Record of Decision

Approved Resource Management Plan AND

Bureau of Land Management

MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE

NOVEMBER 2008

BLM
Bureau of Land Management

BLM-UT-PL-09-004-1610

UT-090-2007-40

BLM Mission

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

for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.


MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE 

RECORD OF DECISION 

AND 

APPROVED 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

November 2008 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Monticello Field Office 

Monticello, Utah 

Cooperating Agencies: 

State of Utah 

San Juan County 

Monticello Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - Table of Contents

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

RECORD OF DECISION 1

A. INTRODUCTION 1

Purpose and Need for the Plan 1

Monticello Planning Area 2

B. OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES 3

Alternative A 4

Alternative B 4

Alternative C 6

Alternative D 6

Alternative E 8

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Analysis 10

C. RESULTS OF PROTEST PERIOD 13

D. THE DECISION 14

What the Decision/RMP Provides 15

What the Decision/RMP Does Not Provide 17

Implementation Decisions 18

 Travel Management 18

 Livestock Grazing 19

E. NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS 20

Minor Modifications 20

Clarifications 21

Errata to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 23

F. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING THE APPROVED RMP 23

All Surface Disturbing Activities 24

Air Quality 24

Cultural Resources 24

Fire Management 25

Lands and Realty 25

Livestock Grazing 27

Mineral Resources 27

Recreation 29

Riparian 30

Soil and Water 30

Special Designations - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 31

Special Designations - Wild and Scenic Rivers 34

Special Designations – Historic Trails 37

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 37

Travel Management 38

Vegetation 39

Visual Resource Management 39

Wildlife and Fisheries 40

Special Status Species 40

Woodlands 41
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - Table of Contents

ii

G. CONSISTENCY AND CONSULTATION REVIEW 42

Governor’s Consistency 42

NHPA Section 106 Consultation 42

Native American Consultation 42

Section 7 Consultation Under the Endangered Species Act 43

H. MITIGATION MEASURES 43

I. PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION 43

J. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 44

K. AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN 45

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 47

A. INTRODUCTION 47

B. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER BLM PLANS AND POLICIES 47

C. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 51

General Implementation Schedule of “One-Time” Actions 52

Maintaining the Plan 52

Changing the Plan 53

D. PLAN EVALUATION 53

E. MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 54

Management Common To All Resources (MCA) 55

Air Quality (AQ) 57

Cultural Resources (CUL) 59

Fire Management (FIRE) 62

Health and Safety (HAZ) 67

Lands and Realty (LAR) 69

Livestock Grazing (GRA) 75

Mineral Resources (MIN) 79

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (WC) 85

Paleontology (PAL) 86

Recreation (REC) 88

Riparian Resources (RIP) 113

Soil and Water Resources (SOLW) 116

Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 118

Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) 128

Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) 133

Special Designations: Historic Trails (HT) 135

Special Status Species (SSP) 136

Travel Management (TM) 141

Vegetation (VEG) 146

Visual Resource Management (VRM) 149

Wildlife And Fisheries Resources (FWL) 152

Woodlands (FOR) 157

REFERENCES 161

GLOSSARY 164
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - Table of Contents

iii

LIST OF PREPARERS 181

LIST OF APPENDICES 182 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - List of Acronyms

iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

APD Application for Permit to Drill (an oil or gas well) 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) 

ARPA Archeological Resource Protection Act (of 1979) 

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle 

AUM Animal unit month 

BA Biological Assessment 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BO Biological Opinion 

CAA Clean Air Act (of 1970) 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (of 

1980) 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COA Conditions of Approval 

CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan 

CSU Controlled Surface Use 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DFC Desired Future Condition 

DPC Desired Plant Community 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

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 

HMP Habitat Management Plan 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 

IMP Interim Management Policy 

LTA Land Tenure Agreement 

LUP Land Use Plan 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act (of 1918) 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - List of Acronyms

v

MFO Monticello Field Office 

MPA Monticello Planning Area 

MZ Management Zone 

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 

NRA National Recreation Area 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

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

NW&SR system National Wild and Scenic River System 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 

ORV Off Road Vehicle (an older acronym, replaced by OHV) 

P Primitive Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition (of riparian/wetland areas) 

PM Particulate Matter 

R&I Relevant and Important 

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

RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan 

RDCC (Utah) Resource Development and Coordinating Committee 

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

RHS Rangeland Health Standards 

RMIS Recreation Management Information System 

RMZ Recreation Management Zone 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW Right of Way 

S&G Standards & Guidelines 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SITLA (Utah) School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

SPM Semiprimitive Motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class 

SPNM Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

SRP Special Recreation Permit 

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

UAAQS Utah Ambient Air Quality Standards 

UAC Utah Administrative Code 

UDEQ Utah Division of Environmental Quality 

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFS United States Forest Service 

VRM Visual Resource Management 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - List of Acronyms

vi

WAFWA Western Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

WFIP Wildland Fire Implementation Plan 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

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

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - 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 Monticello Field Office (FO) as presented in the attached 

Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP). The Approved RMP was described as the 

Proposed Plan in the September 2008 Monticello Proposed RMP and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) (USDI-BLM 2008) with minor adjustments and clarifications which are 

explained later in this ROD. This ROD provides the background on development of the plan and 

rationale for approving the decisions contained in the Proposed Plan, and describes the 

clarification and/or modifications made to address protests received on the plan. The attached 

Monticello Field Office RMP (also referred to as the Approved RMP) includes the decisions 

themselves. 

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 [U.S.C.] 1712 

[a]). The BLM has determined it is necessary to revise the existing land-use plan (LUP) (1991 

San Juan Resource Management Plan) and prepare a new RMP for the Monticello Planning Area 

(PA) based on a number of new issues that have arisen since preparation of the existing plan. In 

general, the purpose of this Approved RMP is to provide a comprehensive framework for BLM's 

management of the public lands within the Monticello PA and its allocation of resources 

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

this plan revision was to: 

 Re-evaluate, 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. 

 Resolve multiple-use conflicts or issues between resource values and resource uses. The 

resulting Monticello RMP will establish consolidated guidance and updated goals, objectives, 

and management actions for the public lands in the decision area. The RMP will be 

comprehensive in nature and will address issues that have been identified through agency, 

interagency, and public scoping efforts. 

 Disclose and assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable 

future actions resulting from the management actions in each alternative pursuant to the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), its implementing 

regulations, and other applicable laws. 

Need 

A revision to the 1991 San Juan RMP is necessary because there have been significant 

alterations in the Monticello PA; specifically new information and changed resources, 

circumstances, and policies that may be relevant to the future management of public lands and 

allocation of resources under the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate. This determination is 

further corroborated by a Special Evaluation Report, completed in 2002 by the Monticello FO, 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

2

which concluded that some of the decisions within the 1991 San Juan RMP are in need of 

revision. 

There have been changes in the laws, policies, and regulations that direct the management of the 

resources on Monticello PA public lands. There has also been an increase in the amount of new 

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

Visitation to the region has grown, and population demographics have changed, as have public 

awareness and use of lands within the Monticello PA. 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. 

Monticello Planning Area

Of the approximate 4.5 million acres in the Monticello PA in southeastern Utah, the Monticello 

FO administers nearly 1.8 million surface acres of public lands (Appendix A, Map 1) and around 

2.5 million subsurface acres. The Monticello PA lies primarily within San Juan County, although 

a small portion extends into Grand County to the north. The Monticello PA includes within its 

boundaries a number of National Park Service (NPS) units, as well as lands administered by the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Canyonlands National Park lies along the northwestern portion of 

the PA boundary; Glen Canyon National Recreation Area lies along the western and 

southwestern parts; Natural Bridges National Monument lies in its southwestern part; 

Hovenweep National Monument lies in the southeastern part and a large unit of the Manti–La 

Sal National Forest lies in the center. Land ownership within the PA consists primarily of large 

blocks of BLM-administered public land interspersed with smaller, privately owned tracts and 

land owned by the State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). 

The McCracken Split Estate is jointly administered by the BLM and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA), and all of the land south of the San Juan River is Navajo Nation Reservation. Table 1 

shows land ownership and corresponding acreages within the Monticello PA (USDI-BLM 2004). 

Table 1: Land Ownership within the Monticello PA 

Ownership Acres 

BLM 1,785,127 

Navajo Nation Reservation 1,270,060 

Ute Reservation * 8,416 

National Park Service (NPS) 528,565 

Private 353,516 

SITLA 202,318 

USFS 319,933 

Total 4,467,935 

*This acreage does not include Ute allotments or interspersed tribal lands in the South Cottonwood or Allen Canyon area. These 

acreages are included in the private land total. 

The Monticello PA is known for its topographic diversity, extraordinarily striking landforms, and 

scenic attractions. It contains a wide variety of cultural and paleontological resources with 

numbers and concentrations of sites exceeding those found elsewhere in the region. The 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

3

topography is defined largely by high mountains, steep escarpments and ridges, and incised 

canyons, which are primarily a product of eroded sandstones and exposed igneous intrusions, 

such as the Abajo and La Sal Mountains. Elevations vary from 3,700 feet above sea level near 

Lake Powell to over 11,000 feet in the Abajo Mountains. Much of the Monticello PA provides 

habitat for desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, Rocky Mountain elk, and mule deer. 

Numerous raptor species, including bald eagles and peregrine falcons, also live in the area. Fish 

species that inhabit the rivers and waterways include humpback chub, bonytail, Colorado 

pikeminnow, and razorback sucker. 

Historical and traditional land uses within the Monticello PA, such as livestock grazing, hardrock mining, and energy and mineral development, continue to be widely practiced. Energy and 

mineral resources include oil, natural gas, uranium, vanadium, and building stone. However, 

recreational activities, such as backpacking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and sightseeing, are 

becoming increasingly popular within the PA. Recreational resources provide opportunities for 

public enjoyment as well as revenue for businesses in and adjacent to the Monticello PA. 

B. OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in detail in the Monticello 

Draft RMP/Draft EIS (USDI-BLM 2007) and in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (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 emphasizes a different combination of resource uses, allocations, and restoration 

measures to address issues and resolve conflicts among uses, so program goals were met using a 

variety of approaches in the alternatives. However, each alternative allowed for some level of 

support of all resources present in the planning area. The alternatives differed in how quickly the 

goals would be met, the degree to which they would be met, the emphasis placed on certain 

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

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

minor or no differences in management direction between alternatives. 

Alternative A (the No Action Alternative) is the continuation of the 1991 San Juan Resource 

Management Plan and is provided as a baseline for comparison. Alternative E is considered the 

environmentally preferable alternative, offering the most intensive, active management for 

protection of the area’s natural and biological values and favors natural systems over 

commodities development, including protecting all non-WSA lands BLM found to have 

wilderness characteristics. Alternative B is similar to Alternative E, but does not offer specific 

management to protect non-WSA lands with 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 RMP/Final EIS) best achieves a balance between environmental protection and use of 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

4

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

provided below. 

Alternative A 

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, and sometimes 

supersede provisions of the San Juan RMP. Alternative A was not selected because it does not 

meet the purpose and need for the management of public lands under the jurisdiction of the 

Monticello Field Office. The decisions in the San Juan RMP are largely based on outdated 

information. Equally as important, these decisions do not meet changing uses, trends, and 

conditions that have occurred since that time. The existing plan does not address many recent 

issues, nor does it address the increased levels of controversy some existing issues are facing. 

This alternative also does not contain adequate management guidelines to prevent adverse 

impacts associated with these changes in use. Special status species, including threatened and 

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

A designates 611,310 acres as open to OHV use. This large open acreage within the planning 

area results in the occurrence of unacceptable resource damage and is contrary to BLM policy. 

The No Action Alternative would continue the designation of ten existing ACECs, but would not 

consider or evaluate new ACECs. In addition, this alternative does not recommend suitable wild 

and scenic river segments, or consider non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to protect 

and preserve their wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative B 

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 

than other alternatives. With the exception of Alternative E, Alternative B protects the most land 

area for sensitive resources. It designates all potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs), and finds all the eligible segments suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic River system. It also restricts OHV use and surface disturbing activities (including oil 

and gas leasing). There are many uses that are overly restricted by the decisions in this 

alternative and are not necessary to protect sensitive resources. The rationale for not selecting 

Alternative B is outlined below for the major management actions. 

Travel Management: Alternative B limits OHV use to designated roads and trails on 1,359,417 

acres and closes it in 423,698 acres. This would close 24 percent of the field office to OHV use 

and access. There are no areas designated open to cross country OHV use. This alternative 

does not meet the needs of all public land users because it would unnecessarily limit access by 

closing about a quarter of the public lands to off highway vehicle use and motorized access. 

Closure is unnecessary in some of these areas, such as the Castle Creek and Steer Pasture 

Canyon, which can be adequately protected under a designated roads and trails category. 

Recreation: Alternative B establishes five Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), 

(four SRMAs and one Cultural Special Recreation Management Area (CSRMA)) as well as four 

Cultural Special Management Areas (CSMAs). The CSRMA and CSMA designations are new 

naming conventions (unique to the Monticello RMP) which were created to protect cultural 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

5

resources by managing visitors, and have proven to be confusing to the general public. 

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. As an example, rafting 

permits on the San Juan River would be limited, resulting in 25 percent less visitation on the 

river, which would also result in economic impacts for local businesses. This alternative 

provides for fewer permits and fewer people allowed under each permit to visit special recreation 

permit areas such as Cedar Mesa SRMA where private and commercial visitation would be 

decreased by 16 percent. These reductions are unnecessarily restrictive and are not needed to 

protect sensitive resources. 

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

the following stipulations: Closed - 416,612 acres; No Surface Occupancy (NSO) - 125,105 

acres; Timing Limitations/Controlled Surface Use - 876,740 acres; Open (subject to standard 

terms and conditions) - 365,170 acres. Mineral entry is available on 1,533,413 acres and 

recommended for withdrawal on 251,710 acres. In addition, mineral material disposal is 

available on 365,168 acres, available with special stipulations on 879,736 acres and unavailable 

on 542,402 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 

where this restrictive management is not necessary. In total, about 80 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 provide reasonable access 

and minimize impediments to oil and gas leasing and development. This alternative does not 

meet these policy objectives. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Under Alternative B there are no non-WSA 

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

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

Lands and Realty: In Alternative B, 416,612 acres are managed as exclusion areas for rights-ofway and 125,105 acres are managed as avoidance areas for rights-of-way. Approximately 

251,710 acres are recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Managing 30 percent of the 

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

could severely, and often unnecessarily, limit development of and access to existing oil and gas 

leases as well as restrict development of other necessary infrastructure. 

Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Alternative B designates 12 

areas (521,141 acres) determined to have relevant and important values as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs). Designation of some of these potential ACECs in Alternative 

B is unnecessary to protect the relevant and important values. For example, Butler Wash, and 

Dark Canyon ACECs have relevant and important scenic values, and Bridger Jack Mesa has 

near-relict vegetation values which can be adequately protected by Interim Management Policy 

for Lands under Wilderness Review (IMP) since all of these areas are also overlain by WSA 

designations. Much of the Cedar Mesa ACEC is overlain by WSA designation and management 

under IMP would adequately protect its cultural and scenic values. Management of the area as 

an SRMA with restrictions on visitation would help to protect the cultural values of the area. 

The scenic values of the potential Lockhart Basin ACEC were originally inventoried as VRM II, 

but would be managed as VRM I under this alternative. Continuing to manage this ACEC as a 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

6

VRM I is overly restrictive and could be maintained by management under VRM II class 

objectives. 

Special Designations – Wild and Scenic Rivers: Alternative B recommends as suitable all 12 

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

segments found suitable in Alternative B include scenery, recreation, cultural and wildlife as 

outstandingly remarkable values (outstandingly remarkable values). Scenery, cultural, wildlife 

and river related recreational activities, especially non-boating activities, are more amenable for 

management by other means, such as SRMAs in order to manage river-related visitation. 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. 

Woodland Harvest: Alternative B closes 59 percent of the area to woodland harvest. Included 

in the closed areas are the non-WSA areas of Cedar Mesa, an important area for fuelwood 

collection by Native Americans, particularly residents of the Navajo Reservation who depend on 

fuelwood to heat their homes. Fuelwood collection off the reservation is important because 

most, if not all, of the Navajo Reservation is closed to such use. Closure of these areas on Cedar 

Mesa is overly restrictive and would result in extra hardship to reservation residents having to 

travel much greater distances to access other fuelwood collection areas. 

In summary, Alternative B was not selected as the Proposed Plan primarily because it does not 

best achieve the mix of multiple uses necessary to fully implement the mandate of FLPMA. This 

alternative would not provide adequate or balanced consideration of existing uses such as certain 

motorized recreation activities, woodland harvest, economic land uses such as rights-of-way, 

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

preclude the consideration of possible future development of renewable energy resources. This 

alternative is inconsistent with existing state and local 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 consideration to local needs, customs and culture. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C was selected as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Monticello Draft 

RMP/DEIS. This alternative represents the mix and variety of management actions, based on 

BLM’s analysis and judgment, which best resolve the resource issues and management concerns 

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

internal review, and cooperating agency coordination on the Draft RMP/DEIS, Alternative C was 

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

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

Alternative D 

Alternative D emphasizes commodity production and human activities. Commodity production 

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

Protection of wildlife habitat was minimized to that required by law, regulation, or policy. 

Alternative D, like Alternative A, designates no areas as ACECs, designates no eligible Wild and 

Scenic River segments as suitable, and manages no acres as non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Other than Alternative A, Alternative D provides more opportunities for 

motorized recreation, is the least restrictive to OHV use and all surface disturbing activities 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

7

(including oil and gas leasing). Alternative D does not provide sufficient restrictions on uses to 

protect important natural and cultural 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. 

Travel Management: Alternative D opens 2,311 acres to cross country OHV use and limits 

OHV use to designated routes in the remainder of the planning area. Access was maximized, as 

no acres were closed to OHV travel and almost the entire area was designated as limited to OHV 

travel. While this alternative accommodates many motorized travel opportunities, it conflicts 

with areas used for primitive recreation such as Cedar Mesa and Mancos Mesa and thus does not 

provide a travel plan that meets the needs of all recreational users. 

Recreation: Alternative D establishes five Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

(four SRMAs and one Cultural Special Recreation Management Area (CSRMA)), as well as one 

Cultural Special Management Area (CSMA). The CSRMA and CSMA designations are new 

naming conventions (unique to the Monticello RMP) which were created to protect cultural 

resources by managing visitors, and have proven to be confusing to the general public. While 

Alternative D provides for a range of recreational activities, it emphasizes commercial use. For 

example, Alternative D allows for 10 percent more user days per year and 10 percent more 

commercial use on the San Juan River than the Proposed RMP. In addition, Alternative D sets 

no limit on Cedar Mesa SRMA mesa top camping and allows 20 percent more overnight use than 

the Proposed RMP. In the Dark Canyon SRMA, decisions under this alternative allow two and a 

half times more commercial trips per week than the Proposed RMP. This increased use favors 

the commercial outfitter at the expense of private users. Carrying forward this alternative could 

result in resource impacts and user conflicts in several known areas of cultural resource 

significance (Comb Ridge, Tank Bench, Beef Basin). 

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

the following stipulations: Closed – 386,853 acres; No Surface Occupancy – 14,175 acres; 

Timing Limitations/Controlled Surface Use – 421,000 acres; Open (subject to standard terms and 

conditions) – 962,283 acres. Mineral entry is available on 1,738,492 acres and recommended for 

withdrawal on 46,131 acres. In addition, mineral material disposal is available on 962,279 acres, 

available with special stipulations on 420,998 acres and unavailable on 401,026 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 all 

the important and sensitive resources identified within the planning area. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Under Alternative D there are no non-WSA 

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

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

Lands and Realty: In Alternative D, 386,853 acres are managed as exclusion areas for rights-ofway and 14,175 acres are managed as avoidance areas for rights-of-way. Approximately 46,131 

acres are recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. This alternative allows the greatest 

amount of acreage to be available for ROWs but does not provide protection for certain sensitive 

areas such as the Comb Ridge Recreation Management Zone within the Cedar Mesa SRMA, 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

8

Indian Creek and Valley of the Gods ACECs, or any non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Alternative D does not 

designate any of the 13 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. 

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 sufficient protection to many of the river segments found to 

have outstandingly remarkable values (outstandingly remarkable values). For example, the 

outstandingly remarkable values of scenic, fish, recreation, wildlife, cultural and ecological in 

Colorado River Segment #2 would not be protected without the management prescriptions 

provided by a suitability recommendation. 

Woodland Harvest: Alternative D closes 53 percent of the area to woodland harvest, the same 

amount as in the Proposed RMP. However, fewer restrictions are placed on OHV use in 

gathering fuelwood than in the Proposed RMP so the potential for adverse impacts to cultural 

and natural resources would be greater. 

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. 

Alternative E

Alternative E includes the same management prescriptions as Alternative B except that 582,360 

acres of non-Wilderness Study Area (WSA) lands would be managed to preserve, protect, and 

maintain their wilderness characteristics. Other activities consistent with that emphasis would be 

allowed. Large areas on the west side of the Monticello FO would be difficult to access or to 

conduct activities involving surface disturbance. Wilderness characteristics would be enhanced 

as would adjacent wilderness values found in WSAs. The rationale for not selecting Alternative 

E is outlined below for the major management actions. 

Travel Management: Alternative E limits OHV use and access to designated roads and trails on 

812,679 acres and closes 970,436 acres (54 percent of the field office area). There are no areas 

designated open to cross country OHV travel. This alternative does not meet the needs of all 

public land users because it would unnecessarily limit access by closing more than half of the 

public lands to off highway vehicle use and motorized access. 

Recreation: Alternative E establishes four Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), 

one Cultural Special Recreation Management Area (CSRMA) and four Cultural Special 

Management Areas (CSMAs). These management areas focus on primitive recreation 

opportunities and do not provide a full spectrum of other opportunities for managing developed 

or motorized recreational uses. As a result, this alternative does not provide for the full range of 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

9

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

these activities. The CSRMA and CSMA designations are new naming conventions (unique to 

the Monticello RMP) which were created to protect cultural resources by managing visitors, and 

have proven to be confusing to the general public. As in Alternative B, rafting permits on the 

San Juan River would be limited, resulting in 25 percent less visitation on the river, which would 

also result in economic impacts for local businesses. This alternative, like Alternative B, 

provides for fewer recreation permits and fewer people allowed under each permit to visit special 

recreation permit areas such as Cedar Mesa SRMA where private and commercial visitation 

would be decreased by 16 percent. These reductions are unnecessarily restrictive to protect 

sensitive resources. 

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

the following stipulations: Closed – 971,463 acres; No Surface Occupancy – 53,915 acres; 

Timing Limitations/Controlled Surface Use – 545,641 acres; Open (subject to standard terms and 

conditions) – 213,288 acres. Mineral entry is available on 951,053 acres and recommended for 

withdrawal on 834,070 acres. In addition, mineral material disposal is available on 213,290 

acres, available with special stipulations on 545,641 acres and unavailable on 1,025,378 acres. 

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

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

amount of acreage open to oil and gas leasing under standard terms and conditions. The acreage 

included in the Closed and No Surface Occupancy stipulations totals 58 percent of the acreage in 

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

surface disturbing activities. These restrictions are not needed in this large percentage of lands to 

protect sensitive resources. The timing and controlled surface use stipulations in Alternative E 

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 88 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 give 

reasonable access and minimize impediments to oil and gas leasing and development. This 

alternative does not meet these policy objectives. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative E manages 582,360 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. 

Management of non-WSA lands to preserve their wilderness characteristics would preclude 

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

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

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

high development potential areas for oil and gas and associated infrastructure. Some of this 

acreage is also currently leased for oil and gas, thereby making it impractical to protect the 

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

characteristics in Alternative E is overly restrictive on other resources and uses of the public 

lands. 

Lands and Realty: In Alternative E, 971,463 acres are managed as exclusion areas for rights-ofway and 53,915 acres are managed as avoidance areas for rights-of-way. Approximately 834,070 

acres are recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Managing 58 percent of the planning 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

10

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

severely, and unnecessarily, limit development of and access to existing oil and gas leases as 

well as restrict development of other necessary infrastructure. 

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

12 areas (521,141 acres) determined to have relevant and important values as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs). As in Alternative B, designation of some of these potential 

ACECs is unnecessary to protect the relevant and important values. Many of them are overlain 

by WSAs and the relevant and important values are already protected by IMP, VRM 

management or management under SRMA designation. 

Special Designations – Wild and Scenic Rivers: Alternative E recommends as suitable all 12 

river segments found eligible for potential designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers in the National 

Wild & Scenic River system. As a consequence; Alternative E would impose unnecessary 

restrictions that provide no additional management protections that are not otherwise available 

through existing or alternative management options. 

Woodland Harvest: Alternative E closes all non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics as 

well as all areas closed in Alternative B. This amounts to 69 percent of the field office area. 

Like Alternative B, this would be an even greater unnecessary restriction on fuelwood harvest, 

especially to Native Americans who depend on fuelwood for heating as well as cooking in their 

homes. 

In summary, Alternative E was not selected as the Proposed RMP primarily because it does not 

best achieve the mix of multiple uses necessary to fully implement the mandate of FLPMA. This 

alternative would not provide adequate or balanced consideration of existing uses such as certain 

motorized recreation activities, woodland harvest, economic land uses such as rights-of-way, 

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

preclude the consideration of possible future development of renewable energy resources. This 

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

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

not give adequate consideration to local needs, customs and culture. 

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Analysis

No Grazing Alternative 

Rationale for Elimination: An alternative that proposes to close the entire PA to grazing would 

not meet the purposes and needs of this Approved RMP. NEPA requires that agencies study, 

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

that 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 PA for their resolution. Where appropriate, closures 

and adjustments to livestock use have been incorporated into the alternatives on an allotment or 

area basis to address issues identified in the LUP. 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 LUPs, the 

analysis of an alternative to entirely eliminate grazing is not needed. An alternative that proposes 

to close the entire PA to grazing would also be inconsistent with the intent of the Taylor Grazing 

Act (TGA), which directs the BLM to provide for livestock use of BLM lands, to adequately 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

11

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 FLPMA 

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

Section 302 [a] and Section 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 PA would be arbitrary and would not meet 

the principle of multiple use and sustained yield. Livestock grazing is and has been an important 

use of the public lands in the PA for many years, and is a continuing government program. 

Although the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines for compliance with NEPA 

require that agencies analyze Alternative A (the No Action Alternative) in all EISs, for the 

purposes of this NEPA analysis, Alternative A 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 PA has been dismissed from further 

consideration in this LUP. 

Model Distances from Roads Alternative 

Rationale for Elimination: An alternative that proposes to close the roads based on a model that 

eliminates travel based on distances from roads in order to protect solitude and remoteness in the 

PA would not meet the purposes and needs of this Approved RMP. No issues or conflicts have 

been identified during this land-use planning effort that require this particular method for 

determining which roads would be designated and which areas would remain open, limited, or 

closed to cross-country travel. Since the BLM has considerable discretion through its regulations, 

the analysis of an alternative to close roads based on this model is not needed. The BLM did 

consider the idea of remoteness and solitude and provided protection for these values in a 

reasonable range of alternatives. Alternative E protects non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics by closing these lands motorized uses. Additionally, Alternative B and the 

Approved RMP close all WSAs to motorized use. Instead, the BLM chose to take a hard look at 

each route and measure the purpose and need for that particular route against resource conflicts. 

This methodology was presented in the travel report and was the basis for the range of 

alternatives for travel management. 

Enlarge Canyonlands National Park Alterative 

Rationale for Elimination: An alternative that proposes to enlarge Canyonlands National Park to 

include Lockhart Basin has been proposed many times in the media and discussion with 

interested groups. However, no complete serious proposal has ever been brought forward. This 

would not meet the purposes and needs of this Approved RMP. No issues or conflicts have been 

identified during this land-use planning effort that requires this particular method for determining 

which roads would be designated and which areas would remain open, limited, or closed to cross 

country travel. 

No Leasing Alternative 

Rationale for Elimination: 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 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

12

the scope of any RMP. This is a political decision that the BLM has no authority to undertake in 

planning. As a result, the BLM does not regularly include a "No-Leasing Alternative.” The 

purpose and need for the LUP is to identify and resolve potential conflicts between competing 

resource uses rather than to eliminate a principle use of the public lands in the Monticello FO 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 

resources.” No issues or conflicts have been identified during this land-use planning effort, 

which would require the complete elimination of oil and gas leasing within the planning area. 

The BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693 Appendix C) requires 

that LUPs identify areas as open or unavailable for leasing. Given the potential range of 

decisions available in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS, the analyzed alternatives include no leasing for 

certain areas; but a field office-wide "No-Leasing Alternative" is not necessary in order to 

resolve issues and protect other resource values and uses. 

