrian Focus Area (part of the Colorado Riverway SRMA) which is managed to 

enhance non-motorized opportunities. Thus, all three areas are managed for primitive recreation 

opportunities which coincide with managing these areas for wilderness characteristics. The 

management of the Beaver Creek area for wilderness characteristics is in conformance with the 

Grand County Master Plan. 

Beaver Creek, Fisher Towers, and Mary Jane Canyon have only moderate development potential 

for oil and gas. There are no existing oil and gas leases or other known valid existing rights, 

such as mining claims, within these three areas. Furthermore, these three areas do not conflict 

with the development potential for any of the other mineral resources identified within the 

planning area. 

There were 218,724 acres found during the inventory reviews to have wilderness characteristics 

which were not selected for management of those characteristics in the Approved RMP. The 

reasons for this decision were varied and complex. Many of the inventoried areas were small, 

dissected, had irregular land ownership patterns, or qualified only because they were attached to 

another management unit. 

Out of these 218,724 acres, about 138,483 acres were found to have other important resources or 

resource uses that would conflict with protection, preservation, or maintenance of the wilderness 

characteristics. Many of the areas have high oil and gas development potential and over onethird of this acreage is already leased. In other areas, ongoing and future range improvements 

and vegetative treatments conflict with the protection of wilderness values. 

Of the remaining 80,241 acres, wilderness characteristics are protected by a no surface 

occupancy stipulation applied to manage for an array of other resource values. For example, 

some of this acreage (Shafer, Gooseneck, Behind the Rocks, and Mill Creek Canyon) is managed 

as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. An ACEC designation is considered the most 

appropriate mechanism for management because it recognizes and gives priority to the relevant 

and important values identified in these areas. Other acreage (out of the 80,241 acres) is 

managed to recognize the riverine and scenic values as well as the recreational uses along the 

major river corridors. In addition, the important water resources associated with municipal 

watersheds are recognized and given priority for management. 

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 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 29 

areas will be managed to protect, preserve, and maintain values of primitive recreation, the 

appearance of naturalness and solitude. 

Recreation

The Approved RMP responds to recreation issues by providing Special Recreation Management 

Areas and Recreation Management Zones (Focus Areas) to manage for a variety of recreational 

experiences for approximately 2 million yearly visitors to the Moab 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 

camping, scenic driving, enjoying natural and cultural features, hiking, backpacking, 

canyoneering, mountain biking, horseback riding, hunting, rock climbing, BASEjumping, 

boating (rafting, canoeing, and kayaking), four-wheel driving, rockcrawling, ATVing, and dirt 

biking, among others. 

The Moab economy is heavily dependent upon recreation-based businesses. In 2006, travelers 

spent about $265 million in Moab, generating $9 million in tax revenue (67 percent of the total 

tax revenue). Over 58% of the employment in Moab is directly related to tourism and recreation, 

with 5,055 jobs in that sector (State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Economic Development). 

Commercial outfitters operating on BLM lands generated $6,270,676 in revenues in 2006. These 

outfitters provide services for many activities including rafting, hiking, climbing, four wheel 

driving, ATVing, photography tours, horseback riding, ballooning, hunting, canyoneering, and 

mountain biking. Maintaining a wide variety of recreational opportunities is important to the 

Moab economy and the businesses that are dependent upon them. 

The ten Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) designated in the Approved RMP are in 

areas where high recreation use is currently occurring. Each SRMA allows for a set of distinct 

recreation uses as well as a specific recreation management strategy. In addition, each SRMA 

provides management direction for recreation uses as well as protection of the cultural and 

natural resources found in the SRMA. For example, the Colorado Riverway SRMA manages the 

half million visitors to this area by designating campgrounds, hiking trails and routes, and by 

applying recreation rules such as limiting campfires. The Two Rivers SRMA manages the 

popular Westwater Canyon float trip by imposing launch limits. The Utah Rims SRMA is 

established near the Utah-Colorado border to manage the motorized activities emanating from 

the rapidly growing Grand Junction area. The SRMAs designated in the Approved RMP enable 

the BLM to more actively manage for the intensity, diversity, and compatibility of recreation 

uses while protecting the resources that visitors come to enjoy. 

The 30 Focus Areas (Recreation Management Zones or RMZs) designated in the Approved RMP 

are necessary to successfully manage the diversity of recreational activities that occur in the 

Moab planning area. Focus Areas are established to emphasize a specific recreation use and 

provide a specific set of recreation opportunities and facilities. For example, the Klondike Bluffs 

Mountain Bike Focus Area is designated in the Approved RMP as an area for new mountain bike 

trail development and continued mountain bike use. As another example, the Dee Pass 

Motorized Trail Focus Area is established for motorcycle and ATV use. All competitive 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 30 

motorized events would be directed to this area. By emphasizing and managing for specific 

recreation activities in these Focus Areas, recreation conflicts are reduced. Focus Areas set 

visitor expectations for a specific type of recreation experience, thereby reducing potential 

conflict. Those who choose to hike in a motorized Focus Area should not be surprised by the 

amount of motorized activity. Focus Areas in the Approved RMP provide opportunities for the 

widest range of recreational activities and attendant business opportunities. 

The Approved RMP provides the greatest range of recreational opportunities while still reducing 

user conflicts, providing recreation business opportunities, and protecting resources. 

Soil and Water

See Minerals portion of this section. 

Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Concerns about specific resource values are addressed throughout the Approved RMP, and 

eliminated the need to designate some areas as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs) since other resource decisions in the Approved RMP provide adequate protection. In 

many instances, WSAs overlay many of the potential ACECs and management under the Interim 

Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review (IMP) more than adequately protects the 

relevant and important values. If Congress releases the WSAs from wilderness consideration, 

the Approved RMP states that all activities inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the 

Approved RMP would be deferred until a plan amendment is completed. Any plan amendment 

would have to provide protection to the relevant and important values identified. 

Since management decisions contained in the Approved RMP protect many of the relevant and 

important values in the planning area, only five areas were designated as ACECs in the 

Approved RMP, where additional special management is necessary. These five areas were 

designated because ACEC management is the most appropriate for protecting the identified 

relevant and important values in these five areas. 

Table 2 provides a list of the potential ACECs that were not designated in the Approved RMP, 

their relevance and importance values, and planning decisions carried forward that protect those 

values. 

Table 2. Management Protection Provided to Potential ACECs Not Designated in the 

Approved RMP 

Potential ACEC 

Not Designated in 

Approved RMP 

Relevant and 

Important 

Value(s) Management Protection Provided in Approved RMP 

Bookcliffs 

Wildlife Area 

(304,252 acres) 

Wildlife 

Natural 

systems 

In the Approved RMP, 250,078 acres of the Bookcliffs 

potential ACEC is within five Wilderness Study Areas and 

are managed under IMP. This acreage is managed as 

closed to oil and gas leasing and all other surface 

disturbing activities. This acreage is also closed to travel. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 31 

Cultural 

resources 

These two actions protect the relevant and important 

values. 

In the Approved RMP, the 54,174 acres outside the WSA 

are managed with a timing limitation stipulation to protect 

the wildlife values. All motorized travel is on designated 

routes only. Riparian areas are managed to preclude 

surface disturbing activities which would protect natural 

systems. Cultural resources are protected by law, policy, 

and procedure. 

Thus, the relevant and important values would continue to 

be protected. 

Canyon Rims 

(23,400 acres) 

Scenery In the Approved RMP, the Canyon Rims potential ACEC 

is managed as VRM Class II to protect scenic values. Oil 

and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities are 

managed with a controlled surface use stipulation to 

protect scenic values. Canyon Rims is managed as a 

Special Recreation Management Area with special 

emphasis given to these scenic values. Motorized activity 

is allowed only on designated routes to protect scenic 

values. 

Thus, the relevant and important values would continue to 

be protected. 

Cisco White Tailed 

Prairie Dog 

Complex 

(117,481 acres) 

Wildlife In the Approved RMP, the Cisco White Tailed Prairie Dog 

Complex potential ACEC would be managed with a 

controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing 

and other surface-disturbing activities within 660 feet of 

active prairie dog colonies. No permanent above ground 

facilities would be allowed within the 660 foot buffer. In 

addition, motorized activity is only allowed on designated 

routes, protecting wildlife values. 

Using Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Management, the grazing season of use would be 

managed to allow for adequate vegetative seed production 

to support prairie dog habitat. 

Thus, the relevant and important value would continue to 

be protected. 

Colorado River 

Corridor 

(50,483 acres) 

Scenery 

Cultural 

Resources 

In the Approved RMP, the Colorado River Corridor 

potential ACEC is managed as the Colorado Riverway 

SRMA. Recreation activities are restricted (including 

limiting camping to campgrounds) in order to avoid 

unacceptable impacts to the relevant and important values. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 32 

Wildlife 

Fish 

Rare Plants 

Motorized activity is restricted to designated routes, also 

protecting these values. The Colorado River Corridor is 

managed as VRM Classes I and II to protect the unique 

scenic values of the area. 

In the Approved RMP, the area is managed as either 

closed or with a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing and all other surface disturbing activities. 

This prohibition of surface disturbing activities protects 

scenery, cultural resources, rare plants, wildlife, and fish. 

In addition, the Endangered Species Act will protect the 

endangered fish. 

Thus, the relevant and important values would continue to 

be protected. 

Labyrinth Canyon 

(8,528 acres) 

Scenery 

Fish 

In the Approved RMP, Labyrinth Canyon potential ACEC 

is managed as the Labyrinth Canyon Focus Area within 

the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA to control 

recreation impacts to relevant and important values. 

Labyrinth Canyon is managed with a no surface 

occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and all other 

surface disturbing activities, protecting scenic values. The 

area is managed as VRM Class II and motorized activity 

will be allowed only on designated routes. 

The Endangered Species Act will protect the endangered 

fish. 

Thus, the relevant and important values would continue to 

be protected. 

Upper Courthouse 

(11,529 acres) 

Historic, 

paleontologic

al and 

cultural 

resources 

Natural 

systems 

Rare plants 

In the Approved RMP, Upper Courthouse potential ACEC 

will be managed within the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini 

Bridges SRMA and as the Mill Canyon/Upper Courthouse 

Mountain Biking Focus Area. Restrictions on recreation 

protect the relevant and important values. Motorized and 

mechanized travel is allowed on designated routes only, 

protecting these values. Mesa top relict plant communities 

are managed with a no surface occupancy stipulation for 

oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities 

which protect rare plants. 

Thus, the relevant and important values would continue to 

be protected. 

Westwater Canyon 

(5,069 acres) 

Scenery 

Fish 

In the Approved RMP, Westwater Canyon potential 

ACEC is within a WSA and is managed under IMP. The 

area is managed as VRM Class I to protect scenic values. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 33 

The area is closed to oil and gas leasing and all other 

surface disturbing activities, and is closed to motorized 

travel. These decisions protect the relevant and important 

values. 

In addition, Westwater Canyon will be managed as part of 

the Two Rivers SRMA which will minimize recreation 

impacts on the scenic values. 

The Endangered Species Act will protect the endangered 

fish. 

Thus, the relevant and important values would continue to 

be protected. 

White Wash 

(2,988 acres) 

Natural 

systems 

In the Approved RMP, White Wash potential ACEC is 

managed as part of the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges 

SRMA. About 1,866 acres are managed as open to cross 

country travel with management prescriptions in place to 

protect the relevant and important values of the dunefield 

cottonwood trees and water sources. These resources 

would be fenced and closed to motorized travel. Camping 

would be limited to designated sites in the White Wash 

area. 

In the 1,122 acres outside the dunes, vehicles are limited to 

designated roads. These actions protect the relevant and 

important values. 

Thus, the relevant and important values would continue to 

be protected. 

Wilson Arch 

(3,700 acres) 

Scenery In the Approved RMP, Wilson Arch potential ACEC is 

managed as VRM Class II to protect its scenic values. 

Motorized activity is allowed on designated routes only, 

also protecting scenic values. The area is managed with a 

controlled surface use stipulation on oil and gas leasing 

and other surface disturbing activities to protect scenic 

values. 

Thus, the relevant and important values would continue to 

be protected. 

In addition, the Mill Creek Canyon ACEC and the Behind the Rocks ACEC designated in the 

Approved RMP do not include the acreage within the Mill Creek Canyon WSA and the Behind 

the Rocks WSA, respectively. The acreage within these two WSAs is managed under the 

Interim Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review, protecting the relevant and important values 

found in that part of the Potential ACECs.
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 34 

Five ACECs are designated in the Approved Plan: Behind the Rocks (5,201 acres), CottonwoodDiamond Watershed (34,027 acres), Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon (13,500 acres), 

Mill Creek Canyon (3,721 acres) and Ten Mile Wash (4,980 acres). These five ACECs 

designated in the Approved Plan are in areas where special management was required to protect 

the relevant and important values of the potential ACEC. Management actions are outlined in 

the Approved RMP to protect these values. For example, management actions are tailored for 

the Ten Mile Wash ACEC to protect the relevant and important values of natural systems, 

wildlife, cultural resources, and natural hazards. Management actions include a no surface 

occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities, restricting 

grazing, no competitive events, no woodcutting, restrictions on camping and the establishment of 

a speed limit. These special management actions are necessary to protect the relevant and 

important values. The establishment of Ten Mile as an ACEC gives priority to the management 

of the resource values identified in this area. 

Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are 11 eligible river segments that are carried forward as suitable for inclusion into the 

National Wild and Scenic River system in the Approved RMP to protect the free-flowing nature 

and outstandingly remarkable values associated with the river segments. These 11 segments are 

located along the Green, Colorado, and Dolores Rivers and include well-known sections such as 

Westwater Canyon, the Colorado “Daily”, Labyrinth Canyon, and Desolation Canyon. 

All river segments found suitable in the Approved RMP are those in which recreation is a key 

outstandingly remarkable value (ORV), particularly dependent on the free-flowing nature of 

these river segments. The unique nature of this recreation ORV centers around regionally, 

nationally, and internationally significant private and commercial river running opportunities. 

These river running opportunities constitute premier whitewater and flatwater trips which are 

highly sought after. For example, the BLM receives over 3,000 applications per year for the 450 

available trip permits on the Desolation Canyon segment of the Green River. River running 

activities are an important component of the local economies in the planning area. River running 

companies are highly capitalized and valuable businesses that depend on these suitable river 

segments. In addition, private river runners add substantial revenue to the local economy. The 

imposition of dams along these segments would eliminate these important river running 

opportunities and the commercial enterprises which depend upon them. 

BLM made tentative river segment classifications in 2003 as part of the Wild and Scenic River 

eligibility study conducted as part of the Moab planning process. River segments were 

tentatively classified as “wild,” “scenic” or “recreational.” Alternatives in the Draft and 

Proposed RMP provided a range of potential classifications for analysis purposes. The proposed 

plan chose to change the original classification to meet resource objectives. This was carried 

forward into the Approved Plan. 

In the Approved Plan, segments of the Colorado and Green Rivers that are in WSAs are 

classified as “wild”, while all other segments are classified as either “scenic” or “recreational.” 

BLM Manual 8351.33C states that “Alternatives may be formulated for any combination of 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 35 

designations and classifications. Reasons for considering alternative tentative classifications 

include resolving conflicts with other management objectives, continuity of management 

prescriptions, or other management considerations.” In some cases, the tentative classification of 

a river segment was changed in the Approved RMP in order to accommodate other management 

considerations and to provide more management flexibility as necessary. 

Colorado River segment 3 (from Cisco to the Dolores River confluence) was resegmented and 

the downstream portion of that segment (3b) was inventoried with a tentative classification of 

“scenic” and is designated as “recreational” in the Approved RMP. This segment contains large 

amounts of private lands. The development of these lands could require rights of way from the 

BLM for roads, power, and other infrastructure. A “recreational” classification would provide 

more flexibility to consider granting these rights-of-way. Colorado River segment 6 (from state 

land to the Canyonlands National Park boundary) was inventoried with a tentative classification 

of “wild” and designated as “scenic” in the Approved RMP because the heavily travelled road 

paralleling the river may require maintenance and to allow for the continuation of the heavy 

filming activity which occurs in the area. 

Dolores River segment 1 (from the state line to Fisher Creek) was inventoried with a tentative 

classification of “scenic” and is designated as “recreational” in the Approved RMP to 

accommodate the recreational facilities (including a boat ramp) along the river as specified in the 

decisions for the Dolores River Canyons SRMA. In addition, the agricultural lease lands in this 

area will require extensive vegetative treatments to remove knapweed and to restore these lands 

to health. A “recreational” classification allows for a full range of agricultural and livestock 

uses, including land treatments. 

Dolores River segment 2 (from Fisher Creek to Bridge Canyon) was inventoried with a tentative 

classification of “wild” and is designated as “scenic” in the Approved RMP to accommodate the 

University of Utah Entrada Field Station and Education Center located along the Dolores River. 

The Field Station is entirely surrounded by public lands. The University plans extensive research 

projects and courses utilizing these adjacent public lands. Research projects include vegetative 

treatments, range studies, wildlife studies, hydrology, geology, mechanical engineering, water 

use policies, and other long term research projects. The “wild” classification would not allow the 

flexibility for these intended uses. 

Dolores River segment 3 (from Bridge Canyon to the confluence) was inventoried with a 

tentative classification of “scenic” and is designated as “recreational” in the Approved RMP. 

This “recreational” classification allows for a full range of agricultural and livestock uses, 

including the extensive control of exotic plants at Roberts Bottom. 

Green River segment 4(a) (from Mile 97 to Canyonlands National Park boundary) is classified as 

“scenic” in the Approved RMP. Segment 4(a) includes the portion of segment 4 from Mile 97 to 

Mile 91, and all of segment 5 (Ruby Ranch at Mile 91 to Hey Joe) and segment 6 (Hey Joe to 

Canyonlands National Park). Segment 5 was inventoried with a tentative classification of “wild” 

and is designated as “scenic” (as part of segment 4(a)) in the Approved RMP. This portion 

contains a section of SITLA land as well as some private land. Management of this segment as 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 36 

“wild” could preclude access and water developments on SITLA and private lands. In addition, 

the “wild” classification would remove opportunities for motorized travel. 

Eligible river segments that were not carried forward as suitable in the Approved RMP are 

protected by various other management decisions. Many of these river segments include scenery 

and non-motorized recreation as Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs). Scenery and nonmotorized recreational activities, especially non-boating activities, are more amenable for 

management by other means such as WSAs, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and 

SRMAs. For example, Cottonwood Canyon, Mill Creek, Negro Bill Canyon, and Rattlesnake 

Canyon are within WSAs and are closed to surface disturbing activities. Thompson Canyon, 

Beaver Creek, Onion Creek, and Professor Creek are within non-WSA lands managed to 

preserve, protect, and maintain their wilderness characteristics in the Approved RMP and are 

managed with a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface 

disturbing activities. The ORVs along these eligible segments are protected by other 

management actions in the Approved RMP. 

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. 

Travel Management

The Approved RMP responds to the issue of OHV use by designating all BLM lands as open, 

closed, or limited. Out of about 1.82 million acres within the planning area, 1,866 acres are open 

to cross-country travel, 339,298 acres are closed to motorized travel, and 1,481,334 acres are 

limited to designated routes. 

The open area (1,866 acres) in the Approved RMP encompasses the White Wash Sand Dunes 

which is currently a popular area for cross-country OHV use. The sand dunes were found to be 

acceptable for cross country OHV use because they lack soil and vegetation development and the 

shifting sands quickly eliminate the visible impacts of such use. In addition, the Approved RMP 

specifies that the important resources within the sand dunes consisting of cottonwood trees and 

water sources (springs) would be protected by closures and fencing. The Approved RMP 

significantly reduces the acreage currently open to cross-country travel within the planning area. 

However, the Approved RMP still provides some opportunities for Open OHV use to 

accommodate that activity. 

The closed area (339,298 acres) in the Approved RMP applies to the existing Wilderness Study 

Areas (WSAs). Almost all of the inventoried routes within the WSAs would be closed to 

motorized travel. As a result, the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be 

enhanced and the potential for impairment of wilderness values by motorized activities is 

eliminated. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 37 

The limited area (1,481,334 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, and the State of Utah. The process for 

designating routes within the limited designation is detailed in Section D under Implementation 

Decisions. 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 eliminating cross-country travel which can be 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. 

The areas designated in the Approved RMP as open, limited, and closed provide the best balance 

between OHV opportunities and access and protection of sensitive resources. 

Vegetation (including Riparian, Noxious, and Invasive Plants)

The Approved RMP gives priority to riparian vegetation by making some riparian areas 

unavailable for livestock grazing. In addition, 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 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 mixes wherever 

possible. The requirements of related Executive Orders, regulation, and policy would be met in 

the Approved RMP regarding noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

Visual Resource Management

The Moab Field Office is home to some of the most iconic scenery on the Colorado Plateau. 

These settings attract up to 2 million visitors a year who come to Moab to enjoy the scenery. 

These scenic settings are also the reason that filming companies choose the Moab area for still 

advertisement, commercials and motion picture filming. Scenic attractions in the Moab planning 

area include such well-known locations as Fisher Towers, Castle Rock, Wilson Arch, Looking 

Glass Rock, Determination Towers, Gemini Bridges, Fossil Point, and the entire Colorado River 

corridor. The Approved RMP provides protection for these and other scenic attractions, thus 

safeguarding the visitation and tourism industry which is the backbone of the Moab economy. 

Wildlife

The Approved RMP responds to issues regarding wildlife by providing restrictions to uses in 

crucial wildlife habitat areas. BLM uses the State UDWR crucial habitat boundaries to apply 

these restrictions because UDWR is the entity with jurisdiction and expertise over wildlife in 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 38 

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. To protect desert bighorn lambing and rutting grounds and to protect 

bighorn migration corridors, a no surface occupancy stipulation was imposed on about 101,897 

acres. Furthermore, timing limitation stipulations have been placed on about 349,955 acres of 

deer and/or elk winter habitat, and on about 293,741 acres of pronghorn fawning habitat. 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. Additional details about management restrictions to benefit wildlife are found in the 

“Minerals” portion of this section. 

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 July 18, 2008. The USFWS responded with a 

Biological Opinion (BO) on October 16, 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 Moab planning area. The entire 

BO is attached to this Record of Decision (ROD) (as a CD-ROM). The BA and the BO contain 

committed conservation measures that have been incorporated into the ROD and that will be a 

part of the implementation of the Approved RMP. These are 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 to 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 Moab 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 the BLM determines that any deviations, modifications, or 

waivers of these conservation measures may be necessary, BLM will re-initiate of Section 7 

consultation with USFWS. BLM notes that the Biological Opinion (Appendix B and CD-ROM) 

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 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 39 

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 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 

the species and their habitat from loss in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM management guidelines and policy contained in BLM’s 

Manual 6840. 

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. 

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 1, 2008, in accordance with planning regulations at 43 CFR 

Part 1610.3- 2(e), and concluded on September 30, 2008). 

NHPA Section 106 Consultation

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 C. 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 40 

Native American Consultation

Consultation with Native Americans on the RMP has been ongoing since 2003. A thorough 

discussion of Native American Consultation in included under “Cultural Resources” in Section F 

of this ROD. 

Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act

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 

July 18, 2008. As required by Section 7(a) of the ESA, the Moab Field Office prepared a 

Biological Assessment (BA) to evaluate the listed species in its planning area. The BA analyzed 

the potential impacts on the endangered and threatened species which could result from 

implementing management actions authorized under the proposed land use plan for the Field 

Office. The Moab 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 16, 2008. The memorandum is included in Appendix B, and the entire 

BO is available on a separate 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 Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland 

Health (see Appendix D) 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 Appendix A). Additional measures to mitigate 

environmental impacts may also be developed during subsequent NEPA analysis at the activity 

level planning and project stages. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental 

harm are incorporated into the Approved Plan. 

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 change management practices to meet objectives. 

The two types of monitoring that are tied to the planning process include implementation and 

effectiveness monitoring. Land use plan monitoring is the process of (1) tracking the 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 41 

implementation of land use planning decisions and (2) collecting and assessing data/information 

necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning decisions. The two types of 

monitoring are described below. 

Implementation Monitoring: Implementation monitoring is the most basic type of monitoring 

and simply determines whether planned activities have been implemented in the manner 

prescribed by the plan. Some agencies call this compliance monitoring. This monitoring 

documents BLM’s progress toward full implementation of the land use plan decision. There are 

no specific thresholds or indicators required for this type of monitoring. 

Effectiveness Monitoring: Effectiveness monitoring is aimed at determining if the 

implementation of activities has achieved the desired goals and objectives. Effectiveness 

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 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 

resources 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 

earlier than the five year interval. 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. 

See MFO monitoring plan in Appendix E. 

J. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

One of BLM’s primary objectives during development of the Moab RMP was to understand the 

views of various publics by providing opportunities for meaningful participation in the resource 
Moab Field Office Record of Decision 

 42 

management planning process. To achieve this, the BLM published a Notice of Intent to Plan in 

the Federal Register on June 4, 2003. The formal scoping period began on that date, and ended 

on January 31, 2004. News releases, website information, a mailing list, and planning bulletins 

informed the public of the scoping period. Six public scoping meetings and two socio-economic 

workshops were held during this period. In addition, a mobile “Comment Cruiser” elicited 

scoping comments from the public at various locations. A Final Scoping Summary was issued 

summarizing the comments obtained through the scoping process. The scoping comments raised 

issues that were taken into consideration in preparation of the alternatives developed for the 

Draft RMP/EIS. 

On August 24, 2007, the BLM and the Environmental Protection Agency published a Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register which marked the beginning of the formal 90-day public 

comment period on the Draft RMP/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The public was 

informed of the availability of the Draft RMP/EIS via news releases, the planning website, and 

the RMP mailing list. The Draft RMP/EIS as well as all the background documents and reports 

were available on the Moab RMP planning website. Both electronic and hard copies of the Draft 

RMP/EIS were made available to the public. Five open houses were held during the 90 day 

comment period. The Moab Field Office received over 33,000 comment submissions on the 

Draft RMP/EIS. These comments were considered in the preparation of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. 

On August 1, 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 Moab RMP planning website. A 30 day protest 

period commenced on August 1, 2008 and ended on September 2, 2008. In addition, a 60-day 

Governor’s Consistency Review period began when the protest period commenced. 

In-depth information on these efforts is included in both the Moab Draft RMP/EIS and Moab 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination. 

The BLM will continue to actively seek the views of the public using techniques such as news 

releases and web-sites (including the Electronic Notification Bulletin Board) 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 state, federal, tribal, and local agencies and officials 

interested and involved in the management of public lands in Grand and San Juan Counties. 

K. AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN 

Copies of the Record of Decision and the Moab Field Office Approved Resource Management 

Plan are available by request from the following locations: BLM Moab Field Office, 82 East 

Dogwood, Moab, Utah 84532 (435)-259-2100, and on the Moab Field Office website at 

www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab.html.


Moab Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

45

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This Approved RMP replaces the Grand Resource Area Resource Management Plan approved in 

1985 and is now the base land use plan for public lands administered by the BLM's Moab Field 

Office. The Approved RMP adopts the management described in Proposed Plan and the 

Management Common to All Alternatives section presented in the Proposed Moab RMP/Final 

EIS (USDI-BLM 2008), with adjustments as described in the Notice of Modifications and 

Clarifications Made to the Approved RMP section of the ROD. 

B. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES 

The BLM has considered the following plans and policies in formulating the Approved RMP: 

State of Utah

• Dead Horse Point State Park Resource Management Plan 

• Plans of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) 

• Regional plans of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) 

• State of Utah plans relating to water management, water quality, nonpoint source pollution, 

watershed management, and air quality 

• Utah's State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 

County Land Use Plans

• San Juan County, Utah: San Juan County Master Plan (1996 and 2008) 

• Grand County, Utah: Grand County General Plan Update (2004) 

Other Federal Plans

• Canyonlands National Park Natural Resource Management Plan 

• Canyonlands National Park general management plans (NPS 1974, 2003, 2006) 

• Canyonlands National Park backcountry management plan (1984, 1995) 

• Land and Resource Management Plan, Manti–La Sal National Forest (USDA [USFS] 1986) 

• General Management Plan and Development Concept Plan: Arches National Park (NPS 

1989) 

• RMPs for the BLM Vernal, Grand Junction, Uncompahgre, Dolores, Monticello, and Price 

field offices 

(BLM 1985b, 1985c, 1985d, 1987, 1989a, 1991, 1993a) 

• McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area Management Plan (BLM 2003a) 

• Remediation of the Moab Uranium Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah EIS (DOE 

2005); 
Moab Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

46

Endangered Species Recovery Plans

• Endangered species recovery plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species 

• Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Plan (USFWS 1978, 1990, 1991, 2002a) 

• Humpback Chub Recovery Plan (USFWS 1979, 1990a, 2002b) 

• Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983) 

• Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984, 1990b, 2002c) 

• Recovery Implementation Program EA for the Endangered Fish Species in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin (USFWS 1987) 

• Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan (USFWS 1988) 

• Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995) 

• Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999, 2002d) 

• Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (USFWS 2002e) 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)

Under this directive, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management 

delivered to Congress an inventory of U.S. oil and gas resources in five western basins, as well 

as the extent and nature of any restrictions or impediments to their development. This report was 

prepared at the request of Congress under the provisions of the 2000 Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA). 

In April 2003, the BLM specified four EPCA integration principles, as follows: 

• 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 appropriate accessibility to energy resources necessary for the nation's 

security, while recognizing that special and unique non-energy resources can be preserved. 

• Sound planning will weigh the relative resource values, consistent with the multiple use and 

sustained yield mandates required by FLPMA. 