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

be confused with the "No Action Alternative" for purposes of NEPA compliance. Leasing and 

No Leasing on the public lands has previously been analyzed in several NEPA documents. In 

1973, the Department of the Interior published the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Federal Upland Oil and Gas Leasing Program (USDI, 1973). The proposed action was to lease 

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

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

EIS, the BLM prepared a series of Environmental Assessments (then titled "Environmental 

Analysis Records or EARs") including the 1975 Oil and Gas Program Environmental Analysis 

Record (EAR), 1975 which addressed oil and gas leasing for the public lands in the Monticello 

FO area. Alternatives again included the No Action or "No Leasing" alternative. The outcome 

was a category system for leasing which categorized all public and USFS lands into four groups: 

1) Open to leasing with standard lease stipulations 

2) Special Stipulations to address special concerns 

3) No surface occupancy 

4) No Leasing 

Since completion of the EAR in 1975 oil and gas leasing in the Monticello FO 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 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

13

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, the "No-Action 

Alternative" is to continue the status quo, which is to lease under the oil and gas stipulations 

(formerly categories) established in the San Juan RMP. 

Livestock Adjustments Alternative 

Rationale for Elimination: BLM policy regarding adjustments to the levels of livestock use 

authorized is to monitor and inventory range conditions under existing stocking levels and make 

adjustments to livestock use as indicated by this data to help assure that Rangeland Health 

Standards (RHS) and resource objectives are met. Regulations at 43 CFR 4130.3 require that the 

terms and conditions under which livestock are authorized "ensure conformance with the 

provisions of subpart 4180" (Standards for Rangeland Health) and further that "livestock grazing 

use shall not exceed the livestock carrying capacity of the allotment.” It would be inappropriate 

and unfeasible to estimate and allocate the available forage, design specific management 

practices and determine if changes to the kind of livestock are necessary for each allotment in the 

Monticello FO 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 C, page 15). The BLM assesses RHS, conducts monitoring and inventories, and 

evaluates this data on a periodic basis, normally on an allotment and/or watershed basis. After 

NEPA analysis, necessary changes to livestock management and implementation of Utah's 

Guidelines for Grazing Management are implemented through a decision process in accordance 

with 43CFR 4160. These decisions determine the exact levels of use by livestock in conformance 

with the LUP and to meet resource objectives and maintain or enhancing land health. For these 

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

revision. 

C. RESULTS OF PROTEST PERIOD 

The BLM received 20 protest letters with standing during the 30-day protest period provided for 

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

accordance with 43 CFR Part 1610.5-2. Of these, 14 presented valid protest points. Protesting 

parties with valid protests included: 

Twelve Letters from Organizations: Western Watersheds Project, Inc.; Outdoor Industry 

Association (letter included National Outdoor Leadership School Rocky Mountain); Wild 

Rivers Expeditions; Utah Rock Art Research Association; Colorado Plateau 

Archaeological Alliance; ECOS Consulting; Great Old Broads for Wilderness; San Juan 

County; Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States; National Trust for 

Historic Preservation; Utah Rivers Council; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (letter 

included The Wilderness Society; Grand Canyon Trust; Sierra Club, Utah Chapter; 

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; Center for Native Ecosystems; Glen 

Canyon Institute; Red Rock Forests; and Great Old Broads for Wilderness.) 

Two Letters from Individuals: Patty McCourt; and Owen Severence. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

satisfactorily responded to in the Proposed Plan/Final EIS. 

Detailed information on protest responses is contained in the Director’s Protest Resolution 

Report, Monticello Resource Management Plan (USDI-BLM 2008). This document 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. Some of the protest letters resulted in modifications to the decisions in the 

Approved RMP, and, 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 

Monticello Field Office. The Approved RMP replaces public land decisions in the San Juan 

RMP approved in 1991, as amended. 

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

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

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

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

The Approved RMP is nearly identical to the Proposed RMP that was presented in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS on September 5, 2008. Management decisions and guidance for public lands 

under the jurisdiction of the Monticello FO are presented in the Approved RMP. All decisions 

covered by the ROD are either land use planning decisions or implementation decisions. 

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

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

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

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

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

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations; 

2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings; 

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to 

health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

15

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 

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

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

may be available for disposal via exchange and/ or sale, and what lands are open, closed, or 

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

estimations even when presented to the nearest acre). 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS include those provisions that help in meeting the established 

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

public lands, including but not limited to stipulations, guidelines, best management practices 

(BMPs), and design features. 

The primary RMP management decisions in the Approved RMP are: 

 Cultural Resources: Conduct proactive cultural inventories under Section 110 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

 Fire Management: Adopt the comprehensive Utah LUP amendment for fire and fuels 

management of September 2005, which addresses activities associated with ESR, 

prevention/mitigation, fuels treatment, wildfire use, suppression, and priorities. Place BLMadministered lands in fire management categories. 

 Lands and Realty: Manage 416,115 acres as exclusion areas and 133,293 acres as avoidance 

areas for ROWs. Outline processes for filming, Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP), 

trespass resolution, access, easements, land tenure adjustments, transportation, and utility 

corridors and withdrawals. 

 Livestock Grazing: Manage grazing according to Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management. Maintain lands currently unavailable for livestock 

grazing (due to vegetation, recreation, wildlife, or other concerns) and existing land 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

16

treatments. Make 1,621,515 acres available to grazing, 133,318 acres unavailable to grazing, 

and 6,518 acres restricted to livestock trailing only. 

 Mineral Withdrawal: Recommend 50,665 acres for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

 Mineral Disposal: Make 624,734 acres available with standard terms and conditions and 

724,234 acres available with special conditions. 

 Oil and Gas Leasing: Open with standard terms and conditions - 484,217 acres; open with 

moderate constraints (controlled surface use and timing limitations) - 740,594 acres; open 

with no surface occupancy - 66,108 acres; and unavailable to leasing - 493,400 acres. 

 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Protect, preserve and maintain 88,871 

acres for wilderness characteristics in Dark Canyon (11,540 acres), Mancos Mesa (30,068 

acres), Nokai Dome West (14,988 acres), Nokai Dome East (18,618 acres), and Grand Gulch 

(13,657 acres). 

 Recreation: Outline guidelines, general decisions, existing/future facilities, launch limits, 

commercial/private allocations, visitor services, campsites, campfires, wood collection, nonboating use, grazing, watershed, pet/stock animals and general policies regarding special 

recreation permits (SRPs) (commercial and competitive). Approximately 562,824 acres are 

included within seven SRMAs: San Juan River (9,859 acres); Dark Canyon (30,820 acres); 

White Canyon (2,828 acres); Tank Bench (2,646 acres); Beef Basin (20,302 acres); Indian 

Creek (89,271 acres); and Cedar Mesa (407,098 acres), which includes management zones 

for Grand Gulch NHL (37,388 acres), Comb Ridge (30,752 acres), and McLoyd Canyon–

Moon House (1,607 acres). 

 Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs): Designate areas 

as ACECs where special management attention is required to prevent irreparable harm to 

important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, other natural 

systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. Approximately 

73,492 acres within seven ACECs: 1) Alkali Ridge (Cultural) 39,196 acres; 2) Hovenweep 

(Cultural) 2,439 acres; 3) Indian Creek (Scenic) 3,905; 4) Lavender Mesa (Relic Vegetation) 

649 acres; 5) San Juan River (Scenic, Cultural, Wildlife, & Natural Systems) 4,321 acres; 6) 

Shay Canyon (Cultural) 119 acres; and 7) Valley of the Gods (Scenic) 22,863 acres would be 

designated. 

 Special Designations – Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs): Manage 35.7 miles of suitable river 

segments (four segments) for consideration of inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 

River system. The four suitable WSR segments include: Colorado River Segment 2 (5.5 

miles/880 acres); Colorado River Segment 3 (6.5 miles/1,040 acres); Dark Canyon (6.4 

miles/2,048 acres); and San Juan River Segment 5 (17.3 miles/2,768 acres). 

 Special Designations – Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs): Manage 13 WSAs (389,444 acres) 

as VRM Class I and closed to OHV use (with exception of .08 miles of a way in Fish Creek 

WSA to access the Moon House ruin.) 

 Travel Management: Designate 1,388,191 acres as "limited to designated routes," and 

393,895 acres as closed to OHV use. Special seasonal stipulations are applied to the Arch 

Canyon route. 

 Visual Resource Management: Manage VRM to the following objectives: Class I - 422,989 

acres; Class II - 262,256 acres; Class III- 473,368 acres; and Class IV- 623,002 acres. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

17

 Wildlife and Fisheries: Discuss and implement protocols for introduction, transplantation, 

augmentation, reestablishment, animal damage control, habitat improvement/protection, 

seasonal areas, off-site mitigation and habitat boundaries. 

 Woodlands: Identify zones for private/commercial use of woodland products, prioritize 

treatments in high value/risk areas and continue permitting process. 

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

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

available for these land use plan decisions. 

What the Decision/RMP Does Not Provide

The Approved RMP does not contain decisions for the mineral estate administered by the BLM 

Monticello 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. 

The RMP decisions for 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, existing Memoradum of 

Understanding, existing habitat management plans (HMPs), or existing cultural resource 

management plans (CRMP). 

 The Approved RMP does not create new wilderness or WSAs. 

 The Approved RMP does not affect previous withdrawals. 

 The Approved RMP does not make withdrawal recommendations effective. Withdrawal 

recommendations are not effective until Congress or the Secretary of the Interior takes 

action. 

 “Closed routes” are not necessarily 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; existing special recreation 

permits, or other existing 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. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

18

 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 in the Approved RMP are implementation decisions. Likewise, land use 

plan decisions include identifying which areas are available and unavailable to livestock grazing. 

Establishing grazing management practices such as season of use or grazing systems are 

implementation level decisions.

Travel Management

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

identified on Map 2 (Appendix A) are effective upon issuance of this Record of Decision. All 

area designations are complete upon signature of the ROD in accordance with 43 CFR Part 

8342.2(b). Public notice was provided for both the area designation decisions and the route 

decision upon publication of the Federal Register Notice of Availability of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS on September 5, 2008. 

The methodology used by the interdisciplinary team to develop a travel plan network was a 

combination of guidance from the BLM Utah State Office and Washington Office. This 

guidance stated that the route designation process should begin with existing inventory and data 

and then determine the purpose and need for existing routes. BLM determined it would be 

beneficial to use San Juan County’s route inventory as the baseline because the county’s 

inventory was the most complete for the field office area. Monticello FO used a random 

sampling of the San Juan County route data to verify the validity of the inventory. BLM staff 

verified the existence of 99.7 percent of the random sample of route segments (344 total 

segments). This high level of verification established the validity of the County’s inventory. In 

addition, MFO requested that the public submit verifiable information on routes additional to 

those on the San Juan County inventory. Information was submitted by three individuals and 

two citizen groups. This information was evaluated by BLM staff who determined that these 

routes were either included on the inventory or that the roads existed, but had no purpose or 

need. 

After establishing a road network inventory, 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. Six interdisciplinary team meetings were 

held, including representatives of San Juan County, to evaluate all the routes inventoried within 

the planning area. Routes were not designated in the Approved RMP where it was determined 

that the routes had no purpose and need or where resource conflicts outweighed the purpose and 

need. Thirty-one additional ID Team and coordination meetings were held concerning route 

selection for the range of alternatives in the Draft RMP. 

The Approved RMP designates a total of 0.5 miles of limited seasonal restrictions and 1,947 

miles of designated routes. The rationale for closures of routes not carried forward includes 

crucial wildlife habitat conflicts, WSA intrusions, other resource conflicts, inadequate purpose 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

19

and need, and closure or designation for administrative use only. With exception of the .08 miles 

of a way in Fish Creek WSA to access the Moon House ruin, no ways have been designated in 

WSAs nor have any routes been designated in the five areas selected to protect, preserve and 

maintain their wilderness characteristics outside of designated WSAs. 

In Arch Canyon, OHV use will be limited to the designated route up to the National Forest 

boundary, a total of 8 miles one-way. Organized and commercial groups will be required to 

obtain a Special Recreation Use Permit. This permit will allow access on the designated route up 

to the National Forest boundary, except from March 1 through August 31. During this period, 

access will be limited to 7.5 miles of the designated route and access will not be allowed on the 

last half mile immediately before the National Forest Service boundary. This decision was based 

on the fact that all of the riparian areas in Arch Canyon are in properly functioning condition and 

this condition has not been affected by existing OHV use. In addition, by limiting OHV travel to 

the designated route, any potential impacts to cultural resources will be minimized. Excluding 

travel in the upper 0.5 mile of the route during the period March 1 through August 31 would 

mitigate any impacts of noise disturbance on Mexican spotted owls during the breeding season. 

Harts Canyon is closed from the private land (Seeps) to Yancy's Fence (T30S, R22E, Section 8) 

to OHV and mechanized use. This route did not meet the purpose and need test, and closure to 

OHV and mechanized use would help maintain and improve riparian functioning condition. 

Mountain bike use will be limited to the same designated routes as OHV travel; bicycle use can 

have some of the same impacts on sensitive resources as motorized OHV use. 

No routes have been designated in the Recapture Canyon area which has previously been closed 

to OHV use through an emergency closure order. Consideration of such designation will be 

made in a future NEPA document specific to that area. 

Comments were submitted on the Draft RMP/EIS which suggested additions, deletions, and 

modifications to the proposed route system be made in the Approved RMP. The Approved RMP 

specifies that modifications to the designated route network may be made without completing a 

plan amendment. Such modification (plan maintenance) may be based on monitoring and/or site 

specific documentation in accordance with NEPA. The process for considering route 

modifications will be detailed in the Implementation Plan developed for the RMP after 

completion of the ROD. 

Livestock Grazing

For allotments identified on Map 3 (Appendix A), the seasons of use described in the Grazing 

Management section of the Approved RMP will be as follows: 

 Church Rock season of use is December 1–May 31 

 Indian Rock season of use is November 15–April 15 

 Owens Dugout season of use is February 1–April 30 

 Laws season of use is April 16–November 15 

 Bear Trap season of use is September 1–December 12 

 Monument Canyon season of use is December 1–May 31 

 South Vega season of use is January 6–February 28 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

20

 Upper Mail Station season of use is November 14–February 28 

 Big Westwater season of use is April 1–May 31 or October 15–December 15 

 These seasons of use match the seasons of use on current term grazing permits. These 

seasons of use were established consistent with Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management. In the Perkins Brothers, East League, and McCracken 

Wash allotments, seasons of use in riparian areas are limited to October 1 through May 31 in 

order to eliminate disturbance to nesting migratory birds and allow growth of riparian 

vegetation important for migratory bird habitat. Gunnison sage-grouse nesting is protected in 

the Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, Sage-grouse and Dry Farm allotments by precluding use 

from March 20 to May 15 on these allotments.

E. NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS 

Minor 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 agreed 

upon minor modifications or clarifications to the decisions are provided below. 

Minor Modifications

As a result of protests on the Proposed Plan and continued internal review, BLM made six minor 

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

considered significant changes. The Management Decisions sections of the Approved RMP 

include these minor modifications: 

1. San Juan River SRMA: In response to protest and further internal review, the commercial 

group size limit has been changed to 33 people (25 passengers plus 8 guides) (REC-61) in the 

Approved RMP from a total of 25 people (total) per launch in the Proposed Plan. All 

changes were analyzed within the range of alternatives. 

2. San Juan River SRMA: The number of commercial daily launches has been changed to two 

per day (one launch of 25 passengers and one launch of 10 passengers) in the Approved RMP 

(REC-62) from a single launch per day of 25 passengers in the Proposed Plan. All changes 

were analyzed within the range of alternatives. 

3. Lockhart Basin Proposed ACEC (ACEC-52 and VRM-2): The area managed as VRM Class 

III in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS has been changed to VRM Class II in the Approved RMP 

to be consistent with the inventoried VRM class and better manage the scenic qualities of the 

area. This change was made in response to protest and further internal review, and was 

analyzed within the range of alternatives. This changed the total VRM Class II and Class III 

acreages under decisions VRM-2 andVRM-3 in the Approved RMP. 

4. Hovenweep ACEC, at page 2-56 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS: The following decision 

has been deleted: “Within Hovenweep ACEC, cultural properties eligible for the National 

Register would be avoided by 100 feet.” This was incorrectly included from the 1991 RMP 

which has been replaced by other language in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and carried 

forward into the Approved RMP on right-of-way avoidance areas included in LAR-14 and 

ACEC-48. 

5. Decisions WSA-8, WSA-11, TM-9 and TM-14 have been modified to clarify that a 0.08 mile 

way to access the Moon House trailhead in Fish Creek WSA will remain open consistent 

with an agreement between BLM and San Juan County. The other ways will remain open 

only to provide administrative access and are as follows: 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

21

a. Two ways in Grand Gulch ISA – Pine Canyon and Slickhorn units; totaling 3.1 miles 

and located east of Pine Canyon and Point Lookout areas. 

b. One way in Fish Creek WSA – Lower Baullies Mesa; totaling 4.93 miles. 

c. One way in Road Canyon WSA – Perkins Point; totaling 2.67 miles. 

No motorized/mechanized recreation use will be allowed on any of these administrative 

access ways. The Travel Plan (Appendix O) also reflects this modification at page 12. 

6. The Monticello RMP/EIS failed to analyze the impacts of remote airstrips in the Monticello 

planning area on WSAs and non-WSAs with wilderness characteristics, recreationists, 

natural and cultural resources. Because BLM did not analyze such impacts, the BLM 

Monticello FO is required to withdraw the decision in Appendix N of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. In response to a protest, and in order remedy this oversight, the impacts of 

these numerous airstrips on the resources in the planning area will be considered at the 

earliest opportunity as part of the next planning process conducted by the field office. The 

BLM will delineate travel management areas for remote airstrips and determine which of 

these will be open or closed in compliance with the NEPA, Appendix C of the BLM 

Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) and Public Law 106-291, Section 345. 

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 OHV route Map 63 (Proposed RMP/Final EIS) was corrected to remove routes 

illustrated within the Park Service and Forest Service boundaries. BLM has no jurisdiction 

within those boundaries. Changes have been made on Map 2 in the Approved RMP. 

2. Acreage discrepancies for the right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas occurred in Table 

2.1 and Table 4-8 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Approved RMP has corrected this 

discrepancy. Decision LAR-14 clearly states that avoidance areas cover 133,293 acres and 

exclusion areas include 416,115 acres (Map 4). These lands are also shown on Map 4 in the 

Approved RMP. 

3. Acreage discrepancies for areas unavailable and available for livestock grazing have been 

corrected in the Approved RMP (GRA-17). Areas unavailable to livestock grazing are 

changed to 133,318 acres from 134,277 acres. These changes resulted from better GIS data 

and correction of previous miscalculations. 

4. The Indian Creek ACEC was incorrectly stated to be recommended for withdrawal from 

mineral entry in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Decision ACEC-50 no longer recommends 

this ACEC for withdrawal. The EIS analyzed not proposing this ACEC for withdrawal 

within the range of alternatives. This area has also been removed from Map 6 in the 

Approved RMP. 

5. Decision WC-1 has been clarified to include that there are no routes designated within the 

88,871 acres protected for wilderness characteristics. 

6. Management prescriptions for Gunnison sage-grouse habitat within 4 miles of active strutting 

grounds have been clarified in the Approved RMP to be in effect year-round (Decision SSP24). The reference “May 16-March 19” in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS has been deleted 

because it is year round habitat. 

7. The management prescriptions for sage-grouse lek habitat (Decision SSP-23) which restrict 

permitted activities from sunset the evening before to three hours after sunrise the next 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

22

morning has been corrected to be two hours after sunrise. This is consistent with the 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (the GSRCP). 

8. The Goals and Objectives for the Management Common to All Resources (MCA) and the 

Recreation Section contain definitions in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS that are more 

appropriately included in a glossary. As such, the definitions or corresponding language was 

moved to the glossary for: designated routes, SRMAs, and the Extensive Recreation 

Management Area (ERMA). Definitions that were redundant to those already in the glossary 

were deleted from the program goals and objectives for OHVs. 

9. A new map (Map 20) was created for the Approved RMP to combine the various cultural 

features and management areas onto one map as a reference tool for resource specialists and 

visitors to the planning area. This map is introduced in the Goals and Objectives for the 

Cultural Resource section in the Approved RMP. 

10. Some decisions were edited to correct grammar, sentence structure and improve the logical 

sequence appropriate for the Approved RMP. This also included reorganization and 

compacting of maps and appendices to account for those not needed from the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. Although an edit made an adjustment, it does not change the intent or 

content of the decision. For example decisions associated with special recreation permits 

were moved from their location in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS to just before SRMA 

discussions for logical flow and understanding. The background information associated with 

the 1991 San Juan RMP for the Indian Creek, Dark Canyon and Cedar Mesa ACEC were 

deleted, as it does not apply to this Approved RMP. 

11. Some Goals and Objectives were more appropriately moved to the Management Actions in 

the respective resource sections. These moves include: MCA-1 through MCA-6, RIP-1, RIP2, REC-147, ACEC-77 and TM-1. 

12. The Recreation decision in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS at page 2-46 which stated “Special 

OHV events are limited to 350 total vehicles and approved OHV event routes” has been 

deleted. This was an error. Proposed events of this size are unlikely and special OHV events 

would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine limits. 

13. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS Travel Management section referenced Class B and Class D 

roads. This reference to road classification has been deleted in the Approved RMP because it 

may lead to confusion and has no bearing on the Travel Management Plan. 

14. In response to a protest, clarification has been made to the Approved RMP (Decision ACEC31) that the 641 acres east of Hovenweep National Monument continues to be included 

within the ACEC. 

15. In response to a protest, Decision ACEC-2 in the Approved RMP has been clarified to reflect 

that BLM will comply with all laws, rules, regulations and policies related to the 

management of cultural resources. 

16. In response to a protest, the total acres for the seven SRMAs designated in the Approved 

RMP are 562,824 acres (Record of Decision, p.16, p. 29 and Approved RMP). 

17. Decision REC-69 has been clarified by describing the camping closure area and explaining 

that 122 acres of the restrictive camping is within the Extensive Recreation Management 

Area (ERMA). 

18. The stipulations for East Canyon and NE Monticello and South Canyon woodland harvest 

zones (FOR-12 and FOR-13) were modified in the Approved RMP. A cross-tracked decision 

from REC-149 to allow off-road travel within 150 feet of designated routes to collect wood 

was carried into these two forestry decisions. This was done to be consistent with the 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

23

stipulations for vehicle camping in the ERMA. Vehicle camping in the ERMA was restricted 

to previously disturbed areas to within 150 feet of designated routes. 

19. Decision ACEC-53 has been clarified to denote that the San Juan River eligible segments 

(Segments 1-4) are no longer an appropriate reference for the right-of-way avoidance areas. 

Instead, areas within the ACEC intersected by the San Juan River SRMA are the right-ofway avoidance areas. Both references encompass the same areas, nomenclature has changed 

due to the final decision. 

Errata to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS

1. In response to a protest, Chapter 3; Section 3.20.2.1: delete the redundant sentence which 

states: “Winter range habitat primarily consists of shrub-covered, south facing slopes.” 

2. In response to a protest, the discussion in Chapter 3 on page 3-178 is hereby clarified to state 

that the effects of overgrazing are due to livestock as well as wildlife browsing. 

3. At the request of the State of Utah and San Juan County, Evan Lowry, Ed Scherick and Ben 

Nielson were removed from the list of interdisciplinary team members who worked on the 

Travel Management Plan (Appendix N in Proposed RMP/Final EIS; Appendix O Approved 

RMP). 

F. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING THE 

APPROVED RMP 

The BLM is tasked to provide multiple use management for public lands by Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (FLPMA) and numerous other laws and regulations that govern public 

lands management. 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 that 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 

protests 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 incorporates 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. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

24

All Surface Disturbing Activities

Stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities are referred to 

throughout the Approved RMP and provide protection to resource values or land uses by 

establishing authority for delay, site changes, or the denial of operations. The stipulations apply, 

where appropriate and practical, to all surface-disturbing activities associated with land-use 

authorizations, permits, and leases issued on BLM lands. As a result, protections for resource 

values are applied in a consistent manner to all activities. The stipulations are subject to 

exceptions, modifications, and waivers that are a means of adapting the stipulations to meet 

changing circumstances. The stipulations in the Approved RMP, along with the exceptions, 

modifications, and waivers, are provided in Appendix B. 

Air Quality 

BLM does not have regulatory control over air quality issues on public lands, Tribal or state 

lands. BLM relies on the agency with jurisdiction over air quality to set regulatory standards and 

criteria to protect the air quality in a particular area. Once these standards are established, BLM 

references them in its permitting documents and ensures that all permitted activities on public 

lands refer to the appropriate agency's standard. With this regulatory framework in place the 

Approved RMP, by necessity, does not make any air quality decisions. Instead, the Approved 

RMP references standards set by the State of Utah (Appendix C). Where the State of Utah 

standards are inapplicable (e.g. over Tribal lands), BLM will work with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that the appropriate federal standards are included or 

referenced in permitting documents. Finally, the Approved RMP established goals and objectives 

for air quality that reflect the standards set by the State or the EPA. 

The Approved RMP allows the Monticello 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

BLM has completed the formal Section 106 consultation with the Utah State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO). The August 25, 2008, letter from the SHPO concurred with BLM’s 

recommendation of No Adverse Effect from any actions proposed in the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS (Appendix D). The Approved RMP will reduce imminent threats to significant cultural 

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

resources. 

The Approved RMP establishes goals, objectives, and management actions that provide for 

identification, protection, preservation, and use of cultural resources. It ensures that all 

authorizations for land and resource use will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) and 36 CFR 800. Identification of cultural resources would be 

enhanced through proactive cultural resources inventories conducted in compliance with Section 

110 of NHPA and Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). Cultural 

resource sites and areas would be nominated for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places, and sites would continue to be allocated to appropriate uses. 

The Approved RMP continues consultation with Native American Tribes to address management 

concerns, to identify, protect and maintain access to sites and areas for traditional and religious 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

25

uses, and to protect burials, burial sites, and sacred items pursuant to the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). It also provides for consultations with local 

communities, and other communities and individuals with traditional linkages to cultural 

resources on identification and protection of resources. It encourages the development of 

partnerships to meet management goals, and provides for legitimate research and cooperation 

with local communities and interested groups to foster heritage tourism. 

For law enforcement purposes, the Approved RMP also aligns closely with statute, regulation 

and policy, such as restricting domestic pets and pack stock from inside important cultural sites, 

not allowing ropes or other climbing aids to access a cultural site, not allowing camping in a 

cultural site and closing sites when visitation is risking the integrity of a site or has become a 

safety hazard. 

Management of National Historic sites, districts, landmarks, ACEC’s with cultural values, and 

other culturally sensitive areas as identified as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

in the Approved RMP, will be facilitated by adopting a variety of specific management actions 

developed for those areas. One of the outstanding features of the Monticello Field Office is its 

internationally-known cultural resources. Managing recreation and visitation is the first line of 

defense in protecting the wealth of cultural resources in the field office. To that end, the 

Approved RMP creates focal points for recreation and visitation management which will 

encourage responsible recreation in the area, and respect for the archeological treasures. 

Monticello has taken a novel approach by imposing recreation and visitor management 

decisions. Cultural resource management plans (CRMPs) will be developed to define future 

management. The Approved RMP contains additional management actions designed to protect 

cultural resources such as implementing cultural resource inventories for designated travel 

routes. In summary, the cultural resource decisions in the Approved RMP provide the best mix 

of management actions to identify, protect, preserve and use cultural resources. 

Fire Management

The Approved RMP adopts the comprehensive Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and 

Fuels Management (9/2005). The Approved RMP establishes criteria for priorities, suppression, 

wildland fire use, fuels treatments, prevention and mitigation, and emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation. The Approved RMP provides for an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 acres of fuels 

reduction treatments each year. 

Lands and Realty

The Approved RMP makes public land available to a variety of rights-of-way (ROWs), permits 

and alternative energy sources where it is consistent with resource goals and objects and the 

provisions of the Energy Policy Act and West-Wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS. Land 

tenure adjustments, withdrawal processing, filming permits, trespass resolution, access, 

easements, rights-of-way, wind and solar development, sale disposal criteria, and transportation 

and utility corridor procedures are identified and have a variety of management decisions applied 

to them. 

Right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas are generally consistent with the stipulations 

identified for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. No surface occupancy 

(NSO) stipulations are avoidance areas for ROWs; no ROW would be granted in NSO areas 

unless there are no feasible alternatives. Areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing are generally 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

26

exclusion areas for ROWs; no ROW would be granted in these areas. Avoidance (133,293 

acres) and exclusion (416,115 acres) areas are based on resource needs and policy. These areas 

encompass lands with sensitive natural resources such as wilderness values, cultural resources, 

riparian and relict vegetation, and high quality scenery. Some of these areas include the 13 

WSAs, riparian habitat, public water reserves, Colorado River Wild and Scenic River (WSR) 

Suitable Segments 2 & 3, San Juan River Suitable Segment 5, San Juan River SRMA, 

Hovenweep ACEC, Valley of the Gods ACEC, Shay Canyon ACEC, five non-WSA areas with 

wilderness characteristics, and Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark. There are impacts 

associated with these exclusion/avoidance areas which include restricting the placement of 

ROWs and facilities, limiting future access, delaying or increasing the cost of energy supplies, 

and creating communications dead zones or delaying the availability of communications 

services, among others. However, 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 Monticello Field Office that have 

been identified for consideration for disposal by sale in the Approved RMP would have to meet 

one or more of these criteria before they could go out of public ownership. 

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. The disposal list consists of tracts uneconomic to manage, acquired tracts or 

public objective tracts suitable for sale under authority of Section 203(a) or 206(a) of FLPMA. It 

includes tracts suitable for recreation and public purpose (R&PP) patent under authority of the 

R&PP Act of 1926 and Section 212 of FLPMA. Nominations from the public which met the 203 

analysis and made subsequent to the 1991 RMP are also included on the list. 

Consistent with the intent of protecting, preserving and maintaining wilderness characteristics of 

these five areas, lands managed for their wilderness characteristics in the Approved RMP would 

remain in federal ownership and not be considered for land disposal actions. 

Land tenure adjustments (LTAs) (disposals, access, easements, transportation and utility 

corridors, withdrawals, acquisitions) identified in the Approved RMP would facilitate access 

within the Monticello PA and adjoining properties, improve the BLM's management ability, 

reduce conflicts with adjoining landowners and surrounding communities, and accommodate 

surrounding community needs. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

27

In order to preserve sensitive environmental values and protect federal facilities associated with 

Grand Gulch National Historic District (37,388 acres), all developed recreation sites (232 acres), 

San Juan River SRMA (9,859 acres), Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark (2,146 acres), 

and Colorado River WSR Segment 3 (1,040 acres), the Approved RMP recommends these areas 

for withdrawal from mineral entry. In summary, the lands and realty decisions in the Approved 

RMP provide for the best mix of allowable uses and resource protection. 

Livestock Grazing

The Approved RMP responds to issues related to managing for sustainable rangelands, 

functioning riparian areas, and healthy upland vegetation while providing for livestock grazing, 

fish habitat, and wildlife habitat. The majority of the planning area is made available for 

livestock grazing, as long as the Standards for Rangeland Health continue to be met. Managing 

for these Standards on grazing allotments helps ensure for biotic integrity, soil stability, and 

proper hydrologic functions. 

The Approved RMP makes 1,621,515 acres available to grazing, 133,318 acres unavailable to 

grazing and 6,518 acres restricted to livestock trailing only. This includes making livestock 

grazing unavailable in the Comb Wash side canyons (Arch, Fish and Owl, Mule, and Road 

Canyons) in response to a previous Court Order. Other areas such as Bridger Jack Mesa, 

Lavendar Mesa, Grand Gulch, White Canyon mesa tops, Pearson Canyon, Butler Wash side 

canyons, Dark Canyon area, Horsehead Canyon, Rone Bailey Mesa, Dodge Canyon, Slickhorn 

Canyon, and the benches of East and Peters Canyons are unavailable to livestock grazing 

because of conflicts with recreation uses, ACEC relevant and import values, riparian, relict 

vegetation conditions, wildlife, and/or cultural resources. 

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

conditions under which they are managed is an implementation-level decision based on site 

specific monitoring and inventory of range conditions and evaluation of such data. Therefore, 

changes in livestock management from the RMP planning level are minimal. Season of use 

changes within Church Rock, Indian Rock, Owens Dugout, Laws, Bear Trap and Monument 

Canyon allotments facilitate grazing management and maintain rangeland health standards. 

The Approved RMP provides the best balance in authorizing livestock grazing with a sustainable 

forage source while ensuring the Standards for Rangeland Health are met and protecting 

important natural and cultural resources. 

Mineral Resources 

The Approved RMP provides for a variety of mineral exploration and development activities and 

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 to all other surface 

disturbing activities associated with land-use authorizations, permits, and leases, including other 

mineral resources, when appropriate. For example, rights-of-way 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: open with standard terms and conditions 484,217 acres; open with 

moderate terms and conditions (controlled surface use and timing limitations) 740,594 acres; 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

28

open with no surface occupancy 66,108 acres; and closed to leasing 493,400 acres. As specified 

in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and BLM policy, the oil and gas leasing stipulations 

in the Approved RMP are the least restrictive necessary to protect sensitive resource values while 

providing for mineral development. 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) total approximately 389,444 acres within the planning area and 

are unavailable for leasing by law. WSAs represent nearly 80 percent of the total area closed to 

leasing and surface disturbing activity. The following areas are unavailable to leasing to protect 

sensitive resource values: WSAs; certain values associated with Wild and Scenic Rivers; most 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (77,534 acres); Valley of the Gods ACEC 

(22,863 acres); and suitable wild and scenic river segments of the Colorado and San Juan Rivers 

(3,168 acres). These lands are closed to protect extremely sensitive resources from impacts 

associated with oil and gas development. Although protection of these values could also be 

accomplished by a no surface occupancy stipulation, many of the blocks of land were too large 

to accommodate directional drilling with current technology, and were, therefore, closed. Most 

of these lands are not in high oil and gas potential areas. 

Sensitive resources protected by applying a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation in the 

Approved RMP include riparian areas, soils and vegetation, sensitive visual resource areas, 

cultural resources, wilderness characteristics, and Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. A no surface 

occupancy stipulation would apply in the following areas: Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics; certain ACECs (Shay Canyon, San Juan River, Lavendar Mesa, 

Hovenweep [Visual Emphasis Zone] and Indian Creek); Alkali Ridge NHL; Cedar Mesa SRMAComb Ridge recreation management zone (RMZ); San Juan River SRMA; floodplains and 

riparian areas, Gunnison sage-grouse strutting grounds and slopes greater than 40 percent. 

Those resources which can be protected by timing limitations (TL) or controlled surface use 

(CSU) stipulations in the Approved RMP include crucial big game habitat, sensitive soils, and 

visual resources. Timing limitations and controlled surface use stipulations are also applied in 

the Approved RMP to special status species and their habitats. The timing limitation stipulations 

in the Approved RMP are applied to crucial big game 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. Under 

certain conditions, a waiver, exception or modification may be applied to the stipulation. 

A controlled surface use stipulation is applied in the Approved RMP to protect fragile soils on 

steep slopes from erosion. This stipulation requires a BLM-approved site plan be prepared for 

any surface-disturbing or construction activity. This plan would include an erosion control 

strategy, survey and design, and a reclamation plan. In addition, a controlled surface use 

stipulation in the Approved RMP is often applied to areas managed with VRM Class II 

objectives. Activities can be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. 

The timing limitation and controlled surface use stipulations in the Approved RMP allow for oil 

and gas development and other surface disturbing activities while providing protection for 

wildlife habitats, sensitive soils, and high quality visual resources. These stipulations are the 

least restrictive necessary for the protection of these resources. 

The Approved RMP provides for a substantial amount of mineral development within the 

planning area while protecting the other important resources with the least restrictions necessary. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

29

The stipulations imposed in the Approved RMP would not unreasonably interfere with the 

development of mineral resources. This is because the high development potential areas for 

mineral resources are generally not located where development is precluded (NSO and Closed 

areas). Therefore, the Approved RMP provides the best balance between protection of resources 

and commodity use and development. 

Recreation

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

Areas (SRMAs) and Recreation Management Zones (RMZs) to manage visitors. These visitors 

engage in a variety 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. 

The San Juan County economy is dependent upon recreation-based businesses. Commercial 

outfitters operating on BLM lands 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 local economy and the businesses that are dependent upon them and the 

Approved RMP provides these opportunities. 

The seven Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs totaling 562,824 acres) designated in 

the Approved RMP are in areas where high recreation use is currently occurring and focuses on 

cultural resource protection. Each SRMA allows for 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. 

Establishing recreation management zones (RMZs) in the Cedar Mesa SRMA is necessary to 

emphasize cultural resource protection, recreation use, and provide a specific set of recreation 

opportunities. Visitor expectations for specialized recreation experiences are emphasized, 

thereby reducing potential conflict and resource impacts. 

Management prescriptions in the Cedar Mesa SRMA are a combination of the Cultural-SRMA 

and the ACEC identified and analyzed under other alternatives in the Draft and Proposed RMP 

and associated EISs. These management prescriptions provide for recreation use as well as 

resource protection. The recreational use of this SRMA is managed by a permit system in the 

Cedar Mesa Area. This permit system was established to manage visitation and provide for 

resource protection, especially for cultural resources. Recreational management zones are 

established in areas with concentrated visitation and the need for site specific cultural resource 

protection measures. As an example, the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House Recreation Management 

Zone establishes a permit system with daily visitor number restrictions and closes some areas of 

the Moon House cultural site to visitation. This management strategy allows for visitation but 

greatly reduces the potential conflicts with cultural resources. Other restrictions designed to 

protect both natural and cultural resources include the requirement for permit holders to view a 

cultural site visitation video, designation of campsites and hiking trails in certain areas, closure 

of the canyons to campfires, a carry out human waste policy in the canyons to prevent 

disturbance to cultural sites, and limits on OHV use (some areas closed and the remainder as 

designated road/trail areas). 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

30

The San Juan River SRMA establishes management prescriptions for visitor use while protecting 

the visitor experience and resources. Visitation to this SRMA is managed through a permit 

system and averages 40,000 visitor use days annually. 

Indian Creek SRMA, an area with increasing visitation from OHV users and rock climbers, is an 

area that attracts users from around the world. The SRMA management balances use in the 

corridor while protecting cultural resources. Examples include the closing of climbing routes 

that are in conflict with cultural or wildlife resources and limiting camping to avoid conflicts 

with cultural resources and visitor safety. 

Areas not included within a SRMA are part of the Extensive Recreation Management Area 

(ERMA). ERMA management provides for recreation in an undeveloped setting where visitors 

can experience dispersed opportunities. SRMAs enable the BLM to more actively manage the 

intensity, diversity, and potential incompatibility of recreation uses while protecting the 

resources that visitors come to enjoy. The Approved RMP provides the greatest range of 

recreational opportunities while still reducing user conflicts, providing recreation business 

opportunities, and protecting resources. 

Riparian

The Approved RMP protects riparian and floodplain resources by limiting new surface 

disturbance and following appropriate management as defined by Bureau policy and guidance 

such as Utah Riparian Management Policy and technical references. It allows for vegetation and 

watershed improvements to proactively achieve Utah’s Standards for Rangeland Health and 

riparian/wetland proper functioning condition. Cottonwood and willow communities will 

continue to be available to Native Americans for harvest. 

Soil and Water

The Approved RMP maintains and restores watershed health and function by emphasizing the 

role of soil and water interactions with public land uses. Compliance with the State of Utah’s 

water quality standards and the Colorado River Salinity Control Act is also ensured by the 

application of best management practices. Partnerships with the State of Utah, tribal 

governments and local municipalities will ensure quality water sources for local residents and 

visitors. 

Surface disturbance includes activities that normally result in more than negligible disturbance to 

public lands and that accelerate the natural erosive process. These activities normally involve use 

and/or occupancy of the surface, cause disturbance to soils and vegetation, and are usually 

caused by motorized or mechanical actions. Surface disturbance may result from activities using 

earth-moving and drilling equipment; geophysical exploration; off road vehicle travel; vegetation 

treatments; the use of pyrotechnics and explosives; and construction of facilities like powerlines, 

pipelines, oil and gas wells, recreation sites, livestock facilities, wildlife waters, or new roads. 

Surface disturbance is not normally caused by casual use. Activities that are not typically surface 

disturbing include, but are not limited to, proper livestock grazing, cross-country hiking, 

minimum impact filming and vehicle travel on designated routes. 

Waivers, exceptions and modifications apply to all surface disturbing activities including oil and 

gas. Applying best management practices and standard operating procedures also contribute to 

proper management of resource values and land uses.
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

31

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 the proposed management provides adequate protection. In some instances, 

WSAs overlay many of the potential ACECs and management under Interim Management Policy 

for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP) more than adequately protected the relevant and 

important values. If the WSAs are released from wilderness consideration, the Approved RMP 

states that all activities inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Approved RMP would 

be deferred until a plan amendment is completed. Any plan amendment would consider 

management options for the relevant and important values identified. 

Seven ACECs (approximately 73,492 acres) are designated in the Approved RMP: 1) Alkali 

Ridge (Cultural) 39,196 acres; 2) Hovenweep (Cultural) 2,439 acres; 3) Indian Creek (Scenic) 

3,905; 4) Lavender Mesa (Relict Vegetation) 649 acres; 5) San Juan River (Scenic, Cultural, 

Wildlife, & Natural Systems) 4,321 acres; 6) Shay Canyon (Cultural) 119 acres; and 7) Valley of 

the Gods (Scenic) 22,863 acres. These ACECs occur in areas where special management is 

required to protect the relevant and important values of the Potential ACEC. Management 

actions are detailed in the Approved RMP to protect these values. Establishing these areas as 

ACECs gives priority to the management of the identified resource values. Since standard 

management contained in the Approved RMP protects the relevant and important values in the 

planning area, only seven areas were designated as ACECs where additional special management 

is necessary. The following table (Table 2) identifies acreage balances (remaining) and 

subsequent management protections for areas not carried forward into the Approved RMP for the 

selected ACECs: 

Table 2: Relevance & Importance Criteria and Management Prescriptions for Potential ACEC Acreages Not 

Designated 

Potential ACEC 

Acreages Not 

Designated 

Relevant & Important 

Criteria 

Management Protection for Relevant and Important Values 

Alkali Ridge 

(6 Acres) 

Cultural This acreage difference is associated with mapping precision 

associated with GIS technology. The 1991 RMP data were 

estimated and the current data are based on GIS calculations. 

Cultural resources will continue to be protected by existing laws, 

rules, regulations and policies. Thus relevant and important 

values will continue to be protected. 

Indian Creek 

(4,602 Acres) 

Scenic The original ACEC included the Indian Creek WSA. The WSA 

portion has been excluded from the ACEC and will be managed 

according to IMP which includes VRM I management. Thus 

relevant and important values will continue to be protected. 

San Juan River 

(3,269 Acres) 

Scenic, Cultural, Wildlife 

& Natural Systems 

Segment #5 was recommended as suitable for WSR 

designation and the ACEC designation was removed. The 

SRMA designation is retained for this segment. Management 

prescriptions include VRM I, closed to oil and gas leasing and 

OHV use, recommended for withdrawal and excluded from 

ROWs. Cultural resources will continue to be protected by 

existing laws, rules, regulations and policies. These 

prescriptions will provide continued protection for the relevant 

and important values. 

Shay Canyon 

(3,442 Acres) 

Cultural This area will be managed under prescriptions which include 

VRM II, designated roads/trails for OHV use, controlled surface 

use for oil and gas leasing, closure of rock climbing routes that 

impact cultural sites and prohibition of camping and surface 

disturbing activities in the Indian Creek riparian zone. Cultural 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

32

resources will continue to be protected by existing laws, rules, 

regulations and policies. These prescriptions will continue to 

protect the relevant and important values. 

Valley of the Gods 

(8,524 Acres) 

Scenic The Valley of the Gods Special Emphasis Area of the Cedar 

Mesa ACEC included part of the Road Canyon WSA. The 

boundary of the new ACEC was redrawn to match the boundary 

of the WSA and thereby exclude any portion of the WSA. Since 

management of the new ACEC and existing WSA are both 

VRM Class I, there is no change in visual management for the 

excluded area. Thus relevant and important values will 

continue to be protected. 

The following table (Table 3) provides a list of the potential ACECs that were not designated in 

the Approved RMP, their relevant and important criteria, and planning decisions carried forward 

that protect those criteria. 

Table 3: Relevant & Important Criteria and Management Prescriptions for Potential ACECs Not Designated 

Potential ACEC 

Not Designated 

Relevant & Important 

Criteria 

Management Protection for Relevant and Important Values

Bridger Jack Mesa Near Relict Vegetation The area lies entirely within the Bridger Jack Mesa WSA and 

will be managed according to IMP. It is unavailable for livestock 

grazing and private/commercial use of woodland products. 

Campfires are restricted to fire rings. Recreation use is subject 

to the Indian Creek SRMA provisions. Thus relevant and 

important values will continue to be protected. 

Butler Wash North Scenic The area lies entirely within a WSA and will be managed 

according to the IMP. It is unavailable for private and 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite 

collection for campfires. Livestock grazing may be limited if 

cultural resources are being impacted. It is closed to OHV use 

and will be managed to meet VRM Class I objectives. Thus 

relevant and important values will continue to be protected. 

Cedar Mesa Fish and Wildlife, 

Cultural and Scenic 

Cedar Mesa will be managed as a SRMA with three specific 

recreational management zones created to protect cultural 

resources by managing visitors. Although the former Cedar 

Mesa ACEC is not carried forward, the area is now included in 

the larger Cedar Mesa SRMA in the Approved RMP. 

Management prescriptions that were listed for the ACEC and 

the proposed C-SRMA have been added to the SRMA in their 

entirety and these management prescriptions are sufficient to 

protect cultural resources. Protective management that 

addresses cultural resources include: 

WSAs make up 71 percent of the former Cedar Mesa ACEC. 

These WSAs are managed under the IMP which includes 

closure to oil and gas leasing and OHV use and management 

as VRM I. These management prescriptions provide protection 

for cultural resources and scenic values. 

The area that is currently managed for its scenic resources 

outside the WSAs in the previous Cedar Mesa ACEC was the 

Valley of the Gods. This area is carried forward as its own 

ACEC in the Approved RMP and will be managed as VRM I, 

which provides the same NSO provisions. These prescriptions 

will protect the visual resources of the area. 

The McLoyd Canyon-Moon House RMZ establishes a user 

permit system, limits the number of visitors and closes portions 

of the Moon House site to entry to protect cultural resources. 

Recreational Management Zones (RMZ) are established in the 

SRMA to manage visitation and establish site specific cultural 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

33

resource protection measures. These zones include: the Grand 

Gulch NHD RMZ, Comb Ridge RMZ and McLoyd Canyon-Moon 

House RMZ. 

Recreation use in the Cedar Mesa Grand Gulch NHD RMZ 

continues to be managed by a permit system for backcountry 

use. Without the permit system, overuse of the area has the 

potential to impact high density, world-renowned cultural 

resources. Restrictions and management prescriptions are 

intended to minimize impacts from this recreation use on 

cultural resources. In addition to the management prescriptions 

for this zone, the Grand Gulch NHD has additional cultural 

resource protective measures to reduce impacts from 

recreational users on cultural resources. 

Cultural resources will continue to be protected through existing 

laws, rules, regulations and policies. 

Wildlife relevant and important values in the previous ACEC 

were confined to Arch Canyon. There were no special 

conditions in that ACEC specific to the wildlife species 

recognized. New management prescriptions in the SRMA 

include restrictions on organized and commercial OHV groups 

preventing OHV travel in the upper 1⁄2 mile of the canyon during 

the breeding and nesting season for Mexican spotted owls. 

Thus relevant and important values will continue to be 

protected. 

Dark Canyon Scenic and Fish and 

Wildlife 

Dark Canyon (61,660 acres) is not carried forward as an ACEC 

but will be managed under IMP as the entire proposed ACEC is 

within the Dark Canyon WSA. Management under IMP 

includes closure to oil and gas leasing and OHV use. Other 

management prescriptions, such as VRM I maintain the natural 

character of the landscape. Scenic qualities will be adequately 

protected. These management prescriptions will also protect 

wildlife values for the Mexican spotted owl, an endangered 

species and the peregrine falcon. In addition, the canyons of 

this area occur within the Dark Canyon SRMA. Limits on 

recreation group sizes and trip numbers will minimize 

disturbance to these wildlife species. Furthermore, Dark 

Canyon is carried forward as suitable for wild and scenic river 

designation as wild. Management prescriptions for this river 

segment are the same or similar to those listed above. Thus 

relevant and important values will continue to be protected. 

Lockhart Basin Scenic and Cultural Lockhart Basin is not carried forward as an ACEC but relevant 

and important values will be protected. The area will be 

managed under VRM Class I and II designations to protect or 

minimize impacts to visual resources. VRM Class I areas within 

the area include: the Indian Creek WSA (6,870 acres), Indian 

Creek ACEC (3,908 acres) and Colorado River segment #3 

(1,040 acres) managed as suitable for wild and scenic river 

designation. The remainder of the area in the proposed ACEC 

(44,475 acres) will be managed as VRM II. Additionally, the oil 

and gas leasing categories of closed in the WSA and Colorado 

River segment #3, and NSO in the Indian Creek ACEC will also 

protect visual values on 21 percent of the potential ACEC. 

Cultural resources will be protected with these same closed and 

NSO lease categories as well as the controlled surface use 

category which provides for avoidance of cultural sites in the 

remainder of the area. Cultural resources will continue to be 

protected by managing OHV use through route designation in 

the majority of the area, and through existing laws, rules, 

regulations and policies. Prior to approval of actions which may 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

34

affect cultural resources, Class III inventories and consultation 

with SHPO will occur. 

Scenic Highway 

Corridor 

Scenic In reevaluating the previous ACEC for this planning effort, BLM 

determined that the scenic qualities along the highway corridors 

do not meet the ACEC criteria. BLM determined that the 

viewsheds along the corridors are not uncommon and are 

typical of those found throughout the Colorado Plateau. 

Therefore, this ACEC will not be carried forward. 

Special Designations - Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are four eligible river segments (Colorado River Segments 2 & 3, Dark Canyon, and San 

Juan River Segment 5) that are carried forward as suitable for inclusion into the National Wild 

and Scenic River (NW&SR) system. These areas are included in the Approved RMP to protect 

the free-flowing nature and outstandingly remarkable values associated with the river segments. 

Eligible river segments that were not carried forward as suitable in the Approved RMP are 

generally protected by various other management decisions. Many of these river segments 

include scenery, cultural, ecological, fish, wildlife and non-motorized recreation as outstandingly 

remarkable values (outstandingly remarkable values). 

River segments are classified as “wild,” “scenic” or “recreational.” BLM Manual 8351.33C 

states that “Alternatives may be formulated for any combination of 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 order to accommodate other management considerations and to provide more 

management flexibility, as necessary. 

Colorado River Segments 2 and 3 are recommended as scenic segments suitable for inclusion 

into the NW&SR system. Segment 3 was originally inventoried with a tentative classification of 

wild in the DRMP/DEIS, but this was changed to a scenic classification due to the presence of 

motorized use on the river and to provide consistency in management with the Moab Field 

Office’s management of the north side in their Approved RMP. Outstandingly remarkable 

values (ORVs) include scenic, fish, recreation, wildlife, cultural and ecological values. These 

segments are some of the most scenic river segments in the nation and are commonly used by 

motorized and non motorized boaters as a destination or on their way to Canyonlands National 

Park. Internationally known, these segments attract approximately 12,000 boaters per year. 

National river organizations and the National Park Service support including these segments in 

the NW&SR system. 

Dark Canyon is recommended as a wild segment suitable for inclusion into the NWSR system 

and this designation would highlight and protect one of the most outstanding stream corridors in 

the region. Outstandingly remarkable values include scenic, recreation and wildlife values. A 

truly wild segment, it receives less than 1,000 visitors a year. This segment is an internationally 

recognized area known for rugged terrain, primitive recreation, and habitat supporting a broad 

array of wildlife. Ownership within the corridor is 100 percent BLM and support is high from 

national river organizations and other agencies to include this in the NW&SR system. 

San Juan River Segment 5 is recommended as a wild segment suitable for inclusion into the 

NW&SR system, and this designation would highlight and protect the outstandingly remarkable 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

35

values of one of the most outstanding river corridors in the nation. Outstandingly remarkable 

values include scenic, fish, recreation, geologic, wildlife and ecological values. The segment is 

classified as wild because it is free of impoundments and the shoreline is primitive with no or 

few human intrusions. With canyon walls over 1,200 feet high, this segment is one of the 

deepest canyons in the region. Internationally known, this segment has approximately 6000 

visitors a year. Support to include this in the NW&SR system is high from national river 

organizations and the National Park Service. 

Segments not recommended for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System

The eligible river segments not carried forward as suitable into the Approved RMP will not be 

protected as eligible river segments. The free flowing character and outstandingly remarkable 

values associated with these eligible segments will not be considered in the context of the 

National Wild & Scenic River system. 

Colorado River Segment 1

The tentative classification for this eligible segment was recreational and the outstandingly 

remarkable values include scenic, fish, recreation, wildlife, cultural and ecological values. This 

segment was not selected for inclusion in the NW&SR system since only 35 percent of this 

segment is BLM administered land and half of the side of the river opposite to the BLM 

managed lands is private land. Directly across the river from this segment is a large industrial 

development that decreases the value of this segment as a wild and scenic river. 

This land ownership pattern was considered problematic to effective management of this section 

of the river as a WSR. BLM’s riparian management policy and threatened and endangered 

species conservation measures will afford protection of many of the outstandingly remarkable 

values. Management under controlled surface use stipulation will also help protect these values. 

Indian Creek

The tentative classification for this eligible segment was recreational and the outstandingly 

remarkable value includes cultural. This segment was not selected for inclusion in the NW&SR 

system and will be managed by other management tools. Those include restrictive visual 

resource management objectives, OHV travel limited to designated roads and trails, special 

stipulations for oil and gas leasing, and limits on surface disturbing activities, camping and 

woodland harvest. This segment is 6.5 miles with 4.8 administered by the BLM. Management 

for this segment as a wild and scenic segment would be complicated by the land ownership 

pattern. 

Fable Valley

The tentative classification for this eligible segment was scenic and the outstandingly remarkable 

values include wildlife and ecological values. This segment was not selected for inclusion in the 

NW&SR system as it is within the Dark Canyon WSA and SRMA and the outstandingly 

remarkable values can be adequately protected under IMP and SRMA management. These 

include VRM Class I, closure to OHV use and oil and gas leasing, livestock grazing restrictions, 

limits on recreational group size, and prohibition of campfires. 

San Juan River Segment 1
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

36

Tentative classification for this eligible segment was recreational and outstandingly remarkable 

values include fish, wildlife, historical and cultural values. This segment was not selected for 

inclusion in the NW&SR system and will be managed by other management tools. Those 

include VRM and the management prescription found in the designated SRMA and ACEC. 

Protection for the outstandingly remarkable values was considered to be more appropriately 

managed under an SRMA and ACEC designation. Management prescriptions for these 

designations include limits on rafting, restrictions on oil and gas leasing, limits on recreation use 

if wildlife are being impacted and protection of cultural sites through restrictions on recreation 

use. These designations generally apply to a larger area than would be possible to protect under 

a WSR designation. This segment is 15.3 miles with 8.5 administered by the BLM. 

Management for this segment as a wild and scenic river would be complicated by the land 

ownership pattern. 

San Juan River Segment 2

Tentative classification for this eligible segment was recreational and outstandingly remarkable 

values include scenic, fish, recreation, wildlife, historical, cultural and ecological values. This 

segment was not selected for inclusion in the NW&SR system and will be managed by other 

management tools. Those include restrictive VRM objectives and the management prescriptions 

found in the designated SRMA and ACEC. Protection for the outstandingly remarkable values 

was considered to be more appropriately managed under an SRMA and ACEC designation. 

Management prescriptions for these designations include limits on rafting, restrictions on oil and 

gas leasing, limits on recreation use if wildlife are being impacted and protection of cultural sites 

through restrictions on recreation use. These designations generally apply to a larger area than 

would be possible to protect under a WSR designation. 

San Juan River Segment 3

Tentative classification for this eligible segment was wild and outstandingly remarkable values 

include scenic, fish, recreation, geologic, wildlife, and ecological values. This segment was not 

selected for inclusion in the NW&SR system and will be managed by other management tools. 

Those include restrictive VRM objectives and the management prescriptions found in the 

designated SRMA and ACEC. Protection for the outstandingly remarkable values was 

considered to be more appropriately managed under an SRMA and ACEC designation. 

Management prescriptions for these designations include limits on rafting, restrictions on oil and 

gas leasing, limits on recreation use if wildlife are being impacted and protection of cultural sites 

through restrictions on recreation use. These designations generally apply to a larger area than 

would be possible to protect under a WSR designation. 

San Juan River Segment 4

Tentative classification for this eligible segment was recreational and outstandingly remarkable 

values include scenic, fish, recreation, wildlife, and ecological values. This segment was not 

selected for inclusion in the NW&SR system and will be managed by other management tools. 

Those include restrictive VRM objective and the management prescriptions found in the 

designated SRMA and ACEC. Protection for the outstandingly remarkable values was 

considered to be more appropriately managed under an SRMA and ACEC designation. 

Management prescriptions for these designations include limits on rafting, restrictions on oil and 

gas leasing, limits on recreation use if wildlife are being impacted and protection of cultural sites 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

37

through restrictions on recreation use. These designations generally apply to a larger area than 

would be possible to protect under a WSR designation. This segment is 5.3 miles with 4.2 

administered by the BLM. Management for this segment as a Wild and Scenic Segment would 

be complicated by the land ownership pattern. 

Arch Canyon

The tentative classification for this eligible segment was recreational and the outstandingly 

remarkable values include wildlife, fish, cultural, ecological and recreation. This segment was 

not selected for inclusion in the NW&SR system and will be managed by other management 

tools. Those include VRM, travel restrictions (designation of one OHV route), camping 

restrictions, closure to campfires, closed to livestock grazing and the management prescriptions 

that are outlined in the Cedar Mesa SRMA which includes Arch Canyon. This segment is 7.7 

miles with 6.9 administered by the BLM. Management for this segment as a Wild and Scenic 

Segment would be complicated by the land ownership pattern. 

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. 