• All resource impacts, including those associated with energy development and transmission, 

will be mitigated to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. 

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

(PEIS)

Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (designation of West-wide energy corridors) is 

being implemented via the current development of an interagency, Programmatic EIS (PEIS). 

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

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

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service concerning Oil and Gas Leasing Operations

The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to establish joint BLM and Forest 

Service policies and procedures for managing oil and gas leasing and operational activities 
Moab Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

47

pursuant to oil and gas leases on National Forest Service (NFS) lands, consistent with applicable 

law and policy. The MOU was signed in 2006 for the purpose of efficient, effective compliance 

with statutory and regulatory requirements. The MOU establishes the roles of the Forest Service 

and the BLM in processing Applications for Permits to Drill and review of subsequent 

operations. 

Other BLM Plans and Policies 

Other BLM plans and policies considered in formulating the Approved RMP are listed below: 

• Grazing Amendment to RMP (Livestock conversions) (1988); (changed by the Approved 

RMP) 

• Grand Resource Area RMP Oil and Gas Supplemental Environmental Assessment (1988); 

(changed by the Approved RMP) 

• Bighorn Sheep Amendment (1990, 1993b) 

• Colorado Riverway Recreation Area Management Plan (1992a) 

• Sand Flats Recreation Management Plan (1994a) 

• Livestock Grazing Use Adjustments (1996) 

• Ken's Lake Recreation Plan (2007) 

• Utah's Colorado Riverway Special Management Recreation Area Amendment (2001a) 

• Mill Creek Canyon Management Plan (2001b) 

• Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plan (2003b) 

• Three Rivers Withdrawal (2004b) 

• Cameo Cliffs Special Recreation Management Area Plan (2005b) 

• Normal Year Fire Rehabilitation and Stabilization Plan (2006a) 

• Moab District Fire Management Plan (2006b) 

• Interim Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review, (IMP; USDI-BLM 1995) 

• Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness EIS (1990) 

• Wild and Scenic River Study Colorado and Lower Dolores Rivers EIS (NPS 1979) 

• Lisbon Valley Copper Project EIS (BLM 1997) 

• Questar Williams and Kern River Pipeline Project EIS (BLM 2001c) 

• Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States (1991a) 

• 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) 

Habitat Management Plans (HMP)

A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) provides guidance for the management of a defined habitat 

for a target wildlife species, protecting and improving habitat for that species and for other 

species utilizing the habitat. These plans are usually written in coordination with the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources; those pertaining to the Moab planning area are as follows: 

• Cisco Desert HMP (1985a) 

• Hatch Point HMP (1985b) 

• Dolores Triangle HMP (1985c) 

• The Potash-Confluence HMP (1986) 
Moab Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

48

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 Moab 

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. 

While the Final EIS for the Moab 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 deter-mine 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 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 
Moab Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

49

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 competition of “one-time” actions identified in the 

Approved RMP. Most of these actions require additional analysis and site specific activity 

planning. This schedule does 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. 

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 sage-grouse 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. Where monitoring 

shows land use plan actions or best management practices are not effective, minor modifications 
Moab Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

50

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. 

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 information, or significant changes in other plans, legislation, or litigation triggers an 

evaluation. The following estimated evaluation schedule will be followed for the Moab 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. 
Moab Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

51

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 Moab Field Office. 

These management decisions are presented by program area. Not all types of decisions were 

identified for each program. A Monitoring section is also included for each program (in 

Appendix E) to describe how the program decisions will be tracked to ensure implementation. 

Data used in development of the Approved RMP are dynamic. The data and maps 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 the section on Plan 

Implementation). Please note that all acreages presented in the Approved RMP are estimations, 

even when presented to the nearest acre. 

This section is organized alphabetically by program area with the following titles. For ease of 

identification into the future, each program area has an identified abbreviation (see below) and 

each decision in that program is numbered in coordination with the abbreviation: 

• Air Quality—AQ 

• Cultural Resources—CUL 

• Fire and Fuels Management—FIRE 

• Health and Safety—HAZ 

• Lands and Realty—LAR 

• Livestock Grazing—GRA 

• Minerals—MIN 

• Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics—WC 

• Paleontological Resources—PAL 

• Riparian—RIP 

• Recreation—REC 

• Soil and Water Resources—SOL/WAT 

• Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern—ACEC 

• Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers—WSR 

• Special Designations: National Trails and Backways—TRA 

• Special Designations: Designated Wilderness—DW 

• Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas—WSA 

• Special Status Species—SSS 

• Travel Management—TRV 

• Vegetation—VEG 

• Visual Resources—VRM 

• Wildlife and Fish—WL 

• Woodland and Forestry Products—FOR 

Maps depicting the management decisions are provided at the back of the Approved RMP for 

easy reference
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Air Quality 

52

AIR QUALITY (AQ)

Goals and Objectives: 

Maintain existing air quality and air quality related values (e.g., visibility) by ensuring that all 

authorized uses on public lands comply with and support Federal, State, and local laws and 

regulations for protecting air quality. 

Management Decisions: 

AQ-1 

As appropriate, quantitative analysis of potential Air Quality impacts will be conducted for 

project-specific developments. 

AQ-2 

Prescribed burns will be consistent with the State of Utah Division of Environmental Quality 

(UDEQ) permitting process and timed so as to minimize smoke impacts. 

AQ-3 

Comply with Utah Air Conservation (UAC) Regulation R446-1. The best air quality control 

technology, as per guidance from the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ), will be applied to 

actions on public lands as needed to meet air quality standards. 

AQ-4 

Comply with UAC Regulation R446-1-4.5.3, which prohibits the use, maintenance, or 

construction of roadways without taking appropriate dust abatement measures. Compliance 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-5 

Manage all BLM and BLM-authorized activities to maintain air quality within the thresholds 

established by the State of Utah Ambient Air Quality Standards and to ensure that those 

activities continue to keep the area as attainment, meet prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) Class II standards, and protect the Class I air shed of the National Parks (e.g., Arches and 

Canyonlands National Parks). 

AQ-6 

Comply with the current Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) between 

BLM, USFS, and UDAQ. The MOU, in accordance with UAC regulation R446-1-2.4.4, requires 

reporting size, date of burn, fuel type, and estimated air emissions from each prescribed burn. 

AQ-7 

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. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Air Quality 

53

AQ-8 

BLM will continue to work cooperatively with the Utah Airshed Group to manage emissions 

from wildland and prescribed fire activities. 

AQ-9 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards are enforced by the Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality, Division of Air Quality (UDEA-DAQ), with EPA oversight. Special requirements to 

reduce potential air quality impacts will be considered on a case-by-case basis in process land 

use authorizations. 

AQ-10 

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. 

AQ-11 

Project specific analyses will consider use of quantitative air quality analysis methods (i.e. 

modeling), when appropriate as determined by BLM, in consultation with state, federal and tribal 

entities. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Cultural Resources 

54

CULTURAL RESOURCES (CUL)

Goals and Objectives:

Identify, preserve and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for 

appropriate uses by present and future generations (FLPMA, Section 103(c), 201(a) and (c); 

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 110(a); Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 

Section 14(a)). 

Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused 

deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses (FLPMA, Section 103(c), National 

Historic Preservation Act, Sections 106, 110(a)(2)) by ensuring that all authorizations for land 

use and resource use will comply with the NHPA Section 106.   

Management Decisions: 

CUL -1 

The BLM will comply with all pertinent statutes, regulations, formal agreements, Executive 

Orders, and policy as it applies to cultural resource management for all actions resulting from 

decisions in this land-use plan. 

CUL-2 

Protect burial sites, associated burial goods, and sacred items in accordance with the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act. 

CUL-3 

Native American requests to practice traditional activities on public lands will be considered on a 

case-by-case basis and will be allowed where practical and appropriate. Reasonable access to 

specific sacred sites will be allowed under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. 

CUL-4 

All treaty and trust responsibilities as they apply to public lands within the resource area will be 

honored. 

CUL-5 

All land-disturbing activities within Traditional Cultural Properties will be designed to avoid or 

minimize impacts, where reasonable. Proposed projects or actions will be modified to avoid the 

area or site, avoid time of use by Native American groups, or will be eliminated altogether. 

Cultural sites may be closed to visitation when it is determined that this visitation is endangering 

site integrity. 

CUL-6 

Camping will be prohibited and posted within or on archaeological and historic sites eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Cultural Resources 

55

CUL-7 

Class III inventory is not required prior to designations that allow continued use of an existing 

route, impose new limitations on an existing route, close an open area or travel route, keep a 

closed area closed, or keep an open area open. 

CUL-8 

Class III cultural resources inventory will be conducted on newly designated ATV, motorcycle 

and mountain bike routes (48" wide or less) based on potential resource conflicts. Routes 

identified for survey will be prioritized based on landscape level overviews, cultural resource 

predictive models, and available site location, environmental, and contextual information. If 

eligible archaeological sites along these routes are being adversely impacted by continued route 

use, impacts will be mitigated. “New routes” are defined as those designated in the Travel Plan 

accompanying this RMP. 

CUL-9 

Where there is a reasonable expectation that a proposed route designation would shift, 

concentrate or expand travel into areas where historic properties are likely to be adversely 

affected, Class III inventory and compliance with Section 106, focused on areas where adverse 

effects are likely to occur, is required prior to designation. 

CUL-10 

Proposed designations of new routes will require Class III inventory of the Area of Potential 

Effect (APE) and compliance with Section 106 prior to designation. Class III inventory of the 

APE and compliance with Section 106 will also be required prior to identifying new locations 

proposed as staging areas or similar areas of concentrated OHV use. 

CUL-11 

Eligible cultural sites will be protected and impacts mitigated when it is determined that they are 

being impacted from grazing activities. 

 

CUL-12 

New field inventories will be prioritized in areas of special cultural designation (e.g., ACECs, 

National Historic Trails, National Historic Landmarks) that have not been fully inventoried. 

CUL-13 

Sego Rock Art Site and Wall Street/Colorado River Rock Art District, which have educational 

and recreational values, will be developed for public visitation and interpretation as long as such 

work does not contribute to the deterioration or destruction of the resources being interpreted. 

Work will be conducted in partnership with universities, museums, Tribes, and interested site 

stewards for the creation of interpretive materials on the archaeology of the Moab Planning Area. 

CUL-14 

Specific management plans will be developed for up to seven culturally sensitive areas unless 

integrated into other activity plans. These plans will also include, but will 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; and developing specific mitigation measures. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Cultural Resources 

56

CUL-15 

Cooperate with counties to ensure county road and trail construction and maintenance activities 

avoid or minimize impacts to cultural resources. 

CUL-16 

Cultural plants, once identified by interested tribes, will be managed to insure that grounddisturbing activities on the land do not contribute to the decline of cultural sensitive plant 

communities. Collection of plant resources will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will 

be allowed where practical and appropriate. 

CUL-17 

Cultural resource management priority for the Ten Mile Wash and Mill Creek Canyon will be 

scientific research of prehistoric sites and cultural landscapes. Manage the Mill Creek planning 

area in accordance with the Mill Creek Management Plan (2001b). 

CUL-18 

Continue to allocate cultural sites, including ethnographic properties, to one of six management 

categories: a) scientific use; b) conservation for future use; c) traditional use; d) public use; e) 

experimental use; and f) discharged from management. 

CUL-19 

Alternative management strategies for cultural resources are disclosed in the Special 

Designations sections. This section identifies areas with substantial cultural resources and 

alternative management prescriptions to protect these resources. These areas include the Behind 

the Rocks, Ten Mile Wash, and Mill Creek Canyon ACECs, and the Wall Street portion of 

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon proposed ACEC. 

CUL-20 

Cultural use allocations will be made at the time of site documentation; allocations can be 

changed as new information or management direction becomes available, subject to consistency 

with the approved plan. 

CUL-21 

Cultural management plans will be a component of the implementation plans for the Labyrinth 

Canyons, Colorado Riverway and South Moab SRMAs. Heritage tourism may be considered in 

these cultural management plans. 

CUL-22 

Priority for new field inventory will be a 0.50-mile vulnerability zone surrounding cities and 

towns. 

CUL-23 

Prioritize for Class II and Class III surveys a total of 30,000 acres within the following areas: 

Bookcliffs, Dolores Triangle, North Fork of Mill Creek, South Fork of Mill Creek, Seven Mile, 

and Ten Mile Wash and its tributaries. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Cultural Resources 

57

CUL-24 

To prevent further degradation from occurring, target the following areas for restoration of 

damaged cultural resources: South and North Forks of Mill Creek, Bartlett/Hidden Canyon, Hell 

Roaring uplands, Ten Mile Wash and Wall Street Rock Art District. 

CUL-25 

The following sites will be hardened and interpreted for public use: one site in Lower Kane 

Springs Canyon, and 3 sites in the Wall Street Rock Art District. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Fire Management 

58

FIRE MANAGEMENT (FIRE)

Goals and Objectives: 

Fire management will adopt the comprehensive Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and 

Fuels Management, September 2005 (LUP Amendment; BLM 2005c). This document may be 

found at www.ut.blm.gov/fireplanning/index/htm. Direction and guidance approved by the LUP 

Amendment is carried forward under all alternatives and incorporated by reference into this 

PRMP/FEIS. The content and purpose of the LUP Amendment is summarized as follows: 

• Establishes landscape-level, fire management goals and objectives. 

• Describes Desired Wildland Fire Conditions (DWFC) and the management strategies and 

actions to meet DWFC goals. 

• Describes areas where fire may be restored to the ecosystem through wildland fire use for 

resource benefit and areas where wildland fire use is not appropriate. 

• Identifies Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) for fire management practices to protect 

natural and cultural resource values.

• Identifies criteria used to establish fire management priorities. 

Management Decisions: 

FIRE-1 

The Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan (FMP) will be updated and amended to meet the 

direction and objectives of the RMP. 

FIRE-2 

Firefighter and public safety are the primary goals in all fire management decisions and actions. 

FIRE-3 

Wildland fire will be utilized to protect, maintain and enhance resources and, when possible, will 

be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. 

FIRE-4 

Hazardous fuels reduction treatments will be used to restore ecosystems; protect human, natural 

and cultural resources; and reduce the threat of wildfire to communities. 

FIRE-5 

Fires will be suppressed at minimum cost, taking into account firefighter and public safety as 

well as benefits and values to be protected that are consistent with resource objectives. 

FIRE-6 

The BLM will implement a consistent, safe and cost-effective fire management program through 

appropriate planning, staffing, training, and equipment. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Fire Management 

59

FIRE-7 

Fire management objectives will be established for every area with burnable vegetation, based on 

sound science and consideration of other resource objectives. 

FIRE-8 

Emergency stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration efforts will be implemented to protect 

and sustain resources, public health and safety, and community infrastructure. 

FIRE-9 

The BLM will work together with partners and other affected groups and individuals to reduce 

risks to communities and to restore ecosystems. 

FIRE-10 

The Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions identified in consultation with 

the USFWS for the LUP Amendment will be implemented in fire-related actions. 

FIRE-11 

Criteria for Establishing Fire Management Priorities: Protection of human life is the primary 

fire management priority. Establishing a priority among protecting human communities and 

community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources is 

based on human health and safety, the values to be protected, and the costs of protection. When 

firefighters and other personnel have been committed to an incident, these human resources 

become the highest values to be protected. Priorities for all aspects of fire management decisions 

and actions are based on the following: 

• Protecting the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI; including At-risk Communities and At-risk 

Watersheds). 

• Maintaining existing healthy ecosystems. 

• High priority sub-basins (HUC-4) or watersheds (HUC-5). 

• Threatened, endangered, or special species. 

• Cultural resources and/or cultural landscapes. 

FIRE-12 

Suppression: An "Appropriate Management Response" (AMR) procedure is required for every 

wildland fire that is not a prescribed fire. In all fire management decisions, strategies and actions, 

firefighter and public safety are the highest priority followed by consideration of benefits and 

values to be protected as well as suppression costs. The AMR can range from full suppression to 

managing fire for resource benefit (wildland fire use). Resource goals and objectives outlined in 

the RMP guide the development and implementation of AMR fire management activities in 

regard to the accomplishment of those objectives. The FMP establishes fire suppression 

objectives with minimum and maximum suppression targets for each Fire Management Unit 

(FMU) within the MPA. While firefighter and public safety are the first priority, considerations 

for suppression activities also include fire intensity, acreage, and spread potential, threats to life 

and property, potential to impact high-value resources such as critical habitat for threatened, 

endangered and sensitive species, crucial wildlife habitat, cultural resources and/or riparian 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Fire Management 

60

areas, historic fire regimes, and other special considerations such as wilderness and/or adjacent 

agency lands. 

FIRE-13 

Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit: Wildland fire is authorized as a tool, when 

appropriate, to allow naturally ignited wildland fire to accomplish specific resource management 

objectives. Due to existing resource conditions and proximity to values at risk, fire cannot be 

allowed to resume its natural role on all BLM lands in the MPA. Consideration of ongoing 

management actions and other natural changes will direct periodical reassessment of DWFC and 

determination of potential areas for wildland fire use. Operational management of wildland fire 

use is described in the Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP). 

The FMP identifies areas (FMUs) that may have the potential for wildland fire use. Wildland fire 

use may be authorized for all areas, except when the following resources and values may be 

negatively impacted and there are no reasonable Resource Protection Measures to protect such 

resources and values: 

• WUI areas. 

• Areas that are known to be highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or invasive weed 

invasion. 

• Important terrestrial and aquatic habitats. 

• Non-fire-adapted vegetation communities. 

• Sensitive cultural resources. 

• Areas of soil with high or very high erosion hazard. 

• Class I air attainment areas and PM-10 non-attainment areas. 

• Administrative sites. 

• Developed recreation sites. 

• Communication sites. 

• Oil, gas and mining facilities. 

• Above-ground utility corridors. 

• High-use travel corridors, such as interstates, railroads, and/or highways. 

FIRE-14 

Fuels Treatment: Fuels management activities outlined in the FMP will be consistent with the 

resource goals and objectives contained in the RMP. To reduce hazards and to restore 

ecosystems, authorized fuels management actions include wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and 

mechanical, manual, chemical, biological, and seeding treatments. The FMP describes fuels 

management goals and objectives and the full range of fuels management strategies and actions 

authorized for fuels reduction. Fuels treatments are focused on the DWFC of restoring historic 

fire regimes to ecosystems when feasible, so that future wildland fire use actions can be more 

easily implemented. Fuels management actions may include but are not limited to the following 

activities: 

• Mechanical treatments such as mowing, chopping, or chipping/grinding (brush cutter), 

chaining, tilling, or cutting. 

• Manual treatments such as hand-cutting (chainsaw or handsaw) and hand-piling. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Fire Management 

61

• Prescribed fire including broadcast, underburn, and hand-pile burning. 

• Chemical spraying or biological treatments such as insects or goats/sheep. 

• Seeding including aerial or ground application (manual or mechanical). 

Targeted areas may be treated in phases over a period of several years and may involve multiple 

and varied treatments. 

Estimated fuels reduction treatments of 5,000 to 10,000 acres/year are targeted dependent on 

budgetary and time constraints. These treatments are in addition to those to be accomplished 

under the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative and the National Healthy Lands Initiative. 

Implementation of fuels management actions will be prioritized using the following criteria: 

• WUI areas. 

• Areas with fuel loading that could potentially result in the loss of ecosystem components 

following wildland fire. 

• Resource management goals and objectives. 

FIRE-15 

Prevention and Mitigation: Prevention and mitigation goals target a reduction in unauthorized 

wildland fire ignitions. Goals include coordination with partners and affected groups and 

individuals, and a wide range of prevention and mitigation activities such as personal contacts, 

mass media, signing, and defensible space education. Implementation of fire prevention activities 

will be prioritized using the following criteria: 

• WUI areas. 

• Major travel corridors. 

• Recreation sites. 

• Public lands as a whole. 

FIRE-16 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR): A Normal Year Fire Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation Plan (NFRP) is in place to meet emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR) 

needs and to comply with up-to-date ESR policy and guidance. The NFRP is a programmatic 

implementation plan authorizing treatment options specific to vegetative communities and 

dependent upon post-wildland fire conditions and other site-specific considerations. Treatment 

actions are designed according to the type and severity of wildfire impacts and priorities include, 

but are not limited to, areas where the following criteria apply: 

• It is necessary to protect human life and safety as well as property. 

• Unique or critical cultural and/or historical resources are at risk. 

• It is determined soils are highly susceptible to accelerated erosion. 

• Perennial grasses and forbs (fire-tolerant plants) are not expected to provide soil and 

watershed protection within two years. 

• There is a need to establish a vegetative fuel break of less flammable species (greenstrips). 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Fire Management 

62

• Unacceptable vegetation, such as noxious weeds, may readily invade and become 

established. 

• Shrubs and forbs are a crucial habitat component for wintering mule deer, pronghorn, sagegrouse, or other special status species. 

• Stabilization and rehabilitation are necessary to meet RMP resource objectives, including 

rangeland seedings. 

• It is necessary to protect water quality. 

• It is necessary to quickly restore threatened, endangered, or special species habitat 

populations to prevent adverse impacts. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Health and Safety 

63

HEALTH AND SAFETY (HAZ)

Goals and Objectives: 

BLM will strive to ensure that human health and safety concerns on public lands remain a major 

priority. 

Management Decisions: 

HAZ-1 

Comply with all applicable Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) policies. 

HAZ-2 

In conformance with BLM's long-term strategies and national policies regarding Abandoned 

Mine Lands (AML), this RMP recognizes the need to work with our partners toward identifying 

and addressing physical safety and environmental hazards at all AML sites on public lands. In 

order to achieve this goal, a State strategy has been written. National program criteria for 

determining site priorities were used to develop the work plan. This State strategy is entitled 

"Utah's Abandoned Mine Land Multi Year Work Plan." 

HAZ-3 

The criteria that will be used to establish physical safety hazard program priorities are: 

• The AML physical safety program's highest priority will be the cleaning up of those AML 

sites where (a) a death or injury has occurred, (b) the site is situated on or in immediate 

proximity to developed recreation sites and areas with high visitor use, and (c) 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 Mines Module of 

Protection and Response Information System. 

• AML hazards should be, to the extent practicable, mitigated or remediated on the ground 

during site development. 

HAZ-4 

The criteria used to establish water quality-based AML program priorities are: 

• The State has identified the watershed as a priority based on (a) one or more water laws or 

regulations; (b) threat to public health or safety; and (c) threat to the environment. 

• The project reflects a collaborative effort with other land managing agencies. 

• The site is presently listed or is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mines Site Cleanup 

Module of Protection and Response Information System. 

• The project will be funded by contributions from collaborating agencies. 

HAZ-5 

Identify and clean up unauthorized dumping sites and hazardous materials spills in the MPA as 

required to comply with applicable State, local, and Federal regulations. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Health and Safety 

64

HAZ-6 

The State Multi Year Work Plan will be maintained and updated as needed to reflect current 

policy for identifying program physical safety and water quality AML sites priorities for 

reclamation and remediation. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Lands and Realty 

65

LANDS AND REALTY (LAR)

Goals and Objectives: 

Retain lands under BLM administration except where necessary to accomplish resource goals 

and objectives outlined in the Plan. BLM would transfer lands out of Federal ownership or 

acquire non-Federal lands where needed to accomplish resource goals and objectives, improve 

administration of public lands, or meet essential community needs. 

Meet public needs for use authorizations such as rights-of-way (ROWs), alternative energy 

sources, and permits while minimizing adverse impacts to resource values. 

Using the Visual Resource Management (VRM) system, maintain generally undeveloped 

landscapes in the backgrounds of popular filming locations. 

Management Decisions: 

LAR-1 

Under IMP and Congressional action, Wilderness Study Areas and Wilderness Areas will be 

exclusion areas for any ROWs (Section 501(a) FLPMA). 

LAR-2 

Continue the withdrawal of lands along the Colorado, Dolores and Green Rivers (totaling 65,037 

acres within the MPA) from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal, October 6, 2004). In 

addition, continue the Westwater (8,096 acres) and Black Ridge Wilderness (5,200 acres) 

withdrawals (see Map 5). 

LAR-3 

Give land exchanges with the State of Utah priority consideration to resolve inholding issues. 

LAR-4 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) will be avoidance areas for any new ROWs 

(including communication sites and wind and solar sites). 

LAR-5 

Decisions on Land Tenure Adjustments and withdrawals will be made in accordance with the 

criteria contained in Appendix G. 

LAR-6 

Determinations on authorizing commercial filming in the MPA will be made in accordance with 

the criteria outlined in Appendix H for minimum impact filming and standard NEPA procedures 

for projects not meeting minimum impact criteria. 

 

LAR-7 

Right-of-way (ROW) avoidance and exclusion areas will be consistent with the stipulations 

identified in Appendix A for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. These 

stipulations have been developed to protect important resource values. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Lands and Realty 

66

LAR-8 

As per the State of Utah v. Andrus, Oct. 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. 

LAR-9 

To reduce surface use conflicts along the U.S. Highway 191 utility corridor within Moab 

Canyon, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix A), except those associated with utility ROWs. 

LAR-10 

Authorization of any ROW for wind or solar energy development will incorporate best 

management practices including the USFWS’s “Guidelines for Wind Power” and provisions 

contained in the Final Wind Energy Programmatic EIS (June 24, 2005; BLM 2005d). 

LAR-11 

Both wind and solar energy development (renewable energy) can be considered wherever ROWs 

could be authorized. 

 

LAR-12 

To be consistent with the existing withdrawals from mineral entry, apply a no surface occupancy 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities within the area of the 

Three Rivers and Westwater Mineral Withdrawals. This action will further protect the riparian, 

wildlife, scenic, and recreation values addressed in these withdrawals. Applying a no surface 

occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing to lands within the Three Rivers Withdrawal, in 

combination with other areas where a no surface occupancy stipulation is applied, results in 

tracts of land that are physically inaccessible to oil and gas operations. For this reason, portions 

of the lands within the Three Rivers Withdrawal (e.g., along the Colorado River near the 

Richardson Amphitheater and along the Dolores River near Beaver Creek) will be closed to oil 

and gas leasing. These areas will be managed as no surface occupancy for other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix A). 

LAR-13 

Lands and/or interest in lands (such as minerals and conservation easements) acquired through 

future LTA will take on the management of the surrounding area. Land acquisitions will be 

pursued if they meet the criteria in Appendix G. 

LAR-14 

Designate an I-70 utility corridor that includes all major existing ROWs as identified in the RMP 

with a 1/2-mile width on each side of the widest ROW corridor. Designate the existing Moab 

Canyon utility corridor (Map 6). 

LAR-15 

Combine the two corridors south of Spanish Valley into a single corridor (Map 6). The corridor 

will include the approximately 2 to 3 miles separating the two segments. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Lands and Realty 

67

LAR-16 

About 370,250 acres will be exclusion areas for ROWs. About 217,480 acres will be avoidance 

areas for ROWs. 

LAR-17 

Parcels identified for disposal total 14,961 acres and are shown on Map 7 and in Appendix I. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Livestock Grazing 

68

LIVESTOCK GRAZING (GRA)

Goals and Objectives: 

Achieve the attainment of Standards for Rangeland Health and other desired resource conditions 

by maintaining appropriate utilization levels of the range through management prescriptions and 

administrative adjustments of grazing permits. 

Achieve healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems that support the livestock industry while 

providing for other resource values such as wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, clean water, 

and functional watersheds. 

Management Decisions: 

GRA-1 

Grazing will be managed according to the Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management to 

meet the Standards for Rangeland Health, including adjustment in seasons of use. 

GRA-2 

On all allotments, allow allotment boundaries adjustments, joining and splitting, and 

modification of grazing season subject to appropriate NEPA review and analysis (see Map 8 for 

a map of grazing allotments). 

GRA-3 

Continue to authorize grazing at the current preference levels (as per ten-year grazing permits) 

and adjust, if necessary to meet Standards for Rangeland Health. 

GRA-4 

As amended in previous planning documents (the 1985 Grand RMP and a Plan Amendment 

analyzed in EA#068-94-047), grazing use will continue to not be authorized on the following 

allotments/areas (or portions of allotments/areas): 

• Between The Creeks with 3,960 acres and 221 AUMs, to protect municipal watersheds, 

improve mule deer winter range, improve riparian habitat, and reduce recreation conflict. 

• North Sand Flats with 18,246 acres and 798 AUMs, to reduce recreation conflict, improve 

mule deer winter range, and improve riparian habitat. 

• South Sand Flats with 10,209 acres and 592 AUMs, to reduce recreation conflict, improve 

mule deer winter range, and improve riparian habitat. 

• A portion of Arth's Pasture Allotment (Poison Spider area) with approximately 7,634 acres 

and 425 AUMs, to improve desert bighorn sheep habitat and reduce recreation conflict. 

• Castle Valley with 6,074 acres and 190 AUMs, to protect the Castle Valley sole source 

aquifer, to improve mule deer winter range, and to reduce recreation conflict. 

Along Highway 128 from U.S. 191 to the Castle Valley Road, along U.S. 191 from Highway 

313 to Moab, and along Highway 279 with 1,139 acres, to reduce recreation traffic conflict 

(no reduction in AUMs). 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Livestock Grazing 

69

• A portion of the Kane Spring Allotment (that portion in Kane Spring Canyon between the 

open valley and the river; 558 acres and no reduction in AUMs), to reduce recreation traffic 

conflict and to enhance riparian species' habitat. 

• An area along the Colorado River between Hittle Bottom and north of Dewey Bridge (400 

acres and no reduction in AUMs), to reduce recreation traffic conflict and to enhance riparian 

species' habitat. 

See also decisions at GRA-16. 