Special Designations – Historic Trails

The Approved RMP continues management and coordination with NPS and other managing 

agencies on the Old Spanish National Historic Trail, as well as, efforts among the SHPO, Native 

American Tribes on the Hole in the Rock Trail. Landmarks or features on segments of each trail 

would be identified and classified for historic integrity and condition. Interpretation would only 

be implemented if it maintains the trail’s integrity. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts on uses as a result of focused management, such as the protection, preservation and 

maintenance of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, were disclosed in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS, and considered in conjunction with impacts to resource values. There are 

88,871 acres within 5 areas (Dark Canyon, Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome West, Nokai Dome East 

and Grand Gulch) that are carried forward in the Approved RMP for protection of their 

wilderness characteristics. Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome West, Nokai Dome East and Grand 

Gulch are unavailable for oil and gas leasing. Dark Canyon is available subject to a no surface 

occupancy stipulation that cannot be waived, excepted or modified. All 88,871 acres will be 

managed as avoidance areas for rights-of-way. 

Areas selected for management of wilderness characteristics have a lower potential for mineral 

development than other areas in the Monticello Field Office as well as limited conflict with other 

resources. These areas are without roads which makes them more suitable for effectively 

protecting, preserving, and maintaining their wilderness character. Grand Gulch is managed as 

part of the Cedar Mesa SRMA for primitive recreation and coincides perfectly with managing 

this area for wilderness characteristics. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

38

There were many areas found to have wilderness characteristics during the inventory reviews 

and not selected for management of those characteristics in the Approved RMP. The reasons for 

this decision were varied and complex. In most cases it was because those lands were found to 

have other important resources or resource uses that conflict with protection, preservation, or 

maintenance of the wilderness characteristics. For example, some lands have existing leases that 

may be developed in the near future, or there may be mining claims that could be developed. In 

other instances, even though no valid existing rights encumbered these lands, potential for future 

development led to a different conclusion. Areas were not selected because they contained valid 

and existing rights, high mineral potential, were being managed for other uses such as right-ofway corridors, contained mechanical vegetation treatments, or are left open for firewood 

collection. These uses were considered as the priority when compared to protection, 

preservation and maintenance of the wilderness characteristics. The Approved RMP provided 

the best balance in allowing for uses to occur while providing for protection of resource values 

and public health and safety. 

In future references, lands managed in the Approved RMP as non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics will be referred to as BLM natural areas. This change does not represent a new 

designation or a new decision. Rather, BLM wants to recognize these discretionary decisions 

with a better, simpler reference. Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas are formal 

designations that are managed in a prescribed manner. To avoid confusing these official 

designations with discretionary agency decisions, BLM has chosen a new reference to 

distinguish between formal designations (e.g., Wilderness Areas) and a discretionary 

management category (BLM natural areas). According to the Approved RMP, BLM natural 

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

appearance of naturalness and solitude. 

Travel Management

The Approved RMP responds to the issue of OHV use by designating all BLM lands as closed or 

limited to off highway vehicle use. Within the planning area, 1,388,191 acres will be limited to 

designated routes, and 393,895 acres as closed to motorized travel. There are no acres open to 

cross-country travel. The Approved RMP designates 2,820 miles of routes open to vehicle use 

and closes 316 miles of routes to recreational vehicle use. 

The limited area designation (1,388,191 acres) in the Approved RMP applies 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 

is detrimental to these resources. The Approved RMP allows for motorized access and 

opportunities within the limited designation while providing protection for sensitive resources 

and non-motorized recreation users. 

The closed areas (393,895 acres) in the Approved RMP apply primarily to the existing 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), Lavender Mesa and Indian Creek ACECs, and portions of the 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

39

San Juan River and Tank Bench SRMAs. All of the inventoried routes within the WSAs would 

be closed to recreational motorized travel, with the exception of .08 miles of a route in Fish 

Creek WSA that accesses the Moon House ruin. This way would remain available for motorized 

use on a conditional basis. 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. In addition, by closing the two ACECs and portions of the two SRMAs, relict 

vegetation, sensational scenic values, and high density and unique cultural resources would be 

protected. In summary, the areas designated in the Approved RMP as limited and closed to 

OHV use provide the best balance between OHV opportunities and protection of sensitive 

resources. 

Vegetation

The Approved RMP responds to issues regarding noxious weeds and invasive species by 

utilizing BLM’s integrated pest management strategies (combined use of mechanical, cultural, 

chemical, manual, biological, and preventative measures). This decision to control invasive, 

non-native plant species through a comprehensive weed management program will aid in the 

reduction of vegetative degradation that result from accelerated establishment of noxious and 

invasive species. The BLM emphasis on re-establishment and restoration of vegetated areas 

during surface disturbing project activities will assist in the control of non-native, invasive plant 

species. Also, the commitment to the management of landscapes as outlined in the Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management will further ensure biotic integrity 

and enhanced competitive interaction against undesired invasive plants. Vegetative treatments 

will be focused where objectives of enhanced ecological condition and stability can best be met. 

The RMP also manages for plant communities that provide a sustainable forage base. 

Visual Resource Management

The Approved RMP establishes VRM management class designations that are the result of a 

synthesis and balance of other proposed resource and land management actions with the visual 

resource inventory of scenic quality, visual resource values and viewer sensitivity. For visual 

resources, VRM Class I objectives are the most restrictive and protective of these resources. To 

protect scenic values, WSAs, some ACECs and wild sections of wild and scenic rivers are 

managed for protection of visual resources. There is an expectation from visitors that these 

scenic qualities of a primarily pristine and undeveloped landscape will be maintained through 

appropriate management. All WSAs, Valley of the Gods and Indian Creek ACECs are examples 

of areas which are managed as VRM I. Such management is compatible with retention of 

naturalness in WSAs and outstanding scenery in such high visitation areas as Valley of the Gods 

and certain segments of the Colorado and San Juan Rivers. 

Areas designated to be managed under VRM II objectives would also retain scenic quality but 

would allow minor changes to the landscape. Examples include the Indian Creek Corridor and 

Comb Ridge Management Zone of the Cedar Mesa SRMA. Both of these areas are popular with 

car-camping and/or day-hiking recreationists. Such activities are compatible with VRM II 

management. 

Areas to be managed under VRM III or IV objectives include: Montezuma Canyon basin, Dry 

Valley and Red Canyon. These areas have important utility developments, oil and gas or other 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

40

mineral developments and potential for further development of these resources. Many of these 

surface disturbing developments would not be possible under more restrictive VRM classes. 

Wildlife and Fisheries

The Approved RMP responds to issues regarding wildlife by providing restrictions to uses in 

crucial wildlife habitat areas. BLM uses the UDWR crucial habitat boundaries to apply these 

restrictions because UDWR is the entity with jurisdiction and expertise over wildlife in Utah. 

The crucial habitat identified in the Approved RMP for deer, elk, bighorn sheep and pronghorn 

antelope 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. Timing limitations on surface disturbing activities are prescribed for 453,388 acres of 

desert bighorn sheep habitat, 29,365 acres of pronghorn habitat 383,098 acres of deer habitat and 

97,471 acres of elk 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. 

The Approved RMP maintains and enhances aquatic and terrestrial habitats that support 

numerous species. Land use authorizations would be required to conform to seasonal, noise and 

disturbance restrictions as well as reclamation of disturbance where applicable. The Approved 

RMP provides restrictive stipulations necessary to protect wildlife and fisheries while still 

allowing for resource uses. In addition, the Approved RMP provides for construction and/or 

implementation of habitat improvements. The RMP also provides for the continued cooperation 

and support to UDWR for introduction, transplantation, augmentation and reestablishment of 

native and naturalized wildlife species. 

Special Status Species 

Protective management measures have been developed in coordination with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the UDWR to protect 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 

September 30, 2008. On October 27, 2008, a letter was sent to the USFWS, which constituted an 

amendment to the BA. The amendment included minor modifications and clarifications to the 

proposed plan as a result of protests, continued internal review, and acreage corrections. The 

USFWS responded with a Biological Opinion (BO) on October 29, 2008 completing the formal 

section 7 consultation process. The BO concurred with the determinations made in the BA 

regarding potential effects on listed threatened and endangered species located within the 

planning area. The BO is part of the Approved RMP as Appendix E and on the attached CDROM. The BA and the BO contain committed conservation measures that have been 

incorporated into the ROD and will be a part of the implementation of the Approved RMP. 

These are committed measures that will be included within special status species habitat or 

potentially suitable habitat as part of the proposed action of any subsequent site specific activities 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

41

authorized by the RMP. Should any changes be made in any of the conservation measures 

identified in the BA and BO, Section 7 consultation with USFWS will be re-initiated. 

The BLM, in coordination with the USFWS developed the majority of these committed 

conservation measures as part of a programmatic Section 7 consultation that was completed in 

2007. Some modifications and additional measures were developed during the consultation 

process specific to the Monticello RMP. All site specific level actions potentially impacting 

listed species or their critical, suitable or potentially suitable habitat will implement these 

measures. Incorporating these measures will ensure that the BLM is in compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act and will meet necessary management and recovery goals. If BLM 

determines that any deviations, modifications, or waiver of these conservation measures may be 

necessary on a given project, re-initiation of Section 7 consultation with USFWS will be 

necessary. BLM notes that the Biological Opinion (Appendix E and attached 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 

measures are optional measures, additional to the committed conservation measures 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 

them and their habitat from loss in accordance with the FLPMA, BLM management guidelines, 

and policy contained in the BLM 6840 Manual. 

Woodlands 

The Approved RMP addresses issues regarding management of forest and woodland products to 

provide for sustainable personal and commercial harvesting opportunities, maintain woodland 

integrity, fish and wildlife habitat, biotic health, and reduced fuel load. Management of 

woodlands is focused where treatments and harvesting assists in ensuring ecological diversity, 

stability, and sustainability. The Approved RMP provides for use of forest and woodland 

product resources and ensures public safety in high value and/or high risk situations. 

Management decisions also allow for traditional Native American firewood harvesting 

opportunities within a reasonable range of the Navajo Reservation, as well as for collection of 

cottonwood and willow for ceremonial purposes. For these reasons, the forest and woodland 

harvest decisions in the Approved RMP allow for the most appropriate mix of uses while 

protecting sensitive resources. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

42

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 September 5, 2008, in accordance with planning regulations at 43 CFR 

Part 1610.3- 2(e), and concluded on November 4, 2008). 

NHPA Section 106 Consultation

The Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) provided comments on the Draft 

DRMP/EIS that were contained in the comment letter from the State of Utah. These comments 

were considered in developing the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, and additional coordination and 

consultation with the SHPO ensued. A letter was received from the Utah SHPO on August 25, 

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 D. 

Native American Consultation

Consultations with Native Americans on the plan have been ongoing since 2003. Consultations 

conducted prior to release of the DRMP/EIS for public review are described in detail in Chapter 

5 (5.2.1) of the DRMP/EIS and will not be repeated here. The DRMP/EIS was sent to the tribes 

for review and comment on November 5, 2007. Monticello FO received comments from three 

tribes, the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Tribal concerns 

related to the DRMP/EIS were focused on the following: 

1. Maintaining access for collection of plants for medicinal, spiritual, and sustenance uses, 

2. Protection of the cultural resources in the Allen and Cottonwood Canyon areas which are 

important to the culture and history of the White Mesa Utes. 

3. Allocation of sites for scientific use. 

4. Ongoing consultation on selection and allocation of sites for interpretive development, 

educational, public, and scientific uses. 

5. Inadvertant discoveries. 

BLM provided additional clarification or modifications in developing the PRMP to address these 

concerns. None of the tribes filed a protest. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

43

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 

September 30, 2008. As required by Section 7(a) of the ESA, the Monticello Field Office 

prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) to evaluate the listed species in its planning area. The 

BA analyzed the potential impacts on six endangered, two threatened, and one candidate species 

which could result from implementing management actions authorized under the proposed land 

use plan for the Field Office. The Monticello 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. On October 27, 2008, a letter was sent to the USFWS, which 

constituted an amendment to the BA. The amendment included minor modifications and 

clarifications to the proposed plan as a result of protests, continued internal review, and acreage 

corrections. After the review of the BA and associated amendment, the USFWS prepared a 

Biological Opinion (BO), in which they concurred with BLM’s determination on October 29, 

2008, and is included in Appendix E and the attached CD-ROM. 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 (Appendix F) will be used as the base standards to assess the health of BLM lands in the 

planning area. Best management practices (BMPs) will be used (when applicable) for a number 

of uses including livestock grazing, forest activities, mining, oil and gas development, and other 

surface disturbing activities (Appendix G). Additional measures to mitigate environmental 

impacts may also be developed during subsequent NEPA analysis at the activity level planning 

and project stages. Throughout the decisions in the Approved RMP, mitigation was used as a 

means to avoid and minimize environmental harm. 

I. PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Monitoring is the repeated measurement of activities and conditions over time. Evaluation is a 

process in which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to see if management goals and 

objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. Monitoring data gathered over 

time is examined and used to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting 

stated objectives, and if not, why. Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on 

whether to continue current management or what changes need to be made in management 

practices to meet objectives. 

The two types of monitoring that are tied to the planning process include implementation and 

effectiveness monitoring. Land use plan monitoring is the process of (1) tracking the 

implementation of land use planning decisions and (2) collecting and assessing data/information 

necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning decisions. The two types of 

monitoring are described below. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

44

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 in order to address specific 

questions, and thus avoid collection of unnecessary data. Success is measured against the 

benchmark of achieving desired future conditions established by the plan. 

Regulations at 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that the proposed plan establish intervals and standards, 

as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluation of the plan, based on the sensitivity of the resource 

decisions involved. Progress in meeting the plan objectives and adherence to the management 

framework established by the plan is reviewed periodically. CEQ regulations implementing 

NEPA state that agencies may provide for monitoring to assure that their decisions are carried 

out and should do so in important cases (40 CFR 1505.2(c)). To meet these requirements, the 

BLM will review the plan on a regular schedule in order to provide consistent tracking of 

accomplishments and provide information that can be used to develop annual budget requests to 

continue implementation. 

Land use plan evaluations will be used by BLM to determine if the decisions in the RMP, 

supported by the accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid. Evaluation of the RMP will 

generally be conducted every five years per BLM policy, unless unexpected actions, new 

information, or significant changes in other plans, legislation, or litigation triggers an evaluation. 

Land use plan evaluations determine if decisions are being implemented, whether mitigation 

measures are satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the related plans of other 

entities, whether there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions should be changed 

through amendment or revision. Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated. Specific 

monitoring and evaluation needs are identified by resource/uses throughout the Approved RMP 

and in Appendix H. 

J. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

One of BLM’s primary objectives during development of the Monticello RMP was to understand 

the views of various publics by providing opportunities for meaningful participation in the 

resource 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 begin 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 a socioeconomic workshop 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. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan - Record of Decision

45

On November 2, 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 Monticello 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 Monticello Field Office received over 19,000 comment submissions 

on the Draft RMP/EIS. These comments were considered in the preparation of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. 

On September 5, 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/Final EIS via 

news releases, the planning website and the RMP mailing list. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS as 

well as all the background documents were available on the Monticello RMP planning website. 

A 30 day protest period commenced on September 5, 2008, and ended on October 6, 2008. In 

addition, a 60-day Governor’s Consistency Review period ran concurrently with the first half of 

the protest period. In-depth information on these efforts is included in both the Monticello Draft 

RMP/EIS and Monticello 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-site information to ask for participation and inform the public of new and 

ongoing project proposals, site-specific planning, and opportunities and timeframes for 

comment. The BLM will also continue to coordinate, both formally and informally, with the 

numerous state, federal, tribal, and local agencies and officials interested and involved in the 

management of public lands in Grand and San Juan Counties within the planning area. 

K. AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN 

Copies of the Record of Decision and the Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan are 

available by request from the following locations: BLM Monticello Field Office, 365 North 

Main Street, Monticello, Utah, 84535, 435-587-1500, and on the Monticello Field Office website 

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

Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan

47

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

A. INTRODUCTION 

This Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) replaces the 1991 San Juan RMP and is now 

the base land use plan for public lands administered by the BLM's Monticello Field Office. The 

Approved RMP adopts the management described in Proposed Plan and the Management 

Common to All Alternatives section presented in the Proposed Monticello RMP/Final EIS 

(USDI-BLM 2008), with adjustments as described in the Notice of Minor Modification and 

Clarification section of the ROD. 

B. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER BLM PLANS AND POLICIES

This Plan recognizes the many ongoing programs, plans, and policies that are being implemented 

in the Monticello PA by other land managers and government agencies. The BLM seeks to be 

consistent or complementary with other management actions whenever possible. Plans and 

policies that need to be considered are outlined below. 

State of Utah Plans 

 SITLA cooperative agreement and other plans 

 Canyonlands Natural History Association cooperative agreement 

 Regional plans of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) 

 State of Utah plans relating to wildlife habitat and watershed management 

 Utah's State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 

 Utah's Smoke Management Plan 

 Utah's State Implementation Plan 

 Utah's Nonpoint Source Management Plan 

 Utah's Sensitive Species List 

 Utah's List of Impaired Waters (303 d) 

 Utah's Water Resources Planning for the Future 

 Utah's Water Plan: Southeast Colorado River Basin 

 Utah's Rules for Edge of the Cedars State Park Museum and Gooseneck State Park 

 Utah's Bighorn Sheep Statewide Management Plan 

 San Juan Elk Management Plan 

 Statewide Management Plan for Elk 

County Land-Use Plans

 San Juan County, Utah: San Juan County Master Plan (2008) 

 Grand County, Utah: Grand County General Plan Update (2004) 

Other Federal Plans

 Canyonlands National Park Natural Resource Management Plan (1994) 

 Canyonlands National Park General Management Plan (1974) 

 Canyonlands National Park Backcountry Management Plan (1984, 1995) 

 Manti–La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986) 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan

48

 Strategic Plans for Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Rainbow Bridge National 

Monument (2005, 2007) 

 Hovenweep National Monument Plan (draft) 

 Glen Canyon NRA Grazing Management Plan (1999) 

 Glen Canyon NRA Minerals Management Plan (1980) 

 Cooperative Management Strategies: Hovenweep National Monument, Colorado–Utah 

(1987) 

 Canyon of the Ancients Monument-Resource Management Plan (draft) 

 San Juan–San Miguel Resource Management Plan (1986) 

 Moab Resource Management Plan (2008) 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 

In May 2001, the Comprehensive National Energy Policy was issued, which directed the 

secretary of the interior to "...examine land status and lease stipulation impediments to federal 

oil and gas leasing, and review and modify those where opportunities exist (consistent with the 

law, good environmental practice and balanced use of other resources)" (NEPDG 2001). 

Under this directive, the assistant secretary of the Interior for Lands 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) (BLM 2003a). 

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 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 relative resource values, consistent with the FLPMA. 

 All resource impacts, including those associated with energy development and transmission 

will be mitigated to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation (BLM 2003a). 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Dept. of the Interior and U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture: Implementation of Section 225 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

Regarding Geothermal Leasing and Permitting 

The purpose of this MOU is to facilitate interagency coordination and establish policies and 

procedures to implement Section 225 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58 

(hereinafter, the Act). Section 225 requires the coordination of geothermal leasing and permitting 

on public lands and National Forest Service (NFS) lands between the secretaries of the interior 

and agriculture. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of 

Land Management and U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service 

The purpose of this MOU is to establish joint BLM and USFS policies and procedures for 

managing oil and gas leasing and operational activities pursuant to oil and gas leases on NFS 

lands, consistent with applicable law and policy. The MOU was signed in 2006 for the purpose 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan

49

of efficient, effective compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. The MOU 

establishes the roles of the USFS and the BLM in processing applications for permits to drill and 

review of subsequent operations. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of 

Land Management and National Park Service 

The purpose of this MOU is to establish joint BLM and National Park Service policies and 

procedures for administer livestock grazing leases, subject to the values and purposes of Glen 

Canyon NRA lands. 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing Programmatic EIS (PEIS) 

The Monticello Field Office contains areas of tar sands resources. This resource has been, and 

currently is, available for lease under the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 and in 

accordance with the decisions in the existing BLM land use plans/plan amendments. 

In Utah, the major tar sand resources lie within 11 designated Special Tar Sands Areas (STSAs) 

managed by the BLM Vernal, Price, Richfield, and Monticello Field Offices. One of these 

STSAs lies within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument where leasing is 

prohibited. The Monticello Field Office manages one of the remaining 10 STSAs. 

When the Monticello Resource Management Plan Revision (revision) was initiated in 2003, 

there was no reasonable foreseeable development expectation for tar sands over the life of the 

plan. The mineral report identified this resource, but did not foresee any leasing or development 

due to prevailing and anticipated economic factors. 

Since the start of this RMP (revision), Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 

369 of the Energy Policy Act requires the Secretary of Interior to “complete a programmatic 

environmental impact statement for a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands 

resources on public lands, with an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands within 

each of the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.” On December 13, 2005, the BLM 

published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register initiating a Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) to support a commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program on 

federal lands in these three states. Since that time, the scope of the PEIS has been revised. The 

BLM is no longer using the PEIS as the document that supports the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for leasing. Given that the development technologies for insitu production of oil shale are just emerging, there is a lack of information regarding resource 

use and associated impacts. Consequently, the BLM has changed this document to a resource 

allocation document that identifies the BLM-managed lands for which applications to lease oil 

shale and tar sands resources would be accepted in the future. However although applications 

would be accepted, additional NEPA analysis would be performed before any leasing of the area 

would be considered. 

All decisions related to land use planning decisions (areas open to application for potential 

leasing) for tar sands resources in this Resource Management Plan will be made by the ongoing 

PEIS for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources. The Record of Decision on the final PEIS will 

amend the existing 1991 San Juan RMP or Monticello RMP by making land use planning 

decisions on whether or not lands will be available for future application, leasing and 

development of tar sands on public lands for those areas where the resource is present. 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan

50

Additional site-specific NEPA analysis will be completed on each lease application before any 

leases would be issued. 

As part of the site-specific NEPA analysis, the environmental consequences to specific resource 

values and uses within the areas and any alternative actions would be analyzed. Any decision to 

offer the lands for lease would be made based on a full disclosure of the impacts. If a decision is 

made to offer the lands for lease, specific mitigation measures will be developed to ensure that 

the commercial operations use practices that minimize or mitigate impacts. 

This pre-leasing NEPA analysis would include the same opportunities for public involvement 

and comment that are part of this PEIS process and every other land use planning and NEPA 

process the BLM undertakes. The decisions associated with the PEIS will be incorporated into 

the Monticello RMP as it is finalized, or the Monticello RMP will be amended. Additional 

opportunities for public involvement and comment will occur when the Proposed RMP 

Amendment/ Final PEIS is available. 

This Resource Management Plan will, however, develop allocation decisions for conventional oil 

and gas leasing and the Combined Hydocarbon Leases in the STSAs. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Westwide Energy Corridor PEIS 

An interagency Westwide Energy Corridor PEIS is currently being developed to implement 

Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Energy Right-of-way Corridors on federal land). 

The final Westwide Energy Corridor PEIS will amend RMPs in the western U.S., providing 

decisions to address numerous energy corridor issues, including the utilization of existing 

corridors (with enhancements and upgrades) and the identification of new ones, supply and 

demand considerations, and compatibility with other corridor and project-planning efforts. It is 

likely that the identification of corridors in the Westwide Energy Corridor PEIS will affect the 

Monticello PA. Consequently, the decisions in the ROD on the final Westwide Energy Corridor 

PEIS will be incorporated into the Monticello RMP. 

Endangered Species Recovery Plans 

 The Recovery Implementation Plan for the Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado 

River Basin (USFWS 1987) 

 Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984, 1990a, 2002a) 

 Humpback Chub Recovery Plan (USFWS 1979, 1990a, 2002b) 

 Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Plan (USFWS 1978, 1990, 1991, 2002c) 

 Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999, 2002d) 

 Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995) 

 Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (USFWS 2002e) 

Existing EISs 

 Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Regional Final EIS (1984) 

 Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness EIS (1990) 

 Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM-administered Lands in the 

Western United States (BLM 2005f) 

 Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen 

Western States and associated Records of Decision (1991). 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan

51

 Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Record of Decision (2007). 

 Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Report (2007). 

Other BLM Plans 

 Red Canyon/White Canyon Habitat Management Plan (1990) 

 Beef Basin Habitat Management Plan (1992) 

 Hatch Point Habitat Management Plan (1976) 

 Fire Management Plan Amendment (2005) 

 San Juan County Landfill Plan Amendment (1995) 

 Montezuma Creek River Basin Study (1992) 

 Grand Gulch Plateau Cultural and Recreation Area Management Plan (1993) 

 Indian Creek Corridor Plan (2005) 

 East Canyon Allotment Management Plan (1993) 

 Tank Draw Allotment Management Plan (1993) 

 Gunnison Sage-grouse Range-wide Conservation Plan (2005) 

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 

Monticello 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 sitespecific 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 Monticello RMP constitutes compliance with NEPA for the broadscale decisions made in this Approved RMP, BLM will continue to prepare Environmental 

Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact 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 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan

52

proposed in the planning area. Proposals for actions such as oil and gas leasing, land 

adjustments, and other allocation-based actions will be reviewed against these 

decisions/allocations to determine if the proposal is in conformance with the plan. 

One-Time Decisions: These types of decisions include those that are implemented after 

additional site-specific analysis is completed. Examples are implementation of the 

recommendations to withdraw lands from locatable mineral entry or development of a habitat 

management plan or a special recreation management area plan. One-time decisions usually 

require additional analysis and are prioritized as part of the BLM budget process. 

Long-Term Guidance/Life of Plan Direction: These decisions include the goals, objectives, 

and management actions established by the plan that are applied during site-specific analyses and 

activity planning. This guidance is applied whether the action is initiated by the BLM or by a 

non-BLM project proponent. Long- term guidance and plan direction is incorporated into BLM 

management as implementation level planning and project analysis occurs (for example, as a 

result of the watershed assessment process or receipt of a land use application). 

Priorities for implementation of "one-time" RMP decisions will be based on several criteria, 

including: 

 Current and projected resource needs and demands; 

 National and Statewide BLM management direction and program emphasis; and funding. 

General Implementation Schedule of “One-Time” Actions

Decisions in this plan will be implemented over a period of years depending on budget and staff 

availability. After issuing the ROD/Approved RMP, BLM will prepare an Implementation Plan 

that establishes tentative timeframes for completion 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 ranges, or adjusting the boundary of a fire management unit based on updated fire 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan

53

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, modifications or 

adjustments may occur without amendment or revision of the plan as long as assumptions and 

impacts disclosed in the analysis remain valid and broad-scale goals and objectives are not 

changed. 

Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records. Plan maintenance does not require 

formal public involvement, interagency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making 

new land use plan decisions. 

Changing the Plan 

The Approved RMP may be changed, should conditions warrant, through a plan amendment or 

plan revision process. A plan amendment may become necessary if major changes are needed or 

to consider a proposal or action that is not in conformance with the plan. The results of 

monitoring, evaluation of new data, or policy changes and changing public needs might also 

provide the impetus for an amendment. Generally, an amendment is issue-specific. If several 

areas of the plan become outdated or otherwise obsolete, a plan revision may become necessary. 

Plan amendments and revisions are accomplished with public input and the appropriate level of 

environmental analysis conducted according to the Council on Environmental Policy procedure 

for implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

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 Monticello 

RMP: 
Monticello Approved Resource Management Plan

54

 September 2013 

 September 2018 

 September 2023 

 September 2028 

Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H1601-1) or other appropriate guidance in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated. 

E. MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 

This section of the Approved RMP presents the goals and objectives, land use allocations, and 

management actions established for public lands managed by the BLM's Monticello Field Office. 

These management decisions are presented by program area. Not all types of decisions were 

identified for each program. For instance, only Goals and Objectives were identified in the Air 

Quality section, and thus only Goals and Objectives are described in that section. A Monitoring 

section (Appendix H) is also included for each program to describe how the program decisions 

will be evaluated to determine effectiveness in achieving RMP objectives or making progress 

toward them. 

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 (Section C Plan 

Implementation). Please note that all acreages presented in the Approved RMP are estimations, 

even when presented to the nearest acre. 

The management actions are organized alphabetically by program area with the following titles. 

For ease of identification into the future, each program area has an identified abbreviation and 

each decision in that program is numbered in coordination with the abbreviation: 

Management Common to All Decisions—MCA 

Air Quality—AQ 

Cultural Resources—CUL 

Fire Management—FIRE 

Health and Safety—HAZ

Lands and Realty—LAR 

Livestock and Grazing—GRA 

Mineral Resources—MIN

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics—WC 

Paleontology—PAL 

Recreation—REC 

Riparian—RIP 

Soil and Water Resources—SOLW 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern—ACEC 

Wild and Scenic Rivers—WSR 

Historic Trails—HT 

Special Status Species—SSP

Travel Management—TM 

Vegetation—VEG 

Visual Resource Management—VRM 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources—FWL 

Woodlands—FOR 
Monticello Approved RMP —Management Common to All Resources

55

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL RESOURCES (MCA)

Special Designations

MCA-1 

Wilderness Study Areas will be managed according to the Interim Management Policy and 

Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review (IMP). 

MCA-2 

All Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) will be retained in public ownership, will 

be subject to appropriate fire management response, and will have travel limited to designated 

routes unless otherwise noted. 

Education and Interpretation 

MCA-3 

The BLM will work with its partners, including local school districts and universities, to develop 

a variety of opportunities to promote education, research, and interpretation on public lands. 

Fire, Drought, and Natural Disasters

MCA-4 

The BLM will coordinate actions with affected parties where natural resources may be impacted 

by fire, drought, insects and diseases, or natural disasters. 

Monitoring 

MCA-5 

The BLM will conduct monitoring for all resources to determine the effectiveness of 

management prescriptions in achieving RMP objectives or making progress toward them. 

Utah Standards for Rangeland Health 

MCA-6 

BLM lands will be managed and uses will be authorized in a manner consistent with meeting or 

moving toward meeting Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997). The current Utah 

Standards for Rangeland Health (as revised), augmented with ecological condition and trend 

objectives, will be incorporated across all resource programs as a minimum management 

objective. Management prescriptions in the form of constraints to use, terms and conditions, and 

stipulations may be needed to meet resource objectives and/or to comply with current 

regulations. Management prescriptions may consider, but will not be limited to, the following: 

 Surface-disturbing activities: These will be closely monitored to ensure compliance with 

authorizations/permits, conditions of approval, or terms and conditions. Actions minimizing 

new surface disturbance, as well as actions insuring successful reclamation, will be of 

paramount concern. During periods of drought, the BLM could require additional actions 

such as changes to standard seed mix compositions, amounts of seed, and method of 

application. Methods to ensure successful revegetation following disturbance could include 

hydromulching, installation of drip irrigation, and/or temporary fencing to exclude ungulate 

grazing/browsing. 

 Livestock Grazing: Active livestock use will be authorized in animal unit months (AUMs), 

season, and duration to meet static (no apparent trend) to upward trends towards achieving 
Monticello Approved RMP —Management Common to All Resources

56

site-specific resource objectives. In the case of fire, drought, insects and diseases, or other 

natural disasters, the BLM will work cooperatively to implement a grazing strategy on an 

individual grazing allotment basis and make changes to the annual grazing authorizations as 

appropriate within the limits of the existing permit and in accordance with the grazing 

regulations. The BLM may temporarily close allotments or portions of allotments to grazing 

where it is determined that other, less drastic measures will not avoid degradation of 

vegetative resources. Temporary changes to active permitted use or grazing practices, or nonuse may also be implemented voluntarily by the permittee with BLM consent. 

 Wildlife Management: During periods of prolonged dryness or drought or other natural 

disaster, to the extent that wildlife grazing ungulate populations may not be sustainable 

and/or impacts to the resource habitats may occur due to competition for water and/or 

available forage and/or overall animal health is compromised, the BLM may enter into 

discussions with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) regarding temporary 

adjustments in herd numbers and overall management options to address the effects of 

drought. 

 Recreation: During periods of prolonged dryness or drought, the BLM, in cooperation with 

local and state fire management agencies, may limit campfires to established fire rings or 

fully contained fires. The last resort will be to close the public lands to campfires of any kind. 

 OHV Use: OHV use during periods of prolonged dryness could be further restricted to 

designated routes. If site-specific conditions warrant, closure to OHVs could be implemented 

to minimize vehicle-induced injury or damage to rangeland and/or woodland resources, and 

to minimize the potential of spark caused fires. 

 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): These will be implemented as described in Appendix 

G. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Air Quality

57

AIR QUALITY (AQ)

Goals and Objectives: 

 Ensure that authorized uses on public lands meet or comply with and support federal, state, 

and local laws and regulations. 

Management Actions: 

AQ-1 

The best available control technology, recommended by the Utah Division of Air Quality 

(UDAQ), will be applied as needed to meet air quality standards.

AQ-2 

Prescribed burns will be consistent with the State of Utah Division of Environmental Quality 

(UDEQ) permitting process and timed in conjunction with meteorological conditions so as to 

minimize smoke impacts. 

AQ-3 

The BLM will comply with Utah Air Conservation (UAC) Regulation R307–205, which 

prohibits the use, maintenance, or construction of roadways without taking appropriate dust 

abatement measures. 

AQ-4 

The BLM will comply with the current Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) between the BLM, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and UDAQ. The MOA, in 

accordance with UAC regulation R301-204, requires reporting size, date of burn, fuel type, and 

estimated air emissions from each prescribed burn. 

AQ-5 

The BLM will manage emissions to prevent deterioration to air quality in Class I Airsheds. 

AQ-6 

The BLM will continue to work cooperatively with state, federal, and tribal entities in 

developing air quality assessment protocols to address cumulative impacts and regional air 

quality issues. 

AQ-7 

The BLM will continue to work cooperatively with the Utah Airshed Group to manage emissions 

from wildland and prescribed fire activities. 

AQ-8 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards are enforced by the Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality, Division of Air Quality (UDEQ-DAQ), with EPA oversight. Special requirements to 
Monticello Approved RMP—Air Quality

58

reduce potential air quality impacts will be considered on a case-by-case basis in processing 

land-use authorizations. 

AQ-9 

The BLM will utilize best management practices (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-10 

Project specific analyses will consider use of quantitative air quality analysis methods (i.e., 

modeling), when appropriate as determined by the BLM, in consultation with state, federal, and 

tribal entities.
Monticello Approved RMP—Cultural Resources

59

CULTURAL RESOURCES (CUL)

Goals and Objectives: 

Identify, preserve, and protect important cultural resources (Map 20) 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], NHPA 

106, 110 [a][2]) by ensuring that all authorizations for land use and resource use comply with the 

NHPA Section 106. 

Management Actions: 

CUL-1 

The BLM will nominate appropriate cultural resource objects, sites, districts, and multiple 

listings to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

CUL-2 

Priority geographic areas for new field inventory pursuant to Section 110 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) and Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

(ARPA) will be identified based upon a probability for unrecorded important resources. These 

inventories will be conducted as funding is available and as opportunities arise. 

CUL-3 

The BLM will ensure that all authorizations for land and resource use will comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), consistent with and subject to the 

objectives established in the RMP for the proactive use of cultural properties in the public 

interest. 

CUL-4 

Impacts to any NRHP-listed or eligible cultural resource sites, objects, or districts will be 

mitigated in accordance with 36 CFR 800, generally through avoidance of cultural sites. Should 

it be determined that cultural resources eligible or listed on the NRHP cannot be avoided, 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be initiated and the 

procedures identified in the National Programmatic Agreement and the Utah State BLM Protocol 

for meeting the BLM's responsibilities under the NHPA will be followed. 

CUL-5 

The BLM will consult with Native American tribes to identify, protect, and maintain access for 

areas of traditional and religious use that includes but is not limited to burials, rock art, 

traditional use areas, religiously active areas, and sacred sites. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Cultural Resources

60

CUL-6 

Burial sites, associated burial goods, and sacred items will be protected in accordance with the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act. 

CUL-7 

Cultural resources will be evaluated according to National Register criteria (36 CFR Part 60.4) 

and assigned to appropriate use categories as the basis for management decisions. 

CUL-8 

Cultural sites, including ethnographic properties, will continue to be allocated to one of six 

management use categories: experimental, discharged from management, public, scientific, 

traditional, and conservation. 

CUL-9 

The BLM will conduct a consultation process to identify both the resource management concerns 

and the strategies for addressing them through an interactive dialogue with appropriate Native 

American communities. 

CUL-10 

The BLM will work with tribes and other communities with traditional linkage to public lands to 

identify places of traditional cultural and religious importance. To the extent allowed by statute, 

regulation, and policy, such locations will be managed to minimize impacts to important values 

and to allow continued access for traditional purposes. 

CUL-11 

When new sites are discovered, interim protection may be applied until Section 106 consultation 

and NAGPRA (CFR 10) processes are completed, if warranted. 

CUL-12 

The BLM will provide for legitimate field research by qualified scientists and institutions. 

CUL-13 

The BLM will work with local communities and other groups to foster heritage tourism 

throughout the Monticello PA. 

CUL-14 

Protective measures will be established and implemented for sites, structures, objects, and 

traditional use areas that are important to tribes with historical and cultural connections to the 

land, in order to maintain the view shed and intrinsic values, as well as the auditory, visual, and 

esthetic settings of the resources. Protection measures for undisturbed cultural resources and 

their natural settings will be developed in compliance with regulatory mandates and Native 

American consultation. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Cultural Resources

61

CUL-15 

Cultural resource management plans (CRMPs) will be developed for culturally sensitive areas 

unless included in other integrated activity plans. The CRMP would not require an amendment 

to the Monticello RMP if it is consistent with the goals and objectives of this RMP. Such plans 

will include protective measures such as restrictions and limitations on recreation around 

cultural at-risk areas and sites, Native American consultation, and regulatory compliance. These 

plans will also include but not be limited to developing cultural monitoring systems; identifying 

sites and areas in need of stabilization and protective measures (e.g., fences, surveillance 

equipment); developing research designs for selected sites/areas; designating sites/areas for 

interpretive and educational development; identifying areas for cultural inventory where federal 

undertakings are expected to occur; and developing specific mitigation measures. The plan will 

designate sites, districts, landmarks, and landscapes that will be nominated for inclusion on the 

NRHP. 

CUL-16 

The BLM will proactively reduce hazardous fuels or mitigate the potential hazard around 

archaeological and cultural sites that are susceptible to destruction by fire from prescribed or 

wildland fire. Management response to fire will follow the guidelines in the Moab District Fire 

Management Plan. 

CUL-17 

The BLM will promote collaborative partnerships to assist in meeting management goals and 

objectives for cultural resources. 

CUL-18 

Domestic pets and pack animals will not be allowed in cultural sites or on archaeological 

resources as defined in ARPA. 

CUL-19 

Ropes and other climbing aids will not be allowed for access to cultural sites or archaeological 

resources as defined in ARPA, except for emergencies or administrative needs. 

CUL-20 

Camping will not be allowed within cultural sites or archaeological resources as defined in 

ARPA. 

CUL-21 

Cultural sites may be closed to visitation when they are determined to be at risk or pose visitor 

safety hazards.
Monticello Approved RMP—Fire Management

62

FIRE MANAGEMENT (FIRE) 

Goals and Objectives: 

 Firefighter and public safety are the primary goals in all fire management decisions and 

actions. The BLM will implement a consistent, safe, and cost-effective fire management 

program through appropriate planning, staffing, training, and equipment. 

 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 management objectives will be established for every area with burnable vegetation, 

based on sound science and consideration of other resource objectives. 

 Emergency stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration efforts will be implemented to protect 

and sustain resources, public health and safety, and community infrastructure. 

 The BLM will work together with partners and other impacted groups and individuals to 

reduce risks to communities and to restore ecosystems. 

 Appendix I, Desired Wildland Fire Condition and Condition Class, shows the different 

responses allowed for the planning area (PA). 

 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. 

Management Actions: 

FIRE-1 

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 incorporated by reference into this RMP. Specific decisions for other resources 

that could impact fire management are found throughout the Approved RMP. However, the 

content and purpose of the LUP Amendment is adopted and 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. 

FIRE-2 

Wildland fire will be utilized to protect, maintain and enhance resources and, when possible, will 

be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Fire Management

63

FIRE-3 

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-4 

The BLM will work together with Native Americans to provide for their use of woodland 

products as associated with fire, fuels, and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ES&R) 

actions. 

Criteria for Establishing Fire Management Priorities

FIRE-5 

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: 

 Protection of the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) (including At-Risk Communities and AtRisk Watersheds) 

 Maintaining existing healthy ecosystems 

 High priority subbasins or watersheds 

 Threatened, endangered, or special status species 

 Cultural resources and/or cultural landscapes 

Suppression 

FIRE-6 

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 

PA. 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 areas; historic fire 

regimes; and other special considerations such as wilderness and/or adjacent agency lands. 

Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit

FIRE-7 

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 
Monticello Approved RMP—Fire Management

64

proximity to values at risk, fire cannot be allowed to resume its natural role on all BLM lands in 

the FO. Consideration of ongoing management decisions 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 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 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 areas and PM10 nonattainment areas 

 Administrative sites 

 Developed recreation sites 

 Communication sites 

 Oil, gas, and mining facilities 

 Aboveground utility corridors 

 High-use travel corridors, such as interstates, railroads, and/or highways 

Fuels Treatment

FIRE-8 

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 decisions 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. 

FIRE-9 

Fuels management decisions 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 handcutting (chainsaw or handsaw) and handpiling 

 Prescribed fire, including broadcast, underburn, and handpile burning 

 Chemical spraying or biological treatments such as insects or goats/sheep 

 Seeding including aerial or ground application (manual or mechanical) 
Monticello Approved RMP—Fire Management

65

FIRE-10 

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. 

FIRE-11 

Implementation of fuels management decisions 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 

Prevention and Mitigation

FIRE-12 

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. 

FIRE-13 

Implementation of fire prevention activities will be prioritized using the following criteria: 

 WUI areas 

 Major travel corridors 

 Recreation sites 

 Public lands as a whole 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R)

FIRE-14 

A Normal Year Fire Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan (NFRP) is in place to meet ES&R 

needs and to comply with up-to-date ES&R 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 that 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). 

 Unacceptable vegetation, such as noxious weeds, may readily invade and become 

established. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Fire Management

66

 Shrubs and forbs are a crucial habitat component for wintering mule deer, antelope, 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 status species habitat 

populations to prevent negative impacts. 

FIRE-15 

Fire suppression on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics will be through “light-onthe-land” techniques. 

FIRE-16 

The Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan (FMP) will be updated and amended to meet the 

direction and objectives of the RMP. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Health & Safety

67

HEALTH AND SAFETY (HAZ)

Goals and Objectives: 

Effectively manage hazardous risks on public lands to protect the health and safety of public land 

users and stewards; protect the natural and environmental resources; minimize future hazardous 

and related risks, costs, and liabilities; and mitigate physical hazards in compliance with all 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 

Management Actions: 

Human Health and Safety

HAZ-1 

The BLM will strive to ensure that human health and safety concerns on the public lands it 

manages are appropriately mitigated if determined hazardous. 

Abandoned Mine Lands

HAZ-2

In conformance with the BLM's long-term strategies and National Policies regarding Abandoned 

Mine Lands (AMLs), 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 Abandoned Mine Land Multi -Year Work Plan." The following criteria will be established 

to assist in determining priorities for site and area mitigation and reclamation. 

HAZ-3 

AML physical safety program priorities: 

 Highest priority will be cleaning up 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, or (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 and Site Cleanup 

Module; 

 AML hazards should be, to the extent practicable, mitigated or remediated on the ground 

during site development. 

 AML water-quality program priorities are ones where the state has identified the watershed 

as a priority based on 1) one or more water laws or regulations; 2) threat to public health or 

safety; 3) threat to the environment; 4) the project reflects a collaborative effort with other 

land managing agencies; 5) the site is presently listed or is eligible for listing in the 

Abandoned Mines and Site Cleanup Module; and 6) the project will be funded by 

contributions from collaborating agencies. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Health & Safety

68

Acquisitions/Exchanges

HAZ-4 

These priorities will be maintained and updated as needed in the state AML strategy. 

HAZ-5 

The BLM will identify and clean up unauthorized dumping and shooting areas in the PA as 

required to comply with applicable state, local, and federal regulations. These will include areas 

such as the unauthorized shooting range west of Blanding, dumps near Hovenweep, the 

Monticello Airport, and Paiute Knoll. 

Hazardous Materials

HAZ-6

Use, transportation, storage and disposal of hazardous materials shall comply with the applicable 

Federal and State laws. Use of pesticides and herbicides shall be used only in accordance with 

their registered uses and within limitations imposed by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Hazardous Waste

HAZ-7 

The BLM will respond to releases as appropriate.
Monticello Approved RMP—Lands and Realty

69

LANDS AND REALTY (LAR) 

Goals and Objectives: 

 The BLM will retain lands within its administration except where necessary to accomplish 

resource goals and objectives outlined in the plan. The BLM will transfer lands out of federal 

ownership or acquire non-federal lands or conservation easements where needed to 

accomplish resource goals and objectives, improve administration of public lands, or to meet 

essential community needs. 

 Make public land available for a variety of ROWs, alternative energy sources, and permits 

where consistent with resource goals, objectives, and prescriptions. 

Management Actions: 

LAR-1 

The BLM will not transfer out of federal ownership any habitat for listed threatened or 

endangered species or any habitat for non-listed special status species if it could be determined 

that such an action will lead to the need to list any species as threatened or endangered. 

Acquisition of potential/occupied special status species habitat will be high priority. These 

acquired/exchanged lands will be managed according to BLM land management prescriptions 

for special status species. 

LAR-2 

Under IMP and Congressional action, WSAs and Wilderness Areas will be exclusion areas for 

any ROWs (Section 501[a] FLPMA). 

Land Tenure Adjustments 

LAR-3 

Lands will be considered for disposal or acquisition if the changes are in accordance with 

resource management objectives and other RMP decisions, and will meet one or more of the 

following criteria as outlined by BLM Land Tenure Adjustment criteria: 

 Such changes are determined to be in the public interest and will accommodate the needs of 

local and state governments, including needs for the economy, public purposes, and 

community growth. 

 Such changes will result in a net gain of important and manageable resources on public lands 

such as crucial wildlife habitat, important cultural sites, quality riparian areas, live water, 

listed species habitat, or areas key to productive ecosystems. 

 Such changes will ensure public access to lands in areas where access is needed and cannot 

otherwise be obtained. 

 Such changes will promote effective management and meet essential resource objectives 

through land ownership consolidation. 

 Such changes will result in acquisition of lands that serve regional or national priorities 

identified in applicable policy directives. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Lands and Realty

70

 Such changes have been identified in existing activity plans (i.e., habitat management plans, 

etc.). 

LAR-4 

Acquisitions will be managed in the same manner as adjoining lands unless they are acquired for 

a specific purpose (i.e., wildlife habitat, buffer zones near other federal lands, etc.). 

A priority section for acquisition will be Utah State Section 2, Township 39S Range 19E to 

acquire culturally sensitive lands in the McLoyd Canyon–Moon House area. 

LAR-5 

Give land exchanges with the State of Utah priority consideration to resolve in-holdings issues. 

The BLM will recognize the mission, goals, and objectives of the State of Utah as they relate to 

the values and resources of state-owned lands. The Monticello FO will work cooperatively with 

the State of Utah in identifying opportunities for Land Tenure Agreements (LTAs) that may 

assist the state in furthering its mission. These agreements must comply with applicable law and 

policy; consider fair market values; consider LTA criteria; and comply with goals and objectives 

for resource management prescribed in the RMP. They will be processed on a case-by-case basis, 

with consideration given to the goals, objectives, and decisions of this RMP. 

Filming Permits

LAR-6

Filming permit authorizations are subject to Public Law 106-206. Applications for filming 

permits in the Monticello PA will be limited to existing highways, roads, and pullouts and 

previously disturbed or cleared areas throughout the Field Office (including Valley of the Gods, 

Moki Dugway, Highway 211, Newspaper Rock, and Highway 95) and will have to meet the 

following criteria of minimal impact to be approved without any NEPA analysis. Filming 

projects that do not meet these criteria will be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis prior to 

permit approval or use of programmatic NEPA documents including EAs, on BLM-managed 

lands in Utah within WSAs (EA USO-06-004), or other programmatic NEPA documents that 

may be developed on a local, state or bureau basis. 

 Project will not impact sensitive habitat or species. 

 Project will not impact cultural resources or Native American sacred sites. 

 Project will not involve use of pyrotechnics or explosives. 

 Project will not involve more than minimum impacts to land, air, or water. (Minimum is 

defined as temporary impact only; no permanent impacts; no surface disturbance allowed that 

can't be raked out or rehabbed so that there is no sign of activity at the end of the filming). 

 Project will not involve use of exotic plant or animal species that could cause danger of 

introduction into the area. 

 Project will not involve WSAs, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, WSR 

corridors, National Register Eligible Sites, and Native American Sacred Sites. 

 Project will not involve adverse impacts to sensitive surface resource values including: 

historic, cultural or paleontological sites; sensitive soils; relict environments; wetlands or 

riparian areas; ACECs. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Lands and Realty

71

 Project does not involve substantial restriction of public access. 

 Project does not involve substantial use of domestic livestock. 

 Project does not involve 15 or more production vehicles within sensitive area. 

 Project does not involve 75 or more people within sensitive area. 

 The activity within the sensitive area will not continue in excess of 10 days. 

 No refueling allowed within sensitive areas. 

 Aircraft use in area with wildlife concerns is not proposed during crucial wildlife period for 

more than 1 day and does not exceed frequency of 2 projects per 30-day period. 

 Aircraft use in area with no wildlife concerns is proposed for no more than 2 days and does 

not exceed frequency of 3 projects per 30-day period. 

 Use of aircraft is not proposed within 0.5 mile of a designated campground located within a 

sensitive area and the number of low-elevation passes will not exceed 4 passes per day. 

Recreation and Public Purpose Act (R&PP) and Other Authorizations for Disposal 

LAR-7 

Lands conveyed to state or local governments or non-profit organizations under the R&PP Act 

may include those identified in LTAs. In addition, requests for lands other than those identified 

could be considered for disposal provided the proposed use will provide a greater public benefit 

than that which the current management provides, and that the action is otherwise consistent with 

this RMP. Examples may include but are not limited to local government or non-profit 

recreational and public purposes facilities such as public shooting ranges, landfills, motocross 

tracks, racetracks, etc. Other authorizations for disposal include the Airport and Airway 

Improvement Act, state selections under the Enabling Act, and other authorities. 

Trespass Resolution

LAR-8 

Resolution of intentional trespass will be limited to removal and/or restoration as appropriate. 

Resolution of unintentional trespass may include authorization under ROW grant, 

commercial/agricultural lease, or permit; disposal of the impacted land through sale or exchange; 

or removal, depending on the nature of the trespass. In all such trespass cases, administrative 

costs incurred by the BLM for investigating and resolving trespasses will be collected. All 

trespass incidents resolved by issuance of ROW grants, leases, or permits will be subject to 

payment by the holder/lessee/permittee of rent based on market value. Trespass cases resolved 

by land sales will be based on fair market value, and land exchanges will be completed on an 

equal value basis. 

Access 

LAR-9 

ROWs for state and private in-holdings, in-field oil and gas leases, and pipelines for producing 

oil and gas wells will be approved subject to a determination of "reasonable" access for the 

"intended purpose" and they are processed and issued upon application. 

LAR-10 

As per the State of Utah v. Andrus, October 1, 1979 (Cotter Decision), the BLM will grant the 

State of Utah reasonable access to state lands for economic purposes, on a case by case basis. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Lands and Realty

72

Easements 

LAR-11

Easements will be acquired from willing landowners and the State of Utah to gain access to 

public lands or placement of facilities on non-public lands, and acquire easements to accomplish 

resource objectives. 

Rights-of-Way (ROW)

LAR-12 

Rights-of-Way (ROW) avoidance and exclusion areas will generally be consistent with the 

stipulations identified in Appendix B for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing 

activities. These stipulations have been developed to protect important resource values. Areas 

identified as NSO are open to oil and gas leasing but surface-disturbing activities cannot be 

conducted on the surface of the land. Access to oil and gas deposits will require directional 

drilling from outside the boundaries of the NSO areas. NSO areas are avoidance areas for 

ROWs; no ROW will be granted in NSO areas unless there are no feasible alternatives. 

LAR-13 

Applications for new ROW on public lands will be considered and analyzed on a case-by-case 

basis, taking into consideration areas identified for avoidance and exclusion. Proposals will be 

reviewed for consistency with planning decisions and evaluated under requirements of applicable 

laws for resource protection. 

LAR-14 

Consider lands available for ROWs except for exclusion and avoidance areas (Map 4): 

Exclusion Areas: 416,115 acres 

 WSAs 389,444 acres (Mancos Mesa, Grand Gulch ISA Complex, Road Canyon, Fish Creek 

Canyon, Mule Canyon, Cheesebox Canyon, Dark Canyon ISA Complex, Butler Wash, 

Bridger Jack Mesa, Indian Creek, South Needles, Squaw and Papoose Canyons, and Cross 

Canyon 

 Lands administratively endorsed for wilderness by Butler Wash North WSA 

 Valley of the Gods ACEC (22,863 acres) 

 San Juan River Segment 5 

 Colorado River Segment 3 

Avoidance Areas: 133,293 acres

 Indian Creek ACEC (3,908 acres) 

 Shay Canyon ACEC (119 acres) 

 Lavender Mesa ACEC (649 acres) 

 Hovenweep ACEC (880-acre Visual Emphasis Zone) 

 Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark (2,146) 
Monticello Approved RMP—Lands and Realty

73

 non-WSA with wilderness characteristics 88, 871 acres: (Dark Canyon, Nokai Dome East, 

Nokai Dome West, Grand Gulch, and Mancos Mesa), 

 Comb Ridge Recreation Management Zone of Cedar Mesa SRMA (30,752 acres) 

 San Juan River SRMA (except for Wild & Scenic River Segment 5 which is an exclusion 

area) 

 Colorado River Segment 2 

 developed recreation sites 

 floodplains 

 riparian areas and springs 

 public water reserves. 

Wind and Solar Development

LAR-15

ROW applications for wind or solar energy development will incorporate best management 

practices (BMPs) and provisions contained in the Wind Energy or Solar Programmatic EIS 

documents. Both wind and solar energy development are authorized by ROW grants. 

Sale Disposal Criteria

LAR-16 

As described under Sections 203 (a) of FLPMA (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1713; 1716), 

public lands have potential for disposal by sale when they are isolated and/or difficult to manage. 

LAR-17 

Dispose of approximately 6,760 acres of lands identified in Appendix J. These lands need to be 

screened on a case-by-case basis to assure that they meet FLPMA disposal criteria. 

Transportation and Utility Corridors 

LAR-18 

This RMP will adopt the existing designated ROW corridors from the 1991 San Juan RMP 

including the Western Utility Group (WUG) updates to the Western Regional Corridor Study 

(Map 5), Section 368 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Westwide Energy Corridor PEIS. Designate 

additional corridors as needed subject to physical barriers and sensitive resource values. 

Designated transportation and utility corridors include existing groupings of ROWs for electric 

transmission facilities, pipelines 16 inches and larger, communication lines, federal and state 

highways, and major county road systems. 

Withdrawal Processing and Review

LAR-19 

Review agency withdrawals and prior Classification and Multiple Use Act (C&MU) 

classifications according to schedules prepared by USO or upon special BLM or agency request. 

Review other-agency withdrawals (24,140 acres) and withdrawals found to be obsolete can be 

removed. New withdrawal applications are processed upon request from the BLM or other 

federal agencies but withdrawals can be made only by the Secretary or Congress. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Lands and Realty

74

LAR-20 

Support from Utah State Office and Washington Office will be needed for requests for 

withdrawal. Interdisciplinary staff support will be needed for coordination and development of 

site-specific mitigation. Coordination with surface owners, surface-administering agencies, or the 

State of Utah may also be required. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be 

required where threatened or endangered species are involved. 

LAR-21 

Initiate withdrawal processing on areas recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry (50,665 

acres) (Map 6): 

 Grand Gulch National Historic District (37,388 acres) 

 All developed recreation sites (232 acres) 

 San Juan River SRMA (9,859 acres) 

 Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark (2,146 acres) 

 Colorado River Segment 3 (1,040 acres)
Monticello Approved RMP—Livestock Grazing

75

LIVESTOCK GRAZING (GRA)

Goals and Objectives: 

Achieve Rangeland Health Standards (BLM 1997) and other desired resource conditions. 

Management Actions: 

GRA-1 

Manage grazing according to Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Management (BLM 1997) (Appendix F). 

GRA-2 

Maintain lands currently unavailable (128,098 acres) for livestock grazing (due to vegetation, 

recreation, wildlife, or other concerns). These areas are included in GRA-17. 

GRA-3 

Maintain existing land treatments, to meet RMP objectives and Standards for Rangeland Health 

(BLM 1997). Any new land treatments developed in addition to those listed will also be 

maintained as necessary to meet RMP objectives and Standards for Rangeland Health. 

GRA-4 

Modify and implement existing (Tank Draw and East Canyon) and new Allotment Management 

Plans (AMPs) as necessary to meet RMP objectives and Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 

1997). Develop and implement 29 new AMPs and others identified on a site-specific basis, for 

which resource concerns develop that require such action. 

GRA-5 

Continue to authorize current active permitted grazing use unless monitoring data or other 

factors indicate a need for change (e.g., change in federal land ownership, etc.). 

GRA-6 

Continue to categorize allotments in accordance with BLM policy. 

GRA-7 

Manage allotments towards mid- to late-seral ecological condition that meet other goals and 

objectives of this RMP until replaced by a more specific allotment objective classification such 

as Desired Future Condition (DFC). 

Forage, Livestock/Wildlife 

GRA-8 

Coordinate with UDWR and grazing permittees to manage for long-term forage and habitat 

and/or ecological condition requirements or needs for livestock and wildlife, consistent with 

grazing allotment and herd management unit objectives. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Livestock Grazing

76

Seasons of Use

GRA-9 

Changes in livestock season of use will be made by the FO on an allotment-specific basis to meet 

RMP objectives or Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997), as shown by monitoring data, 

and to provide flexibility in management of livestock grazing. 

GRA-10 

Allotment seasons of use, subject to the statement above, will be as identified in Appendix F 

(Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health). 

GRA-11

Season of Use Changes (modified to match grazing permits as currently authorized, yet altered 

from the 1991 San Juan RMP): 

 Church Rock season of use is December 1 - May 31. 

 Indian Rock season of use is November 15 - April 15. 

 Owens Dugout season of use is February 1 - April 30. 