GRA-5 

Develop AMPs on seven allotments (Agate, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Harley Dome, Highlands, 

Monument Wash, and San Arroyo) and on any additional allotments if resource issues are 

identified to benefit vegetation, wildlife, livestock grazing and soils. 

GRA-6 

Identify appropriate utilization levels based on allotment or site-specific management practices, 

such as season-of-use, grazing intensity and duration, and utilization patterns, as well as 

vegetative conditions, the presence or absence of range improvements, and resource issues or 

concerns. Use utilization levels as an indicator to evaluate if current grazing use is appropriate to 

meet resource objectives for the area. Generally moderate utilization levels (40–60%) will be 

used to indicate if general management objectives can be met. Utilization levels above those 

identified as appropriate will be used to adjust livestock use on a yearly basis through pasture 

and possible early removal from allotments as needed. Utilization levels may be especially 

important during periods of drought. Long-term adjustments to livestock use (term permits 

adjustments) require the evaluation of monitoring data including climate, actual grazing use, 

current or historic impacts, utilization mapping, and long-term trend data, as well as utilization 

levels. 

GRA-7 

Follow the recommendations of the National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 

2004c) and the Strategic Management Plan for Sage-grouse (UDWR 2002) where applicable. 

GRA-8 

Conversion of allotments from cattle to domestic sheep will not be considered in recognized 

bighorn sheep habitat (see Maps 9 and 10). 

GRA-9 

Collect monitoring data, including trend, utilization, actual use, and climate data to determine if 

existing livestock management practices are meeting land-use planning and resource objectives. 

GRA-10 

Change class of livestock from sheep to cattle on the Hatch Point Allotment (96,951 acres) to 

benefit wildlife. 

GRA-11 

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

will have livestock grazing use temporarily suspended as follows: (1) burned rangelands, 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Livestock Grazing 

70

whether by wildfire or prescribed burning, will be ungrazed for a minimum of one complete 

growing season following the burn; (2) rangelands that have been reseeded, or otherwise 

mechanically treated will be ungrazed for a minimum of two complete growing seasons 

following treatment. 

GRA-12 

Relinquishment of Preference: Voluntary relinquishments of grazing permits and preference, 

in whole or in part, submitted by a permittee in writing to the BLM, will be handled on a caseby-case basis. BLM will not recognize as valid, relinquishments which are conditional on 

specific BLM actions and BLM will not be bound by them. Relinquished permits and the 

associated preference will remain available for application by qualified applicants after BLM 

considers if such action will meet rangeland health standards and is compatible with achieving 

land-use plan goals and objectives. Prior to re-issuance of the relinquished permit, the terms and 

conditions may be modified to meet RMP goals and objectives and/or site-specific resource 

objectives. However, upon relinquishment, BLM may determine through a site-specific 

evaluation and 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 RMP or a new RMP 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-13 

AUMs allotted to livestock: 106,479. 

GRA-14 

Acres available for grazing: 1,690,481 acres. 

GRA-15 

Acres not available for grazing: 132,047 acres (see Map 11). 

GRA-16 

Allotments Not Available for Grazing: 

• Bogart with 14,744 acres and 209 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk 

habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). 

• Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially mule deer 

and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). 

• Diamond with 18,620 acres and 588 AUMs (to benefit wildlife to benefit wildlife especially 

mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). 

• Pear Park, with 14,201 acres and 200 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially mule deer and/or 

elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). 

• Ida Gulch, with 3,612 acres 112 AUMs (to recreation conflict and enhance riparian habitat). 

Mill Creek with 3,921 acres and 137 AUMs (to reduce recreation and cultural conflict and to 

protect municipal watershed). 

• Portions of Professor Valley and River along Highway 128**, with 1,467 acres and 0 AUMs 

(to reduce recreation conflict and enhance riparian habitat). 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Livestock Grazing 

71

**A fence will be constructed along the southeast side of Highway 128 (set back to protect the 

scenic resources of the National Scenic Highway). This will result in all BLM lands between 

the Colorado River and Highway 128 being unavailable for grazing. This will reduce acreage 

in the allotments, but it will not reduce the AUMs, because the quality of the forage is low due 

to heavy use by motorists and other recreationists. 

GRA-17 

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that will be Available for Grazing: 

• After allotment specific evaluation to assure resource objectives are met, Spring Creek 

Allotment will be available for livestock grazing. 

GRA-18 

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered forAllocation: 

• Beaver Creek with 1,351 acres and 0 AUMs. 

GRA-19 

Grazing in Saline Soils: Use grazing systems and develop AMPs to minimize impacts to saline 

soils and reduce salinity in the Colorado River drainage in the following allotments: Agate, 

Athena, Big Flat-Ten Mile, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Coal Canyon, Crescent Canyon, Floy Creek, 

Harley Dome, Highlands, Horse Canyon, Little Grand, Lone Cone, Monument, and San Arroyo. 

GRA-20 

Grazing in Riparian Areas: Evaluate non-functioning and functioning-at-risk riparian areas 

using Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management to 

determine if restriction from grazing will improve riparian functioning condition. The following 

riparian areas will be given priority for evaluation: Ten Mile from Dripping Spring to the Green 

River, Mill Creek, Day Canyon, Seven Mile Canyon, and East Coyote (a total of 1,169 acres). 

GRA-21 

Vegetation Treatments: Maintain the existing vegetation treatments (46,307 acres) to increase 

available forage within the following allotments. These areas have been treated over the past 50 

years and consist primarily of pinyon-juniper woodlands. These areas will be treated by 

prescribed fire, chemical or mechanical or other means in accordance with BLM sagebrush 

conservation guidance and other applicable resource goals. The improved forage will benefit 

multiple use objectives including livestock and wildlife use. Allotments: Adobe Mesa, Big 

Triangle, Black Ridge, Buckhorn, Cisco, East Coyote, Fisher Valley, Granite Creek, Hatch Point, 

Lisbon, Lower Lisbon, Mountain Island, Rattlesnake South, Scharf Mesa, Spring Creek, 

Steamboat Mesa, Taylor, Windwhistle. (a total of 46,307 acres). 

GRA-22 

Conduct new vegetation treatments (6,900 acres) for increased forage in the following allotments 

with prescribed fire, chemical, mechanical or other means: Floy Canyon, Hatch Point, Lisbon, 

and Showerbath. Other vegetation treatments will be considered to benefit other resource values 

such as wildlife or watershed. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Livestock Grazing 

72

GRA-23 

Implement Range Projects to Help Maintain Rangeland Health Standards: 

• Implement range projects that will equally benefit livestock grazing and other resource 

values. 

GRA-24 

Grazing will be allowed on a limited basis in Ten Mile Wash downstream from Dripping 

Springs, with changes subject to future monitoring. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Minerals 

73

MINERALS (MIN)

Goals and Objectives: 

Provide opportunities for environmentally responsible exploration and development of mineral 

and energy resources subject to appropriate BLM policies, laws and regulations. 

Establish conditions of use through land-use planning to protect other resource values. 

Management Decisions: 

MIN-1 

Continue the withdrawal of lands along the Colorado, Dolores, and Green Rivers, totaling 65,037 

acres within the MPA, from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal, October 6, 2004). In 

addition, continue the Westwater (8,096 acres) withdrawal. Black Ridge Wilderness (5,200 

acres) will remain closed, by law, to entry under the mining law. 

MIN-2 

Wilderness Study Areas and designated Wilderness (358,806 acres) will remain closed, by law, 

to mineral leasing and development. 

MIN-3 

Where public lands are sold or exchanged under 43 U.S.C. 682(B) (Small Tracts Act), 43 U.S.C. 

869 (Recreation and Public Purposes Act), 43 U.S.C. 1718 (Sales) or 43 U.S.C. 1716 

(Exchanges), the minerals reserved to the United States will continue to be removed from the 

operation of the mining laws unless a subsequent land-use planning decision expressly 

recommends restoring the land to mineral entry. 

MIN-4 

Leasable Minerals: Split-estate lands (private surface/Federal minerals) and lands administered 

by other Federal agencies are not managed by the BLM. The lands include about 29,678 acres of 

split-estate lands and the lands administered by the Manti-LaSal National Forest (141,241 acres). 

The surface owner or surface management agency (SMA) manages the surface. BLM 

administers the operational aspects of mineral leases. On lands administered by other Federal 

agencies, lease stipulations will include those required by the SMA. On 20,061 acres of splitestate lands, the BLM will apply the same lease stipulations as those applied to surrounding 

lands with Federal surface. BLM will close or impose a no surface occupancy stipulation on 

9,617 acres of split-estate lands (see Appendix A). Mitigation measures to protect other resource 

values will be developed during the appropriate site-specific environmental analysis and will be 

attached as conditions of approval to permits in consultation with the surface owner or SMA. 

MIN-5 

Coal: The coal resources within the MPA include the Sego and the La Sal coal fields. 

Approximately 80% of the Sego coal field is within Wilderness Study Areas and is not available 

for development. For the remaining coal resources, no interest has been expressed for coal 

leasing and the potential for development of coal resources is low (see Mineral Potential Report). 

At such time as interest is expressed in coal leasing, the RMP will be amended as appropriate 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Minerals 

74

and mining unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 3461) will be applied by the MFO before any coal 

leases are issued. If coal leases are issued, they will be subject to special conditions developed in 

the RMP and the unsuitability assessment. This may restrict all or certain types of mining 

techniques. Before any coal could be removed, MFO will have to approve the mining permit 

application package, incorporating stipulations developed in the RMP. 

MIN-6 

Locatable Minerals: Existing operations will continue to be subject to the stipulations 

developed for the notice or the plan of operations. The BLM will evaluate all operations 

authorized by the mining laws in the context of its requirement to prevent unnecessary and undue 

degradation of Federal lands and resources. Consistent with the rights afforded claimants under 

the mining laws, operations conducted after this RMP will be required to conform to the surface 

disturbing stipulations developed in this RMP. 

MIN-7 

Locatable Minerals: Operations on BLM-administered lands open to mineral entry must be 

conducted in compliance with BLM's surface management regulations (43 CFR 3715, 3802, 

3809, and 3814). BLM surface management regulations do not apply to operations on other 

Federal lands but do apply to split-estate lands. 

MIN-8 

Leasable Minerals: To be consistent with the existing withdrawals from mineral entry, apply a 

no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities 

(see Appendix A) within the area of the Three Rivers and Westwater Mineral Withdrawals. This 

action will further protect the riparian, wildlife, scenic, and recreation values addressed in these 

withdrawals. 

MIN-9 

Locatable Minerals: To the extent possible, the stipulations developed for oil and gas leasing 

are applicable to all mineral activities (leasable, locatable, and salable). These stipulations are 

found in Appendix A. Leasable minerals include oil and gas, coal, and potash. Locatable 

minerals include gold, copper, and uranium. Salable minerals include sand and gravel, clay, and 

building stone. 

MIN-10 

Locatable Minerals: In areas where mineral activities would be incompatible with existing 

surface use, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix A). These areas are as follows: Moab and Spanish Valley, 

Castle Valley (including Mayberry Orchard), Thompson Springs, Moab Landfill, Moab Airport, 

and Dead Horse Point State Park. 

MIN-11 

The Federal minerals within the incorporated city of Moab and town of Castle Valley are closed 

to oil and gas leasing by Federal regulation at 43 CFR 3100.0-3 (a)(2)(iii). 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Minerals 

75

MIN-12 

Leasable Minerals: The plan will recognize and be consistent with the National Energy Policy 

Act and related BLM policy by adopting the following objectives: recognizing the need for 

diversity in obtaining energy supplies; encouraging conservation of sensitive resource values; 

improving energy distribution opportunities. 

MIN-13 

Leasable Minerals: In accordance with an UDEQ-DAQ letter dated June 6, 2008 (See 

Appendix J) requesting implementation of interim nitrogen oxide control measures for 

compressor engines; BLM will require the following as a Lease Stipulation and a Condition of 

Approval for Applications for Permit to Drill: (1) 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 gms 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; (2) 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 gms of NOx per horsepower-hour. 

 

MIN-14 

Leasable Minerals: Lease stipulations have been developed to mitigate the impacts of oil and 

gas activity (see Appendix A and Map 12). The stipulations adhere to the Uniform Format 

prepared by the Rocky Mountain Regional Coordinating Committee in March 1989. Stipulations 

reflect the minimum requirements necessary to accomplish the desired resource protection and 

contain provisions/criteria to allow for exception, waiver and modification if warranted. 

Stipulations would be determined unnecessary if duplicative of Section 6 of the Standard Lease 

Terms. The BLM has identified Land-use Plan leasing allocations for all lands within the Moab 

Field Office. In addition, the Approved RMP describes specific lease stipulations and programrelated Best Management Practices (both found in Appendix A: Stipulations and Environmental 

Best Practices Application to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface Disturbing Activities) that 

apply to a variety of different resources. 

MIN-15 

Leasable Minerals: Oil and gas leases issued prior to the RMP will continue to be managed 

under the stipulations in effect when issued. Those issued subsequent to the plan will be subject 

to the stipulations developed in the plan. Environmental best management practices will be 

incorporated into subsequent permits and authorizations to mitigate impacts and conflicts with 

other uses and resource values (see Appendix A). 

MIN-16 

Leasable Minerals (Potash and Salt: Non-energy Leasable): Within the MPA, three areas fall 

within known potash leasing areas (KPLAs). KPLA designations, based on known geologic data, 

will remain in place until potash resources are depleted. In KPLAs, potash leases are acquired 

through competitive bidding. In areas where potash values are not known, MFO could issue 

prospecting permits, which could lead to issuance of a preference right lease. There are currently 

8 leases and numerous pending prospecting permit applications within the MPA (Map 13). 

Additional KPLAs could be designated, based on geologic data, if interest warranted. Potash 

leasing and prospecting permits issued prior to the RMP will continue to be managed under the 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Minerals 

76

stipulations in effect when issued. Those leases issued subsequent to the RMP will be consistent 

with the oil and gas leasing stipulations developed in the RMP (see Appendix A). 

MIN-17 

Locatable Minerals: A no surface occupancy stipulation cannot be applied to locatable minerals 

without a withdrawal. All public lands overlying Federal minerals are open to mining claim 

location unless specifically withdrawn from mineral entry by Secretarial order or by a public 

land law. Therefore, other than the existing withdrawals (Three Rivers, Westwater, and Black 

Ridge Wilderness), all public lands with the MPA remain open under the mining laws. Future 

withdrawals may be recommended in areas identified as closed or with a no surface occupancy 

stipulation if it becomes necessary to prevent unacceptable resource impacts. 

MIN-18 

Salable Minerals: There are currently 12 community pits totaling about 2,693 acres designated 

in the MPA (Map 14). Existing mineral material sale contracts, free use permits, and material 

sites, including community pits, will continue to be subject to the permit stipulation conditions. 

Sales, permits, community pits or common use areas issued or designated after the RMP will be 

subject to permit stipulations developed in the RMP. These stipulations will be the same as those 

stipulations for oil and gas leasing except that areas with a no surface occupancy stipulation and 

closed will be closed to the disposal of salable minerals. 

MIN-19 

Leasable Minerals: Oil and Gas Leasing stipulations (see Map 12): 

• Approximately 427,273 acres will be open to oil and gas leasing, subject to standard terms 

and conditions. 

• Approximately 806,994 acres will be open to oil and gas leasing subject to CSU and TL 

stipulations. 

• Approximately 217,480 acres will be open to oil and gas leasing subject to an NSO 

stipulation. 

• Approximately 370,250 acres will be closed to oil and gas leasing, of which 25,306 acres are 

outside Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas. About 25,306 acres are closed to oil and gas 

leasing because it is not reasonable to apply an NSO stipulation. This includes areas where 

the oil and gas resources are physically inaccessible by current directional drilling technology 

from outside the boundaries of the NSO areas. (These lands closed to oil and gas leasing will 

be managed to preclude all other surface-disturbing activities.) Should technology change, a 

Plan Amendment will be initiated to place these 25,306 acres under an NSO stipulation for 

oil and gas leasing. 

• In addition, 8,078 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) will be managed as open to 

oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation, and 1,539 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate 

lands) will be closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix A). 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Minerals 

77

MIN-20 

Saleable Minerals (see Map 12): 

• Approximately 427,273 acres will be open to the disposal of salable minerals subject to 

standard terms and conditions. 

• Approximately 806,994 acres will be open to the disposal of salable minerals subject to CSU 

and TL stipulations. 

• Approximately 217,480 acres will not be open to the disposal of salable minerals (in those 

areas subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing). 

• Approximately 370,250 acres will be closed to the disposal of salable minerals. In addition, 

8,078 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) will not be open to the disposal of salable 

minerals in those lands subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas, and 1,539 acres of 

Federal minerals (split-estate lands) will be closed to the disposal of salable minerals (see 

Appendix A). 

MIN-21 

Locatable Minerals: 

• Approximately 427,273 acres are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to 

standard terms and conditions. 

• Approximately 962,258 acres are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to CSU 

and TL stipulations. 

• Approximately 78,333 acres are withdrawn from operations to locatable minerals. 

• Approximately 353,510 acres within WSAs are open to operations for locatable minerals 

subject to the IMP (1650-1).
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

78

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS (WC)

Goals and Objectives: 

BLM has identified non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for management 

consideration in this planning effort. Wilderness characteristics include the appearance of 

naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation 

(see Appendix K and Map 15 for more information). 

Protect, preserve, and maintain wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics as appropriate, considering manageability and the context of competing resource 

demands. Manage these primitive lands and backcountry landscapes for their undeveloped 

character, and to provide opportunities for primitive recreational activities and experiences of 

solitude, as appropriate. 

Management Decisions: 

WC-1 

Manage 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands (see Map 16) to protect, preserve, and maintain 

wilderness characteristics by applying the following prescriptions: 

• Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix A). Applying a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, in combination with the 

no surface occupancy applied because of the Three Rivers Withdrawal, results in tracts of 

land which are physically inaccessible to oil and gas operations within the Fisher Towers, 

Mary Jane Canyon, and Beaver Creek areas. For this reason, portions of non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics in these areas will be closed to oil and gas leasing. 

• These areas will be managed to preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix A) 

including mineral material sales. 

• Retain public lands in Federal ownership. 

• Prohibit woodland harvest. 

• Manage vehicle use as limited to designated roads. 

• Designate as VRM Class II. 

• Manage as avoidance areas for ROWs. 

WC-2 

Non-WSA lands to be managed for wilderness characteristics include: Beaver Creek (25,722 

acres), Fisher Towers (5,540 acres within the Richardson Amphitheater), and Mary Jane Canyon 

(16,499 acres within the Richardson Amphitheater). 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Paleontology 

79

PALEONTOLOGY (PAL)

Goals and Objectives: 

Protect paleontological resources from surface-disturbing activities. Promote the scientific, 

educational, and recreational uses of fossils. 

Foster public awareness and appreciation of the MPA's paleontological heritage. 

Promote and facilitate scientific investigation of fossil resources. 

Management Decisions: 

PAL-1 

Vertebrate fossils may be collected only by qualified individuals under a permit issued by the 

BLM Utah State Office. Vertebrate fossils include bones, teeth, eggs, and other body parts of 

animals with backbones such as dinosaurs, fish, turtles, and mammals. Vertebrate fossils also 

include trace fossils, such as footprints, burrows, gizzard stones, and dung. 

PAL-2 

Fossils collected under a permit remain the property of the Federal government and must be 

placed in an approved repository (such as a museum or university) identified at the time of 

permit issuance. 

PAL-3 

Locate, evaluate, and protect significant paleontological resources. Provide for public visitation 

and education opportunities while simultaneously protecting and supporting the scientific and 

research value of paleontological resources in the MPA. 

PAL-4 

Recreational collectors may collect and retain reasonable amounts of common invertebrate and 

plant fossils for personal, non-commercial use. Surface disturbance must be negligible, and 

collectors may only use non-power hand tools. 

PAL-5 

Casting of vertebrate fossils, including dinosaur tracks, is prohibited unless allowed under a 

scientific/research permit issued by the BLM Utah State Office. 

PAL-6 

Lands identified for disposal will be evaluated to determine whether such actions would remove 

significant fossils (see Appendix I) from Federal ownership. 

PAL-7 

Recognize and protect paleontological resources identified as part of the Dinosaur Diamond 

National Prehistoric Byway. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Paleontology 

80

PAL-8 

Prohibit petrified wood gathering within the Colorado Riverway Special Recreation Management 

Area (SRMA) to protect these paleontological resources for future public enjoyment. Prohibit 

private petrified wood collection only near high visitation sites within the Labyrinth 

Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA. Manage petrified wood gathering outside these two SRMAs to 

allow for private collection of petrified wood (43 CFR 3620). 

PAL-9 

Prohibit commercial sales of petrified wood products due to limited availability of such 

resources. 

PAL-10 

Attach lease notices, stipulations, and other requirements to permitted activities to prevent 

damage to paleontological resources. 

PAL-11 

Manage Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trail, Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway, and Poison Spider 

Track Site as important scientific and public education resources as guided by future SRMA 

activity-level plans. 

PAL-12 

Personal collection of a reasonable amount of invertebrate and plant fossils will be allowed 

throughout the MPA. Where areas with rare and significant invertebrate and plant fossils are 

identified, these areas will be closed to personal collection.
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

81

RECREATION (REC)

Goals and Objectives: 

To provide for multiple recreational uses of the public lands and sustain a wide-range of 

recreation opportunities and potential experiences for visitors and residents, while supporting 

local economic stability and sustaining the recreation resource base and sensitive resource 

values. 

Management Decisions: 

REC-1 

Management of recreation will be generally guided by the Utah Standards for Public Land 

Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management. The guidelines describe in a broad sense the 

conditions to be maintained or achieved for rangeland health within the recreation program. 

REC-2 

Where unacceptable damage to natural or cultural resources by recreational use is anticipated or 

observed, BLM will seek to limit or control activities by managing the nature and extent of the 

activity or by providing site improvements that make the activity more sustainable or by a 

combination of management controls and facility development. Such management actions will 

seek to reduce or eliminate the adverse impact while maintaining the economic benefits 

associated with a wide range of recreation uses. 

REC-3 

BLM will consider and, where appropriate, implement management methods to protect riparian 

resources, special status species, and wildlife habitat while enhancing recreation opportunities. 

Management methods may include limitation of visitor numbers, camping and travel controls, 

implementation of fees, alteration of when use takes place, and other similar actions to be 

approved through normal BLM procedures. 

REC-4 

BLM will coordinate management of recreation use with other agencies, State and local 

government and tribal units to provide public benefits. 

REC-5 

Recreational off-highway vehicle (OHV) and mechanized travel will be consistent with area and 

route designations described in the travel management plan. BLM will work with agency and 

government officials and permit holders to develop procedures, protocols, permits or other types 

of authorization, as appropriate, to provide reasonable access for non-recreational use of OHVs 

for military, search and rescue, emergency, administrative, and permitted uses. 

REC-6 

Dispersed camping is allowed where not specifically restricted. Dispersed camping may be 

closed seasonally or as impacts or environmental conditions warrant. All vehicle use associated 

with dispersed camping activities is required to stay on designated routes. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

82

REC-7 

Management actions limiting camping, wood gathering, firewood cutting, and requiring use of 

fire pans and portable toilets implemented through published closures limitations, restrictions, or 

special rules applicable to specific land areas within the MPA are carried forward in all 

alternatives (see Moab Field Office Recreation Rules in Appendix L). 

REC-8 

Lands acquired within a management area through future land tenure adjustment will take on the 

management of the surrounding area. 

REC-9 

Provide visitor information and outreach programs that emphasize the value of public land 

resources and low impact recreation techniques while also providing information about 

recreation activities, experiences and benefits. 

REC-10 

Provide public information concerning the prevention of the spread of invasive and exotic weeds, 

and about wildlife species and their habitat especially in riparian areas. 

REC-11 

Continue to manage the Slickrock Bike Trail and Fisher Towers Trail as a National Recreation 

Trails consistent with their current secretarial designation. National Trails designation will be 

consistent with this plan. 

REC-12 

Continue supporting public use and enjoyment of the Prehistoric Highway National Scenic 

Byway. Assist with the development and implementation of a management plan. 

REC-13 

Support Grand County's efforts to obtain approval of corridor management plans for Utah Scenic 

Byways (Utah Highways 128, 313, and 279) and provide assistance, where feasible, in the 

development of byway facilities consistent with other decisions of the RMP. 

REC-14 

Continue to manage Kane Creek Road to Hurrah Pass and the roads to Needles, Anticline, and 

Minor overlooks as Utah Scenic Backways. 

REC-15 

BLM Back Country Byways and National Recreation Trails may be designated in the future as 

deemed appropriate with site-specific environmental analysis. 

REC-16 

Continue managing Kokopelli's Trail to facilitate its use as a potential segment of the American 

Discovery Trail. Seek to acquire public access along the entire route to facilitate potential 

designation as a National Recreation Trail. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

83

REC-17 

Criteria for establishment of SRMAs, or adding or revising SRMA boundaries (using the Plan 

Amendment process, where appropriate) include: 

• Recreation use requires intensive management strategies to provide recreation opportunities 

or maintain resource values. 

• A recreation area management plan or interdisciplinary plan with intensive and specific 

recreation management actions is approved. 

• BLM announces the management plan and plan approval through media. 

See Map 17 and Appendix M for SRMA goals, settings, outcomes and management 

prescriptions. 

REC-18 

Generally, where SRMA boundaries are revised, management actions applicable to the original 

SRMA will also apply to the revised area. 

REC-19 

Manage all public lands within SRMAs for retention in Federal ownership consistent with the 

MFO exchange criteria and acquire high value non-Federal lands from willing sellers where such 

acquisition will further the purposes of each SRMA. 

REC-20 

Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix A) within 0.5 miles of developed recreation sites (current and 

planned as Potential Future Facilities; see each SRMA). 

REC-21 

Manage all SRMAs for sustainable camping opportunities. Camping may be restricted to 

designated sites if use and conditions warrant. 

REC-22 

Manage all SRMAs according to the Visual Resource Management Class to protect scenic values 

and settings important to recreation. 

REC-23 

Approved recreation facilities supporting recreation area management objectives will be planned 

and designed to reduce visual impacts where feasible (see Visual Resource Management). 

REC-24 

Replace The Colorado River SRMA (24,124 acres) with the Two Rivers, Colorado Riverway 

and Dolores River Canyons SRMAs (Map 17) to provide for more focused management. 

REC-25 

Provide general recreation management guidance and subsequent implementation of 

management actions for activity plan level actions for SRMAs through continuation and 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

84

modification of approved recreation area management plans (RAMPs) and development of new 

RAMPs for all SRMAs. 

REC-26 

A River Management Plan for the Colorado River from the Colorado State Line to Castle Creek, 

and for the Dolores River, will be completed. 

REC-27 

Designate SRMAs as either Destination SRMAs (majority of visitation from outside the area), 

Community SRMAs (the majority of visitation is from the local community), or Undeveloped 

SRMAs (the focus of the SRMA is to maintain the backcountry setting. 

REC-28 

Facilities: Build and maintain additional recreation facilities consistent with the guidance 

provided in RAMPs and in the various Focus Areas as established in the RMP (Map 18). In the 

absence of a RAMP, facilities may be considered through the NEPA process where they support 

the objectives of the SRMA. 

REC-29 

Facilities: Campground facilities may be constructed; however, they will be located to avoid 

wetland, riparian, cultural resources, floodplains, and special status plant and animal species 

habitats. If avoidance is not possible, mitigation will be implemented to augment the values 

affected by the construction. 

REC-30 

Facilities: Continue to manage and maintain for recreation use all existing developed recreation 

sites. Follow site management guidance contained in RAMPs. 

REC-31 

Facilities: Continue existing ROWs issued to BLM for all existing developed recreation sites 

and facilities. Issue similar protective ROWs for all new recreation facilities. 

REC-32 

Facilities: Manage developed sites as necessary under the authority of 43 CFR Part 8360, 

inclusive of published closures, restrictions, and supplemental rules developed for the public 

lands within the MPA (see above), to protect visitor health and safety, reduce visitor conflicts, 

and provide for the protection of government property and resources. 

REC-33 

Focus Areas are Recreation Management Zones (RMZ) for emphasizing particular types of 

recreation activities while still allowing for other uses in accordance with the Travel Plan. As 

RMZs, Focus Areas (Map 18) are established as a mechanism for enhancing specific recreation 

opportunities through facilities and education such as route marking, parking, camping, and 

information. Where a single focus SRMA or a specific RMZ (Focus Area) is not identified, the 

default focus of that area is motorized, backcountry touring on designated roads. The roads are 

those identified in the Travel Plan accompanying this RMP. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

85

REC-34 

The types of Focus Areas are: Non-mechanized Recreation, Mountain Bike Backcountry 

Touring, Motorized Backcountry Touring, Scenic Driving Corridors, Specialized Sport Venue 

Non-motorized, Specialized Sport Venue Motorized, and Managed Open OHV Area. 

REC-35 

Cameo Cliffs SRMA: Manage the Cameo Cliffs area as a Destination SRMA (15,597 acres) 

under the Cameo Cliffs Recreation Area Management Plan. The Cameo Cliffs SRMA will 

provide sustainable opportunities for road-related motorized and mechanized outdoor recreation 

on a marked route system, and provide a non-mechanized hiking and equestrian area in Hook 

and Ladder Gulch and along the route of the Old Spanish Trail, while protecting and maintaining 

resource values including range, wildlife habitat, scenic, cultural, historical, recreational, and 

riparian values in current or improved condition. To facilitate use of the area for touring 

purposes, no motorized competitive events will be authorized. 

Work with San Juan County to further implement the Cameo Cliffs portion of the San Juan 

County All-terrain Vehicle Plan, and to protect and manage wildlife, vegetation, and cultural 

resources. 

Implement camping management rules as use levels and resource impacts warrant. 

Facilities: Install Cameo Cliffs OHV Trailhead toilet. 

REC-36 

Canyon Rims SRMA: Manage the Canyon Rims SRMA (101,531 acres) as a Destination 

SRMA to protect, manage and improve the natural resources of the area while allowing for 

recreation activities such as developed camping, visiting scenic overlooks, auto touring on the 

primary road system, touring the secondary road system by motorized vehicle and mountain 

bike, and hiking and backpacking the canyons (in accordance with the ROS classes) utilizing 

interpretive and educational opportunities to realize the potential of the area. Major management 

actions in the Canyon Rims SRMA include: 

• Manage the area as open to mineral leasing with controlled surface occupancy except for 

developed recreation sites, which will be managed as open to leasing with no surface 

occupancy. 

• Manage the area to maintain ROS classes as inventoried. 

• Acquire or exchange private and State lands from willing landowners. 

• Manage the entire area as OHV travel limited to designated roads. 

• Manage the western rim land areas of Hatch Point as VRM Class II and the remainder of the 

area as VRM Class III. 

• Maintain and/or improve all existing developed recreation sites as specified in the Canyon 

Rims Recreation Area Management Plan. 

• Restrict camping near developed recreation sites. 

• Close the entire recreation area to wood cutting and gathering. 

• Manage Hatch Wash and the lower section of West Coyote Creek for primitive, nonmotorized recreation. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

86

• Restrict backcountry motorized events to commercial and non-race special events on the Flat 

Iron Mesa Jeep Safari route only. 

• Manage the Windwhistle Nature Trail, Anticline Overlook Trail, Needles Overlook Trail, 

and Trough Spring Canyon Trail for hiking use only 

• Consider development of additional trails and recreation facilities only as necessary. 

Focus Area -- Non-mechanized Recreation (3,642 acres): Hatch Wash Hiking and 

Backpacking Focus Area inclusive of the area from Goodman Canyon to the confluence of Hatch 

Wash with Kane Creek Canyon including the lower section of West Coyote Creek (from private 

land west to confluence with Hatch Wash) and the lower section of Troutwater Canyon. 

• New motorized routes will not be considered in the Hatch Wash Hiking and Backpacking 

Focus Area. 

Focus Area -- Scenic Driving Corridors: Needles and Anticline Roads – Utah Scenic 

Backways. Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as having a width of 

1/2 mile from centerline (or to border of adjoining Focus Area). 

REC-37 

Colorado Riverway SRMA will be established as a Destination SRMA at 89,936 acres. 

Management will be the same as the Colorado Riverway Recreation Management Area which 

was established in 1992 and extended in 2001. Management has focused upon providing 

improvements to sites to facilitate recreation use and protection of scenic and other resource 

values. Subsequent recreation plan amendments have addressed camping in the Onion Creek 

area, the construction of a bike lane along SR-128 from the Porcupine Rim Trail to Lion's Park, 

the construction of a non-motorized bridge on non-Federal land at Lion's Park, and the 

establishment of a non-mechanized route system in the area between Onion and Professor 

Creeks. Major management actions in the Colorado Riverway SRMA include: 

 

• Expand the boundary of the Colorado Riverway SRMA to include the lands north of the 

Entrada Bluffs Road to the boundary of the Two Rivers SRMA, as well as lands south of the 

Entrada Bluffs Road (one mile corridor). 

• Manage the Colorado Riverway as a Destination SRMA to manage camping, boating, river 

access, trail, and interpretive facilities in popular areas along or near the Colorado River and 

to protect the outstanding resource values of the area. Guidance for management is included 

in the Colorado Riverway Recreation Area Management Plan. 

• Manage the Dewey Bridge to Castle Creek portion of the Colorado River to provide 

opportunities for high use boating in a scenic setting (see Boating Management below). 

• Manage south shore recreation sites (from Dewey Bridge to Lion's Park) under the Colorado 

Riverway RAMP. 

• Manage the north shore to provide quality undeveloped designated camping and hiking 

opportunities while assuring protection of high quality habitat for bighorn sheep as well as 

for other resource values. 

• Manage the Kane Creek Crossing area to emphasize responsible designated camping and 

scenic touring. 

• Manage the Entrada Bluffs Road area to emphasize designated camping opportunities, and 

scenic touring. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

87

• Manage the Shafer Basin addition to emphasize scenic backcountry driving opportunities (no 

camping allowed in this area). 

• Manage the Amphitheater Loop, Fisher Towers, Negro Bill Canyon, Hunter Canyon, and 

Corona Arch trails and Professor Creek to provide high quality hiking-only opportunities 

while preserving ecological resources. 

• Provide for parking and manage the Kings Bench route (above the Kane Creek Road near the 

Kings Bottom camping area) as a hiking route. Obtain public access from a willing seller 

across the short section of private land that is located along the route. 

• Manage the seldom-used 1.5-mile long route (that spurs left from the Poison Spider Mesa 

Road) on the intermediate bench between the Colorado River and Poison Spider Mesa for 

hiking use. If future use levels warrant, develop a return hiking trail loop on the river side of 

the road bed. 

• Establish the proposed Pothole Arch and Rockstacker trails on Amasa Back (Kane Creek) as 

mountain bike routes. Work with Monticello Field Office to designate the Jackson's Ladder 

historic horse trail as a mountain bike trail from Jackson's Hole to the Amasa Back Jeep 

Road. Work with private land owners to secure non-motorized access to the bottom of this 

route. 

• Manage the Portal Trail to provide both hiking and mountain bike opportunities. 

• Manage the Kane Creek Road to Amasa Back Jeep Road section of the Historic Jackson's 

Ladder trail as hiking and biking only. 

• Acquire specific tracts of State land. 

• Acquire private lands or scenic easements from willing sellers. 

• Restrict motorized and mechanized travel to designated routes. 

• Limit camping and camp fires to designated sites. 

• Close the area to firewood cutting and limiting firewood gathering to riverside driftwood. 

• Limit use of the Fisher Towers, Negro Bill Canyon, Hunter Canyon, and Corona Arch trails 

to foot travel. 

• Lands along the Colorado River within the Riverway are withdrawn from mineral entry 

through the Three Rivers Withdrawal. 

Future Facilities within the Colorado River SRMA: 

• Castle Valley Interpretive Site. 

• Entrada Bluffs Camping Area; camping in this area will be limited to this campground. 

• Hittle Bottom Group Campsites. 

• Kane Creek Crossing Camping Area. Work with SITLA to implement joint camping 

management in this area. 

• Kane Creek Road Riverway Information Area 

• Lower Castle Creek Trail Access. 

• Poison Spider Dinosaur Track Trail. 

• Utah Highway 128 Bike Lane. 

• Utah Highway 279 Riverway Information Area. 

• Wall Street climbing area toilet. 

Focus Area -- Negro Bill Hiking and Ecological Study Focus Area: (8,684 acres) inclusive of 

Negro Bill Canyon between the Sand Flats Recreation Area and the Porcupine Rim Trail. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

88

Manage for recreational mechanized use on the main portion of the Porcupine Rim Trail from 

the junction approximately 1.55 miles east of Little Spring (upper exit to Sand Flats Road) to 

Highway 128 (with the exception of the Porcupine Rim Trail to Coffeepot Rock which will be 

managed for motorized use.) 

• Manage the Negro Bill Canyon Trail for hiking use only. Equestrian use of Negro Bill 

Canyon will be prohibited. 

• Manage the Porcupine Rim Trail to provide only hiking and mountain biking opportunities. 

Management of this trail may change pending resolution of wilderness designation for the 

Negro Bill Canyon WSA. 

• No new motorized routes will be considered. 

Focus Area -- Richardson Amphitheater/Castle Rock, Hiking, Climbing and Equestrian 

Focus Area: (24,767 acres) bounded by Fisher Valley, the rim of "Top of the World" 

escarpment, Highway 128, and non-Federal lands along the east side of the Castle Valley Road. 

Motorized use allowed on the Fisher Towers Road, the Onion Creek Road, roads serving private 

ranches and water developments in the Professor Valley area, and the motorized access route to 

the viewpoint of Professor Valley (the saddle between Adobe Mesa and Castle Rock) and the 

road to designated undeveloped campsites below Castle Rock. Work with Utah Open Lands (a 

private land conservation organization) to establish a semi-developed camping area to serve rock 

climbers. 

• The Onion Creek Benches equestrian trail system between Onion and Professor Creeks will 

be managed to provide opportunities for equestrian trail riding. An equestrian-oriented 

reservable camping area will be managed in Onion Creek upstream from Highway 128. Up 

to 30 miles of equestrian trails will be marked within this Focus Area. 

• Manage the Amphitheater Loop and Fisher Tower Trails for hiking only. 

• Consider connecting hiking trails between Onion Creek and the Amphitheater Loop Trail. 

Focus Areas -- Scenic Driving Corridors: These corridors include Highways 128 and 279 

(which are both designated Utah Scenic Byways), as well as the Kane Creek/Hurrah Pass portion 

of the Lockhart Basin Scenic Backway and the BLM portion of the LaSal Mountain Loop Road 

Scenic Backway. Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as having a width 

of 1/2 mile from centerline, or line of sight or to border of adjoining Focus Area (whichever is 

shorter; see VRM for management prescriptions). 

Focus Areas -- Specialized Sport Venue, Non-motorized: Tombstone Competitive BASE 

Jumping Focus Area (42 acres): 

• Manage Tombstone area to provide BASE jumping opportunities along the Kane Creek 

Road. BASE jumping will not be allowed in developed recreation sites. 

Focus Areas -- Specialized Sport Venue, Non-motorized Wall Street Sport Climbing Focus 

Area (44 acres) (with special protective measures taken for rock art): 

• Manage Wall Street area to provide rock climbing opportunities along the Potash Road. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

89

Boating Management: Dewey to Castle Creek: Manage to provide an opportunity for scenic, 

mild whitewater boating. No restrictions on amount of private use will be established unless 

unacceptable resource impacts occur. Permit 22 unallocated commercial permits. No further 

restrictions on amount of commercial use will be established. 

• Camping will be restricted to designated campsites along the north side of the Colorado 

River and existing campgrounds on the south side of the Colorado River. 

REC-38 

Dolores River Canyons SRMA (Map 17): 

• Manage as an undeveloped SRMA (31,661 acres) 

• Maintain high quality opportunities for non-motorized boating and day hiking or 

backpacking in a remote setting supported by basic trailheads, trails, and car camping 

facilities that support primitive, non-motorized use of the canyon system. 

• Major management actions will include prohibition of motorized and mechanized recreation 

use within the Dolores River's tributary canyons consistent with the Travel Plan. 

• No new motorized routes will be considered. 

Boating Management: Colorado State Line to Bridge Canyon: Manage to provide 

opportunities for scenic whitewater boating trips. Permits required for private and commercial 

use. Establish maximum group size of 25 (excluding guides on commercial trips). Do not 

establish daily launch limits. Permit 14 unallocated commercial outfitters. 

REC-39 

Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA (Map 17): 

• Manage the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges area (Map 17) as a Destination SRMA (300,650 

acres) 

• BLM manages private boating use in Labyrinth Canyon in conjunction with the Utah 

Divisions of State Parks and Recreation and Fire, Forestry and State Lands under the terms of 

a cooperative agreement. The agreement establishes an interagency river permit system and 

coordinates implementation of common river protection rules including group size and use of 

fire pans and portable toilets. BLM also issues permits for shoreline use related commercial 

river trips. 

• Lands along the Green River in Labyrinth Canyon were withdrawn from new entry under the 

mining laws through the Three Rivers Withdrawal. 

• Front country type use takes place along SR 313 and the Island in the Sky Road. This 

highway was designated the Dead Horse Mesa Scenic Byway by the State of Utah in the 

early 2000s. To manage dispersed camping and protect scenic values, BLM establishes a 1-

mile-wide corridor along SR 313 and the Island in the Sky Entrance Road where camping is 

limited to designated sites, wood cutting and firewood gathering are prohibited, and portable 

toilets are required. BLM currently limits camping in the corridor to the Horsethief 

Campground, the Lone Mesa, and Cowboy Camp camping areas. BLM also limits camping 

and prohibits woodcutting and firewood gathering in a one- mile-wide corridor along the 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

90

Gemini Bridges Road. Manage the small Cowboy Camp for tent camping and manage the 

Lone Mesa area for group use. 

• In addition to the Mineral Bottom Takeout, BLM manages several additional facilities in the 

area including the Mill Canyon Dinosaur Interpretive Trail, the Halfway Stage Station 

Interpretive Site, and the Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway Interpretive site. BLM also 

manages and maintains route markings (with user group assistance) on the Monitor and 

Merrimac, Seven Mile Rim, Poison Spider Mesa, Golden Spike, Goldbar Rim, Gemini 

Bridges, Lower Monitor and Merrimac, Bar M, and Klondike Bluffs routes which are used 

by both motorized and non-motorized visitors. The 3-D, Crystal Geyser, Hellroaring Rim, 

Secret Spire, and Wipeout Hill routes are authorized for Jeep Safari and other uses. 

• Continue issuing permits, for both private and commercial users, with common river 

protection rules for Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA and consider extending the 

BLM/State cooperative agreement for management of non-commercial use to include 

management of commercial river use. If future use levels warrant, relocate the Mineral 

Bottom Takeout to a more suitable location and initiate cooperative site operations with the 

National Park Service. 

• Limit camping to designated sites in high-use areas including the Scenic Driving Corridors 

and all areas east of the Dubinky Well Road as well as along Ten Mile Wash. 

• Manage backcountry areas to facilitate scenic motorized touring on designated routes with 

special emphasis upon establishment of low-development, end of route parking areas and 

route signing. 

• Improve the road to the Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trailhead to accommodate passenger car 

traffic. 

• Consider development of an alternative single-track mountain bike route on Poison Spider 

Mesa across the mesa top to the top of the Portal Trail. 

Future Facilities: 

• Bartlett Campground: camping in this area will be restricted to this campground. 

• Lone Mesa Campground: camping in this area will be restricted to this campground. 

• Blue Hills Road OHV Trailhead. 

• Courthouse Rock Campground, camping in this area will be restricted to the campground.

• Cowboy Camp Campground, camping in this area will be restricted to this campground. 

• White Wash Sand Dunes OHV Parking and Camping Area. 

• Gemini Bridges Parking Area and Trailhead. 

Focus Area -- Scenic Driving Corridors: Highway 313 and the Island in the Sky Road (Utah 

Scenic Byway): Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as having a width 

of 1/2 mile from centerline (or to border of adjoining Focus Area; see Appendix A). 

Focus Areas -- Non-Mechanized Recreation: 

• Goldbar/Corona Arch Hiking Focus Area (4,191 acres) covers the lands below the Golden 

Spike OHV route inclusive of the Culvert Canyon drainage to the northern rim of Long 

Canyon exclusive of the main stem of the Day Point Road. Manage the Corona Arch Trail 

for hiking only. Develop a hiking loop route in Culvert Canyon from the canyon bottom up 

to Jeep Arch and back on the western bench of Culvert Canyon to the canyon to just up 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

91

canyon from the railroad spur. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas 

leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix A) to protect primitive 

hiking opportunities and scenic values. No new motorized routes will be considered. 

• Spring Canyon Hiking Focus Area (457 acres) will be established upstream from the Spring 

Canyon Bottom Road. No new motorized routes will be considered. 

• Labyrinth Canyon Canoe Focus Area (7,709 acres) inclusive of the rims along the east side 

of Labyrinth Canyon from Placer Bottom to Mineral Bottom exclusive of the Hey Joe Mine 

OHV and mountain bike route. No new motorized routes will be considered. 

• Seven Mile Canyons Equestrian Focus Area (1,026 acres) inclusive of the north and south 

forks of Seven Mile Canyon westward from the junction of the two canyons. Equestrian use 

in this area will be restricted to private (non-commercial) horse use. No new motorized 

routes will be considered. 

Focus Areas -- Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring: 

• Klondike Bluffs Mountain Biking Focus Area (14,626 acres) between Arches National Park 

and U.S. 191. Work with Grand County and SITLA to establish mountain-bike only 

opportunities in the Klondike area. Manage the Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway 

Interpretive Trail for hiking only. 

• Bar M Mountain Biking Focus Area (2,904 acres) between Arches National Park, U.S. 

Highway 191, and the Bar M area state lands, exclusive of motorized access for the Copper 

Ridge Jeep Safari Route and the 191 rock quarry access road. Convert existing routes to 

mechanized use and provide for a limited number of new and connecting routes to support 

use of area as the destination for the 191 bike lane. Recommend that the old highway route in 

Moab Canyon be managed for non-motorized use to facilitate use of the route as part of the 

191 bike lane. 

• Tusher Slickrock Mountain Biking Focus Area (428 acres) on slickrock between Bartlett and 

Tusher Washes with main access from Bartlett Wash to reduce traffic in Tusher Canyon. 

Manage the Tusher Canyon slickrock and Bartlett slickrock areas for mountain bike and 

hiking use only. Cross-country mountain biking across slick rock will be allowed throughout 

this area. 

• Mill Canyon/Upper Courthouse Mountain Biking Focus Area (5,744 acres) inclusive of areas 

within the Mill Canyon and upper Courthouse drainages with continued use of the Seven 

Mile Rim Jeep Safari route for motorized use, with non-motorized trailheads near the Mill 

Canyon Dinosaur Trail and the Halfway Stage Station. Manage the Mill Canyon Dinosaur 

Trail for hiking only (35 miles of road designated for motorized travel; 23 miles of route 

managed for mechanized use only). 

Focus Area -- Motorized Backcountry Touring: 

• Gemini Bridges/Poison Spider Mesa Focus Area (16,299 acres) for multiple use, including 

full-size OHV, ATV, and motorcycle use with consideration given to managing routes 

suitable for each vehicle type. Travel will be intensively managed on designated routes only. 

Close the spur route to Gemini Bridges to facilitate public use and help restore damaged 

lands along the spur route. Construct a parking area near the bridges. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

92

Focus Areas -- Specialized Sport Venue (Non-motorized): 

• Mineral Canyon/Horsethief Point Competitive BASE Jumping Focus Area (762 acres) is 

established. 

• Bartlett Slickrock Freeride Focus Area (166 acres) is established. No man-made structures 

will be added to facilitate "stunt riding." 

Focus Areas – Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized): 

• Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area (35,290 acres) for motorcycle and ATV use: This is the 

area for competitive motorized events. Competitive routes within this area will be identified 

based on site-specific NEPA analysis. All routes designated for motorized use in the 

accompanying Travel Plan will remain open while Section 106 cultural resource inventories 

are conducted. If these inventories indicate the presence of eligible sites within the travel 

corridor, the route will be altered or closed. All new routes will require Section 106 cultural 

resource inventory prior to designation. Establish a managed OHV route system with 

provision for ongoing management of existing single-track routes to maintain their singletrack character. 

• Airport Hills Motocross Focus Area (285 acres): Manage the Focus Area for motocross use 

in partnership with local government under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. A patent 

will be issued to local government. 

Focus Area – Managed OHV area (cross country travel allowed): 

• White Wash Sand Dunes Open OHV Focus Area, (1,866 acres) encompassing the area 

around the dunes themselves. Manage the central portion of the White Wash Sand Dunes for 

motorized sand play with exception of the dune field cottonwood trees and White Wash 

water sources which will be closed to motorized travel and fenced. 

• Limit camping use in the White Wash Sand Dunes area to designated sites and establish 

basic camping facilities on the bench on the north side of White Wash. 

• Implement a fee system, under the guidelines of the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement 

Act, to help fund cost of intensive management of the White Wash Sand Dunes area. 

REC-40 

Lower Gray Canyon SRMA (Map17): 

• Manage as a Destination SRMA in coordination with the Price Field Office. 

• Manage river recreation in accordance with the Desolation-Gray Canyons Management Plan. 

• Manage the existing riverside and the parallel bench route loop trails from Nefertiti Rapid to 

Rattlesnake Canyon for hiking and equestrian use. 

• Vehicle camping limited to designated sites 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

93

REC-41 

Sand Flats Area SRMA (Map 17): 

• Manage as a Destination SRMA (6,246 acres). Guidance for management is included in the 

Sand Flats RAMP, which was approved in August of 1994, and is supported by the June 

1994 Cooperative Agreement with Grand County, which authorizes the county to collect fees 

for the benefit of the recreation area and participate in the operational management of the 

area to help implement the recreation area management plan. The following decisions are 

carried forward from these plans:

 

 Acquisition of State lands through exchange. 

 Provision for entrance and use fees. 

 Development of campgrounds. 

 Potential development of a drinking water source. 

 Provision for parking lots at the Slickrock and Little Spring trailheads. 

 Installation of toilets. 

 Development of an entrance station. 

 Provision for visitor protection. 

 Information and various services. 

 Limit camping to designated sites. 

 Limit OHV and mountain bike travel to designated routes. 

 Prohibit wood collecting and gathering. 

 Close the Moab Slickrock Bike Trail to four-wheeled vehicles and ATV use for safety 

purposes. 

 The Slickrock Bike Trail is open to motorcycles and mountain bikes only. 

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other 

surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix A) to protect recreation and scenic values. 

REC-42 

South Moab SRMA (Map 17): 

• Manage the South Moab SRMA (Map 17) as a Destination SRMA (63,999 acres). 

• Provide emphasis upon development of non-motorized trails through agreements with 

neighboring land owners through preparation of management guidance covering the Ken's 

Lake area. 

• Work with Grand and San Juan counties to establish the New Spanish Trail Bicycle Lane to 

provide safe bicycle access from Canyonlands Field to the Pack Creek Picnic Area. 

• Work with Moab City and Grand County to extend the Mill Creek Parkway to the Power 

Dam trailhead to provide safe access for cyclists and hikers. 

• Formalize and continue the existing partnership with the water district to share management 

expenses at Ken's Lake. 

• Manage the Mill Creek Power Dam hiking trailhead, the Ken's Lake Recreation Site, the 

Hidden Valley hiking trailhead and the Blue Hill multi-use trailhead as recreation sites. 

Continue to manage the Mill Creek Canyon hiking trails, the Ken's Lake hiking trail system, 

the Hidden Valley Hiking trail, the Steelbender/Flat Pass OHV/ mountain bike route, the 

Behind the Rocks OHV route, the Strike Ravine OHV route, and the Kane Creek Canyon 

Rim OHV/mountain bike route as recreation routes. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

94

• Limit camping to designated sites and prohibit wood gathering and cutting along the Black 

Ridge Road, the Pack Creek Road, the LaSal Mountain Loop Road and the Kane Creek 

Canyon Rim Road out to the Picture Frame Arch area. Prohibit camping on the west side of 

Spanish Valley, and in Mill Creek. 

• Manage Ken's Lake as a developed recreation site in partnership with the holders of the 

ROW for Ken's Lake (Spanish Valley Water and Sewer District). 

• Manage the Mill Creek Canyon planning area in accordance with the approved 

interdisciplinary Mill Creek Canyon Management Plan. 

• Work with Grand County, SITLA, and private land owners to establish the "Power line" trail 

along the west side of Moab and Spanish Valleys from Kane Creek Road near the river portal 

south via the Hidden Valley Trailhead to the southern end of the Behind the Rocks area. 

• Work with San Juan and Grand Counties, SITLA, and private land owners to establish the 

Red Rock Horse Trail along the east side of Spanish Valley via Ken's Lake from the 

Johnson's Up-on-Top Road to the Loop Road/Pack Creek junction area. 

• Work with the Backcountry Horsemen, SITLA and San Juan County to establish equestrian 

riding loop routes south from the Ken's Lake Trailhead. 

Focus Area -- Scenic Driving Corridors: 

• LaSal Mountain Loop Road Scenic Backway. Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The 

corridor is defined as: having a width of 1/2 mile from centerline (or to border of adjoining 

Focus Area) (see Appendix A). 

Focus Areas -- Non-mechanized Recreation: 

• Mill Creek Canyon Hiking Focus Area (16,950 acres) inclusive of the north and south forks 

of Mill Creek, Rill Creek, and Burkholder Draw south to the LaSal Mountain Loop Road 

with motorized use limited to the Steelbender OHV route and routes identified in the Travel 

Plan for this alternative. Emphasize management of the core area of Mill Creek to provide 

primitive hiking opportunities. Commercial equestrian use of Mill Creek Canyon and its 

tributaries will be prohibited except for use along the Steelbender/Flat Pass OHV/mountain 

bike route. No new motorized routes will be considered. 

• Behind the Rocks Hiking Focus Area (17,536 acres) inclusive of the area currently closed to 

motorized use in the 1985 RMP and the Hunter Canyon area between Pritchett Canyon and 

the eastern rim of Kane Creek Canyon exclusive of the Pritchett Canyon and Behind the 

Rocks OHV route. Manage the Hunter Canyon trail for hiking only. Emphasize management 

of the core area of Behind the Rocks to provide primitive hiking opportunities. No new 

motorized routes will be considered. 

Focus Area -- Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring: 

• Upper Spanish Valley Mountain Biking Focus Area (2,255 acres; Mud Spring Area) for 

development of a beginner to intermediate skill level mountain bike trail system through 

conversion of existing routes and development of new routes. Work with SITLA to expand 

route system on adjacent state lands. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

95

Focus Area -- Specialized Sport Venue (Non-motorized): 

• 24 Hours of Moab Focus Area (2,905 acres) will be established to facilitate mountain bike 

speed-related events. 

Focus Area -- Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized): 

• Potato Salad Hill Climbing Focus Area (41 acres) will be established within the boundary of 

the fenced areas emphasizing hill climbing events. Parking limitations will be established to 

limit vehicle group size. 

REC-43 

Two Rivers SRMA (Map 17): 

• Manage the Two Rivers SRMA (29,839 acres) as a Destination SRMA with the objective of 

continuing to provide distinct, high quality opportunities for recreational boating and 

camping, and to protect the outstanding resource values. Use launch systems and campsite 

assignments to reduce inter-party contacts. 

Boating Management -- State Line to Westwater Ranger Station: Manage for relatively high 

use flat water boating in conjunction with the Ruby/Horsethief Canyons section in Colorado. Coadminister a private boating or parking permit system and user limitations and fees in 

conjunction with Colorado BLM as a means of providing for adequate take-out. 

Boating Management -- Westwater Canyon: Manage to provide an opportunity for whitewater 

boating in a primitive and remote setting. Permits required for private and commercial use. 

Distribute potential use levels equally from May 1 to September 30 (allocation season) between 

private and commercial sectors (including guides). Establish maximum private group size of 25 

people and a daily launch limit of 75 people. For commercial use, establish a maximum trip size 

of 25 passengers, plus one crew member per passenger carrying craft, plus two additional crew. 

Establish a commercial daily launch limit of 75 passengers. Permit 18 commercial outfitters. 

Boating Management -- Cisco Landing to Dewey Bridge: Manage to provide an opportunity 

for scenic flat water boating or as an extension of Westwater Canyon trips. For private use, no 

restrictions on amount of use will be established. Permit 22 unallocated commercial permits. No 

further restrictions on amount of commercial use will be established. Manage the Dewey Bridge 

Recreation Site under the Colorado Riverway RAMP. 

Boating Management -- Dolores River from Bridge Canyon to its confluence with the 

Colorado River: Manage to provide opportunity for scenic whitewater boating trips. Permits 

required for private and commercial use. Establish maximum group size of 25 (excluding guides 

on commercial trips). Do not establish daily launch limits. Permit 14 unallocated commercial 

outfitters. 

Future Facilities: Acquire additional lands at the Westwater Ranger Station to include 

additional camping, parking and launch facilities. Seek to develop a take-out facility separate 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

96

from the Westwater Ranger Station launch ramp to reduce congestion at the ranger station. Seek 

opportunities to expand legal and physical access to facilitate camping at the Ranger Station. 

Focus Area -- Non-mechanized Recreation: 

• Establish the Westwater Canyon River Use and Hiking Focus Area (23,479 acres) inclusive 

of Westwater Canyon along the Colorado River between Westwater Ranch and Rose Ranch 

and the surrounding uplands. 

• New motorized routes will not be considered. 

REC-44 

Utah Rims SRMA (Map 17): 

Manage Utah Rims as a Community SRMA (15,424 acres) to provide sustainable opportunities 

for motorized, mechanized and non-motorized route related recreation while protecting and 

maintaining resource values including range, wildlife habitat, scenic, cultural, recreational, and 

riparian values in current or improved condition. Work with Colorado BLM to coordinate 

management of the Utah Rims and Rabbit Valley Colorado areas. Management actions will 

include: 

• Manage the Kokopelli's Trail for recreation use. 

• Manage Bitter Creek Campsite for camping. 

• Limit motorized and mechanized travel to a designated road and route system, including 

where feasible, the establishment and management of a network of single-track routes. 

• Acquisition of public access across non-Federal lands for the route system. 

• Development of a staging area. 

• Potential separation of types of single-track route use by time period. 

• Limited provision of camping facilities. 

• Prohibition of competitive, motorized events on the single-track route system to maintain its 

single-track nature. 

• Add single-track routes to the route system on a case-by-case basis pending resolution of 

resource concerns. 

REC-45 

Extensive Recreation Management Area: Manage all lands within the MPA not within an 

SRMA as the Moab Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA; see Map 17 and Appendix 

M). 

ERMA lands may be designated as SRMAs in the future based on intensity of use and will be 

analyzed through the plan amendment process. 

Minimal facilities may be constructed in the ERMA as needed to insure visitor health and safety, 

reduce user conflict, and protect resources. 