 Laws season of use will be April 16–November 15. 

 Bear Trap Season of use will be September 1–December 12. 

 Monument Canyon season of use will be December 1–May 31. 

GRA-12 

New Allotments—Established Since 1991 San Juan RMP (grazing permits as currently 

authorized): 

 South Vega season of use will be January 6–February 28. 

 Upper Mail Station season of use will be November 14–February 28. 

 Big Westwater season of use will be April 1–May 31 or October 15–December 15. 

Glen Canyon NRA

GRA-13 

Specific management direction for livestock grazing is provided for under the Glen Canyon 

NRA 1999 Grazing Management Plan. 

Utilization 

GRA-14 

Desired utilization levels as management guidelines for key forage species will be identified as 

needed to monitor use levels on an allotment specific basis to achieve Desired Future Condition 

(DFC). Where utilization levels have not been established, a use level of 50% will be the 

management guideline. Utilization is the proportion or degree of current year's forage production 

that is consumed or removed by animals (including insects). Utilization data should be analyzed 

in conjunction with climate, actual grazing use, current or historic impacts (wildfire, livestock, 

wildlife, insects, etc.), and long-term trend data to help evaluate existing and design future 

management to meet LUP objectives. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Livestock Grazing

77

Relinquishment of Preference 

GRA-15 

Voluntary relinquishments of grazing permits and preference, in whole or in part, by a permittee 

in writing to the BLM will be handled on a case by case basis. The BLM will not recognize 

relinquishments that are conditional on specific BLM actions as valid, and the 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 LUP goals and objectives. Prior to re-issuance of the 

relinquished permit the terms and conditions may be modified to meet LUP goals and objectives 

and/or site-specific resource objectives. 

GRA-16 

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 LUP 

or a new LUP effort. Any decision issued concerning discontinuance of livestock grazing is not 

permanent and may be reconsidered and changed through future LUP amendments and updates. 

Areas Unavailable for Grazing

GRA-17 

Make 133,318 acres unavailable for grazing as follows (Map 7): 

 Comb Wash side canyons (Mule Canyon south of U-95, Arch, Fish, Owl, and Road). These 

areas were made unavailable to grazing by court decision and are also made unavailable to 

grazing in this RMP. 

 Bridger Jack Mesa (near relict vegetation) 

 Grand Gulch area (within the canyon) of Cedar Mesa 

 Lavender Mesa (relict vegetation)

 Five identified mesa tops (White Canyon area)

 Pearson Canyon (hiking area boundary)

 Developed recreation sites (currently developed and proposed and listed in the recreation 

section. Any sites additional to those listed may be unavailable for grazing without a plan 

amendment and will be analyzed with site-specific NEPA).

 Parts of the slopes of Peter's Canyon and East Canyon (15,720 acres of wildlife habitat)

 Slickhorn Canyon (within Perkins Brother’s Allotment).

 Rone Bailey Mesa (within Upper Mail Station Allotment)

 Dodge Canyon Allotment

 Rogers Allotment

 Portions of West Butler Wash Canyons

 Horsehead Canyon (within Montezuma Canyon allotment)

 Dark Canyon Area with the exception of 962 acres in Fable Valley that is limited to trailing 

on an annual basis and grazing use under emergency conditions.
Monticello Approved RMP—Livestock Grazing

78

GRA-18 

Areas made unavailable for grazing or restricted to trailing only may be reconsidered as available 

for grazing during subsequent revision or amendment of the RMP. 

Other Grazing Management

GRA-19 

Restrict 6,518 acres to livestock trailing only, no grazing in the following areas (may only 

include a portion of the area): Dark Canyon area (Fable Valley), Harts Canyon, Shay Canyon 

ACEC, and Indian Creek from Kelly Ranch vicinity to USFS boundary. 

GRA-20 

Moki Canyon and Lake Canyon will be restricted to trailing only except in the spring and fall for 

up to 1 to 2 weeks for gathering livestock prior to moving to and from these areas. 

GRA-21 

Moki Canyon is open to grazing above the fence northeast of Harrison Spring and below the 

fence downstream from the sand slide road access to Moki Canyon. 

GRA-22 

The BLM will develop seasonal restrictions, closures, and/or forage utilization limits on grazing 

in riparian areas deemed Functioning at Risk and/or Non-functional. 

GRA-23 

Grazing in the riparian area of the San Juan River SRMA will be restricted to October 1–May 31 

and must meet or exceed PFC, and incorporate rest-rotation and/or deferment systems. This will 

include Perkins Brothers, East League, and McCracken Wash Allotments. 

GRA-24 

Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, Sage-grouse and Dry Farm allotments will not be grazed from 

March 20 to May 15 (Gunnison Sage-grouse nesting season). 
Monticello Approved RMP—Mineral Resources

79

MINERAL RESOURCES (MIN)

Goals and Objectives: 

 Continue to meet local and national energy and other public mineral needs to the extent 

possible. Provide opportunities for environmentally responsible exploration and development 

of mineral and energy resources subject to appropriate BLM policies, laws, and regulations. 

 Ensure a viable long-term industry related to leasable, locatable, and salable mineral 

development while providing reasonable and necessary protections to other resources. 

Establish conditions of use through land-use planning to protect other resource values. 

 The following principles will be applied: 

 Encourage and facilitate the development by private industry of public land mineral 

resources in a manner that satisfies national and local needs and provides for economical 

and environmentally sound exploration, extraction and reclamation practices; 

 Process applications, permits, operating plans, mineral exchanges, leases, and other use 

authorizations for public lands in accordance with policy and guidance; and 

 Monitor salable and leasable mineral operations to ensure proper resource recovery and 

evaluation, production verification, diligence and inspection, and enforcement of the 

lease, sale, or permit terms. 

Management Actions: 

MIN-1 

The plan will provide for a variety of mineral exploration and development activities. These 

activities will be allowed in the PA unless precluded by other program prescriptions. The 

stipulations identified in Appendix B will apply to these activities where they are applicable. 

Seasonal wildlife conditions will not apply to maintenance and operation activities for mineral 

production (see also Wildlife). 

MIN-2 

WSAs and designated Wilderness will remain closed, by law, to mineral leasing and 

development. 

MIN-3 

The MFO is available for geophysical work unless stated otherwise. 

MIN-4 

The MFO will be open for mineral entry unless specifically withdrawn by Secretarial Order, 

public law or segregated from mineral entry under specific reservations, such as an R&PP lease. 

MIN-5 

In areas where the No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation for oil and gas leasing is applied, 

the same restriction will also, where appropriate and practical, apply to other surface-disturbing 

activities (and occupancy) associated with land-use authorizations, permits, and leases issued on 
Monticello Approved RMP—Mineral Resources

80

BLM lands. The restrictions will not apply to activities and uses where they are contrary to laws, 

regulations or specific program guidance. The intent is to maintain consistency to the extent 

possible in applying stipulations/restrictions to all surface-disturbing activities. 

Leasable Minerals

Oil and Gas 

MIN-6

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; and 

 improving energy distribution opportunities. 

MIN-7 

All lands are available for leasing subject to standard lease terms, unless otherwise specified in 

the plan. Lease stipulations have been developed, where necessary, to mitigate the impacts of oil 

and gas activity (Appendix B). These 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 and criteria to allow for exception, waiver, and modification if warranted. Stipulations 

from Section 6 of the Standard Lease Terms are incorporated for all leases. Best Management 

Practices (BMP) will be applied on individual Applications for Permit to Drill (APD) and 

associated ROWs. These procedures are based on WO IM 2007-021 and the Surface Operating 

Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Development (Gold Book), 2006.

MIN-8 

Oil and gas leases issued prior to the plan will continue to be managed under the stipulations in 

effect when issued. Those issued subsequent to this plan will be subject to the stipulations 

developed in this plan. 

MIN-9 

Certain federal oil and gas resources within the Monticello PA underlie lands not administered 

by the BLM. The BLM administers the federal leases on these lands. These lands include: 

 101,720 acres within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (NRA) (see Glen Canyon 

NRA Minerals Management Plan) 

 366,850 acres within the Manti–La Sal National Forest (NF), Monticello Ranger District 

 51,610 acres within the Navajo Indian Reservation 

 1,080 acres within Indian Trust lands 

 55,390 acres on split-estate lands 
Monticello Approved RMP—Mineral Resources

81

MIN-10 

Split-estate lands (private surface/federal minerals) and lands administered by other federal 

agencies are not managed by the BLM. The surface owner or surface management agency 

(SMA) manages the surface. The BLM administers the operational aspects of oil and gas leases. 

On lands administered by other federal agencies, lease stipulations will include those required by 

the SMA. On split-estate lands, lease stipulations will consist of those necessary to comply with 

non-discretionary federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act. The one exception to this 

will be the stipulations developed for Gunnison Sage-grouse as identified in Appendix B. 

Mitigation measures will also be applied to protect other resource values such as VRM class, 

recreation, and non-federally protected fish and wildlife species consistent with Section 6 of the 

standard lease terms. These mitigation measures will be developed during site-specific 

environmental analysis and will be attached as conditions of approval (COA) in consultation 

with the surface owner or SMA. 

MIN-11 

In accordance with an UDEQ-DAQ letter dated June 6, 2008, (Appendix C) requesting 

implementation of interim nitrogen oxide control measures for compressor engines; the BLM 

will require the following as a Lease Stipulation and a Condition of Approval for Applications 

for Permit to Drill: 

 All new and replacement internal combustion oil and gas field engines of less than or equal 

to 300 design-rated horsepower must not emit more than 2 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. 

 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. 

Coal

MIN-12 

The coal resources within the Monticello PA are limited to the San Juan Coal Field, totaling 

about 530,000 acres. Approximately 60% of this field is under private ownership (both surface 

and mineral estate), and about 212,000 acres of federal surface and federal minerals in the coal 

field are administered by the Monticello FO. The potential for development of coal resources is 

low (see Mineral Potential Report and RFD [BLM 2005]). The public has expressed no interest 

in coal leasing. The RMP does not establish conditions for coal leasing or exploration 

requirements. This will be done through a plan amendment, should sufficient interest warrant. At 

such time as interest is expressed in coal leasing, the RMP will be amended and mining 

unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 3461) will be applied by the Monticello FO before any coal leases 

are issued. If coal leases are issued, they will be subject to special conditions developed in the 

RMP amendment and the unsuitability assessment. This may restrict all or certain types of 

mining techniques. Before any coal could be removed, Monticello FO will have to approve the 

mining permit application package, incorporating stipulations developed in the RMP 

Tar Sands

MIN-13 

An Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) is 

being prepared for oil shale and tar sands resources leasing on lands administered by the U.S. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Mineral Resources

82

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming. Based upon the information and analyses developed in this PEIS, the BLM will 

amend LUPs for these areas. 

Potash (Non-energy Leasable)

MIN-14 

Within the Monticello PA, two 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, the Monticello PA could issue prospecting permits, which could 

lead to issuance of a preference right lease. The RMP establishes stipulations that will apply to 

prospecting permits and leases. The KPLAs are available for leasing subject to the same lease 

stipulations developed in the RMP for oil and gas. Additional KPLAs could be designated, based 

on geologic data, if interest warranted. This will be an administrative action. Exploration and 

mining operations for potash are conducted in accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR 3590. 

Leasable Minerals: Geothermal 

MIN-15 

A portion of the Warm Springs Canyon geothermal area (approximately 16,320 acres) extends 

into the Monticello PA. Low temperature geothermal waters have been recorded from springs. 

Because the Monticello PA is situated within the Colorado Plateau geologic province, where heat 

flow through the earth's crust is generally low, no high-temperature geothermal resources are 

expected at reasonable drilling depths. Therefore, development potential is low (see Mineral 

Potential Report and RFD [BLM 2005]). The public has expressed no interest in geothermal 

leasing. The RMP does not establish conditions for geothermal leasing or exploration 

requirements. This will be done through a plan amendment should sufficient interest warrant. 

Locatable Minerals 

MIN-16 

All public domain lands overlying federal minerals are available for mining claim location unless 

specifically withdrawn from mineral entry by Secretarial Order or public law or segregated from 

mineral entry under specific reservations, such as an R&PP lease. 

MIN-17 

The RMP recommends certain lands to be withdrawn from mineral entry. Claims located on 

these areas prior to withdrawal will not be impacted. Operations on BLM-administered lands 

available for mineral entry must be conducted in compliance with the BLM's surface 

management regulations (43 CFR Subparts 3802, 3809, 3715 and 3814). BLM surface 

management regulations do not apply to operations on other federal lands but do apply to all 

operations authorized by the mining laws on public lands where the mineral interest is reserved 

to the United States, including Stock Raising Homestead lands. 

MIN-18 

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. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Mineral Resources

83

Consistent with the rights afforded claimants under the mining laws, operations will conform to 

the management prescriptions in the plan. 

MIN-19 

Federally owned locatable minerals underlying federal lands administered by the NPS are not 

generally available for mineral entry. However, locatable minerals under Glen Canyon NRA may 

be leased under Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 3500 (43 CFR 3500) in 

accordance with the Mineral Management Plan for the NRA. 

Salable Minerals

MIN-20 

All BLM-administered lands in the MFO are placed in one of the following three categories: 

 Available for disposal of mineral material subject to standard conditions. 

 Available for disposal of mineral material subject to special conditions. 

 Unavailable for disposal of mineral material. 

MIN-21 

Management conditions for disposal of mineral materials under each category correspond 

respectively to the oil and gas leasing stipulations developed in the RMP, as follows: 

 Standard lease terms 

 TL and CSU 

 NSO and closed 

MIN-22 

There are 16 community pits, totaling about 5,505 acres. 

Lands Available for Oil and Gas Leasing (Map 18) 

MIN-23 

Approximately 484,217 acres are administratively available for oil and gas leasing, subject to 

standard lease terms. 

MIN-24 

Timing Limitations: Approximately 594,469 acres are administratively available for oil and gas 

leasing subject to timing limitations. 

MIN-25 

Controlled Surface Use: Approximately 60,741 acres are administratively available for oil and 

gas leasing subject to controlled surface use. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Mineral Resources

84

MIN-26 

Controlled Surface Use and Timing Limitations: Approximately 85,384 acres are 

administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to timing limitations and controlled 

surface use. 

MIN-27 

No Surface Occupancy: Approximately 66,108 acres are administratively available for oil and 

gas leasing subject to no surface occupancy. 

MIN-28 

Dark Canyon (11,619 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are available for oil 

and gas leasing subject to no surface occupancy. 

MIN-29 

Approximately 493,400 acres are unavailable for leasing. 

MIN-30 

Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome West, Nokai Dome East and Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics are unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

Lands Available for Mineral Entry

MIN-31 

Approximately 1,734,458 acres are available for mineral entry. 

MIN-32 

Approximately 50,665 acres are recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (Map 

6). 

Lands Available for Mineral Material Disposal (Map 19) 

MIN-33 

Approximately 624,734 acres are available for disposal of mineral materials subject to standard 

terms and conditions. 

MIN-34 

Approximately 724,234 acres are available for disposal of mineral materials subject to special 

conditions. 

MIN-35 

Approximately 435,338 acres are unavailable for disposal of mineral materials. 
Monticello Approved RMP--Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

85

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS (WC)

Goals and Objectives: 

Protect, maintain and preserve wilderness characteristics (appearance of naturalness and 

outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation or solitude) 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 Actions: 

WC-1

Manage 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for their wilderness 

characteristics (Map 8) in 5 individual areas: Dark Canyon (11,540 acres), Mancos Mesa (30,068 

acres), Nokai Dome West (14,988 acres), Nokai Dome East (18,618 acres) and Grand Gulch 

(13,657 acres). The following management will apply: 

 Unavailable for mineral leasing in Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome West, Nokai Dome East and 

Grand Gulch; no surface occupancy for mineral leasing (NSO) in Dark Canyon 

 OHV travel limited to designated roads and trails. There are no routes designated within the 

88,871 acres protected for their wilderness characteristics. 

 ROW avoidance areas 

 Closed to disposal of mineral materials 

 Unavailable for private and commercial woodland harvest except for on-site collection of 

dead wood for campfires 

 Available for range, watershed or habitat improvements and vegetation treatments if 

beneficial or non-impairing to wilderness characteristics and will meet VRM Class II 

objectives 

 VRM Class II for surface-disturbing activities 

 All existing improvements could be maintained at their current level 

 Unavailable for coal leasing

 Unavailable for geothermal leasing

 Fire suppression will be through light on the land techniques
Monticello Approved RMP—Paleontology

86

PALEONTOLOGY (PAL)

Goals and Objectives: 

Identify area-wide criteria or site-specific use restrictions where necessary to protect 

paleontological resources from surface-disturbing activities and to promote the scientific, 

educational, and recreational uses of fossils. Foster public awareness and appreciation of the 

paleontological heritage. 

Management Actions: 

PAL-1 

Recreational collectors may collect and retain reasonable amounts of common invertebrate and 

plant fossils for personal, noncommercial use. Surface disturbance must be negligible, and 

mechanized tools may not be used. 

PAL-2 

Petrified wood collection will be limited to amounts mandated in BLM regulations. 

PAL-3 

Collection of scientifically noteworthy and/or uncommon invertebrate and plant fossils may 

require a permit. 

PAL-4 

Vertebrate fossils may be collected only under a permit issued by the authorized officer to 

qualified individuals. Vertebrate fossils include bones, teeth, eggs, and other body parts of 

animals with backbones such as dinosaurs, fish, turtles, and mammals. Vertebrate fossils also 

include trace fossils such as footprints, burrows, and dung. 

PAL-5 

Casting of vertebrate fossils, including dinosaur tracks, will be prohibited unless allowed under a 

scientific/research permit issued by the Utah State BLM Office. 

PAL-6 

Fossils collected under a permit remain the property of the federal government and must be 

placed in a suitable repository (such as a museum or university) identified at the time of permit 

issuance. 

PAL-7 

Lands identified for disposal or exchange will be evaluated to determine whether such actions 

will remove important fossils from federal ownership. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Paleontology

87

PAL-8 

In areas where surface disturbance, either initiated by the BLM or by other land users, may 

threaten substantial or noteworthy fossils, the BLM will follow its policy per Paleontology 

Resources Management Manual and Handbook 8370-1 (BLM 1998a) to assess any threat and 

mitigate damage. 

PAL-9 

Where scientifically noteworthy fossils are threatened by natural hazards or unauthorized 

collection, the BLM will work with permittees and other partners to salvage specimens and 

reduce future threats to resources at risk. 

PAL-10 

Conduct on-site evaluation of surface-disturbing activities for all Class 5 areas and minimize 

impacts to paleontological resources to the degree practicable. Evaluation will consider the type 

of surface disturbance proposed and mitigation will be developed based on site-specific 

information. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

88

RECREATION (REC)

Goals and Objectives: 

To provide for multiple recreational uses of the public lands and to 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 other sensitive resource 

values. 

Management Actions: 

REC-1 

Continue existing reservations issued to the BLM for all existing developed recreation sites and 

facilities. Issue similar protective reservations for all new recreation facilities. 

REC-2 

Manage recreation to meet Utah's Rangeland Health Standards guided by the Standards for 

Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management (Appendix K). The guidelines 

describe the procedures that should be applied to achieve standards for rangeland health within 

the recreation program. 

 Recognize that various levels of regulations and limits are necessary. Restrictions and 

limitations on public uses should be as minimal as possible without compromising the 

primary goal. 

 Use on-the-ground presence (BLM, site stewards, volunteers) as a tool to protect public 

lands. 

 Limit or control activities where long-term damage by recreational uses is observed or 

anticipated through specialized management tools such as designated campsites, permits, 

area closures, and limitations on number of users and duration of use. Revise recreation area 

management plans (RAMP) as necessary to maintain public land health. 

 Coordinate with federal and state agencies, county and local governments, and tribal nations 

in recreation planning and managing traffic, search and rescue operations, trash control and 

removal, and public safety. 

 Consider and, where appropriate, implement management methods to protect the resource, as 

well as maintain the quality of experience of the various user groups. These methods could 

include limitation of numbers, types, timing, and duration of use. 

 Encourage the location of public land recreational activities near population centers and 

highway corridors by placement of appropriate visitor-use infrastructure. Provide restrooms 

and other facilities that will be adequate for anticipated uses at designated campgrounds, 

trailheads, and other areas where there is a concentration of recreational users. 

 Emphasize "Leave No Trace" camping and travel techniques throughout the Monticello PA. 

 Consider and, where appropriate, implement management methods to protect natural and 

cultural resources and while giving consideration to community and economic impacts, 

implement management methods to maintain or enhance recreation opportunities. 

Management methods may include limitation of visitor numbers, camping and travel 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

89

controls, implementation of fees, alteration of when use takes place, and other similar actions 

as they are approved through normal BLM procedures. 

 Coordinate management of recreation use with other agencies, state and local government, 

and tribal units to provide public benefits, help assure public safety, and make effective use 

of staff and budget resources. 

 Recreational OHV and mechanized travel will be consistent with route and area designations 

described in the travel management decisions. The 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. 

 OHV access for game retrieval will follow all area and route designations. (There will be no 

off-road retrieval.) 

 Dispersed camping, where allowed when not specifically restricted, may be closed seasonally 

or as impacts or environmental conditions warrant. 

General Recreation Management 

REC-3 

Allow development of hiking paths and trails within the PA subject to site-specific NEPA. 

REC-4 

The following actions require a signed agreement with the specified agency: 

 Manage the BLM portion of the Colorado River in coordination with Canyonlands National 

Park and the Moab BLM FO. 

 Manage the BLM portion of the San Juan River in coordination with Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area and the Navajo Nation. 

 Manage the BLM portion of Dark Canyon Complex in coordination with Manti–La Sal 

National Forest and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. 

 Manage the BLM portion of the Keeley Trail in coordination with Hovenweep National 

Monument. 

Management of Existing and Development of Future Recreation Facilities 

REC-5 

Existing developed recreation sites will be maintained. New sites/facilities/trails will be 

developed in response to user demand, amenity value, and critical resource protection needs. 

REC-6 

All developed recreation sites are recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. 

 

REC-7 

Recreation facilities will be closed to disposal of mineral materials. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

90

REC-8 

Developed recreation sites are available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. NSO boundaries 

around developed recreation sites are defined as one quarter mile from the perimeter of 

campgrounds and 200 meters from the perimeter of other developed recreation sites. 

REC-9 

These sites are also available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO and unavailable for disposal 

of mineral materials. 

REC-10 

Grazing is excluded from developed recreation sites. 

REC-11 

Developed recreation facilities are unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland 

products including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

General Recreation Management 

REC-12 

Benefits Based Management Goals and Objectives (BBMs) have been written for most SRMAs. 

(Appendix K) 

REC-13 

No camping within 200 feet of isolated springs to allow space for wildlife to access water. 

REC-14 

No camping is allowed within cultural sites or archaeological resources as defined in ARPA. 

Management of Existing and Development of Future Recreation Facilities 

REC-15 

Develop or improve development of recreation sites as prioritized below: 

 Kane Gulch Ranger Station (40 acres) 

 Sand Island Campground (21 acres) 

 Mexican Hat Launch site (20 acres) 

 Hamburger Rock Campground (20 acres) 

 Comb Wash Campground (10 acres) 

 Butler Wash Ruin (60 acres) 

 Mule Canyon Ruin (10 acres) 

 Three Kiva Pueblo (10 acres) 

 Shay Mountain Vista Campground (20 acres) 

 Indian Creek Recreational and Camping Facilities as outlined in the Indian Creek Recreation 

Corridor Plan (BLM 2005). 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

91

 The BLM will work with Natural Bridges National Monument to develop an overflow 

camping area. No campfires will be allowed in these overflow camping areas. 

 The BLM will work with Canyonlands National Park Needles District to develop an 

overflow camping area. 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) 

REC-16 

There will be no competitive mechanized or motorized events in WSAs in accordance with IMP. 

REC-17 

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action as a means to help meet management objectives, 

control visitor use, protect recreational and natural resources, and provide for the health and 

safety of visitors. 

REC-18 

All SRPs will contain standard stipulations appropriate for the type of activity and may include 

additional stipulations (Appendix K) necessary to protect lands or resources, reduce user 

conflicts, or minimize health and safety concerns. 

REC-19 

SRPs will be used to manage different types of recreation associated with commercial uses, 

competitive events, organized groups, vending, and special areas. These recreation uses can 

include, for example, large group events, river guide services, and commercial recreation 

activities. 

REC-20 

The BLM will follow the 43 CFR 2930, October 1, 2004, the National Guidelines on Cost 

Recovery (Federal Register, Volume 67, October 1, 2002), and the Utah Special Recreation 

Permit Cost Recovery Policy (Utah IM 2004-036). 

REC-21 

In accordance with the BLM's Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services Work Plan (May 

2003, as amended), commercial SRPs will also be issued as a mechanism to provide a fair return 

for the commercial use of public lands. 

Criteria for Requiring an SRP

REC-22 

The criteria for requiring an SRP include the following: 

 Any commercial use. 

 Non-mechanized/non-stock day use organized group or event of more than 50 people in 

ERMA. 

 Non-mechanized/non-stock overnight with group or event of more than 25 people in ERMA. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

92

 More than 25 motorized vehicles/OHVs on designated routes (does not include County B 

Roads or state and federal highways). 

 More than 25 nonmotorized mechanized vehicles on designated routes (does not include 

County B Roads or state and federal highways). 

 A group size of more than 15 riding and/or pack animals. 

 Car camping with more than 15 vehicles or more than 50 people. 

 Activities or events with the potential to conflict with existing resource management 

guidelines/prescriptions. 

 Events with the potential for user conflict. 

 Events that could impact public health and safety. 

Commercial

REC-23 

Commercial motorized/mechanized events/tours are allowed on designated routes, except in 

WSAs. 

REC-24 

Commercial use permits are authorized in conjunction with organized events or when the use 

supports resource protection and management. 

REC-25 

In Arch Canyon, OHV use is limited to the designated route up to the National Forest boundary, 

a total of 8 miles one way. Organized and commercial groups will be required to obtain a Special 

Recreation Use Permit. This permit will allow access on the designated route up to the National 

Forest boundary, except from March 1 through August 31. During this period, access will be 

limited to 7.5 miles of the designated route. Therefore, during this period motorized access will 

not be allowed within .5 miles of the National Forest boundary. 

REC-26 

Commercial motorized or mechanized events or tours in crucial bighorn sheep lambing and 

rutting areas may be limited in number of participants and duration (depending on the event) 

from April 1 to June 15 (lambing) and from October 15–December 15 (rutting), unless it can be 

shown that the animals are not present in a specific project location or the activity can be 

conducted so the animals are not adversely impacted. 

REC-27 

Commercial motorized or mechanized events or tours in crucial antelope habitat may be limited 

in number of participants and duration (depending on the event) from May 1–June 15. 

REC-28 

Commercial motorized or mechanized events or tours in crucial deer and elk winter range may 

be limited in number of participants and duration (depending on the event) from November 15–

April 15. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

93

REC-29 

Group sizes for commercial motorized events/tours are limited to 2 groups of 12 vehicles per 

route per day. 

REC-30 

Balloon festivals are limited to 35 balloons with their associated support vehicles. 

REC-31 

Commercial hiking tours in Comb Wash and Butler Wash are limited to 12 individuals. A 

permit system will be established for commercial day and overnight use. 

REC-32 

Commercial camping is limited to designated areas. 

REC-33 

Commercial hiking to cultural sites is limited to designated trails and human waste must be 

packed out. 

REC-34 

Ropes and other climbing aides are not allowed to access cultural sites. 

REC-35 

Commercial guides using dogs to hunt/pursue mountain lion and black bear will not operate in 

areas where dogs are prohibited.

REC-36 

Commercial motorized or mechanized cross country use is not allowed in the Cedar Mesa 

SRMA. 

Competitive Events

REC-37 

Motorized/mechanized competitive events will be authorized consistent with OHV designations. 

REC-38 

Motorized and mechanized competitive events are not permitted in WSAs. 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA- seven areas, 562,824 acres)

REC-39 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

94

Provide general recreation management guidance and subsequent implementation of 

management decisions for activity plan–level actions for SRMAs through continuation of 

approved Recreation Area Management Plans (RAMPs) and development of new RAMPs for all 

SRMAs. 

REC-40 

If necessary, activity plans will be written for SRMAs. 

REC-41 

Review and update RAMPS as necessary to make adjustments for changing conditions and 

opportunities. 

REC-42 

Domestic pets and pack animals are not allowed in cultural sites or on archaeological resources 

as defined in ARPA. 

REC-43 

Ropes and other climbing aids are not allowed for access to cultural sites or archaeological 

resources as defined in ARPA, except for emergencies or administrative needs. 

REC-44 

Camping is not allowed within cultural sites or archaeological resources as defined in ARPA. 

REC-45 

Cultural sites may be closed to visitation when they are determined to be at risk or pose visitor 

safety hazards. 

General SRMA Guidelines

REC-46 

Identify additional SRMAs or add areas to SRMAs as necessary to respond to changing 

management circumstances. Establishment of post-RMP SRMAs or revision of SRMA 

boundaries will require a plan amendment. The criteria for establishment of post-RMP SRMAs 

or revising SRMA boundaries include: 

 Recreation use requires intensive management to provide recreation opportunities or 

maintain resource values. 