Provide general recreation management guidance and subsequent implementation of 

management actions for activity plan level actions for the Moab ERMA through development of 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

97

a Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP). Address both site-related issues (development 

and management in response to user demand and changing conditions) and backcountry 

management issues (the retention of backcountry characteristics, e.g., low level of development, 

relative lack of crowding, and feeling of remoteness). 

Amend the RMP, as necessary, for RMP level recreation and non-recreation actions proposed 

through the RAMP developed subsequent to RMP approval. 

Manage OHV travel as limited to designated routes or closed, depending on the specific area (see 

Travel Management section, beginning on page 2-47). 

Monitor recreation activity in the Moab ERMA to maintain recreation opportunities and protect 

resource values. 

Continue making improvements to sites and areas as necessary and supported by activity and 

project level planning to balance demand for recreation opportunities and protection of the 

recreation resource base. 

Continue to manage the Utah portion of the Kokopelli's Trail as a multi-day mountain bike and 

vehicle route (in part) with associated camping areas. 

Develop basic camping and trailhead facilities to serve the Lost Spring Canyon area should use 

levels and impacts warrant. 

Construct information boards at the main exits along I-70 to inform visitors about recreation 

opportunities, travel management, low impact recreation techniques, and visitor safety issues. 

Upper Fisher Mesa (1,365 acres) will be managed to emphasize mountain biking. BLM will 

convert existing roads and provide new connecting routes for bicycle use in conjunction with the 

existing bike route within the Manti-LaSal National Forest. Motorized access will be retained 

along the main existing Fisher Mesa access road. 

Manage the Bookcliffs area (335,457 acres) for non-mechanized recreation, especially equestrian 

use, hiking, backpacking and big game hunting. It will be managed for low frequency of visitor 

interaction by not establishing new motorized or mechanized recreation routes, no commercial 

motorized permits will be issued, and competitive events will not be allowed. 

Manage the Sego Canyon Rock Art Site as a day use recreation area. Consider acquisition of the 

adjacent private rock art area north of the interpretive site to expand interpretive opportunities.

REC-46 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs): SRPs are issued as a discretionary action as a means to: 

help meet management objectives, provide opportunities for economic activity, facilitate 

recreational use of the public lands, control visitor use, protect recreational and natural resources, 

and provide for the health and safety of visitors. Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs will 

be applied where appropriate. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Recreation 

98

REC-47 

Priority for authorization of new SRPs for events are given to applicants proposing uses that: do 

not duplicate existing events; take place outside of March, April, May, and October; make use of 

less-crowded weekdays; utilize facilities off public lands for overnight accommodation of guests; 

display and communicate the Canyon Country Minimum Impact Practices; and focus visitation 

on sites and areas capable of withstanding repeated use. 

REC-48 

All SRPs will contain standard stipulations appropriate for the type of activity and may include 

additional stipulations necessary to protect lands or resources, reduce user conflicts, or minimize 

health and safety concerns. 

REC-49 

There will be no competitive mechanized or motorized events in Wilderness Study Areas while 

these areas are managed under the IMP. 

REC-50 

Issue and manage special recreation permits for a wide variety of uses to enhance outdoor 

recreational opportunities, provide opportunities for private enterprise, manage user-group 

interaction, and limit the impacts of such uses upon natural and cultural resources. Organized 

group permits required for groups with 25 or more vehicles (one driver/vehicle). 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Riparian 

99

RIPARIAN (RIP)

Goals and Objectives: 

Manage riparian areas for properly functioning condition (PFC) and ensure stream channel 

morphology and functions are appropriate for local soil type, climate, and landform. 

Avoid or minimize the disturbance, loss, or degradation of riparian, wetland, and associated 

floodplains; preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values; and provide for fish, wildlife 

and special status species habitats. 

Management Decisions: 

RIP-1 

Manage riparian resources for PFC, which is described as the presence of adequate vegetation, 

landforms, or large woody debris, in accordance with the Utah Standards for Public Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management for BLM Lands in Utah and with the Grazing 

Guidelines for Grazing Management. 

RIP-2 

Retain the Between the Creeks, North Sand Flats, and South Sand Flats Allotments as not 

available for grazing to benefit riparian resources. These allotments include the following 

streams: Negro Bill Canyon, portions of Mill Creek, and Rill Creek. 

RIP-3 

Mitigation to reduce impacts to floodplains and riparian areas include (from Standards for Public 

Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management for BLM Lands in Utah and BLM 

Riparian Manual 1737): 

• Where feasible and consistent with user safety, developed travel routes will be 

located/relocated away from sensitive riparian/wetland areas. 

• Camping in riparian areas will be avoided and must be managed, monitored, and modified as 

conditions dictate to reduce vegetation disturbance and sedimentation. 

• Stream crossings will be limited in number dictated by the topography, geology, and soil 

type. Design any necessary stream crossings to minimize sedimentation, soil erosion and 

compaction (minimize longitudinal routes along stream banks, design crossings 

perpendicular to the stream). 

• Where necessary, control recreational use by changing location or kind of activity, season, 

intensity, distribution and/or duration. 

• Grazing actions to meet riparian objectives include vegetation use limits, fencing, herding, 

change of livestock class, temporary closures, change of season, and/or alternate 

development or relocation of water sources. 

• Any water diversions from riparian areas by BLM or non-BLM entities will be designed and 

constructed to protect ecological processes and functions. 

• Implement weed management stipulations and education to reduce spread of noxious weeds 

along stream corridors. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Riparian 

100

RIP-4 

To the extent possible, mineral removal and lease development (including placer mining) must 

be located away from water's edge and outside of riparian/wetland zones. 

RIP-5 

Limit activities in riparian areas, as necessary, to achieve and maintain PFC. 

RIP-6 

Grazing actions to meet riparian objectives can include fencing, herding, change of livestock 

class, temporary closures, and/or change of livestock season of use. 

RIP-7 

Preclude surface-disturbing activities within 100-year floodplains and within 100 meters of 

riparian areas, public water reserves, and springs. 

RIP-8 

Prioritize restoration activities in riparian systems that are Functioning at Risk or Nonfunctioning. 

RIP-9 

Continue to apply integrated species management to accomplish riparian restoration through 

biological, chemical, mechanical, and manual methods (e.g., tamarisk control, willow plantings). 

RIP-10 

Acquire riparian lands and water resources (from willing sellers) to preserve and maintain 

riparian habitat and instream flow. 

RIP-11 

Do not dispose of riparian or wetland resources unless resource loss is mitigated. 

RIP-12 

Develop watershed management plans for impaired systems as identified in current TMDL 

reports (e.g., Onion Creek, Mill Creek, and Castle Creek). 

RIP-13 

Close riparian areas to woodcutting, except where permitted for traditional cultural practices 

identified for Native Americans or for restoration to benefit riparian values. 

RIP-14 

Establish Lower South Fork of Seven Mile Canyon as a Riparian/Wetland Demonstration Area 

for the improvement and restoration of riparian, wetland and wildlife resources. 

RIP-15 

Grazing will not be authorized on portions of the following streams (listed with affected 

allotments): the Colorado River from Dewey Bridge to Hittle Bottom (Professor Valley), and 

Lower Kane Creek (Kane Creek Springs). 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Riparian 

101

RIP-16 

Management strategies will be implemented to restore degraded riparian communities, protect 

natural flow requirements, protect water quality, and manage for year-round flow. 

RIP-17 

Grazing Actions: Evaluate non-functioning and functioning at risk riparian areas using 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management to determine 

if restriction from grazing will improve riparian functioning condition. The following riparian 

areas will be given priority for evaluation: Ten Mile from Dripping Spring to the Green River, 

Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon, and East Coyote (totaling 1,420 acres). 

RIP-18 

Grazing Actions: Cottonwood, Bogart, Pear Park and Diamond Allotments (which include 

Cottonwood and Diamond Canyons) will continue to be not available to grazing to benefit 

riparian resources. Castle Valley will also not be available for grazing. Spring Creek will be 

available for grazing. 

RIP-19 

Season-of-Use: Season of use adjustments will be made on a case-by-case basis to achieve PFC. 

RIP-20 

Watershed Management Plans: Prioritize development and implementation of the Watershed 

Management Plans and riparian studies for the following areas: Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, 

Bartlett Wash, Tusher Wash, Mill Canyon, Courthouse Wash, Cottonwood-Diamond, and Onion 

Creek. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Soil and Water 

102

SOIL AND WATER (SOL-WAT)

Goals and Objectives: 

Manage watersheds to enhance ecosystem health and provide for public uses. 

Maintain and improve existing water quality by ensuring that all authorized uses on public lands 

comply with State water quality standards and with the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Act. 

Manage watersheds to maintain or improve soil quality and long-term productivity. 

Management Decisions: 

SOL-WAT-1 

Comply with all State, Federal and local laws to protect municipal watersheds (Thompson, 

Moab, and Castle Valley), and watersheds of any public or private water supply such as 

Windwhistle Campground, Westwater Ranger Station, La Sal Creek, and Browns Hole. 

SOL-WAT-2 

Coordinate with Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining to remediate existing Abandoned Mine 

Lands sites. 

SOL-WAT-3 

Comply with Floodplain Executive Order 11988. 

SOL-WAT-4 

BLM will work with partners to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and continue 

BLM's cooperative work with the Utah Divisions of Water Rights and Water Quality in 

accordance with the administrative memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the cooperative 

agreement addressing water quality monitoring. 

SOL-WAT-5 

Allow no surface occupancy and preclude surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix A) within 

100-year floodplains, within 100 meters of a natural spring, or within public water reserves. 

SOL-WAT-6 

In cooperation with Grand and San Juan Counties, develop BMPs for road maintenance and 

construction in high risk areas (e.g., floodplains, riparian zones, and areas with sensitive soils). 

SOL-WAT-7 

Continue management of the Mill Creek planning area in accordance with the Mill Creek 

Management Plan (2001). 

SOL-WAT-8 

Develop watershed management plans for municipal watersheds to ensure water sources are 

protected adequately. Monitor municipal water quality/watershed conditions. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Soil and Water 

103

SOL-WAT-9 

To protect sensitive soils on slopes, apply a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing 

and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix A) prohibiting surface-disturbing activities 

on slopes in the Bookcliffs (see Map 19) greater than 30% from November 1 to April 30. This 

restriction includes road construction and traffic on existing roads associated with initial drilling 

operations. In addition, apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas and other 

surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix A) on slopes greater than 30% throughout the MPA. 

SOL-WAT-10 

Follow Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) recommendations on 303(d) listed streams, 

currently Mill, Castle, and Onion Creeks. 

SOL-WAT-11 

Minimize surface disturbance in areas identified as having "sensitive soils" unless long-term 

impacts can be mitigated. 

SOL-WAT-12 

Maintain vegetation based on desired future condition to provide adequate ground cover to 

prevent accelerated erosion in wind erodible soils. 

SOL-WAT-13 

Apply environmental BMPs to all oil and gas authorizations in accordance to WO IM 2007-021 

and the most current version of the "Goldbook." 

SOL-WAT-14 

Develop BMPs to address health and safety concerns associated with blowing dust along U.S. 

191 and I-70. 

SOL-WAT-15 

Maintain or improve soil quality and long-term soil productivity through the implementation of 

Standards for Rangeland Health and other soil protection measures. 

SOL-WAT-16 

Manage uses to minimize and mitigate damage to soils. 

SOL-WAT-17 

Maintain and/or restore overall watershed health and reduce erosion, stream sedimentation, and 

salinization of water. 

SOL-WAT-18 

Coordinate with Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency to ensure required minimum instream 

flow of 3.0 cfs in Mill Creek below the Sheley diversion. 

SOL-WAT-19 

Implement portions of Greater Sagers Wash Watershed Management Plan that pertain to surface 

disturbance. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Soil and Water 

104

SOL-WAT-20 

No additional OHV routes will be allowed in saline soils other than those already designated in 

the Travel Plan accompanying this RMP (see Appendix N). An exception will be considered on a 

case-by-case basis for proposed routes in the Dee Pass Motorized Focus Area and in the Utah 

Rims SRMA. Exceptions could also be considered on a case-by-case basis outside these two 

areas if potential impacts could be mitigated and if the action will benefit other natural and 

cultural resources. 

SOL-WAT-21 

Develop BMPs for activities on saline and other sensitive soils. 

SOL-WAT-22 

Specific recommendations regarding surface and subsurface pipeline crossings found in 

Guidance for Pipeline Crossings (see Appendix O) will be implemented to prevent breakage and 

subsequent contamination. 

SOL-WAT-23 

Implement guidelines from Technical Reference 1730-2, where feasible, to protect or restore the 

functions of biological soil crusts. 

SOL-WAT-24 

Manage public lands in a manner consistent with the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, 

implementing BMPs and watershed restoration projects to reduce salinity contributions to the 

Colorado River system. 

SOL-WAT-25 

Aquifers/Watersheds: Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation to oil and gas leasing and 

preclude other surface-disturbing activities in the Castle Valley watershed in order to protect the 

sole source, unconfined, surficial aquifer. 

SOL-WAT-26 

Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation to oil and gas leasing and preclude other surfacedisturbing activities in the Mill Creek-Spanish Valley watershed in order to protect the aquifer 

for the Moab area. 

SOL-WAT-27 

Saline Soils in Mancos Shale: To minimize watershed damage on saline soils in the Mancos 

Shale, apply a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing 

activities (see Appendix A) prohibiting surface-disturbing activities on 330,142 acres of 

moderately to highly saline soils in the Mancos Shale (see Map 20) from December 1 to May 31. 

This restriction includes road construction and traffic on existing roads associated with drilling 

operations 

SOL-WAT-28 

Grazing: Use grazing systems and develop AMPs to minimize impacts to saline Soils. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Soil and Water 

105

SOL-WAT-29 

Watershed Management Plans: Prioritize development and implementation of the Watershed 

Management Plans for the following areas: Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, Bartlett Wash, Tusher 

Wash, Mill Canyon, Courthouse Wash, Cottonwood-Diamond, and Onion Creek. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Designations: 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

106

SPECIAL DESIGNATION: AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

(ACEC)

Goals and Objectives: 

The term "Area of Critical Environmental Concern" means areas within the public lands where 

special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no 

development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 

cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to 

protect life and safety from natural hazards (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1702(a)). 

Management Decisions: 

ACEC-1 

Designate, modify and manage areas as ACECs (see Map 21) where special management 

attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or 

scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life 

and safety from natural hazards. In those areas where ACECs overlap with WSAs, the WSA 

management prescriptions, as stipulated in the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review (IMP), will take precedence. 

ACEC-2 

ACECs will be avoidance areas for all ROWs, including wind, solar energy and communication 

sites. 

ACEC-3 

Behind the Rocks (5,201 acres) will be designated as an ACEC. This area excludes the Behind 

the Rocks WSA, which will be managed according to the IMP to protect wilderness values. 

Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of natural systems 

(threatened, sensitive and endangered plants), cultural resources and scenery, the following 

management prescriptions will apply: 

• Designate as VRM Class II. 

• No vegetation treatments (except for exotic/noxious weeds). 

• Cultural resources in Behind the Rocks ACEC will be prioritized for Class III inventory. 

• Vehicle-based camping only in campgrounds. No campfires outside of campgrounds. 

• No new motorized or mechanized routes; motorized/mechanized travel limited to designated 

routes. 

• Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix A). 

• No commercial or private use of woodland products. 

ACEC-4 

Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed (35,830 acres) will be designated as an ACEC. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Designations: 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

107

Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of natural systems, and to 

mitigate the natural hazards due to fire, the following management prescriptions will apply: 

• Continue to keep area not available to livestock grazing. 

• Close to vehicle use at the end of the Class B-road system, except for administrative 

access. 

• No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized travel limited to 

designated routes outside the WSA, and closed in the WSA. 

• No competitive events. 

• Suspend commercial permits (guiding or special groups). 

• ACEC will only be designated until hazard is no longer present. At that point, management 

will revert to the IMP. 

• About 34,027 acres within the WSA are closed to oil and gas leasing, and the remaining 

1,804 acres will be managed as no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing. Other surfacedisturbing activities will be precluded (see Appendix A). 

ACEC-5 

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon (13,500 acres) will be designated as an ACEC. 

Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of scenery, wildlife, 

natural systems (threatened, sensitive, and endangered plants), and cultural resources, the 

following management prescriptions will apply: 

• Designate Highway 279 and Long Canyon as VRM Class II; manage the remainder of the 

ACEC as VRM I. 

• Permitted activities will be confined to main roads within crucial bighorn lambing habitat 

from April 1 through June 15. This restriction will not apply to filming if the filming meets 

the minimum impact criteria (see Appendix H). 

• Wall Street rock art sites will be managed for public use with the emphasis on interpretation. 

• Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes. 

• Vehicle-based camping only in designated campgrounds. 

• No campfires except in campgrounds. 

• Retain ACEC in public ownership except for the previously initiated Moab Salt Exchange 

Parcel (635 acres). Manage the entire area as no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing 

and preclude other surface-disturbing activities. 

ACEC-6 

Mill Creek Canyon (3,721 acres) will be designated as an ACEC. This area excludes the Mill 

Creek Canyon WSA. The Mill Creek Canyon WSA (9,780 acres) will be managed according to 

the IMP to protect wilderness values. 

Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of cultural resources, 

scenery, natural systems: (cold water fishery/riparian/watershed and wildlife), the following 

management prescriptions will apply to 3,721 acres in the ACEC: 

• Recreation activities will be managed according to the South Moab SRMA. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Designations: 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

108

• Prioritize Mill Creek for Class III cultural inventory. 

• Protect Native American traditional cultural places. 

• Designate as VRM Class II. 

• Livestock grazing will not be available. 

• No vehicle-based camping. 

• No campfires in riparian areas. 

• Motorized competitive events will be prohibited. 

• No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized travel limited to 

designated routes. 

• All recreational events will be confined to the designated roads in the ACEC. 

• Limit recreation facility development to day-use only. 

• Acquire state land within ACEC as the opportunity arises. 

• Maintain 3 cfs in the South Fork of Mill Creek below the Sheley diversion. 

• Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix A). 

• No recreational mining will be allowed. 

• No fuel wood harvesting permits will be issued. 

• Private wood gathering for backpacking campfires will be allowed in the uplands only. 

ACEC-7 

Ten Mile Wash (4,980 acres) will be designated as an ACEC. 

Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of natural systems 

(riparian/wetlands), wildlife, cultural resources and natural hazards, the following management 

prescriptions will apply: 

• Prioritize Ten Mile for Class III cultural inventory. 

• Prioritize Ten Mile as a scientific research area. 

• Grazing will be allowed on a limited basis in Ten Mile Canyon downstream from Dripping 

Springs, with changes subject to future monitoring and conformance with Standards for 

Rangeland Health. 

• Prioritize area for riparian restoration. 

• Restrict camping and campfires to designated sites at Dripping Spring. 

• Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes. 

• No competitive events. 

• Establish speed limits. 

• Reroute designated road around the wetlands south of the cattle guard near Dripping Springs. 

• Restrict vehicle access at the Green River; designate a parking area at the Green River. 

• Permits for motorized recreational use may be required if monitoring indicates long-term 

damage. 

• Require permits for groups greater than 25 vehicles. 

• Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix A). 

• No commercial or private collection of woodland products. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Designations: 

National Trails and Backways 

109

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: NATIONAL TRAILS AND BACKWAYS (TRA)

Management Decisions: 

National Historic Trail – Old Spanish Trail 

TRA-1 

Segments of the Old Spanish Trail will be identified and classified for historic integrity and 

condition. These segments will then be designated for appropriate types of management and 

travel. 

TRA-2 

Landmarks along the Old Spanish Trail will be identified for historic integrity and interpreted 

only if the action will not impact the values at the site. All interpretation projects will be done in 

consultation with Native Americans and other interested parties including the Old Spanish Trail 

Association and National Park Service. 

TRA-3 

Consider plan amendment, as necessary, to incorporate provisions of the forthcoming Old 

Spanish Trail Comprehensive Management Plan. 

TRA-4 

Participate in the development of the management plan for the Old Spanish Trail Comprehensive 

Management Plan and assist with its implementation as opportunities arise, consistent with other 

decisions of the RMP. 

TRA-5 

Support protective management, interpretation, and public enjoyment and understanding of the 

National Historic Old Spanish Trail, consistent with the Old Spanish Trail Comprehensive 

Management Plan. 

TRA-6 

Seek to acquire public access to the site of the Old Spanish Trail ford of the Green River, 

upstream from the town of Green River, Utah, for the purpose of developing an interpretive site. 

TRA-7 

Consistent with the Cameo Cliffs and Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plans 

(RAMPs), consider developing and managing a section of the Old Spanish Trail for equestrian 

use.
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Designations: 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

110

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR)

Goals and Objectives: 

Review all eligible rivers to determine suitability for Congressional designation into the National 

Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). 

To the extent of the BLM's authority (limited to BLM lands within the river corridor), maintain 

and enhance the free flowing character, preserve and enhance the outstandingly remarkable 

values, and allow no activities within the river corridor that will alter the classification of those 

river segments determined suitable for congressional designation in the NWSRS until Congress 

acts. 

Management Decisions: 

WSR-1 

River segments found suitable and recommended for designation will be managed to protect 

their free-flowing condition and to protect the outstandingly remarkable values and maintain the 

tentative classification within line-of-sight up to 1/4 mile (1/3 miles on the Colorado and Dolores 

Rivers) from the high water mark on each bank of the river (not to exceed 320 acres per mile). 

Management that will apply should any rivers be designated by Congress is identified in BLM 

Manual 8351.51 (see Appendix P and Map 22 for river segments found suitable for WSR 

designation). 

WSR-2 

BLM will not seek water rights as part of a suitability decision made in the Record of Decision 

for this RMP. 

WSR-3 

WSR segments recommended as suitable for Wild will be designated as VRM Class I, closed to 

oil and gas leasing and closed to motorized travel; Scenic and Recreational segments will be 

designated as VRM Class II, managed with a no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing and 

other surface disturbing activities, and managed with travel limited to designated routes. 

WSR-4 

OHV travel will be limited to designated routes or closed, depending on the river segment. 

WSR-5 

The stipulations that will be applied to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities 

within suitable river segments have been developed based on other resource values such as 

scenery, wildlife and fisheries, riparian, and recreation. In all cases, these stipulations are 

sufficient to protect the outstandingly remarkable values. All suitable segments will be managed 

with a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing as well as all other surfacedisturbing activities, or as closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix A and Map 12 for the 

surface stipulations application to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities). 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Designations: 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

111

WSR-6 

BLM will work with the State of Utah, local and tribal governments, and other federal agencies, 

in a state-wide study, to reach consensus regarding recommendations to Congress for the 

inclusion of rivers in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Besides applying consistent 

criteria across agency jurisdictions, the joint study will avoid piecemealing 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 

segment(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). 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-7 

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, 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 segment(s). Such 

quantifications will be included in any recommendation for designation. 

WSR-8 

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. 

WSR-9 

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 which led to the river’s inclusion into the system. BLM’s intent will be 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 BLM’s position that existing 

water rights, including flow apportioned to the State of Utah interstate agreements and compacts, 

including the Upper Colorado River Compact, and developments of such rights will not be 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Designations: 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

112

affected by designation or the creation of the possible federal reserved water right. 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-10 

Designate Colorado River Segment 2 – (Westwater Canyon from Mile 125 to River Mile 112) as 

suitable for recommendation into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System with a 

classification of “Wild”. 

WSR-11 

Designate Colorado River Segment 3(a) – (River Mile 112 to Cisco Wash) as suitable for 

recommendation into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System with a classification of 

“Scenic”. 

WSR-12 

Designate Colorado River Segment 3(b) – (Cisco Wash to the confluence of the Colorado with 

the Dolores River) as suitable for recommendation into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System with a classification of “Recreational”. 

WSR-13 

Designate Colorado River Segment 4 – (Confluence of the Colorado with the Dolores River to 

Mile 49 near Potash) as suitable for recommendation into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

with a classification of “Recreational”. 

WSR-14 

Designate Colorado River Segment 5 – (Mile 44.5 to Mile 38.5) as suitable for recommendation 

into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System with a classification of “Scenic”. 

WSR-15 

Designate Colorado River Segment 6 – (Mile 37.5 to 34 at the Canyonlands National Park 

boundary) as suitable for recommendation into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System with a 

classification of “Scenic”. 

WSR-16 

Designate Dolores River Segment 1 – (Colorado State line to Fisher Creek) as suitable for 

recommendation into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System with a classification of “Recreational”. 

WSR-17 

Designate Dolores River Segment 2 – (Fisher Creek to Bridge Canyon) as suitable for 

recommendation into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System with a classification of “Scenic”. 

WSR-18 

Designate Dolores River Segment 3 – (Bridge Canyon to the Colorado River) as suitable for 

recommendation into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System with a classification of “Recreational”. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Designations: 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

113

WSR-19 

Designate Green River Segment 1 – (Coal Creek to Nefertiti Boat Ramp) as suitable for 

recommendation into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System with a classification “Wild”. 

WSR-20 

Designate Green River Segment 2 – (Nefertiti Boat Ramp to Swasey’s Boat Ramp) as suitable 

for recommendation into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System with a classification of 

“Recreational”. 

WSR-21 

Designate Green River Segment 4(a) – (Mile 97 at the confluence with the San Rafael River to 

Canyonlands National Park boundary) as suitable for recommendation into the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System with a classification of “Scenic”. 

WSR-22 

The suitability of Salt Wash is deferred until the National Park Service does its suitability study 

on the portion of Salt Wash that is within Arches National Park. Salt Wash remains eligible and 

is managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative 

classification. By default, the lower 0.25 miles of this 0.3 mile segment is within Segment 4 of 

the Colorado River. Consequently, it is managed as suitable with a “recreation” classification. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Designations: 

Designated Wilderness 

114

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: DESIGNATED WILDERNESS (DW)

Goals and Objectives: 

Manage the Black Ridge Wilderness Area to provide for the protection of wilderness character 

and for the use and enjoyment of visitors in a manner that leaves it unimpaired for future use (43 

CFR 8560). 

Management Decisions: 

DW-1 

Manage Black Ridge Wilderness Area (5,200 acres; part of the McInnis Canyon National 

Conservation Area) in accordance with applicable law, regulation, policy, and management for 

the area (see Map 23). 

DW-2 

For designated Wilderness, any new development or surface disturbance is for wilderness 

purposes, and the lands are closed to mineral leasing and location. These are non-discretionary, 

non-planning decisions. 

DW-3 

Designate Black Ridge Wilderness Area as VRM I. 

DW-4 

Manage Black Ridge Wilderness Area as closed to motorized travel. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Designations: 

Wilderness Study Areas 

115

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA)

Goals and Objectives: 

Preserve the wilderness character of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) until Congress designates 

them wilderness or releases them. 

Management Decisions: 

WSA-1 

Manage WSAs under the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review 

(IMP; USDI-BLM 1995; see Map 23). Manage for the continued preservation of each WSA's 

wilderness character. 

WSA-2 

For WSAs, no surface disturbance, permanent new development, or ROWs are allowed, and the 

lands are closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix A). 

WSA-3 

Only Congress can release a WSA from wilderness consideration. Should any WSA, in part or in 

whole, be released from wilderness consideration, proposals in the released area will be 

examined on a case-by-case basis. All proposals inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the 

Approved RMP will be deferred until completion of requisite plan amendments. Because a plan 

amendment will be required, there is no separate analysis in this Land-use Plan to address 

resource impacts if any WSAs are released. 

WSA-4 

Fire activities and projects in WSAs will follow the IMP. 

WSA-5 

Designate WSAs as VRM Class I. 

WSA-6 

Under the Approved RMP, where routes will remain available for motorized use within WSAs, 

such use could continue on a conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs ("ways" 

when located within WSAs – see Glossary) could continue as long as use of these routes does 

not impair wilderness suitability, as provided by the Interim Management Policy for Lands 

Under Wilderness Review (BLM 7/5/95). The miles of motorized routes in WSAs (see below for 

miles of route per WSA) are only conditionally open to vehicle use. If Congress designates the 

area as wilderness, the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or non-compliance are 

found through monitoring efforts to impair the area's suitability for wilderness designation, BLM 

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. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Designations: 

Wilderness Study Areas 

116

WSA-7 

Travel Management within WSAs: 

• Behind the Rocks WSA (12,635 acres): Designate a portion of the Behind the Rocks WSA as 

closed to OHV use (11,822 acres). Designate OHV use in the remainder of the WSA as 

limited to designated routes (813 acres, with 0.9 miles of designated route). 

• Black Ridge (52 acres) and Lost Spring Canyon (1,624 acres) WSAs Designate Black Ridge 

and Lost Spring Canyon WSAs as limited to designated routes, with 0.8 miles of route 

designated in Lost Spring Canyon WSA and 0 miles of route designated in Black Ridge 

WSA. 

• Desolation Canyon (81,603 acres), Floy Canyon (72,605 acres), Flume Canyon (50,800 acres), 

Coal Canyon (60,755 acres), Mill Creek Canyon (9,780 acres), Negro Bill Canyon (7,820 acres), 

and Spruce Canyon (20,990 acres) WSAs: (Acreage of Desolation Canyon WSA is for the 

MPA portion only. Remainder of this WSA is managed by the Price Field Office. Acreage of 

Flume Canyon WSA includes 2,750 acres in areas administered by the Vernal Field Office.): 

Designate these WSAs as closed to OHV. No miles of route are designated. 