 A recreation area management plan or interdisciplinary plan with intensive recreation 

management decisions is approved. 

 The BLM announces designation and plan approval through media. 

REC-47 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

95

All recreation management activities and developments in the SRMA will be in support of the 

individual SRMA goals and objectives. 

REC-48 

All SRMAs will be designated as special areas under the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) definition. As per the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act, this could require permits and payment of fees for recreation use. 

San Juan River SRMA

Goals and Objectives: 

 Provide outstanding river related recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while 

protecting natural and cultural resource values with integrated management between the 

BLM, NPS, and the Navajo Nation. 

 Allow for boating and rafting activities regulated through permit issuance. 

By the year 2012, manage this SRMA to provide opportunities for visitors to realize personal 

development and growth, enhanced lifestyle increased local tourism revenue and maintenance of 

distinct recreation setting character, providing no fewer than 80% of responding visitors and 

impacted community residents at least a moderate realization of these benefits: (i.e., 3.0 on a 

probability scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderate, 4 = total realization). 

REC-49 

Permits will be issued to commercial companies on a five-year designated basis. They will also 

be issued to private users through an annual lottery system. 

REC-50 

River trips on the San Juan River require a special use permit. 

REC-51 

Unavailable for woodland product use, except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for 

campfires. Woodland use within the floodplain is limited to collection of driftwood for 

campfires. 

REC-52 

Cottonwood and willow harvest is allowed for Native American ceremonial uses only by permit. 

Restrictions on this permitted harvest will be implemented as necessary to achieve or maintain 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), and to maintain or improve threatened and endangered 

species/special status species (TES/SSS) habitat. 

REC-53 

Backpackers in Slickhorn Canyon and Grand Gulch are not allowed to camp within 1 mile of the 

river. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

96

REC-54 

Campfires allowed only with a fire pan. 

REC-55 

The bench above Sand Island Campground (256 acres) is closed to camping. 

REC-56 

The San Juan River is managed as an SRMA (9,859 acres) (Map 9). The boundary remains as in 

the previous RMP with the exception of State Section 16 or the Holliday Pit Quarry on Lime 

Ridge. 

REC-57 

The SRMA boundary east of existing oil and gas leasing category NSO is below the bench, 

thereby allowing access to high-quality gravel. 

Motorized Boating

REC-58 

Downstream travel is allowed at low, wakeless speed. Upstream travel is prohibited, except for 

emergency purposes (SPM). 

Launch Limits

REC-60 

Launch limits allow approximately 40,000 user/days per year. 

REC-61 

Trip size is limited to 25 people total (including crew) for private trips. Commercial group size 

limits on the San Juan River will remain at 33 people (25 passengers plus 8 guides) per trip. 

Commercial/Private Allocations

REC-62 

Commercial use is allowed up to 40% of total use. Two commercial day trips per day (one 

launch of 25 passengers and one launch of ten passengers) are allowed and are not included in 

the launch limits. 

Administrative/Research Use

REC-63 

Administrative and research use will be authorized on a case-by-case review and determination. 

Visitor Services

REC-64 

Minimal visitor services at Sand Island and Mexican Hat ramp areas will be provided for visitor 

health and safety and resource protection. 

Designated Campsites

REC-65 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

97

An MOU will be signed between the NPS/GCNRA and the Navajo Nation. This memorandum 

will include details on numbers of campsites and their associated permit restrictions. 

Non-Boating Use

REC-66 

With the exceptions of along Lime Creek Road, the Mexican Hat Rock area and Mexican Hat 

Boat Ramp, vehicle camping is allowed within the San Juan SRMA only upstream of Comb 

Wash. In this area, dispersed vehicle camping is allowed in previously disturbed areas within 150 

feet of designated routes. 

REC-67 

Lime Creek campsite is reserved for river runners only. 

REC-68 

All campers (including backpackers) must have carry-out toilets. 

REC-69 

The bench above Sand Island Recreation Area is closed to camping, including 122 acres outside 

of the SRMA which fall within the Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). The 

closure area boundary is described as: 

a. US Highway 191 on the north 

b. The edge of the bench to the south 

c. The private land on the west 

d. The edge of the bench on the east 

REC-70 

Area wide, camping will be closed within 0.5 mile of designated campsites. 

Minerals

REC-71 

Available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO and recommended for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry and unavailable for disposal of mineral materials. 

Grazing

REC-72 

Grazing in the riparian area is restricted to October 1–May 31 and must meet or exceed PFC, and 

incorporate rest-rotation and/or deferment systems. This includes Perkins Brothers (outside 

Slickhorn Canyon), East League, and McCracken Wash Allotments. 

Watershed

REC-73 

Watershed control structures are subject to surface restrictions and seasonal restrictions to protect 

bighorn sheep lambing and rutting areas. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

98

REC-74 

Vehicle access in other areas within the SRMA is limited to designated routes. 

REC-75 

Area is subject to fire suppression to protect riparian habitat. 

Other

REC-76 

Manage San Juan SRMA to maintain an environment of isolation insofar as allowed by river 

permit and patrol system. 

REC-77 

Surface disturbance from mining activities on existing claims will be limited to the extent 

possible without unnecessary impact to valid existing rights. 

REC-78 

No vehicle access or mechanized travel is allowed from Comb Wash downstream to Lime Creek 

and below Mexican Hat Bridge (except for motorized boat use on the river). 

REC-79 

Mechanized/motorized travel is limited to designated routes. 

Cedar Mesa SRMA

Goals and Objectives: 

 Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while protecting 

natural and cultural resource values through integrated management between the BLM and 

NPS. 

 Provide a safe, natural well-designed accessible recreational experience for all visitors to 

enjoy the world renowned cultural resources and scenic values. Use visitor information and 

interpretation as a primary tool to protect sensitive resources, discourage vandalism, and 

encourage visitor appreciation of public lands. 

By the year 2012, manage this SRMA to provide opportunities for visitors to realize personal 

development and growth, enhanced lifestyle increased local tourism revenue and maintenance of 

distinct recreation setting character, providing no fewer than 80% of responding visitors and 

impacted community residents at least a moderate realization of these benefits (i.e., 3.0 on a 

probability scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderate, 4 = total realization). 

REC-80 

Portions of the Cedar Mesa SRMA overlay four existing WSAs (Grand Gulch ISA Complex, 

Fish Creek Canyon, Mule Canyon and Road Canyon, Map 10) and the Valley of the Gods ACEC 

(Map 11). WSAs will be managed according to the IMP and Valley of the Gods ACEC will be 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

99

managed as VRM Class I, unavailable for private and commercial use of woodland products, 

campfires are not allowed, among other restrictions (see the Valley of the Gods ACEC section in 

this Chapter under Special Designations). 

REC-81 

A joint recreation/cultural resources management plan (CRMP) will be written for this area 

based on the RMP. 

REC-82 

The Cedar Mesa SRMA (407,098 acres) (Map 9), formerly the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA, 

includes three Recreation Management Zones (RMZs) focused on more intense recreational use; 

Grand Gulch National Historic District Recreation Management Zone (37,388), Comb Ridge 

Recreation Management Zone (38,012 acres) and the McLoyd-Moon House Recreation 

Management Zone (1,607 acres). More specific or restrictive management is outlined under these 

three management zones and presented below. Generally, this SRMA is managed according to 

the following prescriptions: 

 Where livestock grazing is permitted mitigation activities may be implemented if cultural 

resources are determined to be at risk. 

 Available for watershed, range, and wildlife improvements and vegetation treatments. 

 Campfires allowed on mesa tops only; fire pan required. 

 Available for private and/or commercial use of woodland products including on-site 

collection of dead wood for campfires. Access to available areas will be limited to designated 

roads and trails, dependent on cultural Class III surveys and occur outside WSAs and canyon 

bottoms. Traditional cultural use by Native Americans of woodland products is allowed as 

long as other resource values are not adversely affected. 

 Open to dispersed camping except in areas where cultural resources are at risk. 

 Managed as VRM Class II, III and IV outside of WSAs and Valley of the Gods ACEC, 

which are managed as VRM Class I. 

Pets and Stock

REC-83 

If resources or the visitors' experiences are adversely impacted, pets and or stock animals may be 

limited or prohibited in canyons requiring permits. 

REC-84 

No unauthorized use of existing corrals. 

Areas for Day Stock Use Only

REC-85 

Bullet Canyon from Grand Gulch to Jailhouse Ruin. Two miles upstream Fish Canyon from the 

confluence with Owl Canyon, McLoyd Canyon to impassable pour-off, and Owl Canyon to 

Nevill's Arch. 

Pets

REC-86 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

100

No limit or fees for pets. All pets must be collared, leashed, and under human control at all times. 

No pets are allowed in Slickhorn Canyon or below Collins Canyon in Grand Gulch. Pets are not 

allowed in or at any alcoves, rock art sites, or ruins. Pets must not harass or harm wildlife. Pets 

must not harass visitors and other visitors' pets. Pets are not allowed to swim in springs, pot 

holes, or other natural water sources. Pet waste must be buried in a shallow hole away from 

trails, campsites, cultural sites, and natural water sources. 

Stock (horses, llamas, goats, etc.)

REC-87 

All commercial and private stock use requires a permit. Within the Grand Gulch NHD 1 stock 

trip at any one time will be allowed in the area, including day use. Other Cedar Mesa canyons 

allow 1 overnight stock trip at any one time, and unlimited day use. 

Overnight Stock Use Areas

REC-88 

Kane Gulch, Collins Canyon, Government Trail, Grand Gulch from Kane Gulch to Collins 

Canyon, Fish Creek Canyon from Comb Wash to confluence with Owl Canyon, Mule Canyon 

South of U-95, Road Canyon, Lime Creek Canyon, Johns Canyon, and Arch Canyon. 

Areas Closed to Stock Use

REC-89 

Grand Gulch below Collins Canyon, all the Slickhorn Canyons, Mule Canyons north of U-95, 

Bullet Canyon above Jailhouse Ruin, Fish Creek Canyon from 2 miles upstream from Fish Creek 

and Owl Creek confluence, and Owl Canyon above Nevill's Arch. 

Use Limitations

REC-90 

Stock use, both day and overnight, is subject to the provisions of the Grand Gulch Plateau 

Cultural and Recreation Management Plan, which allows for no more than 1 overnight stock 

party at a time in any canyon on Cedar Mesa. However, Grand Gulch is limited to only one stock 

trip at any time, day or overnight. Stock day use will be limited to 1 party per day per trailhead in 

all canyons requiring permits (except Grand Gulch and McLoyd). The BLM will monitor day 

use, and reserves the right to implement a day-use allocation and reservation system at a future 

date, if the impacts of day-use visitation warrant. 

Group Size

REC-91 

Overnight and day use in the Grand Gulch Primitive area and other Cedar Mesa Canyons is 

restricted to 12 individuals and 8 animals (pack and/or saddle). 

Feed

REC-92 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

101

Stock users are required to take all feed (non-germinating, certified weed free) necessary to 

sustain their animals while on the trip. 

Loose Herding 

REC-93 

Loose herding of pack and saddle stock is prohibited. All stock must be under physical control. 

When tethered, all stock must be at least 200 feet away from any water source and 

archaeological sites and their surrounding benches. 

No New Trails 

REC-94 

In permitted canyons, no new trails will be established for stock use. Use is restricted to existing 

trails and routes in areas open to recreational stock use. 

Mesa Top Camping

REC-98 

Vehicle camping is limited along designated routes to designated primitive vehicle campsites. 

REC-99 

Designated campsites for large groups (20 to 24 people). 

REC-100 

Group size is limited to 24 people for both private and commercial use. 

REC-101 

Closure of campsites impacting cultural sites. 

REC-103 

14-day camping limit within any 28 consecutive days, with the options of reducing the number 

of days or closing campsites if impacts occur. 

In Canyon Private/Commercial Day Use

REC-104 

Private

 Limit of 12 people per day per trailhead. 

 Group size limited to 12. 

 A limited day use permit system will be implemented as necessary to protect cultural and 

other resources. 

REC-105 

Commercial 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

102

 Group size limited to 12. 

 One commercial group per day per trailhead. 

 Implement additional restrictions on group size and visitor frequency (based on monitoring 

of impact) as necessary to protect cultural or other resources. 

 Advanced permit required through Monticello PA. 

REC-106 

In Canyon Overnight Camping

 Pack it in, pack it out. All cans, trash, organic garbage, and burnable refuse including toilet 

paper must be carried out. Liquid garbage may be discarded 200 feet away from water 

sources. Dish water must be strained and discarded 200 feet from camps, trails, and water 

sources. 

 No swimming or bathing is allowed in the pools. 

 Commercial allocation is 30% of the Cedar Mesa permitted use. 

 Designated campsites for large groups of 8–12 people, and for groups with stock animals. 

 Groups of 1–7 people will not have designated campsites and will camp in dispersed 

campsites. 

 In canyon camping could be limited to certain designated areas if resource or cultural damage 

occurs. 

 If human waste becomes a problem, a requirement to carry out waste may be implemented. 

 Total caps on visitor numbers for each trailhead are shown below. Caps on visitor numbers or 

group size may be modified as necessary to protect resources. 

REC-107 

Private

 Private group size limited to 8 people per day per trailhead for overnight trips. 

REC-108 

Commercial

 Commercial group size limited to 12 people per day per trailhead. 

 One commercial group per trailhead per day. 

 Commercial guides are required to meet all pertinent state guidelines. 

REC-109 

Trailhead Allocations

Total overnight visitors per day:

 Kane 20 

 Bullet 20 

 Government 20 

 Collins 20 

 Fish/Owl 20 

 Road Canyon 20 

 Lime Creek 20 

 Mule Canyons 20 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

103

 Slickhorn Canyons 20 

If commercial cap limits are not met on a given day, additional private visitors will be allowed 

provided the overall cap of 20 people per trailhead is not exceeded. 

Cedar Mesa SRMA Grand Gulch NHD Recreation Management Zone (RMZ)

REC-110 

This area is a RMZ within the SRMA due to its high level of backcountry use and the potential 

to impact the high density world renowned cultural resources in this area. Restrictions and 

management prescriptions are intended to minimize conflict between this use and cultural 

resources. The following management prescriptions apply in this RMZ: 

 Grand Gulch National Historic District is within a WSA and is managed under the IMP. 

 In addition to the management prescriptions described above for the Cedar Mesa SRMA, 

Grand Gulch National Historic District (37,388 acres) is managed with the following 

prescriptions: 

 Unavailable for geophysical activities. 

 Recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. 

 Unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products, except for limited 

on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

 Campfires limited to mesa tops only (no campfires in the canyon). 

 Available for livestock grazing, except Grand Gulch Canyon and associated tributaries, 

below Kane Gulch fence to the confluence with the San Juan River (approximately 

16,316 acres). 

 Closed to OHV use. 

 Designate trails and camping areas as necessary to protect cultural resources. 

 If cultural or natural resources or the visitors' experiences are impacted, pets and or stock 

animals may be limited or prohibited in canyons requiring permits. 

 Non-motorized habitat improvements, watershed improvements, vegetation treatments, 

including aerial seeding, hand reseeding, planting seedlings, and control of invasive nonnative species are allowed as long as they will not impact cultural resources based on a 

site-specific analysis, and are consistent with the IMP. 

 Limitations on numbers of trips may be implemented if cultural resources are impacted.

Cedar Mesa SRMA Comb Ridge Recreation Management Zone

REC-111 

This area is a RMZ within the SRMA due to easy vehicular accessibility, high level of visitation 

and popularity, and density of significant cultural ruins and rock art. Specific management is 

needed to resolve conflicts between recreation use and protection of cultural resources. The 

objective is to manage for heritage tourism and traditional cultural values in a regulated manner. 

REC-112 

The Cedar Mesa SRMA limitations described above for Mesa Top Day Use, Mesa Top 

Camping, In Canyon Private/Commercial Day Use, and In Canyon Permitted Overnight 

Camping do not apply to the Comb Ridge RMZ. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

104

REC-113 

The following management prescriptions apply in this RMZ: 

 Manage as VRM Class II 

 Unavailable for geophysical exploration 

 Oil and gas leasing subject to NSO 

 Closed to disposal of mineral materials 

 ROW avoidance area 

 OHVs limited to designated routes 

 Campfires allowed at designated sites only 

 Private and commercial group size limited to 12 people 

 Comb Wash campground will be developed 

 In camp areas without toilets, human waste must be packed out 

 Closed to dispersed camping 

 Camping limited to designated camp areas and campgrounds, with designated access routes 

and parking 

 A permit system will be established for day and overnight use if necessary to protect cultural 

resources 

 Trails from parking areas to cultural sites will be designated and signed 

 Parking for day use is limited to designated areas 

 In the Butler Wash area, overnight private group size is limited to 8 people and primitive camp 

sites will be designated 

REC-114 

Butler Wash, if necessary, will be managed as part of the existing Cedar Mesa permits and 

regulation system, including regulations and permit fees. Groups will view a low impact video at 

Kane Gulch or Sand Island Ranger Stations when obtaining a permit. 

Cedar Mesa SRMA McLoyd Canyon–Moon House Recreation Management Zone

REC-115 

McLoyd Canyon–Moon House (1,607 acres) is a RMZ within the SRMA due to its accessibility 

and the unique architecture of the Moon House ruin. From a scientific perspective, Moon House 

ruin is world renowned, unique to the region, and is a significant cultural treasure. Restrictions 

and management prescriptions are intended to minimize conflict between recreational use and 

cultural resources. 

REC-116 

The Cedar Mesa SRMA limitations described above for Mesa Top Day Use, Mesa Top 

Camping, In Canyon Private/Commercial Day Use, and In Canyon Permitted Overnight 

Camping will not be applied to the McLoyd Canyon–Moon House RMZ. 

REC-117 

This RMZ occurs within the Fish Creek Canyon WSA and is managed under the IMP. In 

addition to this management, the following prescriptions will apply: 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

105

 Closed to OHV use. 

 Develop a cultural resource management plan (CRMP) for McLoyd Canyon–Moon House. 

 Public access limited via a permit system for day visits. 

 No more than 36 people allowed to visit Moon House per day. Limitations on visitation may 

change based on site monitoring of impacts of visitation. 

 One commercial group per day. The number of people is included in the day use number of 

36. 

 Access to the interior corridor of Moon House ruin is limited to 4 people at any one time. 

 Visitors are be allowed to enter the Moon Room and adjoining rooms within Moon House 

ruin. 

 Human waste must be packed out. 

 Camping limited only to the designated primitive camp and park area south of the Snow Flat 

Road. Camping prohibited outside of this primitive camp area. 

 Hiking to Moon House site is limited to the designated trail. Hiking to other sites in the RMZ 

may also be limited to designated trails if determined necessary. 

 RMZ is closed to pack animals and pets. 

 Campfires are not allowed. 

 Unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products, including on-site 

collection of dead wood for campfires. 

 McLoyd Canyon is closed to overnight use from the head of the canyon to UTM: 607100E, 

4143495N. 

 Acquire Utah State Section Township 39S Range 19E, Section 2. 

 Develop a site stewardship program to monitor site and possibly develop guided tours. 

Dark Canyon SRMA

Goals and Objectives: 

 Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences, while protecting 

natural and cultural resource values through integrated management between the BLM, 

USFS and NPS. 

 Provide a primitive, roadless, and undeveloped recreational experience in an essentially 

unmodified natural environment. Continue to provide a scenic backcountry experience of 

expansive views from within one of the deepest canyon systems in the region. 

By the year 2012, manage this SRMA to provide opportunities for visitors to realize personal 

development and growth, enhanced lifestyle increased local tourism revenue and maintenance of 

distinct recreation setting character, providing no fewer than 80% of responding visitors and 

impacted community residents at least a moderate realization of these benefits: (i.e., 3.0 on a 

probability scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderate, 4 = total realization). 

REC-118 

Create and allocate an interagency permit and fee system for these canyons as necessary to 

preserve resources and the visitor experience. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

106

REC-119 

The 1991 Canyon Basins SRMA is dissolved and three new SRMAs are created: 

 Dark Canyon SRMA 

 Indian Creek SRMA 

 Beef Basin SRMA. 

REC-120 

The Dark Canyon SRMA (Map 9) includes canyon rims and bottoms for Dark Canyon, Gypsum 

Canyon, Bowdie Canyon, Lean To Canyon, Palmer Canyon, Lost Canyon, Black Steer Canyon, 

Young's Canyon, and Fable Valley Canyon. Trailheads and associated parking/camping areas are 

included within the SRMA boundaries where the canyons are specified as the SRMA. 

REC-121 

The Dark Canyon WSA overlays the SRMA and will be managed according to the IMP. 

REC-122 

The SRMA is unavailable for livestock grazing in the canyons and available to livestock grazing 

on mesa tops. 

REC-123 

An Interagency Management Plan will be written in coordination with the contiguous NPS and 

USFS agencies. 

REC-124 

Dark Canyon SRMA (30,820 acres) (Map 9) is managed with the following prescriptions: 

 Group size is limited to 18 people for private and commercial. 

 Three commercial trips are allowed per week. 

 Up to twenty total private users allowed per day. This number may be altered depending 

upon future visitor impacts. 

 If and where necessary, camping will be restricted to designated sites only. 

 Campfires are allowed on mesa tops. Cook stoves only in canyons. 

 Unavailable for private and/or commercial collection of woodland product use, except for the 

on-site collection of dead wood for campfires on mesa tops. 

 If human waste becomes a problem, carrying out waste may be implemented in canyon. 

 Pets are allowed on leash and under physical control.

 Closed to OHV use.

Indian Creek SRMA

Goals and Objectives: 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

107

 Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while protecting 

natural and cultural resource values through integrated management between the BLM, NPS, 

State of Utah, and the Nature Conservancy

 Provide for premier rock climbing experiences, outstanding OHV opportunities, scenic 

vistas, cultural site interpretation at Newspaper Rock, destination camping areas, and a 

gateway to Canyonlands National Park. 

By the year 2012, manage this SRMA to provide opportunities for visitors to realize personal 

development and growth, enhanced lifestyle increased local tourism revenue and maintenance of 

distinct recreation setting character, providing no fewer than 80% of responding visitors and 

impacted community residents at least a moderate realization of these benefits: (i.e., 3.0 on a 

probability scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderate, 4 = total realization). 

REC-125 

The 1991 Canyon Basins SRMA is dissolved and three new SRMAs are created: the Indian 

Creek SRMA, the Dark Canyon SRMA, and the Beef Basin SRMA. Management prescriptions 

for the Indian Creek SRMA. 

REC-127 

Indian Creek SRMA (Map 9) matches the boundary of the Indian Creek Corridor Plan (EA UT – 

090-00-47, 2005) and includes all of the Indian Creek and Bridger Jack Mesa WSAs and Shay 

Canyon, Lavender Mesa and Indian Creek ACECs. WSAs are managed under the IMP and 

ACECs and remaining areas will be managed in accordance with management prescriptions 

outlined below. 

REC-128 

Indian Creek SRMA boundary matches the boundary for the Indian Creek Corridor Plan (EA 

UT-090-00-47, BLM 2005). Management of the Indian Creek Corridor will be in conformance 

with the decisions outlined in the Indian Creek Corridor Plan, which includes the following 

guidelines: 

 Camping is prohibited in the Indian Creek riparian corridor from Newspaper Rock to 

approximately 1 mile downstream of the Dugout Ranch. 

 Camp sites will be removed from the Newspaper Rock area and rehabilitated. 

 A picnic area will be constructed adjacent to the Newspaper Rock parking area. 

 Camping along the Bridger Jack Mesa Bench is limited to designated sites. 

 A new campground called Shay Mountain Vista Campground will be constructed. 

 The area is unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products, including 

on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. Campers must bring in their own wood for 

campfires. 

 Campfires are restricted to fire rings where fire rings are available. In dispersed camping 

areas, where fire rings are not available, campfires are subject to "Leave No Trace" 

standards. No campfires are allowed in the Lavender Mesa ACEC. 

 Rock-climbing routes in conflict with cultural sites will be closed. 

 Camping fees will be charged if deemed necessary to provide needed facilities and services. 

 Parking areas will be developed. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

108

 Additional camping stipulations and regulations could be implemented if monitoring data 

shows this is necessary. 

 If new climbing routes are established, the BLM may designate a footpath to access the base 

of the climb to protect wildlife/raptors. 

REC-129 

Dispersed camping is allowed in the Indian Creek Corridor, except within the established 

designated camping zones: Bridger Jack Mesa, Indian Creek Falls, and Creek Pasture. Camping 

within these zones is limited to designated sites. 

REC-130 

Where dispersed vehicle camping is allowed, it is restricted to previously disturbed areas within 

150 feet of designated routes. 

REC-131 

Within the Shay Canyon ACEC portion of the SRMA, the ACEC prescriptions require that 

hiking be limited to designated trails, except within the side canyons, and camping and campfires 

are not allowed. 

White Canyon SRMA

Goals and Objectives: 

 Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences, while protecting 

natural and cultural resource values through integrated management between the BLM and 

NPS (including the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Natural Bridges National 

Monument). 

 Provide a spectacular canyoneering recreational experience in a popular, world renowned and 

easily accessible slot canyon; including backcountry hiking and backpacking, remote 

camping, cultural site visitation and exploration. 

By the year 2012, manage this SRMA to provide opportunities for visitors to realize personal 

development and growth, enhanced lifestyle increased local tourism revenue and maintenance of 

distinct recreation setting character, providing no fewer than 80% of responding visitors and 

impacted community residents at least a moderate realization of these benefits: (i.e., 3.0 on a 

probability scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderate, 4 = total realization). 

REC-132 

White Canyon SRMA (2,828 acres) (Map 9) is managed with the following management 

prescriptions: 

 A backcountry allocated permit system will be established as necessary to protect resources. 

 If human waste becomes a problem, carrying out waste may be implemented in the canyon. 

 Campfires are not allowed in the canyons. Cook stoves only in canyons. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

109

 Managed as VRM Class I and II. 

 OHV use closed and limited to designated routes 

 Unavailable and CSU (site-specific) for oil and gas leasing. 

REC-133 

Trailheads and associated parking/camping areas are included within the SRMA boundary where 

the canyons are specified as the SRMA. The White Canyon SRMA is defined as from rim to 

rim. 

REC-134 

Canyons are excluded from woodland product use including on-site collection of dead wood for 

campfires. 

REC-135 

The Cheesebox Canyon WSA overlays a portion of the White Canyon SRMA; this area is 

managed in accordance with the IMP. 

Tank Bench SRMA

Goals and Objectives: 

 Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while protecting 

natural and cultural resource values. 

 Tank Bench SRMA provides easy access to a spectacular complex of cultural sites. Provide a 

safe, natural, well-designed accessible recreational experience for all visitors to enjoy the 

world renowned cultural resources and scenic values. Use visitor information and 

interpretation as a primary tool to protect sensitive resources, discourage vandalism, and 

encourage visitor appreciation of public lands. 

REC-136 

Tank Bench SRMA (2,646 acres) (Map 9) is managed with the following prescriptions: 

 Dispersed hiking allowed; not limited to designated trails. 

 Area will remain open to domestic pets and pack animals but use may be limited if damage is 

occurring to cultural resources. 

 Commercial group size limited to 12 people. 

 Closed to OHV use. 

 Livestock use will continue but it may be limited if cultural resources are impacted. 

 Available for range, wildlife habitat, watershed improvements, vegetation treatments, and 

other surface-disturbing land treatments if consistent with management plan objectives. 

 Campfires allowed. 

 Closed to private and/or commercial use of woodland products (including on-site collection 

of dead wood for campfires) with the exception of traditional Native American cultural uses, 

as long as they do not adversely impact other resource values. 

 Open to disposal of mineral materials and geophysical work. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

110

 Available for oil and gas leasing, subject to standard lease terms. 

 Manage as VRM Class III and IV. 

REC-137 

The BLM will complete a joint recreation/cultural resources management plan (CRMP) for this 

area based on the RMP. 

Beef Basin SRMA

Goals and Objectives: 

 Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while protecting 

natural and cultural resource values. 

 Provides a popular, remote, backcountry driving experience with primitive camping and 

cultural site exploration opportunities. Management focus for the SRMA is heritage tourism, 

traditional cultural values, and scientific research of prehistoric cultural landscapes. 

 Provide a semi-primitive recreational experience for visitors to enjoy the world renowned 

cultural resources and scenic values. Use visitor information and interpretation as a primary 

tool to protect sensitive resources, discourage vandalism, and encourage visitor appreciation 

of public lands. 

REC-138 

Beef Basin SRMA (20,302 acres) (Map 9) is managed with the following prescriptions: 

 Available for private and/or commercial use of woodland products (including on-site 

collection of dead wood for campfires). 

 Open to disposal of mineral materials under special conditions. 

 Available for oil and gas leasing subject to timing limitations. 

 Livestock use will continue but may be limited if cultural resources are impacted. 

 Available for range, wildlife habitat, watershed improvements, vegetation treatments and 

other surface-disturbing land treatments if consistent with management plan objectives. 

 OHV use limited to designated routes. 

 A car campground will be developed in Ruin Park for primitive camping. 

 Primitive car camping areas will be designated in Middle Park, House Park, and along Beef 

Basin Loop Road, as well as other areas as necessary to control impacts to cultural resources. 