• Westwater Canyon WSA (31,160 acres): Designate a portion of the Westwater Canyon WSA 

as closed to OHV (23,690 acres). Designate the remainder of the WSA as limited to 

designated routes, with no miles of route designated. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Status Species 

117

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES (SSS)

Goals and Objectives: 

Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats (including but not limited to designated critical habitat) 

of Federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate plant or animal species to actively 

promote recovery to the point that they no longer need protection under the Endangered Species 

Act. 

Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats of BLM (State) Sensitive plant and animal species to 

prevent the listing of these species under the Endangered Species Act. 

Implement management strategies that restore degraded riparian communities; protect natural 

flow requirements; protect water quality; manage for stable, non-eroding banks; and manage for 

year-round flows where applicable. 

Allow or participate in research of threatened and endangered (T&E) and Sensitive species and 

their habitats. 

Avoid practices that permanently convert sagebrush shrubland to invasive species. 

Management Decisions: 

SSS-1 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, implement recovery actions identified in Recovery 

Plans and in Conservation Agreements, Plans and Strategies in coordination with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), and other interested 

entities. The BLM will be an active participant in all recovery implementation teams. 

SSS-2 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, the protection of habitat for listed and non-listed 

plant and animal species will be considered prior to authorizing any actions that could alter or 

disturb such habitat. 

SSS-3 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, no management action will be permitted on public 

lands that will jeopardize the continued existence of plant or animal species that are listed or are 

officially proposed or are candidates for listing as T&E. 

SSS-4 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, surveys of habitat or potential habitat for special 

status species (including any sensitive species under consideration for formal designation as 

T&E) will be made prior to taking any action that could affect these species. Surveys will be 

conducted using protocols established for potentially affected species. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Status Species 

118

SSS-5 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, BLM will conduct or cooperate in surveys to 

determine the extent of listed and non-listed plant and animal species and their habitat or 

potential habitat. Any listed or non-listed special status species survey must be conducted by 

qualified biologists, botanists, or ecologists that have been approved by the BLM. 

SSS-6 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, monitoring, using approved protocol, will be 

required on listed and non-listed special status species habitat that may be affected by BLM 

authorization of any activities within that habitat. 

SSS-7 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, follow current and future recovery plans and 

manage habitat for T&E and BLM Sensitive species: 

• Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. 

• Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Colorado 

Squawfish Recovery Plan. 

• Humpback Recovery Plan. 

• Humpback Chub Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Humpback Recovery 

Plan. 

• Bonytail Recovery Plan. 

• Bonytail Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Bonytail Recovery Plan. 

• Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. 

• Razorback Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery 

Plan. 

• Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. 

• Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. 

• Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl. 

• Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. 

SSS-8 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, support and implement special status plant and 

animal Species Management Plans. Coordinate actions with UDWR and other involved entities. 

Support population and habitat monitoring. 

SSS-9 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, support and implement current and future special 

status plant and animal species Conservation Plans, Strategies, and Agreements. Coordinate 

actions with USFWS and other involved entities. Support population and habitat monitoring. As 

of 2005, Conservation Plans Strategies and Agreements include: 

• Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation Agreement and Strategy Conservation 

Agreement for the Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker and Flannelmouth Sucker (see Map 

24). 

• Follow current and future Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices (BMP) for 

Federally Listed Species (see Appendix R). Species include but are not limited to: Jones 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Status Species 

119

Cycladenia, Mexican Spotted Owl, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Bald Eagle, and the 

Endangered Fish of the Colorado River. 

SSS-10 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, work with UDWR to implement the Utah Wildlife 

Action Plan (UDWR 2005a) to coordinate management actions that will conserve native species 

and prevent the need for additional listings. 

SSS-11 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, mitigate all unavoidable habitat losses for special 

status species as required by policy or law. 

SSS-12 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, avoid construction of new roads within listed and 

non-listed special status plant and animal species habitats. 

SSS-13 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, apply lease notices for listed plant and animal 

species as determined by Section 7 consultation between BLM and USFWS. Apply appropriate 

lease notices for any non-listed special status plant and animal species that occur or could 

potential occur applicable proposed lease areas. 

SSS-14 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, develop cooperative agreements with other agencies 

or entities to inventory and/or monitor existing or potential habitat for listed and non-listed 

special status plant and animal species. 

SSS-15 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, plan and implement assessment and monitoring 

plans for T&E and BLM Sensitive species. 

SSS-16 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, participate in the Colorado River Fishes Recovery 

and Implementation Program. 

SSS-17 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, coordinate with USFWS and UDWR to allow for 

the reintroduction of T&E and BLM Sensitive species into historic or suitable range. These 

reintroductions will be analyzed with site-specific NEPA. 

SSS-18 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, allow translocations and population augmentation of 

special status species to aid in conservation and recovery efforts. Implement necessary habitat 

manipulations and monitoring to ensure successful translocation efforts. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Status Species 

120

SSS-19 

As required by the Endangered Species Act, apply environmental best management practices 

(BMPs) to all oil and gas operations in accordance with WO IM 2007-021 and the latest version 

of the "Goldbook" (see Appendix A). 

SSS-20 

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO): 

• If BLM determines that a proposed action may affect MSO or its habitat, consultation with 

the USFWS will be initiated (see Map 25). 

• Monitor and protect known Protected Activity Center (PAC) sites according to USFWS 

recommendations and MSO Recovery Plan. 

• Manage habitat for MSO according to USFWS and UDWR recommendations and recovery 

plans. 

• Develop cooperative agreements with other agencies and entities to inventory and monitor 

existing potential habitat and annually schedule assessment plans of MSO habitat to 

determine quality of habitat and presence of species. 

• Protect occupied and potential habitat, including designated critical habitat for the MSO, by 

applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for 

oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and 

Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to 

Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix A). These stipulations will preclude 

temporary activities within designated critical habitat from March 1 through August 31. 

Permanent actions are prohibited year-round within 0.5 miles of a PAC. 

SSS-21 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWFL): 

• If BLM determines that a proposed action may affect SWFL or its habitat, consultation with 

the USFWS will be initiated. 

• Monitor and protect known nesting sites according to USFWS recommendations and SWFL 

Recovery Plan. 

• Manage habitat for SWFL according to USFWS and UDWR recommendations and recovery 

plans; avoid loss or disturbance of suitable riparian habitat. 

• Develop cooperative agreements with other agencies and entities to inventory and monitor 

existing potential habitat and annually schedule assessment plans of SWFL habitat to 

determine quality of habitat and presence of species. 

• Protect SWFL and their habitat by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in 

consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities 

(see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special 

Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix A) within 

suitable habitat. These stipulations will preclude activities within a 100-m buffer of suitable 

habitat year long. Activities within 0.25 miles of occupied breeding habitat will not occur 

during the breeding season, May 1 through August 15. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Status Species 

121

SSS-22 

Bald Eagle: 

• Acquire lands with roost and nest sites through land exchange, purchase or donation. 

Conduct assessments of wintering bald eagle habitat to delineate essential winter habitat and 

to develop necessary protective measures. 

• Monitor nesting territories annually during breeding season (generally January 1 through 

August 31). 

• Protect bald eagle nest sites by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in 

consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities 

(see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special 

Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix A) within 1.0 

mile of documented nest sites (2,439 acres). These stipulations will preclude surfacedisturbing activities within a 1.0 mile radius of nest sites from January 1 through August 31 

(see Map 26). No permanent structures will be allowed within 0.5 miles of known bald eagle 

nest sites year-round. Deviations may be allowed only after appropriate levels of consultation 

and coordination with the USFWS. 

• Protect bald eagle winter habitat by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in 

consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities 

(see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special 

Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix A) within 0.5 

mile of winter roost areas. These stipulations will preclude activities and permanent 

structures within a 0.5 mile radius of winter roost sites from November 1through March 31 

(see Map 26). No permanent structures will be allowed within 0.5 mile of winter roost sites, 

if the structure will result in the habitat becoming unsuitable for future winter roosting by 

bald eagles.

SSS-23 

Greater Sage-grouse: 

• Implement the most current UDWR Strategic Management Plan for Sage-Grouse (UDWR, 

2002 and its future revisions), the BLM National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 

(BLM, 2004) and recommendations from local sage grouse working groups to protect, 

maintain, enhance, and restore Greater sage-grouse populations and habitat. About 3,068 

acres of potential habitat has been identified within the Moab planning area. There is no sage 

grouse occupation at this time. However, if occupation is identified, through coordination 

with UDWR, the following decisions will apply: 

 All surface disturbing activities will be prohibited within 0.5 miles of Greater sagegrouse leks on a year-round basis 

 Allow no surface disturbing or otherwise disruptive activities within two miles of Greater 

sage-grouse leks from March 15 to July 15 to protect nesting and brood rearing habitat. 

 Allow no surface disturbing or otherwise disruptive activities within Greater sgae-grouse 

winter habitat (3,058 acres) from November 15 to March 14. 

See Appendix A for oil and gas leasing stipulations, along with exceptions, modifications, or 

waivers. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Status Species 

122

SSS-24 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitats: 

• Implement the most current UDWR Strategic Management Plan for Sage-Grouse (UDWR, 

2002 and its future revisions), the Gunnison Sage-grouse Range-wide Conservation Plan 

(2005, as amended) and recommendations from local sage-grouse working groups to protect, 

maintain, enhance, and restore Gunnison sage-grouse populations and habitat. About 

175,727 acres of potential habitat has been identified within the Moab planning area. There 

is no Gunnison sage grouse occupation at this time. However, if occupation is identified, 

through cooperation with UDWR, the following decisions will apply: 

 All surface disturbing activities will be prohibited within 0.6 miles of Gunnison sage 

grouse leks on a year-round basis. Within the 0.6 mile buffer, allow no permanent aboveground facilities or powerlines; prohibit or limit year-round construction of fences and 

where opportunity exists, remove existing fences.

 Within four miles of a lek, avoid fence construction, overhead powerline construction, 

and aboveground structures that provide raptor hunting perches. Where fences are 

necessary, increase their visibility. Modify or remove fences to minimize sage-grouse 

mortality. 

See Appendix A for oil and gas leasing stipulations, along with exceptions, modifications, or 

waivers. 

SSS-25 

White-tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dogs: 

• The White-tailed prairie dog and the Gunnison prairie dog are BLM and State sensitive 

species; translocations of these species will be considered in suitable unoccupied habitats 

(see Map 28). 

• Manage both prairie dog species and their habitats in coordination with the UDWR. Apply 

habitat management guidance and population monitoring strategies as recommended in the 

newly developed multi-agency White-tailed and Gunnison's Prairie Dog Management Plan. 

• Develop cooperative agreements with other agencies to inventory prairie dog densities and 

identify suitable habitat for expansion. 

SSS-26 

White-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat: 

• Manage the contiguous 117,481 acres of historic habitat designated by UDWR. Apply a 

controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing 

activities (see Appendix A) within 660 feet of active prairie dog colonies. This stipulation 

will preclude surface-disturbing activities within 660 feet of these colonies. No permanent 

above-ground facilities will be allowed within the 660-foot buffer. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Status Species 

123

SSS-27 

Gunnison Prairie Dog Habitat: 

• Manage 10,700 acres of habitat designated by UDWR for Gunnison prairie dogs. Apply a 

controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing 

activities (see Appendix A) within 660 feet of active prairie dog colonies. This stipulation 

will preclude surface-disturbing activities within 660 feet of these colonies. No permanent 

above-ground facilities will be allowed within 660 feet of prairie dog colonies. Power lines 

will be avoided within prairie dog colonies; however in the event that power lines are 

required within colonies, raptor anti-perch devices will be required. 

SSS-28 

Colorado River Endangered Fish: 

• No surface-disturbing activities within the 100-year floodplain of the Colorado River, Green 

River, and at the confluence of the Dolores and Colorado Rivers will be allowed. Any 

exceptions to this requirement will require consultation with the USFWS. Restrictions on 

surface disturbance within this critical habitat will be developed through this consultation 

process (see Map 24). 

SSS-29 

Golden Eagle: 

• Known golden eagle nest sites will be protected according to the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act amended in 1978. 

• Acquire lands with nest and roost sites through land exchange or acquisition. 

• Conduct assessments of wintering golden eagle habitat. 

• Protect golden eagle nest sites and habitat (12,902 acres) by applying the standard terms and 

conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other 

surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are 

required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, 

Appendix A). These stipulations will preclude surface-disturbing activities within 0.5 miles 

of documented nest sites from February 1 to July 15 (see Map 26).

SSS-30 

Burrowing Owl: 

• Protect burrowing owls by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in 

consultation with the USFWS (see Appendix R) for oil and gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required 

to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix 

A) by precluding surface-disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of known nests from March 

1 through August 31 (see Map 29). 

• Domestic sheep camps, temporary watering sites, and salt and mineral blocks will not be 

located within 0.25 miles of occupied burrowing owl nests from March 1 through August 31. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Status Species 

124

• Maintain ground squirrel and prairie dog colonies to provide habitat and nesting burrows for 

burrowing owls. 

• The species will be managed under the guidance provided by the Raptor Best Management 

Practices (BMPs; see Appendix R), which includes implementation of spatial and seasonal 

buffers to protect nesting raptors and their habitats. 

SSS-31 

Kit Fox: 

• Protect kit fox by precluding surface-disturbing activities within 200 meters of a kit fox den. 

SSS-32 

Ferruginous Hawk: 

• Manage ferruginous hawk nesting and foraging habitat by applying the standard terms and 

conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS (see Appendix R) for oil and gas 

leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease 

Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the 

Endangered Species Act, Appendix A) precluding surface-disturbing activities within 0.5 

miles of active nests from March 1 through August 1 (see Map 29). 

• Domestic sheep camps, temporary watering sites, and salt and mineral blocks will not be 

located within 0.5 miles of occupied ferruginous hawk nests from March 1 through Aug. 1. 

• The species will be managed under the guidance provided by the Raptor BMPs (see 

Appendix R), which includes implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers to protect 

nesting raptors and their habitats. 

SSS-33 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo: 

• Avoid loss or disturbance of yellow-billed cuckoo habitat and manage yellow-billed cuckoo 

nesting and foraging habitat by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in 

consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities 

(see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special 

Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix A). These 

stipulations preclude surface-disturbing activities within 100 meters of yellow-billed cuckoo 

habitat within riparian areas from May 15 through July 20. 

• Compliance with BLM Riparian Policy will restrict surface disturbance within 100 meters of 

riparian habitat and will therefore protect nesting habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo. 

SSS-34 

Jones Cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii): 

• Require specific site inventories for all surface disturbing projects in areas with suitable

Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii habitat. 

• BLM will restrict activities, in suitable Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii habitat. Restrictions 

include limiting motorized travel to designated routes, precluding surface disturbing 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Special Status Species 

125

activities within 300 feet of plants and suitable habitat, and precluding construction activities 

from May 15th through June 30th within occupied habitat (see Standard Terms and Conditions 

(Lease Notices) which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the 

Endangered Species Act, Appendix A). Other restrictions include avoiding road 

construction, land disposal, and utilities in this habitat, as well as avoiding grazing activities 

such as trailing, salting, watering and herding. 

SSS-35 

California Condor: 

• Within potential habitat for the California Condor, surveys will be required prior to 

operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. 

• Surface disturbing activities will not occur within 1.0 miles of nest sites during the breeding 

season of August 1 to November 30 or within 0.5 miles of established roosting sites (see 

Standard Terms and Conditions (Lease Notices) which are Required to Protect Special Status 

Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix A). 

• No permanent infrastructure will be placed with 1.0 mile of nest sites and within 0.5 miles of 

established roosting sites. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Travel Management 

126

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT (TRV)

Management Decisions: 

Motorized Travel

TRV-1 

Where routes will remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use could continue on 

a conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs ("ways" when located within WSAs – 

see Glossary) could continue as long as use of these routes does not impair wilderness suitability, 

as provided by the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM 

7/5/95). The 1.7 miles of motorized routes in WSAs are only conditionally open to vehicle use. If 

Congress designates the area as wilderness, the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or 

non-compliance are found through monitoring efforts to impair the area's suitability for 

wilderness designation, BLM 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. 

TRV-2 

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; 

and 43 CFR Subpart 9268.

TRV-3 

Provide opportunities for a range of motorized recreation experiences on public lands while 

protecting sensitive resources and minimizing conflicts among various users. Identification of 

specific designated routes will be initially established through the chosen Travel Plan 

accompanying this RMP (see Appendix N) and may be modified through subsequent 

implementation planning and project planning on a case-by-case basis. These identified routes 

will be available regardless of other management actions. These adjustments will occur only in 

areas with limited route designations and will be analyzed at the implementation planning level. 

These adjustments will be done through a collaborative process with local government and will 

include public review of proposed route changes. Site-specific NEPA documentation will be 

required for changes to the route designation system. 

TRV-4 

All areas are limited, open, or closed to motorized travel. Limit travel by motorized vehicle on 

all lands administered by the MFO to designated routes, except for Managed Open Areas, and 

for areas that are closed to motorized travel (see Map 30; see Appendix N for Travel Plan 

development). 

TRV-5 

BLM could impose limitations on types of vehicle allowed on specific designated routes if 

monitoring indicates that a particular type of vehicle is causing disturbance to the soil, wildlife, 

wildlife habitat, cultural or vegetative resources, especially by off-road travel in an area that is 

limited to designated roads. 

 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Travel Management 

127

TRV-6 

OHV access for game retrieval, antler collection and dispersed camping will only be allowed on 

designated routes (designated routes/spurs and have been identified specifically for dispersed 

camping; parking areas associated with dispersed campsites will be marked during travel plan 

implementation). Adherence to the Travel Plan is required for all activities, except where 

otherwise explicitly permitted. 

TRV-7 

Only designated roads and managed open areas are available for motorized commercial and 

organized group use (see Maps 2 and 3 for route designations). 

TRV-8 

Where the authorized officer determines that off-road vehicles are causing or will cause 

considerable adverse impacts, the authorized officer shall close or restrict such areas. The public 

will be notified as to these closures and restrictions. 

TRV-9 

Any routes that are not baseline routes will be signed "Closed" on the ground. Such routes will 

be considered as impacts to the area's natural character, and use of such routes will be considered 

cross country use and not allowed. Non-inventoried routes should be rehabilitated. 

TRV-10 

OHV Designations: 

• About 339,298 acres will be closed to OHV travel. 

• About 1,481,334 acres will be limited to designated routes. 

• Approximately 2,000 acres (White Wash Sand Dunes) will be open to cross country travel 

(see Map 30). 

TRV-11 

Designated Routes – Motorized: 

• Designate 3,693 miles of motorized routes. 

• Designate 313 miles for motorcycles (163 miles on inventoried routes and 150 miles on 

inventoried single-track). *

• Designate a dirt bike route from Colorado State Line to Thompson (see Map 3), utilizing 9 

miles of single-track designated above and 22 miles of inventoried Grand County roads. 

These totals are reflected in the mileage under "designated routes." 

Mountain Bike Travel

TRV-12 

Provide opportunities for mechanized (mountain bike) travel on all routes open to motorized use. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Travel Management 

128

TRV-13 

Prohibit new bike routes within non-WSA lands managed for wilderness characteristics or within 

hiking Focus Areas. 

TRV-14 

Limit mechanized (mountain bike) travel to designated trails and managed routes for resource 

protection purposes. Routes that are no longer available for motorized travel may be converted to 

bike routes upon application of site-specific NEPA analysis. 

TRV-15 

Manage approximately 11.2 miles of routes on the following trails for non-motorized use only: 

Jackson Trail, "Baby Steps," Hunter Canyon Rim, Portal Trail, Hidden Valley, and Porcupine 

Rim single-track section (Hidden Valley and Porcupine Rim Trails are subject to IMP). 

TRV-16 

Identification of specific designated mountain bike routes will be initially established through the 

RMP process and may be modified through subsequent planning at the activity plan and project 

plan levels on a case-by-case basis. These modifications will be analyzed through site-specific 

NEPA. 

TRV-17 

Design and implement up to 150 new miles of managed mechanized (mountain bike) trails. In 

addition, convert existing inventoried routes not designated for motorized travel to nonmotorized use, where appropriate, and install appropriate support facilities such as trailheads and 

route signage.

TRV-18 

Initially designate the following existing trails for mechanized (mountain bike) use totaling 11.3 

miles; see Map 4): 

• Fisher Mesa (in conjunction with USFS; 5.8 miles) 

• Pothole (on Amasa Back; 1.2 miles) 

• Rockstacker (on Amasa Back; 0.9 miles) 

• Lower Porcupine Singletrack (“LPS”; 1.4 miles) 

• Power line Trail (0.07 miles on public land) 

• Mill Creek Parkway Extension (0.16 miles on public land) 

Non- Mechanized Travel (Hiking and Equestrian)

TRV-19 

Non-mechanized travel is not restricted on public lands except where limited or prohibited to 

protect specific resource values, provide for public safety or maintain an identified opportunity. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Travel Management 

129

TRV-20 

Provide opportunities for non-mechanized travel on all routes open to motorized or mechanized 

use and manage routes identified to exclude motorized and mechanized use and provide 

opportunities for non-mechanized travel independent of motorized and mechanized routes. 

TRV-21 

Limit non-mechanized travel on specific lands to designated trails and managed routes for 

resource protection purposes. 

TRV-22 

Manage 17 miles of routes on the following trails for non-mechanized use: 

• Amphitheater Loop 

• Fisher Towers 

• Negro Bill - There is no equestrian use allowed on the Negro Bill trail. 

• Corona Arch 

• Trough Spring Canyon 

• Anticline Overlook 

• Needles Overlook 

• Windwhistle Nature Trail 

• Mill Canyon Dinosaur Interpretive Trail 

• Copper Ridge Sauropod Interpretive Trail 

• Sego Canyon Interpretive Trail 

TRV-23 

Identify specific routes through the RMP process. These routes may be modified through 

subsequent planning at the RMP, activity plan, and project plan levels on a case-by-case basis. 

TRV-24 

Work with equestrian groups to identify additional trails for equestrian and hiker use only. These 

trails will be designated based on site-specific NEPA analysis. 

TRV-25 

Design and implement up to 50 miles of managed non-mechanized trail system consistent with 

the Travel Plan. Implement these new system routes largely by converting existing, low 

utilization roads to non-mechanized use and installing appropriate support facilities such as 

trailheads and route signage. 

TRV-26 

Mark the following existing hiking trails: Castleton, Culvert-Goldbar Loop. Mark a new trail 

from Onion Creek to Amphitheater Loop. 

TRV-27 

The following trails will be managed for equestrian use. Hikers will also be allowed on these 

trails, but there will be no motorized or mechanized vehicles allowed: 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Travel Management 

130

• Onion Creek Benches (Colorado Riverway SRMA) 

• Ida/Stearns Gulch Equestrian Trail System 

• Castle Creek Equestrian Trail 

• Rattlesnake Trail above Nefertiti Boat Launch 

• Seven Mile Canyons 

• Red Rock Horse Trail (Ken's Lake to Johnson's Up-on-Top) 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Vegetation 

131

VEGETATION (VEG)

Goals and Objectives: 

Manage vegetation resources for desired future conditions (DFC) ensuring ecological diversity, 

stability, and sustainability, including the desired mix of vegetation types, structural stages, and 

landscape/riparian function and provide for livestock grazing and for native plant, fish, and 

wildlife habitats (see Appendix S for Desired Future Conditions for Vegetation). 

Maintain existing vegetation treatment areas as appropriate. 

Control invasive and non-native weed species and prevent the introduction of new invasive 

species by implementing a comprehensive weed program (as per national guidance and local 

weed management plans in cooperation with state, federal affected counties), including: 

coordination with partners; prevention and early detection; education; inventory and monitoring; 

and using principles of integrated weed management. 

Manage for vegetation restoration, including control of weed infestations and control of invasive 

and undesirable nonnative species. 

Maintain, protect and enhance special status plant and animal habitats in such manner that the 

potential need to consider any of these species for listing as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act does not arise. 

Develop management prescriptions for all surface-disturbing resource uses during times of 

extended drought (see description of Adaptive Drought Management, below). 

Maintain or enhance the integrity of current sagebrush and sage steppe communities and identify 

areas in need of restoration. Initiate restoration and/or rehabilitation efforts to ensure sustainable 

populations of sage-grouse, mule deer and other sagebrush obligate species. 

Management Decisions: 

VEG-1 

Utilize the BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy – Guidance for Management of 

Sagebrush Plant Communities for Sage-Grouse Conservation, when applicable, in the 

development and implementation of vegetation and land treatments, livestock manipulation 

techniques, fire projects, energy exploration and development and any surface-disturbing activity 

within sagebrush and sage steppe communities. 

VEG-2 

Sagebrush/steppe communities will be a high priority for wildfire suppression, emergency 

stabilization and fuel reduction to avoid catastrophic fires in these communities. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Vegetation 

132

VEG-3 

Reclaim and restore up to 257,809 acres of sagebrush habitat and shrub-steppe ecosystems where 

appropriate in accordance with the BLM sagebrush conservation guidance. 

Reclamation/restoration will be undertaken in cooperation with the Utah Partners for 

Conservation and Development (UPCD) and may include removing surface material, recontouring, spreading topsoil, seeding or planting seedlings, and/or changing livestock grazing 

strategies, such as, changing season of use, type of use, removing or reducing spring grazing, 

reducing livestock numbers, reducing grazing intensity, improving distribution, requiring rest 

rotation practices, or exclusion. Work in coordination with UDWR to reduce wildlife numbers, 

as necessary, to restore sagebrush habitat. 

VEG-4 

Provide opportunities for seed gathering of various vegetation types while protecting other 

resources. 

VEG-5 

Restoration and rehabilitation will use native seed-mixes wherever possible. Non-native species 

may be used as necessary for stabilization or to prevent invasion of noxious or invasive weed 

species. 

VEG-6 

Gather necessary vegetation information and continue monitoring to assess if planning objectives 

are being met. 

VEG-7 

Utilize the techniques and methods for vegetation treatments identified in the Utah ROD for 

Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Seventeen 

Western States (2007). 

VEG-8 

Control noxious weed species and prevent the infestation and spread of invasive species. 

Develop cooperating agreements with other Federal, State, local and private organizations to 

control invasive and noxious weed species. 

VEG-9 

Reduce tamarisk and Russian olive where appropriate using allowable vegetation treatments. 

Restore riparian habitat to native willow and cottonwood communities. 

VEG-10 

Where appropriate, replant cottonwoods and willow subsequent to wildland fire or other 

disturbance in riparian areas. 

VEG-11 

Promote science and research opportunities in the San Arroyo Area/Exclosures, Sagers 

Watershed Area/Exclosures and Big Flat Area/Exclosures (approximately 300 acres each). 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Vegetation 

133

VEG-12 

Establish Lower South Fork of Seven Mile Canyon as a Riparian/Wetland Demonstration Area 

for the improvement and restoration of the riparian area. 

VEG-13 

Insect pests will be treated in coordination with the State of Utah, other Federal agencies, 

affected counties, adjoining private land owners and other directly affected interests. 

VEG-14 

See Livestock Grazing for other vegetation treatments. 

VEG-15 

Adaptive Drought Management: Establish criteria for restricting activities during drought (see 

Appendix T for Drought Classification System) based on the following measures/parameters: 

Severe (D2):

 Send drought letters. 

 UDWR coordination for big game herd control. 

 Prepare local seasonal precipitation graphs. 

 Suspend or limit seed collecting activities. 

Extreme (D3):

 No new surface-disturbing activities in areas with sensitive soils (subject to valid existing 

rights or actions associated with other valid permitted activities; see oil and gas Appendix 

A for definition of surface-disturbing activities). 

 Changes in livestock use will be based on site-specific data on those allotments that are 

affected by drought. 

 OHV use and competitive motorized events will be confined to designated roads and 

routes within the open OHV area. 

 Require additional erosion-control techniques/BMPs for surface-disturbing activities 

(e.g., hydromulching). 

 Limit prescribed burns and vegetation treatments. 

Exceptional (D4):

 Changes in livestock use will be based on site-specific data on those allotments that are 

affected by drought. 

 No new surface-disturbing activities (subject to valid existing rights or actions associated 

with other valid permitted activities). 

 Consider closing areas to public entry. 

VEG-16 

Avoid or minimize to the extent possible the loss of sagebrush/steppe habitat from BLM-initiated 

or authorized actions. The BLM recommends that loss of sagebrush/steppe habitat essential to 

wildlife (e.g., sage-grouse, mule deer, and sagebrush obligate species) be reclaimed or mitigated 

off-site. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Visual Resources Management 

134

VISUAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (VRM) 

Goals and Objectives: 

Manage public lands in a manner that protects the quality of scenic values. 

Recognize and manage visual resources for overall multiple use, filming, and recreational 

opportunities for visitors to public lands. 

Manage BLM actions to preserve those scenic vistas that are most important. 

Management Decisions: 

VRM-1 

WSAs and designated wilderness are designated as VRM Class I. 

VRM-2 

Wild and Scenic River (WSR) segments recommended as suitable for Wild are designated as 

VRM Class I, Scenic segments are designated as VRM Class II, and Recreational segments are 

managed the same as the underlying VRM management class. 

VRM-3 

For all VRM classes, all resource uses and management activities are required to meet VRM 

objectives. However, recreation developments in the immediate foreground of Key Observation 

Points (KOPs) in VRM Class I and II areas require special consideration to meet both 

recreational and VRM objectives. These facilities often create more contrast than would be 

acceptable; however this contrast is allowed if the facilities are part of the expected image held 

by the public being served. The contrast should be allowed only to the extent needed for the 

function of the facility, which should reflect design excellence and be a positive element of the 

built environment. Structures should blend into the landscape while retaining functionality. 

VRM-4 

Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix A) in all areas designated as VRM Class I. 

VRM-5 

Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing 

activities (see Appendix A) to all areas designated as VRM Class II. This requires surfacedisturbing activities to meet the objectives of VRM Class II. 

VRM-6 

Designated utility corridors within VRM Class II areas are designated as VRM Class III only for 

utility projects. 

VRM-7 

Necessary road maintenance could occur regardless of VRM class. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Visual Resources Management 

135

VRM-8 

Public lands within the viewshed of Arches National Park are designated as VRM Class II. 

VRM-9 

Designated VRM management classes are displayed on Map 31. 

VRM-10 

Areas with high potential for development of oil and gas (Big Flat/Hatch Point/Lisbon Valley, 

and Eastern Bookcliffs/Greater Cisco) will be designated as VRM Class III with the exception of 

those portions of SRMAs and ACECS that have more stringent VRM classifications. 

VRM-11 

Manage the Shafer Basin portion of the Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon ACEC as 

VRM Class I. 

VRM-12 

Scenic driving corridors will be designated as VRM Class II within a specified viewshed not to 

exceed 0.5 mile from centerline. Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing 

and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix A) within 0.5 mile of scenic driving 

corridors. 

VRM-13 

Manage the following areas with high-quality visual resources as VRM Class II (see Map 31): 

• Sand Flats 

• Gemini Bridges/Monitor and Merrimac/Poison Spider/Goldbar/ Corona Arch area 

• The Colorado, Dolores and Green River corridors 

• Tusher Canyon (Bookcliffs) 

• The Colorado Riverway 

• Matt Martin Point 

• Areas bordering Arches National Park 

• Kane Creek 

• Hatch Wash 

• The rims of Canyon Rims 

• The Mill Creek and Behind the Rocks ACECs 

• Beaver Creek 

• Long Canyon 

VRM-14 

• Designate 358,911 acres as VRM Class I. 

• Designate 365,566 acres as VRM Class II. 

• Designate 829,158 acres as VRM Class III. 

• Designate 268,133 acres as VRM Class IV.
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Wildlife and Fisheries 

136

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES (WL)

Goals and Objectives: 

Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats to support natural wildlife diversity, reproductive 

capability, and a healthy, self-sustaining population of wildlife and fish species. 

Manage crucial, high-value, and unfragmented habitats as management priorities.

Management Decisions: 

WL-1 

Habitat Management Plans: Continue to implement and modify three Habitat Management 

Plans (HMPs) summarized in Appendix U: Hatch Point HMP, Dolores Triangle HMP, and the 

Potash-Confluence HMP. 

• Hatch Point HMP: Manage to benefit pronghorn and improve sagebrush habitat for sagegrouse and other wildlife species. Emphasize habitat management, change in livestock class 

from sheep to cattle, and maintenance of land treatments. 

• Potash-Confluence HMP: Manage to benefit desert bighorn sheep, but also include guidance 

for chukar partridge, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon. Water developments to benefit desert 

bighorn are to be maintained; under this HMP, 278,000 acres of land administered by the 

BLM are to be maintained in good condition and habitat is to be improved where needed. 

Eight specific management objectives were established (see Appendix U for details). 

• Dolores Triangle HMP: Manage to benefit deer, elk, and bighorn sheep. Improve bald eagle, 

riparian and native and naturalized fish habitat through the installation of fencing and 

enclosures in Granite, Coates, Ryan, and Renegade Creeks by installing six in-stream 

structures (see Appendix U for details). 

WL-2 

Livestock grazing will not be authorized on the following allotments/areas (or portions of 

allotments/areas) in order to benefit wildlife resources: 

• A portion of the Kane Spring Allotment (that portion in Kane Spring Canyon between the 

open valley and the river; 558 acres and 0 AUMs) 

• An area along the Colorado River between Hittle and north of Dewey Bridge (400 acres, 

AUMs will remain the same) 

• Between The Creeks with 3,960 acres and 221 AUMs 

• North Sand Flats with 5,860 acres and 798 AUMs 

• South Sand Flats with 10,209 acres and 592 AUMs 

• A portion of Arth's Pasture Allotment (Poison Spider area; approximately 6,200 acres and 

425 AUMs). 

WL-3 

Support and implement current and future animal species Conservation Plans, Strategies and 

Agreements. Coordinate actions with UDWR and other involved entities. Support population and 

habitat monitoring. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Wildlife and Fisheries 

137

WL-4 

Migratory Birds: Executive Order 13186, "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds," will be integrated into all activities with potential adverse impacts, wildlife 

management programs, and other resources including but not limited to riparian-wetland habitat, 

rangeland health standards and guidelines raptor protection, fire, special status species, off-site 

mitigation and habitat enhancement. Management actions will emphasize birds listed on the 

current USFWS "Birds of Conservation Concern" (2002f or as updated) and Utah Partners-inFlight priority species. Habitats that will be emphasized are the Cisco Desert Bird Habitat 

Conservation Area, Colorado and Dolores River Bird Habitat Conservation Area, Green River 

Bird Habitat Conservation Area, and the Cottonwood and Willow Creek Bird Habitat 

Conservation Area (see Appendix U). As a supplement to complying with Executive Order 

13186, the Bird Habitat Conservation Areas identified in the Coordinated Implementation Plan 

for Bird Conservation in Utah (Martinsen et al. 2005 or as updated), will receive priority for 

conducting bird habitat conservation projects, through cooperative funding initiatives such as the 

Intermountain West Joint Venture. 

WL-5 

Migratory Birds: Implement Executive Order 13186, "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds" during all activities to protect habitat for migratory birds. Management 

will emphasize birds listed on the current USFWS "Birds of Conservation Concern" (2002 or as 

updated) and Partners-in-Flight priority species (as updated). 

WL-6 

Migratory Birds: As specific habitat needs and population distribution to "Birds of 

Conservation Concern" and Partners-in-Flight priority species are identified, BLM will use 

adaptive management strategies to further conserve habitat and avoid impacts to these species. 

WL-7 

Migratory Birds: Prioritize the maintenance and/or improvement of lowland riparian, wetlands, 

and low and high desert scrub communities which are the four most important and used habitat 

types by migratory birds in MPA. 

WL-8 

Migratory Birds: Prevent the spread of invasive and non-native plants, especially cheatgrass, 

tamarisk, and Russian olive. Strive for a dense under story of native species in riparian areas with 

a reduction in tamarisk and improvement of cottonwood and willow regeneration. 

WL-9 

Migratory Birds: During nesting season for migratory birds (May 1 – July 31), avoid surfacedisturbing activities and vegetative-altering projects and broad-scale use of pesticides in 

identified occupied migratory bird habitat. 

WL-10 

Coordinate with UDWR and other partners to help accomplish the population and habitat goals 

and objectives of big game Herd Management Plans that are consistent with and meet the goals 

and objectives of this land-use plan. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Wildlife and Fisheries 

138

WL-11 

The BLM will approach compensatory mitigation on an “as appropriate” basis where it can be 

performed onsite, and on a voluntary basis where it is performed offsite, or, in accordance with 

current guidance. 

WL-12 

Restrict dispersed camping in riparian areas to protect riparian wildlife habitat. Restrictions 

could include limiting camping to designated sites or prohibiting camping. 

 

WL-13 

Implement a limited fire suppression policy and initiate prescribed fires where treatment by fire 

will increase vegetation productivity and increase forage for wildlife. 

WL-14 

Modify the grazing season of use or change class of livestock for individual allotments as 

necessary to accommodate forage needs for wildlife. 

WL-15 

Predator management will continue to be coordinated with Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS)-Wildlife Services and UDWR and will be conducted utilizing the guidance 

provided by the existing MOU with APHIS-Wildlife Services. 

WL-16 

BLM will continue to coordinate with, and provide support to UDWR for 

introduction/reintroduction of native or naturalized fish or wildlife species into historic or 

suitable habitats as determined appropriate. 

WL-17 

Introduction, transplantation, augmentation and re-establishment of both naturalized and native 

species will be considered and will include, but may not be limited to, pronghorn, desert bighorn 

sheep, wild turkey, bison, beaver, chukar, otter, and Colorado River cutthroat trout and other 

native and naturalized fish species, pursuant to guidance and direction provided in BLM's 1745 

Manual. 

WL-18 

Raptors will be managed under the auspices of Best Management Practices (BMPs; see 

Appendix R), which will include implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers. These BMPs 

implement the USFWS's Guidelines for Raptor Protection From Human and Land-use 

Disturbances, with modifications allowed as long as protection of nests is ensured. Seasonal and 

spatial buffers are also listed in Appendix R. Cooperate with utility companies to prevent 

electrocution of raptors. Temporarily close areas (amount of time depends on the species) near 

raptor nest to rock climbers or other activities if the activity could result in nest abandonment. 

WL-19 

Support and implement where possible the Northern River Otter Management Plan; coordinate 

with UDWR to determine potential release sites; support population monitoring. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Wildlife and Fisheries 

139

WL-20 

Manage riparian areas to ensure a multi-aged, multi-layered structure, allowing for retention of 

snags and diseased trees. Provide multiple layers of vegetation (vertical structure) within 10 feet 

of the ground. 

WL-21 

Minor adjustments to crucial wildlife habitat boundaries periodically made by the Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) will be accommodated through plan maintenance. 

WL-22 

Pronghorn Habitat: Manage 78,476 acres of current pronghorn habitat that UDWR has 

designated in the La Sal (Hatch Point Herd) Wildlife Management Unit. Implement the Hatch 

Point HMP. Manage 743,524 acres of pronghorn habitat that UDWR has designated in the Cisco 

Desert and on the following allotments (see Map 32): 

• Cisco 

• Cisco Mesa 

• Harley Dome 

• San Arroyo 

• Horse Canyon 

• Pipeline 

• Floy Creek 

• Athena 

• Little Grand 

• Corral Wash Canyon 

• Agate, Little Hole 

• Monument Wash 

• Highlands 

• 10-Mile Point 

• Big Flat 

• Ruby Ranch 

• Bar-X 

• Crescent Canyon 

• Squaw Park 

• San Arroyo 

WL-23 

Pronghorn Habitat: Management of pronghorn habitat (see Map 32) will be done in 

coordination with UDWR and may include (but will not be limited to) the following actions: 

• Install and improve year-round water resources within the La Sal Management Unit and the 

Cisco Desert Herd unit. 

• Support a change in class of livestock from sheep to cattle on the Hatch Point area. 

• Change in class of livestock from cattle to sheep will not be allowed within pronghorn 

habitat. 

• Install water developments every 2 square miles on summer and fawning areas. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Wildlife and Fisheries 

140

• Construct fences that allow for pronghorn passage. 

• Dismantle un-needed fences. 

• Install restrictive fencing to stop pronghorn passage onto highways. 

• Increase forage through vegetation treatments on approximately 4,400 acres. 

WL-24 

Pronghorn Habitat: Protect pronghorn fawning habitat (293,741 acres) within Cisco Desert and 

on Hatch Point (the La Sal Wildlife Management Units) by applying a timing limitation 

stipulation that will preclude surface-disturbing activities from May 1 to June 15 (see Appendix 

A). 

WL-25 

Pronghorn Habitat: Spring grazing will be adjusted on a case-by-case basis on 188,975 acres 

on allotments within crucial pronghorn habitat in the Cisco Desert to encourage forb production. 

These allotments include Athena, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Harley Dome, and San Arroyo. 

WL 26 

Pronghorn Habitat: Develop, where applicable, a rest/rotation of pasture or other grazing 

management systems within allotments that have crucial pronghorn habitat to encourage forb 

production prior to fawning. Change in livestock class from sheep to cattle, fencing, seeding and 

rest/rotation to improve habitat will be encouraged. 

WL-27 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Film permits will comply with minimum impact criteria (see Appendix 

H) from April 1 through June 15 and from October 15 through December 15 within 123,490 

acres of crucial bighorn sheep habitat (see Map 9). 

 

WL-28 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: No change in class of livestock from cattle to sheep conversions are to 

be considered in recognized bighorn habitat. (see Maps 9 and 10). 

WL-29 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Follow the recommendations found in the BLM Bighorn Sheep 

Rangeland Management Plan, as revised (1993b); the Utah BLM Statewide Desert Bighorn 

Sheep Management Plan, as revised (1986a); and the Revised Guidelines for the Management of 

Domestic Sheep and Goats in Native Wild Sheep Habitats (BLM 1998a). 

WL-30 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Support the current bighorn sheep population and manage to increase 

desert bighorn population (prior stable numbers) on 330,892 acres. Population goals will be 

reached by releases, by reestablishment, and through change of livestock class and installation of 

new water facilities (see Appendix U for details). 

WL-31 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Management of bighorn sheep habitat in coordination with UDWR 

will include: installing water developments every 5 square miles in or within 2 miles of escape 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Wildlife and Fisheries 

141

terrain, precluding exotic ungulates, wild horses or burros within 10 miles of habitat, and 

constructing fences that allow for bighorn sheep passage (3 strands with bottom wire smooth) 

and dismantling un-needed fences. 

WL-32 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Manage 9,278 acres along the rim of Hatch Point as part of the 

Lockhart Bighorn Sheep habitat area. Apply a timing limitation stipulation to oil and gas leases 

and other permitted uses, which will restrict surface-disturbing activities from April 1 through 

June 15 for lambing and from October 15 through December 15 for rutting (see Appendix A). 

WL-33 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Manage 317,523 acres of desert bighorn sheep habitat on the following 

grazing allotments: 

• Buckhorn 

• North River 

• Little Grand 

• Taylor 

• Ten Mile Point 

• Arth's Pasture 

• Spring Canyon Bottom 

• Big Flat 

• Kane Springs 

• Potash 

• Horsethief 

• Behind the Rocks 

• Ruby Ranch 

WL-34 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Support conversion of sheep AUMs to cattle on Hatch Point 

Allotment. 

WL-35 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Improve desert bighorn habitat by installing and improving year-round 

water resources within all desert bighorn habitat and provide additional water sources at a 

minimum spacing of one water development in each 2 square mile area on lambing grounds. 

WL-36 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: To protect lambing, rutting, and migration habitat (101,897 acres), 

apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix A). Within migration corridors pipeline construction and 

geophysical exploration for oil and gas development will be allowed outside lambing and rutting 

periods from June 16 through October 14 and from December 15 through March 31, 

respectively. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Wildlife and Fisheries 

142

WL- 37 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Manage lambing areas (46,319 acres - see Map 9) with the following 

prescriptions: 

• Camping is allowed only in designated campsites except for areas within the Green River 

riparian corridor, which remain open to unrestricted camping. 

• No camping in Shafer Basin and Long Canyon. 

• Livestock use will be adjusted on North River and, Taylor Allotments (Dry Mesa Pasture). 

WL- 38 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Manage 310,726 acres of currently occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn 

habitat from the Green River to Pipeline Canyon according to stipulations described in 

management common to all. This management includes improving or maintaining habitat and 

vegetative conditions to benefit bighorn sheep while maintaining or improving the ecological 

condition of rangelands (see Map 10). 

WL- 39 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Support conversion of sheep to cattle on allotments that are within nine 

miles of the 310,726 acres of managed Rocky Mountain bighorn habitat. Once conversion 

occurs, do not allow re-conversion (from cattle to sheep). This includes the Cisco and Cisco 

Mesa Allotments, San Arroyo, Winter Camp and Harley Dome. 

WL- 40 

Deer and Elk Habitat: Manage UDWR current deer habitat of 534,329 acres in the Bookcliffs 

and 313,551 acres on the La Sal Mountains as mule deer habitat by improving or maintaining 

vegetative conditions to benefit both livestock and wildlife and by maintaining or improving the 

ecological condition of rangelands. 

WL-41 

Deer and Elk Habitat: Increase elk forage through vegetation treatments such as chemical, 

mechanical, and prescribed fire on approximately 40,000 acres of elk winter range (see 

Livestock Grazing). 

WL-42 

Deer and Elk Habitat: Manage crucial and high value deer and/or elk summer range (105,636 

acres) within the Bookcliffs and La Sal Wildlife Management Unit by applying a timing 

limitation stipulation that will preclude surface-disturbing activities from May 15 to June 30 (see 

Appendix A; see Map 33). 

WL-43 

Deer and Elk Habitat: All forage on acquired state lands in upper Castle Valley within crucial 

deer winter range will be allocated to deer. 

WL-44 

Deer and Elk Habitat: Protect deer and/or elk crucial winter habitat (349,955 acres) by 

applying a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing as well as other surface-disturbing 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Wildlife and Fisheries 

143

activities (see Appendix A). (This includes 73,160 acres in WSAs, which are already closed to 

leasing.) This limitation will preclude surface-disturbing activities from November 15 through 

April 15. 

WL-45 

Allotments not available for grazing to benefit wildlife: 

• Bogart with 14,751 acres and 209 AUMs 

• Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs 

• Diamond with 19,112 acres and 588 AUMs 

• Ida Gulch with 3,624 acres and 112 AUMs 

• Pear Park with 14,202 acres 

• Mill Creek with 3,922 acres and 137 AUMs 

• Portions of Professor Valley along Highway 128 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Woodlands 

144

WOODLANDS (FOR)

Goals and Objectives: 

Manage forests and woodlands for healthy conditions that contribute to healthy habitat for 

animal and plant species, proper watershed functioning conditions, and riparian restoration and 

enhancement. 

Provide woodland products on a sustainable basis consistent with maintaining ecosystem health 

and other resource management objectives to meet local needs where such use does not limit the 

accomplishment of goals for the management of other important resources. 

Encourage, where feasible, the harvest of forest products in areas of proposed or existing 

vegetation treatments to lessen the need for additional treatment or land disturbance, and in areas 

that need restoration for ecological benefits. 

Identify, maintain, and restore forests with late successional characteristics to a pre-fire 

suppression condition. The MFO 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 1993)." In instances where the area of application in the previous 

document does not apply (e.g., Pinus edulis), use the document "Recommended Old-Growth 

Definitions and Descriptions, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region (Sept. 1992)." 

Management Decisions: 

FOR-1 

Permits for harvest of woodland products will continue to be sold to the public, consistent with 

the availability of woodland products and the protection of sensitive resource values. 

FOR-2 

As needed, designate private and commercial wood gathering areas for the following uses: 

• Firewood 

• Fence posts 

• Christmas tree cutting 

• Green wood cutting 

• Plant gathering for landscaping 

FOR-3 

Use woodland harvest to assist in managing woodlands to accomplish goals outlined in the Fire 

Management Plan. 

FOR-4 

Prohibit public fuel wood gathering in riparian areas. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Woodlands 

145

FOR-5 

Permit sustainable harvest (including cutting of green willows, squawbush, and cottonwoods) for 

Native American traditional ceremonial use. Additional areas may be closed to wood gathering 

and wood harvest as needed to protect sensitive resources. 

FOR-6 

Follow national BLM Forest Health and Forest Management Standards and Guidelines to assess 

conditions and guide management actions for the forest and woodland resource. 

FOR-7 

Provide for salvage harvest of wood in beetle-kill areas, when compatible with other resource 

objectives. 

FOR-8 

Provide 1,168,988 acres for woodland harvest and wood gathering. See Map 34 for areas in 

which woodland harvest and wood gathering is prohibited (652,386 acres) to protect resource 

values. 

 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – References 

146

REFERENCES 

BLM. 1982. Management Situation Analysis for the Grand Resource Area. Bureau of Land 

Management, Grand Resource Area, Moab District, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1985a. Grand Resource Area Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Moab District, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1986a. Statewide Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

BLM. 1989b. Planning Criteria for Land Tenure Adjustments, Exchanges, Acquisitions, and 

Disposals: An Amendment to the 1985 Grand Resource Area Resource Management 

Plan. Bureau of Land Management. Moab District, Moab, Utah. February. 

BLM. 1990. Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land 

Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

BLM. 1991a. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 

Thirteen Western States. BLM-WY-91-022-4320. Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne. May. 

BLM. 1991c. Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State 

Office, Salt Lake City. October. 

BLM. 1992a. Environmental Assessment: Utah's Colorado Riverway Recreation Area 

Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1993b. Bighorn Sheep Rangeland Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Moab 

Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1993d. Greater Sagers Wash Watershed Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1994a. Sand Flats Recreation Area Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1995. Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review. BLM Handbook 

H-8550-1. Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento. 

BLM. 1997a. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management of BLM 

Lands in Utah. BLM-UT-GI-97-001-4000. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State 

Office, Salt Lake City. May. 

BLM. 1997b. Environmental Impact Statement for Lisbon Valley Copper Project, San Juan 

County, Utah. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1999. Utah Wilderness Inventory. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt 

Lake City. 

BLM. 2001a. Colorado Riverway Special Recreation Area Management Plan Amendment. EA # 

UT-062-99-151. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – References 

147

BLM. 2001b. Mill Creek Canyon Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field 

Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2001c. Questar, Williams and Kern River Pipeline Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

State # 01-533. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

BLM. 2001d. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. TR 1730-2. Bureau of Land 

Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver. 

BLM. 2002a. Preparation Plan for the Moab Field Office Resource Management Plan. Bureau of 

Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2002b. Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management for 

BLM Lands in Utah [online publication]. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State 

Office, Salt Lake City. [Last Accessed June 15, 2007]. Available at http://www.ut.blm. 

gov/Recreation/recstandards.html. 

BLM. 2003a. Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado 

Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness. Bureau of 

Land Management, Grand Junction Field Office, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

BLM. 2003b. Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2003c. Moab Field Office Visual Resource Inventory Map. Bureau of Land Management, 

Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2004b. Three Rivers Withdrawal. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, 

Moab, Utah and Price Field Office, Price, Utah. 

BLM. 2004c. National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. November. 

BLM. 2004d. Moab Field Office Analysis of Management Situation. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2004e. Moab Field Office Social and Economic Baseline Study. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. April. 

BLM. 2004f. Relevance and Importance Evaluations of Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) Nominations. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2004g. Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Eligibility Determination, Moab Field Office. 

Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2005a. Land Use Planning Handbook. BLM Handbook H-1601-1. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 2005b. Cameo Cliffs Special Recreation Management Area Plan. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – References 

148

BLM. 2005c. Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management, September. UTUSO-04-01 [online publication]. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt 

Lake City. [Last Accessed June 15, 2007]. Available at 

http://www.ut.blm.gov/fireplanning/ LUPEAFire92605FINAL.pdf 

BLM. 2005d. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Implementation of a 

Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. June. 

BLM. 2005e. Mineral Potential Report for the Moab Planning Area, Grand and San Juan 

Counties, Utah. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. August. 

BLM. 2005f. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2005i. Summary Data for Bureau of Land Management. Appendix D in Recreational Fee 

Demonstration Program Annual Report, FY 2003. Department of the Interior and 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 2006a. Normal Year Fire Rehabilitation and Stabilization Plan. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2006b. Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Moab 

Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Record of Decision. USDI BLM. FES 

07-21. 

BLM 2007b. Final Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Report. USDI BLM. FES 0721. 

Connelly, John W., Michael A. Schroeder, Alan R. Sands, and Clait E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines 

to Manage Sage Grouse Populations and Their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 

967–985. 

Connelly, John W., Steven T. Knick, Michael A. Schroeder, and San J. Stiver. 2004. 

Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Cowardin, L. W., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. 

CRCT Task Force. 2001. Conservation agreement and strategy for Colorado River cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. 

DOE. 2005. Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, 

Utah, Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0355. Department of Energy, 

Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – References 

149

Department of Energy and Bureau of Land Management (DOE and BLM). 2006. West-wide 

Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS Information Center: "Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in 11 Western 

States." DOE/EIS-0386 [internet website]. Department of Energy and Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. [Last Accessed June 15, 2007]. Available at http:// 

corridoreis.anl.gov/index.cfm. 

Edwards, T. C., Jr., C. G. Homer, S. D. Bassett, A. Falconer, R. D. Ramsey, and D. W. Wight. 

1995. Utah Gap Analysis: An Environmental Information System. Final Project Report 

95-1. Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State University, Logan. 

Grand County. 2004. Grand County General Plan Update. Prepared by Grand County, Moab, 

Utah. 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee (GSRSC). 2005. Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Rangewide Conservation Plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. April. 

Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In 

The Birds of North America, No. 61, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia: The 

Academy of Natural Sciences, and Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' 

Union. 

Lentsch, L., and Y. Converse. 1997. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River 

Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the State of Utah. Publication 

Number 97-20. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

Lowry Jr., J. H., R. D. Ramsey, K. Boykin, D. Bradford, P. Comer, S. Falzarano, W. Kepner, J. 

Kirby, L. Langs, J. Prior-Magee, G. Manis, L. O'Brien, T. Sajwaj, K. A. Thomas, W. 

Rieth, S. Schrader, D. Schrupp, K. Schulz, B. Thompson, C. Velasquez, C. Wallace, E. 

Waller and B. Wolk. 2005. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project: Final Report on 

Land Cover Mapping Methods. RS/GIS Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1974. Canyonlands National Park General Management Plan. 

National Park Service, Canyonlands National Park, Moab, Utah. 

NPS. 1979. Wild and Scenic River Study Final Environmental Statement, Colorado and Lower 

Dolores Wild and Scenic Rivers. National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, 

Colorado. September. 

NPS. 1989. General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan: Arches National Park, Utah. 

National Park Service, Arches National Park, Moab, Utah. 

NPS. 1995. Canyonlands National Park and Orange Cliffs Unit of Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area Backcountry Management Plan. National Park Service, Canyonlands 

National Park, Moab, Utah. 

NPS. 2003. Canyonlands National Park Long-range Interpretive Plan. National Park Service, 

Canyonlands National Park, Moab, Utah. 

NPS. 2006. Superintendent's Orders Established for Canyonlands National Park. Compendium 

on 36 CFR 1.7(b). National Park Service, Canyonlands National Park, Moab, Utah. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – References 

150

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1981. Soil Survey of Grand County, Utah. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, 

D.C. 

Parrish, J. R., F. P. Howe, and R. Norvell. 2002. The Utah avian conservation strategy, version 

2.0. UDWR Publication No. 02-27. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

Romin, L. A., and J. A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from 

Human and Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, 

Salt Lake City. 

San Juan County. 1996. San Juan County Master Plan. Prepared by San Juan County, 

Monticello, Utah. 

Sogge, M. K., R. M. Marshall, S. J. Sferra, and T. J. Tibbitts. 1997. A Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol. Technical Report NPS/ 

NAUCPRS/NRTR-97/12. U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, 

Colorado Plateau Field Station, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 

Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, S. D. Bunnell, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, 

C. W. McCarthy, and M. A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive 

Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. December. 

USDA, Forest Service (USFS). 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan, Manti-La Sal 

National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Manti-La Sal National Forest, Price, Utah. 

USFS, BLM, and NPS. 1996. Wild and Scenic River Review in the State of Utah, Process and 

Criteria for Interagency Use. Available at Bureau of Land Management, Utah State 

Office, Salt Lake City. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 1987. Environmental Assessment for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program, Lakewood, Colorado. 

USFWS. 1988. Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 1990a. Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Plan, 2nd Revised. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 1990b. Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Colorado River Fishes Recovery 

Team, Denver. Prepared for Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 1991. Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Colorado River Fishes 

Recovery Team, Denver. Prepared for Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – References 

151

USFWS. 1995. Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 1999. Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Colorado River Fishes 

Recovery Team, Denver. Prepared for Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 2002a. Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery Plan (Amendment and 

Supplement for Recovery Goals), Final Revision 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah 

Field Office, Salt Lake City. 

USFWS. 2002b. Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to 

the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie 

Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

USFWS. 2002c. Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals, Amendment and Supplement to the 

Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan, Final Revision 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 2002d. Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen fexanus) Recovery Plan, Amendment and 

Supplement for Recovery Goals, Final Revision 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Denver. 

USFWS. 2002e. Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax 

traillii extimus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque. 

USFWS. 2002f. Birds of Conservation Concern, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division 

of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 

USFWS. 2005. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2007. Environmental Effects of Off-Highway Vehicles on 

Bureau of Land Management Lands: A Literature Synthesis, Annotated Bibliographies, 

Extensive Bibliographies and Internet Resources. 

UDEQ. 2002. Utah's 2002 303(d) List of Waters. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Salt Lake City. 

Utah Division of Air Quality and Environmental Protection Agency (UDAQ and EPA). 2006. 

US EPA Air Data Mapping and Emissions Tool, Nonattainment Areas Maps for Utah 

[online database]. Utah Division of Air Quality, Salt Lake City. [Last Accessed June 18, 

2007]. Available at http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/ and http://www.epa.gov/air/data/ 

nonat.html?st%7EUT%7EUtah. 

Utah Division of Water Resources (UDWRe). 2000. Utah State Water Plan, Southeast Colorado 

River Basin. Utah Division of Water Resources, Salt Lake City. 

Utah Division of Water Rights (UDWRi). 2003. Water Use Records Application [application 

download]. Utah Division of Water Rights, Salt Lake City. [Last Accessed June 18, 

2007]. Available at http://waterrights.utah.gov/cgi-bin/wuseview.exe. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – References 

152

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 1985a. Cisco Desert Habitat Management Plan. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 1985b. Hatch Point Habitat Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 1985c. Dolores Triangle Habitat Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 1986. The Potash-Confluence Habitat Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 1999. Statewide Management Plan for Bighorn Sheep. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 2000a. Utah Upland Game Annual Report, 1999. Publication 00-27. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 2000b. Utah Black Bear Management Plan. Publication 00-23. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. June 27. 

UDWR. 2002. Strategic Management Plan for Sage-grouse. Publication 02-20. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. June. 

UDWR. 2005a. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Publication Number 05-

19. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. September. 

UDWR. 2005b. Utah Sensitive Species List. Unpublished document, Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 2006. Utah Big Game Annual Report, 2005. Publication 06-21. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR, 2007. Aerial Survey Counts (Pronghorn). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt 

Lake City. 

UDWR, 2007. Utah Bighorn Sheep State-wide Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources. Salt Lake City. 

UDWR, 2008. 2008 Antlerless Deer Permit Summary and Recommendations. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City. 

UDWR, 2008. 2008 Antlerless Elk Permit Summary and Recommendations. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

153

GLOSSARY 

Activity Plan: Site-specific plan which precedes actual development. This is the most detailed 

level of BLM planning. 

All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV): A wheeled or tracked vehicle, other than a snowmobile or work 

vehicle, designed primarily for recreational use or for the transportation of property or equipment 

exclusively on undeveloped road rights of way, open country or other unprepared surfaces. 

Allotment: An area of land where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. 

Allotments generally consist of BLM lands but may also include other federally managed, state 

owned, and private lands. An allotment may include one or more separate pastures. Livestock 

numbers and periods of use are specified for each allotment. 

Animal Unit Month (AUM): A standardized measurement of the amount of forage necessary 

for the sustenance of one cow unit or its equivalent for 1 month. Approximately 800 pounds of 

forage. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): Areas within the public lands where 

special management attention is required to: (1) protect and prevent irreparable damage to 

important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems 

or processes, or (2) protect life and safety from natural hazards. 

Authorized Officer: The Federal employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific 

decision. 

Avoidance Areas: Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way leases, and 

easements would be strongly discouraged. Authorization made in avoidance areas would have to 

be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated and not is otherwise feasible 

on lands outside the avoidance area. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. Best management practices are often 

developed in conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a land use plan 

decision unless the land use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be updated or 

modified without a plan amendment if they are not mandatory. 

Big Game: Large species of wildlife that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and 

pronghorn antelope. 

Candidate Species: Any species included in the Federal Register notice of review that are being 

considered for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Casual Use: Mining activities that only negligibly disturb federal lands and resources. Casual 

use generally includes the collecting of geochemical, rock, soil, or mineral specimens using hand 

tools, hand panning, and 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. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

154

Closed: Generally denotes that an area is not available for a particular use or uses; refer to 

specific definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual 

programs. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The official, legal tabulation or regulations directing 

federal government activities. 

Conditions of Approval: Conditions or provisions (requirements) under which an Application 

for a Permit to Drill or a Sundry Notice is approved. 

Conformance: That a proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, 

if not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards 

of the approved land use plan. 

Conservation Agreement: A formal signed agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or National Marine Fisheries Service and other parties that implements specific actions, 

activities, or programs designed to eliminate or reduce threats or otherwise improve the status of 

a species. CA's can be developed at a State, regional, or national level and generally include 

multiple agencies at both the State and Federal level, as well as tribes. Depending on the types of 

commitments the BLM makes in a CA and the level of signatory authority, plan revisions or 

amendments may be required prior to signing the CA, or subsequently in order to implement the 

CA. 

Conservation Strategy: A Strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to 

the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a 

decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and 

animals that are designated as BLM Sensitive species or that have been determined by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service to be Federal candidates under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Contiguous: Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary; lands having only a 

common corner are not contiguous. 

Cooperating Agency: Assists the lead Federal agency in developing an Environmental Analysis 

or Environmental Impact Statement. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

implementing NEPA defines a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA. Any tribe of Federal, State, or local 

government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency by 

agreement with the lead agency. 

Corridor: A wide strip of land within which a proposed linear facility could be located. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President of the United 

States established by the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews Federal 

programs for their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the 

president on environmental matters. 

Critical Habitat (for listed species): Consists of 1) the specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 

of the Endangered Species Act, on which are found those physical or biological features 

(constituent elements) a) essential to the conservation of the species and b) which may require 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

155

special management considerations or protection; and 2) specific areas outside the geographical 

are occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 

of the Endangered Species Act upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the species. Designated critical habitats are described in 50 

CFR§ 17 and 226. 

Crucial Habitat: Habitat on which a species depends for survival because there are no 

alternative ranges or habitats available. 

Crucial Winter Habitat (Range): Parts of the habitat necessary to sustain a wildlife population 

at critical periods of its life cycle. This is often a limiting factor on the populations, such as 

breeding habitat, winter habitat, etc. 

Cryptobiotic (Cryptogrammic) Soils: Biological communities that form a surface layer or crust 

on some soils. These communities consist of cyanobacteria (blue-green bacteria), micro fungi, 

mosses, lichens, and green algae and perform many important functions, including fixing 

nitrogen and carbon, maintaining soil surface stability, and preventing erosion. Crypto biotic 

crusts also influence the nutrient levels of soils and the status and germination of plants in the 

desert. These crusts are slow to recover after severe disturbance, requiring 40 years of more to 

recolonize even small areas. 

Cultural Resources: Nonrenewable elements of the physical and human environment including 

archeological remains (evidence of prehistoric or historic human activities) and sociocultural 

values traditionally held by ethnic groups (sacred places, traditionally utilized raw materials, 

etc.). 

Cultural Site: Any location that includes prehistoric and/or historic evidence of human use or 

that has important sociocultural value. 

Cumulative Impact: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time. 

Current Habitat: habitat currently occupied by a species during the development of the plan. 

Desired Condition: Description of those factors, which should exist within ecosystems both to 

maintain their survival and to meet social and economic needs. 

Discretionary Closure: Those lands where the BLM has determined that fluid minerals leasing, 

even with the most restrictive stipulations, would not adequately protect other resources, values, 

or land uses. 

Dispersed/Extensive Recreation: Recreation activities of an unstructured type, which are not 

confined to specific locations such as recreation sites. Example of these activities may be 

hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use, hiking, and sightseeing. 

Disturbance Area: Area of influence around a disturbance causing a change in animal behavior 

such as: leaving the area, increased stress, abandoning young, not breeding, and aberrant 

behavior. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

156

Drought: Drought is a protracted period of deficient precipitation resulting in extensive damage 

to crops, resulting in loss of yield. 

Easement: A right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of another's real property for 

access or other purposes. 

Endangered Species: A plant or animal species whose prospects for survival and reproduction 

are in immediate jeopardy, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior, and as is further 

defined by the Endangered Species Act. 

Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise public document that analyzes the environmental 

impacts of a proposed federal action and provides sufficient evidence to determine the level of 

significance of the impacts. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written statement required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act when an agency proposes a major federal action significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment. 

Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological 

agents. 

Exclusion Area: Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way , leases, and 

easements would not be authorized. 

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA): An area where significant recreation 

opportunities and problems are limited and explicit recreation management is not required. 

Minimal management actions related to the BLM's stewardship responsibilities are adequate in 

these areas. 

Fawning Habitat: an area where big game animals usually give birth during a specific time of 

year. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA): Public Law 94-579. October 

21, 1976, often referred to as the BLM's "Organic Act," which provides the majority of the 

BLM's legislated authority, direction, policy, and basic management guidance. 

Federal Register: A daily publication, which reports Presidential and Federal Agency 

documents. 

Fire Management Plan: A strategic plan that defines a program to manage wild land and 

prescribed fires and documents the fire management program in the approved land use plan; the 

plan is supplemented by operational procedures such as preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch 

plans, prescribed fire plans, and prevention plans. 

Floodplain: The relatively flat area or lowlands adjoining a body of standing or flowing water, 

which has been or might be covered by floodwater. 

Fluid Minerals: Oil and gas resources. 

Focus Area: A recreation management zone that emphasizes particular types of recreation 

activities. 

Fossil: Mineralized or petrified form from a past geologic age, especially from previously living 

things. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

157

Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer system capable of storing, analyzing, and 

displaying data and describing places on the earth's surface. 

Goal: A broad statement of a desired outcome. Goals are usually not quantifiable and may not 

have established time frames for achievement. 

Grandfather (to): To exempt groups or individuals from provisions of laws or regulations 

because of preexisting conditions, such as exempting mining operations existing before new 

mining regulations are implemented from provisions of those new regulations. 

Grazing System: The manipulation of livestock grazing to accomplish a desired result. 

Guidelines: Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, 

sometimes expressed as best management practices. Guidelines may be identified during the land 

use planning process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan 

specifies that they are mandatory. 

Habitat: A specific set of physical conditions that surround a species, group of species, or a 

large community. In wildlife management, the major constituents of habitat are considered to be 

food, water, cover, and living space. 

Habitat Fragmentation: The disruption (by division) of extensive habitats into smaller habitat 

patches. The effects of habitat fragmentation include loss of habitat area and the creation of 

smaller, more isolated patches of remaining habitat. 

Historic Habitat: habitat occupied by a species prior to the development of this plan. 

Impact: A modification of the existing environment caused by an action. These environmental 

consequences are the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives. Effects may 

be either direct, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, or indirect, 

which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still 

reasonably foreseeable, or cumulative. 

Implementation Decisions: Decisions that take action to implement land use plan decisions. They 

are generally appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Implementation Plan: A site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a land use 

plan. An implementation plan usually selects and applies best management practices to meet land 

use plan objectives. Implementation plans are synonymous with "activity" plans. Examples of 

implementation plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat management plans, 

and allotment management plans. 

Indian Tribe: Any Indian group in the conterminous United States that the Secretary of the 

Interior recognizes as possessing tribal status. 

Interdisciplinary Team: A group of individuals with different training, representing the 

physical sciences, social sciences, and environmental design arts, assembles to solve a problem 

or perform a task. The members of the team proceed to a solution with frequent interaction so 

that each discipline may provide insights to any stage of the problem and disciplines may 

combine to provide new solutions. The number and disciplines of the members preparing the 

plan vary with circumstances. A member may represent one or more disciplines or BLM 

program interests. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

158

Lambing Habitat: An area where bighorn sheep deliver and nurse young during a specific time 

of year. 

Land Use Allocation: The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable 

development that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based 

on desired future conditions. 

Land Use Plan: A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an 

administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of 

land-use-plan-level decisions developed through the planning process, regardless of the scale at 

which the decisions were developed. 

Land Use Plan Decision: Establishes desired outcomes and the actions needed to achieve them. 

Decisions are reached using the BLM planning process. When they are presented to the public as 

proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not appealable to 

Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Leasable Minerals: Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920. They include coal, phosphate, sulphur, potassium, and sodium minerals, 

and oil, gas, and geothermal. 

Lease: (1) A legal document that conveys to an operator the right to drill for oil, gas; (2) the tract 

of land, on which a lease has been obtained, where producing wells and production equipment 

are located. 

Lease Notice: Provides more detailed information concerning limitations that already exist in 

law, lease terms, regulations, and operational orders. A Lease Notice also addresses special items 

the lessee would consider when planning operations, but does not impose new or additional 

restrictions. 

Lease Stipulation: A modification of the terms and conditions on a standard lease form at the 

time of the lease sale. 

Lek: An assembly area where birds, especially sage grouse, carry on display and courtship 

behavior. 

Limited Roads and Trails Designation: Designated areas where the use of off-road vehicles is 

subject to restrictions, such as limiting the number or types or vehicles allowed, dates and times 

of use (seasonal restrictions), and limiting all use to designated roads and trails. Under the 

designated roads and trails designation, use would be allowed only on roads and trails that are 

signed for use. Combinations of restrictions are possible, such as limiting use to certain types of 

vehicles during certain times of the year. 

Locatable Minerals: Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking 

mining claims as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of 

gold, silver, and other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale. 

Management Decision: A decision made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management 

decisions are made on both land use plan decisions and implementation decisions. 

Management Opportunities: A component of the analysis of the management situation; actions 

or management directions that could be taken to resolve issues or management concerns. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

159

Mechanized Travel: Travel by use of a machine, either motorized or non-motorized. 

Mineral Entry: The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any minerals it may 

contain. 

Mineral Estate: The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations. 

Mineral Materials: Materials such as common varieties of sand, stone, building stone, gravel, 

and clay that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be acquired under 

the Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended. These are also called salable minerals. 

Mineral Reserves: Known mineral deposits that are recoverable under present conditions but are 

as yet undeveloped. 

Mineral Withdrawal: A formal order that withholds federal lands and minerals from entry 

under the Mining Law of 1872 and closes the area to mineral location (staking mining claims) 

and development. 

Mining Claim: A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, having 

acquired the right of possession by complying with the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, and 

local laws and rules. A single mining claim may contain as many adjoining locations as the 

locator may make or buy. 

Mitigation Measures: Methods or procedures that reduce or lessen the impacts of an action. 

Multiple Use: The management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they 

are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American 

people; making the most judicious use of the lands for some or all of these resources or related 

services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to 

conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some lands for less than all of the 

resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long 

term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including but not 

limited to, recreation, range, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific 

and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources 

without permanent impairment of the productivity of the lands and the quality of the 

environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not 

necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or greatest unit 

output. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): An act that encourages productive and 

enjoyable harmony between man and his environment and promotes efforts to prevent or 

eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; 

enriches the understanding or the ecological systems and natural resources important to the 

Nation, and establishes the Council on Environmental Quality. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: A system of nationally designated rivers and their 

immediate environments that have outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, 

historic, cultural, and other similar values and are preserved in a free-flowing condition. The 

system consists of three river classifications: (1) recreation-rivers or sections of rivers that are 

readily accessible by road or railroad and that may have some development along their shorelines 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

160

and may have undergone some impoundments or diversion in the past, (2) scenic-rivers or 

sections of rivers free of impoundments with shorelines or watersheds still largely undeveloped 

but accessible in places by roads, and (3) wild-rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments 

and generally inaccessible except by trails, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive 

and waters unpolluted. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds: Birds that travel to Central America, South America, the 

Caribbean, and Mexico during the fall to spend the winter and then return to the United States 

and Canada During the spring to breed. These birds include almost half of the bird species that 

breed in the United States and Canada. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO): A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits occupancy or 

disturbance on all or part of the lease surface to protect special values or uses. Lessees may 

exploit the fluid mineral resources under the leases restricted by this constraint through use of 

directional drilling from sites outside the area. 

Non-mechanized Travel: Travel by foot or on an animal. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Undeveloped federal land that has been 

inventoried and/or reviewed by a BLM interdisciplinary team and determined to possess 

wilderness characteristics such as those listed in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

These lands do not possess special management designations like WSAs or protective 

management measures such as the IMP. 

Noxious Weeds: A plant species designated by Federal of State law as generally possessing one 

or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or 

host of serious insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States. 

Objective: A description of a desired condition for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and 

measured and, where possible, have established time frames for achievement. 

Occupied Habitat: An area occupied by a species during the development of this plan. 

Open: Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific 

program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual 

programs. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV): Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or 

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any nonamphibious 

registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being 

used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the 

authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any 

combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies. 

One-Hundred-Year Flood: A hydrologic event with a magnitude that has a recurrence interval 

of 100 years. 

Open OHV Areas: Designated areas where off-road vehicles may engage in cross country 

travel. 

Operator: Any person who has taken formal responsibility for the operations conducted on the 

leased lands. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

161

Outstandingly Remarkable River Values: Values between those listed in Section 1(b) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are "scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, 

cultural, or other similar values..." Other similar values, which may be considered, include 

botanical, hydrological, paleontological, or scientific. Professional judgment is used to determine 

whether values exist to an outstandingly remarkable degree. 

Paleontological Resources (Fossils): The physical remains of plants and animals preserved in 

soils and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are important for understanding 

past environments, environmental change, and the evolution of life. 

Paleontology: A science dealing with the life forms of past geological periods as known from 

fossil remains. 

Plan of Development: A mandatory plan, developed by an applicant of a mining operation or 

construction project that specifies the techniques and measures to be used during construction 

and operation of all project facilities on public land. The plan is submitted for approval to the 

appropriate Federal agency before any construction begins. 

Plan of Operations: A plan for mining exploration and development that an operation must 

submit to BLM for approval when more than 5 acres a year will be disturbed or when an operator 

plans to work in an area of critical environmental concern or a wilderness area. A plan of 

Operations must document in detail all actions that the operator plans to take from exploration 

through reclamation. 

Planning Area: A geographical area, including all land ownerships, for which BLM land use 

and resource management plans are developed and maintained for the BLM-administered lands 

within that geographical area. 

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. 

Prescribed Fire: The introduction of fire to an area under regulated conditions for specific 

management purposes. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Non-motorized, non-mechanized and undeveloped 

types of recreational activities. 

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. 

Public Land: Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the BLM, except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf, 

and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

Quarry: An open or surface working, usually for the extraction of stone, slate, limestone, etc. 

Range Development: A structure, excavation, treatment or development to rehabilitate, protect, 

or improve lands to advance range betterment. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

162

Rangeland: Land used for grazing by livestock and big game animals on which vegetation is 

dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs. 

Raptor: Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks such as hawks, owls, vultures, 

and eagles. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD): The prediction of the type and amount 

of oil, gas and other mineral activity that would occur in a given area. The prediction is based on 

geologic factors, past history of drilling, projected demand for oil and gas, and industry interest. 

Record of Decision (ROD): A document signed by a responsible official recording a decision 

that was preceded by the preparing of an environmental impact statement. 

Recreational River: A wild and scenic river classification that identifies those rivers are river 

segments that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along 

their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Relict: A remnant or fragment of the vegetation of an area that remains from a former period 

when the vegetation was more widely distributed. 

Resource Management Plan (RMP): A land use plan as prescribed by the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act which establishes, for a given area of land, land-use allocations, 

coordination guidelines for multiple-use, objectives and actions to be achieved. 

Right-of-Way (ROW): A ROW grant is an authorization to use a specific piece of public land 

for a specific project, such as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and renewable energy and 

communication sites. The grant authorizes rights and privileges for a specific use of the land for 

a specific period of time. 

Riparian Area: A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and 

upland areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the 

influence of permanent surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas include lands along, 

adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial 

potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are ephemeral 

streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil. 

Riparian-Functioning at Risk (FAR): Riparian-wetland areas are considered to be in 

functioning condition, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible 

to degradation. 

Riparian-Non-Functioning (NF): Riparian-wetland areas that are clearly not providing 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large wood debris to dissipate stream energy associated with 

high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc. 

Riparian-Properly Functioning Condition (PFC): Riparian/wetland areas are in PFC when 

adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris is present to: dissipate high-energy water flow, 

filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve floodwater retention 

and groundwater recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks; develop diverse 

fluvial geomorphology (pool and channel complexes) to provide habitat for wildlife and support 

greater biodiversity 

Rock Art: Petroglyphs or pictographs. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

163

Route: A linear line for motorized travel. 

Rutting Habitat: An area where big game species engage in breeding activities during specific 

times of the year. 

Salable Minerals: Common variety minerals on the public lands, such as sand and gravel, which 

are used mainly for construction and are disposed of by sales or special permits to local 

governments. Also referred to as mineral materials. 

Scenic Byways: Highway routes, which have roadsides or corridors of special aesthetic, cultural, 

or historic value. An essential part of the highway is its scenic corridor. The corridor may contain 

outstanding scenic vistas, unusual geologic features, or other natural elements. 

Scoping: The process of identifying the range of issues, management concerns, preliminary 

alternatives, and other components of an environmental impact statement or land-use planning 

document. It involves both internal and public viewpoints. 

Section 7 Consultation: The requirement of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act that all 

federal agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries 

Service if a proposed action might affect a federally listed species or its critical habitat. 

Section 106 Compliance: The requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act that any project funded, licensed, permitted, or assisted by the Federal Government by 

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. 

Sensitive Species: All species that are under status review, have small or declining populations, 

live in unique habitats, or need special management. Sensitive species include threatened, 

endangered, and proposed species as classified by the Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

Significant: An effect that is analyzed in the context of the proposed action to determine the 

degree or magnitude of importance of the effect, wither beneficial or adverse. The degree of 

significance can be related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively 

significant impacts. 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA): Areas, which require explicit recreation 

management to achieve recreation objectives and provide specific recreation opportunities. 

Special Status Species: Includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under 

the Endangered Species Act; State-listed species; and BLM State Director-designated sensitive 

species (see BLM Manual 6840-Special Status Species Policy). 

Stipulations: Requirements that are part of the terms of a mineral lease. Some stipulations are 

standard on all Federal leases. Other stipulations may be applied to the lease at the discretion of 

the surface management agency to protect valuable surface resources and uses. 

Surface Disturbance: activities that normally result in more than negligible disturbance to 

public lands and that accelerate the natural erosive process. These activities normally involve use 

and/or occupancy of the surface, cause disturbance to soils and vegetation, and are usually 

caused by motorized or mechanical actions. Surface disturbance may result from activities using 

earth-moving and drilling equipment; geophysical exploration; off road vehicle travel; vegetation 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

164

treatments; the use of pyrotechnics and explosives; and construction of facilities like powerlines, 

pipelines, oil and gas wells, recreation sites, livestock facilities, wildlife waters, or new roads. 

Surface disturbance is not normally caused by casual use. Activities that are not typically surface 

disturbing include, but are not limited to, proper livestock grazing, cross-country hiking, 

minimum impact filming and vehicle travel on designated routes. 

Sustainability: The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, 

biological diversity, and productivity over time. 

Threatened Species: Any plant or animal species defined under the Endangered Species Act as 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range; listings are published in the Federal Register. 

Timing Limitation Stipulation: A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits surface use 

during specified time periods to protect identified resource values. The constraint does not apply 

to the operation and maintenance of production facilities unless analysis demonstrates that such 

constraints are needed and that less stringent, project-specific constraints would be insufficient. 

Undertaking: (16 USC Sec. 470w(7)) A project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part 

under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on 

behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a 

Federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to State or local regulation administered 

pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency. 

Utility Corridor: A parcel of land that has been identified by law, Secretarial order, through a 

land use plan or by other management decision as being the preferred location for existing and 

future right-of-way grants and suitable to accommodate one type of right-of-way or one or more 

rights-of-way which are similar, identical or compatible. 

Valid Existing Rights: Valid existing rights are legal rights to use the land that were in existence 

prior to implementation of the decisions in the RMP. The most significant types of valid existing 

rights are oil and gas leases, potash and salt leases, mining claims, and right-of-way 

authorizations. The oil and gas leasing stipulations specified for specific areas in the RMP would 

not apply to existing leases. These existing leases would be subject to the specific lease 

stipulations that were applied under the previous land use plan. Mining claims that exist on the 

effective day of a withdrawal may still be valid if they can meet the test of discovery of a 

valuable mineral required under the Mining Laws. An existing right-of-way would only be 

subject to the specific terms and conditions that were applied when it was authorized even if it is 

located within a right-of-way exclusion or avoidance area specified under the RMP. 

Vegetation Manipulation: Alteration of vegetation by using fire, plowing, or other means. 

Vegetation Type: A plant community with distinguishable characteristics described by the 

dominant vegetation present. 

Visual Resources: The visible physical features of a landscape (topography, water, vegetation, 

animals, structures, and other features) that constitute the scenery of an area. 

Waiver: Permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies 

anywhere within the leasehold. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

165

Water Quality: The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect to 

its suitability for a particular use. 

Watershed: All lands, which are enclosed by a continuous hydrologic drainage, divide and lay 

upslope from a specified point on a stream. 

Way: A vehicle route within a wilderness study area that was in existence and identified during 

the FLPMA Section 603-mandated wilderness inventory. The Interim Management Policy for 

Lands under Wilderness Review (H-8550-1) defines a way as "a trace maintained solely by the 

passage of vehicles which has not been improved and/or maintained by mechanical means to 

ensure relatively regular and continuous use." The term is also used during wilderness inventory 

to identify routes that are not roads. The term developed from the definition of the term 

"roadless" provided in the Wilderness Inventory Handbook (September 27, 1978), as follows: 

"roadless: refers to the absence of roads which have been improved and maintained by 

mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by 

the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road." 

Wild, Scenic or Recreational River: The three classes of what is traditionally referred to as a 

"Wild and Scenic River." Designated river segments are classified as wild, scenic and/or 

recreational, but the segments cannot overlap. 

Wild, and Scenic River Study: Rivers identified in Section 5 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

for study as potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The rivers shall 

be studied under the provisions of Section 4 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Wilderness Study Area: A roadless area or island of undeveloped federal land that has been 

inventoried and found to possess wilderness characteristics described under Title VI, Section 603 

of FLPMA and Section 2C of the Wilderness Act of 1964. These characteristics are: (1) 

generally appears to have been affected mainly by the forces of nature, with human imprints 

substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres or is large enough to make practicable 

its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, 

geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. 

Wilderness: A congressionally designated area of undeveloped federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation that is 

protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions as described in Section 2A of the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Wilderness Characteristics: Features of the land associated with the concept of wilderness that 

specifically deal with naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined 

recreation. These characteristics may be considered in land use planning when BLM determines 

that those characteristics are reasonably present, of sufficient value (condition, uniqueness, 

relevance, importance), and need (trend, risk), and are practical to manage (from IM-2003-275, 

Change 1, Considerations of Wilderness Characteristics in LUP, Attachment 1). Key 

characteristics of wilderness listed in section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 were used by 

BLM in conducting wilderness inventories. These characteristics are features of land associated 

with the concept of wilderness. 

Wildfire: Any unwanted wild land fire. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – Glossary 

166

Wildland Fire: Any nonstructural fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wild land. 

Winter Range. The portion of the winter range to which a wildlife species is confined during 

periods of heaviest snow cover. 

Withdrawal: An action that restricts the use of public lands by removing them from the 

operation of some or all of the public land or mining laws. 

Woodland: A forest community occupied primarily by noncommercial species such as juniper, 

mountain mahogany, or quaking aspen groves; all western juniper forestlands are classified as 

woodlands, since juniper is classified as a noncommercial species. 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – List of Preparers 

167

LIST OF PREPARERS 

The BLM Moab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved RMP was written and produced 

by a team composed of interdisciplinary resource specialists. The table below lists the name, 

position, and planning role of the team members associated with preparation of these documents. 

List of Preparers 

Name Position Planning Role 

Jean Carson GIS Specialist GIS Mapping 

Brent Northrup Resource Advisor RMP Project Manager, 

Minerals, Health and Safety 

Pam Riddle Wildlife Biologist Wildlife and Fisheries, Special 

Status Animal Species 

Bill Stevens Planning Specialist Wilderness, Socioeconomics, 

Travel 

Katie Stevens Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, 

Recreation, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

Doug Wight GIS Coordinator GIS Mapping 

Dave Williams Range Conservationist Livestock Grazing 

Shelley Smith Canyon Country District 

Manager Management 

Ron Bolander Wildlife Biologist Special Status Animal Species 

Steve Madsen Wildlife Biologist Wildlife and Fisheries 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – List of Tables 

168

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Surface Ownership/Administration of Lands within the MPA (acres) 

Table 2. Management Protection Provided to Potential ACECs Not Designated in the 

Approved RMP 
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – List of Appendices 

169

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Stipulations and Environmental Best Practices Applicable to Oil and Gas 

Leasing and Other Surface-disturbing Activities 

Appendix B: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion Memorandum 

Appendix C: State Historic Preservation Office Letter of Concurrence 

Appendix D: Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Management 

Appendix E: Moab RMP Monitoring Plan 

Appendix F: Tentative Implementation Schedule 

Appendix G: Land Tenure Adjustments and Withdrawal Criteria 

Appendix H: Film Permits: Minimum Impact Criteria 

Appendix I: Lands Identified for Disposal in the Moab RMP 

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

Appendix K: Identification of Wilderness Characteristics on Non-WSA Lands Managed 

by the Moab BLM 

Appendix L: Moab Field Office Recreation Rules 

Appendix M: Special Recreation Management Areas: Goals, Settings, Outcomes, and 

Management Prescriptions 

Appendix N: Travel Plan Development 

Appendix O: Hydraulic Considerations for Pipelines Crossing Stream Channels 

Appendix P: Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process 

Appendix Q: Conservation Measures for Threatened and Endangered Species of Utah 

from the Use Plan Programmatic BAs and Section 7 Consultation 

Appendix R: Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats in 

Utah 

Appendix S: Desired Future Conditions for Vegetation 

Appendix T: Drought Classification System 

Appendix U: Additional Wildlife Information
Moab Approved Resource Management Plan – List of Maps 

170

LIST OF MAPS 

Map 1: Moab Planning Area 

Map 2: Designated Routes 

Map 3: Designated Motorcycle/ATV Routes 

Map 4: Designated Mountain Bike Single Track Trails 

Map 5: Existing Withdrawals from Mineral Entry 

Map 6: Utility Corridors 

Map 7: Lands Identified for Disposal 

Map 8: Grazing Allotments 

Map 9: Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing, Rutting and Migration Habitat 

Map 10: Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat 

Map 11: Areas Not Available for Livestock Grazing 

Map 12: Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations 

Map 13: Known Potash Leasing Areas 

Map 14: Salable Minerals Sites 

Map 15: Non-WSA Lands Inventoried for Wilderness Characteristics 

Map 16: Non-WSA Lands Managed for Wilderness Characteristics 

Map 17: Special Recreation Management Areas 

Map 18: Recreation Focus Areas 

Map 19: Steep Slopes (over 30 Percent) in Bookcliffs 

Map 20: Moderate to High Saline Soils 

Map 21: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Map 22: Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Map 23: Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas 

Map 24: Endangered Colorado River Fish Critical Habitat 

Map 25: Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat 

Map 26: Bald and Golden Eagle Habitat 

Map 27: Sage Grouse Habitat 

Map 28: Prairie Dog Sensitive Species Habitat 

Map 29: Ferruginous Hawk and Burrowing Owl Habitat 

Map 30: Off Highway Vehicle Designations 

Map 31: Visual Resource Management 

Map 32: Pronghorn Habitat 

Map 33: Deer and/or Elk Habitat 

Map 34: Areas Not Available for Woodland Harvest and Wood Cutting