 Until primitive camping areas are designated in this area, dispersed vehicle camping will be 

allowed in previously disturbed areas within 150 feet of designated routes. 

 Campfires are allowed and are restricted to fire rings where fire rings are available. In 

dispersed camping areas, where fire rings are not available, campfires are subject to "Leave 

No Trace" standards. 

 Dispersed campsites that impact archaeological sites will be closed. 

 Cultural site visitation limited to designated trails. 

 Groups larger than 20 people total are required to camp in designated areas. Human waste 

must be packed out. 

 Manage as VRM Class III. 

REC-139 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

111

The BLM will work with the USFS and NPS to develop interagency recreation commercial 

permits. 

REC-140 

The BLM will complete a joint recreation/cultural resources management plan (CRMP) for the 

area based on the RMP. 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMA)

Goals and Objectives: 

 Provide dispersed recreational opportunities consistent with other resource objectives. 

REC-141 

ERMA lands are managed to provide an undeveloped setting where visitors can disperse and 

recreate in a generally unregulated manner, as long as the use is consistent with other resource 

values. 

REC-142 

Manage all lands within the PA, not within an SRMA (either initially or through subsequent 

action as described above) as the Monticello Extensive Recreation Management Area 

REC-143 

Any portions of an ERMA subject to other management prescriptions (i.e., ACEC, WSA, etc.) 

will be managed according to those prescriptions. 

REC-144 

Monitor the ERMA to determine if more intensive recreational management is required to 

protect resource values and preserve the recreational experience. 

REC-145 

Encourage "Leave No Trace" and "Tread Lightly" principles throughout the ERMA. 

REC-146 

ERMA lands may be designated as SRMAs in the future based on intensity of use and will be 

analyzed through the plan amendment process. 

REC-147 

Minimal facilities may be constructed in the ERMA as needed to insure visitor health and safety, 

reduce user conflict, and protect resources. 

REC-148 

Mesa Top Camping (other than Cedar Mesa): 
Monticello Approved RMP—Recreation

112

 Limit the Bears Ears Road to designated camping only from the intersection of Highway 275 

to the USFS boundary. 

 Limit the Deer Flat Road to designated camping only for the first 4 miles from Highway 275. 

 Coordinate with Glen Canyon National Recreation Area on building a campground at Muley 

Point or pursue a land exchange for Muley Point in order to develop a campground. 

REC-149

Within the ERMA, dispersed vehicle camping is allowed only in previously disturbed areas 

within 150 feet of designated routes (on each side of a centerline). If use is such that undue 

environmental impacts are taking place, BLM will close and rehabilitate damaged areas. This use 

will not include areas within WSAs (389,444 acres) or non-WSA areas with wilderness 

characteristics (88,871 acres), WSR corridors, ACECs, or T&E/special status species habitats. 

Where monitoring identifies resource impacts, future implementation level plans could consider 

designation of specific camp sites. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Riparian Resources

113

RIPARIAN RESOURCES (RIP)

Goals and Objectives: 

 Manage riparian resources for desired future conditions, ensuring ecological diversity, 

stability, and sustainability, including the desired mix of vegetation types, structural stages, 

and landscape/riparian/watershed function and provide for native and special status plant, 

fish, and wildlife habitats. 

 Manage riparian areas for properly functioning condition (PFC) and ensure stream channel 

morphology and functions are appropriate to the local soil type, climate, and landform. 

 Avoid or minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of riparian, wetland and associated 

floodplains, and preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values. 

Management Actions: 

RIP-1 

Public lands are managed in accordance with laws, executive orders, and regulations on 

floodplain and wetland areas to reduce resource loss from floods and erosion. 

RIP-2 

The BLM will take appropriate actions to maintain water quality in streams within Monticello 

PA to meet state and federal water quality standards, including designated beneficial uses and 

anti-degradation requirements. 

RIP-3 

Oil and gas leasing is NSO in riparian areas. Although oil and gas activity must also meet this 

standard, an NSO lease stipulation is not necessary since this can be accomplished under the 

terms of the standard lease form because of the 200 meter/60-day rule. (The 200 meter/60-day 

rule is the BLM regulation at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 that allows, at a minimum, for the relocation of 

proposed oil and gas leasing operations up to 200 meters and/or timing limitations up to 60 days 

to provide additional protection to ensure that proposed operations minimize adverse impacts to 

resources, uses, and users.) 

RIP-4 

The BLM will follow Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing and 

Recreation Management (BLM 1997) to achieve riparian PFC. 

RIP-5 

No new surface-disturbing activities are allowed within active floodplains or within 100 meters 

of riparian areas unless it can be shown that: a) there are no practical alternatives or, b) all longterm impacts can be fully mitigated or, c) the activity will benefit and enhance the riparian area. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Riparian Resources

114

RIP-6 

BLM guidelines will be followed as appropriate for managing riparian areas (See Technical 

Reference 1737-6: Riparian Area Management as amended) and Utah Riparian Management 

Policy. 

RIP-7 

All floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas are managed in accordance with Executive Orders 

11988 and 11990, Sections 303 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, 

the BLM Riparian Area Management Policy, and the Utah guidelines for implementing BLM 

riparian area management policy. 

RIP-8 

Floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas are: 

 Subject to fire suppression to protect riparian habitat. 

 Excluded from private and/or commercial use of woodland products, except for Native 

American traditional purposes as determined on a site-specific basis; limited on-site 

collection of dead wood for campfires is allowed as per Woodlands section. 

 Available for habitat, range, and watershed improvements and vegetation treatments 

described in 2007 Vegetation EIS. 

 Excluded from surface disturbance by mechanized or motorized equipment (except as 

allowed above) and from structural development (unless there is no practical alternative or 

the development will enhance riparian/aquatic values). 

RIP-9 

Unnecessary multiple social foot trails in riparian/floodplain areas will be minimized. Social foot 

trails in Road Canyon, Fish Creek, and Mule Canyon will be closed to protect riparian resources. 

RIP-10 

The BLM will follow/implement the Southwest Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan as 

appropriate. 

RIP-11 

Monitoring and management strategies and restrictions will be developed as necessary to meet or 

maintain PFC. 

RIP-12 

Cottonwood and willow harvest are allowed for Native American ceremonial uses only, through 

a permit system. Restrictions on this harvest will be implemented as necessary to achieve or 

maintain PFC. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Riparian Resources

115

RIP-13 

No camping is allowed within 200 feet of isolated springs or water sources. 

RIP-14

Close Harts Canyon from private land (Seeps) to Yancy's Fence (T30S, R22E, Section 8) to 

OHV and mechanized use. Close routes in other selected riparian areas considered Functioning 

at Risk if site-specific analysis determines that OHV use is contributing to riparian degradation. 

RIP-15 

Restrict Harts Canyon, Shay Canyon ACEC and Indian Creek from Kelly Ranch vicinity to 

Forest Service to livestock trailing only, no grazing. Moki Canyon and Lake Canyon are 

restricted to trailing only, except in the spring and fall for up to 1 to 2 weeks to gather livestock 

prior to moving to and from these areas. 

RIP-16 

Develop seasonal restrictions, closures, and/or forage utilization limits on grazing in riparian 

areas considered Functioning at Risk. 

RIP-17 

Temporarily close riparian areas considered Functioning at Risk to dispersed motorized camping 

until PFC is restored. 

Pipeline Crossings 

RIP-18 

Pipeline crossings of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream channels should be 

constructed to withstand 100-year floods to prevent breakage and subsequent accidental 

contamination of runoff during high-flow events. Surface crossings must be constructed high 

enough to remain above stream flows at each crossing, and subsurface crossings must be buried 

deep enough to remain undisturbed by scour throughout passage of the peak flow. Hydraulic 

analysis will be completed in the design phase by the project proponent to eliminate potential 

environmental degradation associated with pipeline breaks at stream crossings to avoid repeated 

maintenance of such crossings. Specific recommendations regarding surface and subsurface 

crossings are found in guidance for pipeline crossings (Appendix L). 
Monticello Approved RMP—Soil and Water Resources

116

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES (SOLW)

Goals and Objectives: 

 Manage soils and water resources to maintain watershed health, thereby insuring ecological 

diversity and sustainability. 

 Provide for favorable conditions of water flow (quality, quantity, and timing), and maintain 

stable and efficient stream channels as required and provide for fish and wildlife habitat, 

recreation, and livestock. 

Management Actions: 

SOLW-1 

Manage all floodplains and riparian/wetlands in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 

11990, Sections 303 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. 

SOLW-2 

Maintain satisfactory watershed conditions as indicated by maintenance of riparian PFC and 

Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health (BLM 1991) (Appendix F) and Guidelines 

for Recreation Management for BLM Lands in Utah (Appendix K). 

SOLW-3 

Manage public lands consistent with the Colorado River Salinity Control Act. 

SOLW-4 

Comply with Utah's state water quality standards. 

SOLW-5 

Collaborate with San Juan County, the State of Utah, tribal governments, and local 

municipalities on management of municipal watersheds to meet local needs. 

SOLW-6 

Maintain or improve soil quality and long-term soil productivity through the implementation of 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management (BLM 1997) and other 

soil protection measures. 

SOLW-7 

Manage uses to minimize and mitigate damage to soils. 

SOLW-8 

Maintain and/or restore overall watershed health and reduce erosion, stream sedimentation, and 

salinization of water. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Soil and Water Resources

117

Watershed Health

SOLW-9 

Modify the BMPs and vegetation management as appropriate to meet water quality standards 

and maintain watershed function (Montezuma Creek, Indian Creek [the USFS boundary to 

Newspaper Rock], Johnson Creek [and tributaries from confluence with Recapture Creek to 

headwaters], and Recapture Reservoir). 

SOLW-10 

Assess watershed function using Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health, riparian PFC, and state 

water quality standards. 

SOLW-11 

Where Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health are not met due to the impairment of biological 

soil crusts, apply guidelines from Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management (BLM 

2001b, as revised), if consistent with the management decisions of this plan. 

SOLW-12 

Reduce tamarisk where appropriate using allowable vegetation treatments (refer to vegetation 

section for treatment acreages). 

Sensitive Soils 

SOLW-13 

Any proposed activities that will be located in sensitive soils (e.g., hydric, saline, gypsiferous, or 

highly erodible soils), will incorporate BMPs and other mitigation measures to minimize soil 

erosion and maintain soil stability. Site-specific mitigation measures and other additional 

mitigation measures required to protect soil resources and maintain soil productivity, will be 

determined in site-specific NEPA analysis. 

Steep Slopes

SOLW-14 

If surface-disturbing activities cannot be avoided on slopes between 21% and 40%, an erosion 

control plan will be required. The plan must be approved by the BLM prior to construction and 

maintenance and include the following: 

 An erosion control strategy 

 The BLM accepted and/or approved survey and design 

SOLW-15 

For slopes greater than 40%, no surface disturbance is allowed unless it is determined that it will 

cause undue or unnecessary degradation to pursue other placement alternatives. An erosion 

control plan is required. 
Monticello Approved RMP-Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

118

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONCERN (ACEC)

Goals and Objectives: 

Designate, modify, and manage areas as ACECs where special management attention is required 

to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish 

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

natural hazards. 

Management Actions: 

ALKALI RIDGE ACEC—Relevant and Important Value: Cultural Resources

ACEC-1 

Alkali Ridge is designated as an ACEC (39,196 acres) (Map 11). 

ACEC-2 

Where the BLM authorized officer determines that avoidance of direct and indirect impacts to 

historic properties is not feasible (e.g., avoidance may cause unacceptable damage to other public 

land resources or affect valid existing rights) and adverse effects may occur, the BLM will 

resolve those effects through development of appropriate mitigation measures and consultation 

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as outlined in the regulations at 36 

CFR 800. Regardless of the situation, BLM will comply with laws, rules and regulations related 

to the management of cultural resources. 

ACEC-3 

Additional measures such as fencing, camouflaging, sound muffling, etc. may be necessary to 

further avoid indirect and direct impacts caused by surface-disturbing activities. 

Management will emphasize maintaining the relevant and important cultural and historic values 

within the ACEC. When siting facilities, the primary objective will be avoidance of direct and 

indirect impacts to resources on, or eligible for listing on, the NRHP (historic properties). 

Avoidance may require that a facility be moved farther than allowed under standard lease terms 

and conditions. Siting may require coordination among the BLM, State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining to ensure consistency with all applicable well 

spacing requirements. 

ACEC-4 

All cultural properties eligible for the NRHP will be surrounded by an avoidance area sufficient 

to allow permanent protection. 

ACEC-5 

In any given situation, mitigation will be designed to fit the specific circumstances and reviewed 

by the SHPO and if necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 
Monticello Approved RMP-Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

119

ACEC-6 

The area is available for geophysical exploration. 

ACEC-7 

The area is available for the disposal of mineral materials. 

ACEC-8 

The area is available for locatable mineral entry with an approved plan of operations. 

ACEC-9 

The area will be retained in public ownership and not classified, segregated, or withdrawn from 

entry. 

ACEC-10 

Campfires are allowed. 

ACEC-11 

The area is available for wildlife habitat improvements. 

ACEC-12 

A Cultural CRMP consistent with the goals and objectives of this RMP will be written for Alkali 

Ridge ACEC and will not require a plan amendment to the RMP. 

ACEC-13 

The area is available for watershed improvements. 

ACEC-14 

The area is available for private and/or commercial use of woodland products, of which access 

will be limited only to designated routes. If woodland product use is impacting cultural 

resources, woodland product use may be confined to specific areas within Alkali Ridge. 

ACEC-15 

Livestock may be restricted if cultural resources are being impacted. 

ACEC-16 

The area is managed as VRM Class III. 

ACEC-17 

The area is available for mineral leasing under controlled surface use. 
Monticello Approved RMP-Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

120

ACEC-18 

The area is available for vegetation treatments. Access routes used for vegetation treatments will 

be reclaimed to prevent future use. Non–surface-disturbing treatments will be preferred. 

ACEC-19 

The appropriate management response for wildland fire will be in accordance with the Moab 

District Fire Plan.

ACEC-20 

OHV use is limited to designated roads and trails. 

Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark

ACEC-21 

Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark (contained within the Alkali Ridge ACEC) (2,146 

acres), is managed according to the following: 

 Available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. 

 All mechanized/motorized traffic limited to designated routes. 

 Campfires not allowed. 

 Unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products including on-site 

collection of dead wood for campfires. 

 Available for watershed improvements. 

 Appropriate Management Response to fire in accordance with the Moab District Fire Plan. 

 Open to livestock use with restrictions if cultural resources become impacted. 

 No surface-disturbing vegetation treatments are allowed. Any treatment must avoid cultural 

sites by sufficient margin as to have no adverse impact. 

 Available for geophysical exploration that meets the definition of "casual use" as defined 43 

CFR 3150.b) Casual use means activities that involve practices which do not ordinarily lead 

to any appreciable disturbance or damage to lands, resources and improvements. For 

example, activities which do not involve use of heavy equipment or explosives and which do 

not involve vehicular movement, except over established roads and trails are casual use. 

 Unavailable for disposal of mineral materials. 

 Recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. 

 Surface disturbance allowed for emergency fire suppression. 

 Recreation use limited if cultural resources become impacted. 

 Climbing aids such as ropes are not allowed for access into cultural sites/ruins. 

 ROW avoidance area. 

 Managed as VRM Class III. 
Monticello Approved RMP-Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

121

BRIDGER JACK MESA (Mesa Top Only) ACEC – Relevant and Important Value: Near 

Relict Vegetation

ACEC-22 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC lies entirely within a WSA and is managed under the IMP, unless 

more restrictive management is prescribed. Management under the IMP will provide for the 

protection for near-relict vegetation. 

ACEC-23 

Bridger Jack Mesa is not designated as an ACEC. Bridger Jack Mesa WSA is managed 

according to the IMP, except for the following: 

 Unavailable for livestock grazing, including grazing by saddle stock and pack animals 

allowed for access. 

 Unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products, including on-site 

collection of dead wood for campfires. 

 Campfires are restricted to fire rings, where available. If not available, subject to “Leave No 

Trace” principles. 

 Bridger Jack Mesa area is managed as part of the Indian Creek Special Recreation 

Management Area (SRMA) described in the Recreation section of this Chapter. 

BUTLER WASH NORTH ACEC – Relevant and Important Value: Scenic 

ACEC-24 

Butler Wash North ACEC lies within the Butler Wash WSA and is managed under the IMP, 

unless more restrictive management is prescribed. Management under the IMP will provide for 

the protection of scenic values. 

ACEC-25 

Butler Wash North area is not designated as an ACEC but is managed under the IMP. 

Management prescriptions include: 

 Retained in public ownership. 

 Unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products, with the exception of 

limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

 Available for livestock use but may be limited if cultural resources are impacted. 

 Closed to OHV use. 

 Managed as VRM Class I.

CEDAR MESA ACEC – Relevant and Import Values: Fish and Wildlife, Cultural and Scenic

ACEC-27 

Cedar Mesa area will not be designated as an ACEC. 

ACEC-28 

The area will be managed as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) (407,098 acres) 

(Map 9) described in the Recreation section of this Chapter. It will include three Recreation 
Monticello Approved RMP-Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

122

Management Zones (RMZs) (Grand Gulch NHD, McLoyd Canyon- Moon House and Comb 

Ridge) that emphasize management of recreation users for the protection of cultural resources. 

DARK CANYON ACEC – Relevant and Important Values: Scenic and Fish and Wildlife 

ACEC-29 

Dark Canyon ACEC lies entirely within the Dark Canyon WSA (Map 10) and partially within 

the Dark Canyon SRMA (Map 9). WSAs are managed under the IMP, unless more restrictive 

management is prescribed. 

ACEC-30 

Dark Canyon is not managed as an ACEC. The ACEC lies entirely within the Dark Canyon 

WSA (Map 10) and is managed according to the IMP and the Dark Canyon SRMA management 

prescriptions outlined in the Recreation section of this chapter. The WSA and SRMA are closed 

to OHV use. 

HOVENWEEP ACEC – Relevant and Important Values: Scenic, Habitat, and Cultural 

ACEC-31 

Hovenweep is designated as an ACEC (2,439 acres) (Map 11) with two special emphasis zones 

(Visual and Cajon Pond). This includes the 641 acres east of Hovenweep National Monument. 

General Area Exclusive of Special Emphasis Zones

ACEC-32 

Management will emphasize maintaining the relevant and important cultural and historic values. 

When siting facilities, the primary objective will be avoidance of direct and indirect impacts to 

resources on or eligible for listing on the NRHP (historic properties). Avoidance may require that 

a facility be moved farther than allowed under standard lease terms and conditions. Siting may 

require coordination among BLM, State Historic Preservation Officer, and Utah Division of Oil 

Gas and Mining to ensure consistency with all applicable well spacing requirements. 

ACEC-33 

Where the BLM authorized officer determines that avoidance of direct and indirect impacts to 

historic properties is not feasible (e.g., avoidance may cause unacceptable damage to other public 

land resources or affect valid existing rights) and adverse effects may occur, the BLM will 

resolve those effects through development of appropriate mitigation measures and consultation 

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as outlined in the regulations as 36 

CFR 800. 

ACEC-34 

Additional measures such as fencing, camouflaging, sound muffling, etc. may be necessary to 

further avoid indirect and direct impacts caused by surface-disturbing activities. 

ACEC-35 
Monticello Approved RMP-Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

123

Cultural properties eligible for the NRHP will be surrounded by an avoidance area sufficient to 

allow permanent protection. 

ACEC-36 

In any given case, mitigation will be designed to fit the specific circumstances and reviewed by 

the SHPO, and if necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. A Hovenweep 

National Monument Cooperative Management Strategy (1987) helps to guide site protection, 

data recovery, and all other necessary cultural management activities. 

ACEC-37 

A Cultural CRMP consistent with the goals and objectives of this RMP will be written for 

Hovenweep ACEC, if necessary, and will not require a plan amendment to the RMP. 

ACEC-38 

The area is available for mineral leasing subject to moderate constraints (CSU). 

ACEC-39 

The area is available for geophysical exploration. 

ACEC-40 

The area is unavailable for disposal of mineral materials. 

ACEC-41 

The appropriate management response for wildland fire will be in accordance with the Moab 

District Fire Plan. 

ACEC-42 

The area is available for mineral entry with an approved plan of operation. 

ACEC-43 

OHV use is limited to designated roads/trails. 

ACEC-44 

The area is excluded from private or commercial use of woodland products, except for limited 

on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

ACEC-45 

Improvements for habitat, watershed and vegetation treatments could be considered. 

ACEC-46 

Livestock use may be restricted if cultural resources are impacted. 
Monticello Approved RMP-Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

124

ACEC-47 

The area is managed as VRM Class III. 

Visual Emphasis Zone (880 acres) 

ACEC-48 

The Visual Emphasis Zone which surrounds the west, south, and east sides of Hovenweep 

National Monument, is managed in accordance with the general prescriptions and with the 

following special prescriptions: 

 NSO for mineral leasing. 

 Excluded from watershed and vegetative treatments. 

 ROW avoidance area. 

 Managed as VRM Class II. 

 Livestock use may be restricted if cultural resources are impacted. 

Cajon Pond Emphasis Zone (Habitat)

ACEC-49 

The Cajon Pond Emphasis Zone is approximately 1 acre within a fenced exclusion area in the 

northern part of the ACEC. It is managed in accordance with the general prescriptions and with 

the following special prescriptions: 

 Mineral leasing will also be in accordance with a controlled timing stipulation during the 

shorebird and waterfowl courtship and nesting season of March 1–June 30. 

 Excluded from livestock use. 

INDIAN CREEK ACEC – Relevant and Important Value: Scenic 

ACEC-50 

Indian Creek (3,908 acres) (Map 11) is designated as an ACEC and is managed with the 

following prescriptions: 

 Managed as VRM Class I. 

 Available for mineral leasing subject to No Surface Occupancy (NSO). 

 Unavailable for disposal of mineral materials. 

 Available for geophysical work if VRM Class I can be met. 

 Unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

 Available for livestock use. 

 Closed to OHV use. 

 All revegetation must be with native species naturally occurring in the vicinity. 

 Managed to limit recreation use if scenic values are being damaged. 

 Retained in public ownership. 

 ROW avoidance area.

LAVENDER MESA (Mesa Top Only) ACEC – Relevant and Important Value: Relict 

Vegetation 
Monticello Approved RMP-Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

125

ACEC-51 

Lavender Mesa (649 acres) (Map 11) will continue to be designated as an ACEC and will be 

managed with the following management prescriptions: 

 Managed to provide a baseline for rangeland studies through research and experiments. 

 Excluded from land treatments or other improvements, except for test plots and facilities 

necessary for study of the plant communities, and restoration/reclamation activities. 

 Managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing. 

 Closed to disposal of mineral materials 

 Available for locatable mineral entry with an approved plan of operations, subject to 

stipulations protecting vegetation on the mesa top. 

 No campfires allowed. 

 Managed to limit recreation use if vegetation communities are being adversely impacted. 

 Geophysical exploration allowed if it does not adversely impact vegetation communities. 

 Managed as VRM Class II. 

 Helicopter access allowed for scientific study and heliportable equipment. 

 ROW avoidance area. 

 Retained in public ownership. 

 Excluded from private or commercial use of woodland products, including limited on-site 

collection of dead wood for campfires. 

 Unavailable for livestock grazing, including grazing by saddle stock and pack animals 

allowed for access. 

 Excluded from wildlife habitat improvements. 

 Excluded from watershed control structures. 

 Appropriate management response to wildland fire in accordance with the Moab District Fire 

Plan. 

 Closed to OHV use. 

 Managed to limit recreation use if cultural resources or scenic values are being damaged.

ACEC-52 

Lockhart Basin is not designated as an ACEC. It is managed with the following prescriptions: 

 Available for mineral leasing subject to timing limitations and controlled surface use in 

Bighorn Sheep area, and Standard lease terms in remaining area. 

 Retained in public ownership. 

 Available for livestock use. 

 Managed as VRM Class I and II. 

 OHV use limited to designated roads and trails 

 Open for campfires. 

 Unavailable for woodland product use except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for 

campfires. 

 Where the ACEC intersects with the Colorado River Segment 2, it will be managed as VRM 

Class II, NSO for mineral leasing. 

 Where the ACEC intersects Colorado River Segment 3, it will be managed as VRM II, 

unavailable for mineral leasing, closed to OHV use, and recommended for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry.
Monticello Approved RMP-Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

126

SAN JUAN RIVER ACEC – Relevant and Important Values: Scenic, Cultural, Fish and 

Wildlife, Natural Systems and Processes, and Geologic Features 

ACEC-53 

The San Juan River (4,321 acres) (Map 11) is designated as an ACEC. The acreage has been 

reduced to exclude San Juan River Segment 5 area, which was determined suitable for inclusion 

into the Wild and Scenic River system (see Wild and Scenic River section of this Chapter for 

management prescriptions.) The ACEC will be managed with the following prescriptions: 

 Vehicle access, including OHVs/mechanized, limited to designated routes. 

 Unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires; woodland use within the floodplain will be 

limited to collection of driftwood for campfires. 

 Available for livestock use October 1–May 31. Grazing must incorporate rest-rotation and/or 

deferred management systems. Riparian areas must meet or exceed PFC to the extent 

affected by grazing. 

 Available for watershed, range, wildlife habitat improvements and vegetation treatments. 

 West Montezuma Creek to Private land managed as VRM Class II. 

 West of accreted land at Town of Bluff to River mile 9 managed as VRM Class III. 

 River mile 9 to river mile 23 (above Mexican Hat formation) managed as VRM Class I. 

 River mile 23.8 to river mile 28 managed as VRM Class III. 

 Available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. 

 Unavailable for mineral material disposal. 

 Recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. 

 Managed to limit recreation use if wildlife values are being adversely impacted. 

 Camping closed in areas as necessary to protect cultural, wildlife, and natural processes. 

 Designated access trails to cultural sites as necessary to protect cultural resources. 

 No camping in cultural sites. 

 Ropes and other climbing aids not allowed for access to ruins, cultural sites, and nesting 

raptors. 

 All areas intersected by the San Juan River SRMA are ROW avoidance areas. 

 Recreation management prescriptions identified under the San Juan River SRMA in the 

Recreation Section of this Chapter will also be followed and is consistent with the 

management outlined above. 

ACEC-54 

A Cultural Resources Management Plan will be written for the San Juan River. 

SCENIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR ACEC – Relevant and Important Value: Scenic

ACEC-55 

The Scenic Highway Corridor is not designated as an ACEC. 

ACEC-56 

The scenic values will be protected throughout this linear feature through management 

prescriptions for the overlying SRMAs, WSAs, and ACECs among others. 
Monticello Approved RMP-Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

127

SHAY CANYON ACEC – Relevant and Important Value: Cultural 

ACEC-57 

Shay Canyon (119 acres) (Map 11) is designated as an ACEC and is managed with the following 

prescriptions: 

 OHV and mechanized travel limited to designated routes. 

 No surface disturbance for vegetation, watershed, or wildlife treatments/improvements. 

 NSO for oil and gas. 

 Open to geophysical exploration as long as it is consistent with the objectives of the ACEC. 

 Grazing restricted to trailing only. 

 With the exception of side canyons, hiking limited to designated trails. 

 Open to mineral entry with an approved plan of operations to avoid impacts to cultural and 

paleontological resources. 

 Closed to disposal of mineral materials. 

 Campfires not allowed. 

 Unavailable for private or commercial use of woodland products including on-site collection 

of dead wood for campfires. 

 Recreation use may be limited if cultural and paleontological resources are impacted. 

 Managed as VRM Class II. 

 Closed to camping. 

 ROW avoidance area. 

 A Cultural CRMP consistent with the goals and objectives of this RMP will be written for 

Shay Canyon ACEC and will not require a plan amendment to the RMP.

VALLEY OF THE GODS ACEC – Relevant and Important Value: Scenic 

ACEC-58 

Valley of the Gods (22,863 acres) (Map 11) is designated as an ACEC and is managed with the 

following prescriptions:

 Managed as VRM Class I. 

 Unavailable for mineral leasing. 

 Closed to the disposal of mineral materials. 

 Available for mineral entry with an approved plan of operations. 

 Available for vegetation treatments when consistent with VRM Class 1. 

 Unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products. 

 The BLM will pursue acquisition of state in-holdings in this ACEC. 

 OHV use limited to designated roads and trails 

 ROW exclusion area. 

 No campfires allowed.
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Designations: Wild & Scenic Rivers

128

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR)

Goals and Objectives: 

 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 ORVs, and allow 

no activities within the river corridor that will alter the tentative classification of those river 

segments determined suitable for congressional designation into the NW&SR system until 

Congress acts on the designation. 

 Protect the free-flowing nature of the river/segment, the tentative classification level, and to 

prevent impairment of the outstandingly remarkable values within 0.25 mile from high water 

mark on each side of the river not to exceed 320 acres per mile. On the San Juan River the 

area will be 0.25 mile from high water mark on the north side not to exceed 160 acres per 

mile. On the San Juan River, the BLM has jurisdiction on the lands north of the river; and the 

Navajo Nation has jurisdiction on the southern side of the river. The BLM will coordinate 

with the Navajo Nation in developing consistent management of the river. 

 The White Canyon had a river segment found eligible in the 1991 San Juan Resource 

Management Plan. There were 30 miles from the Manti-La Sal National Forest boundary to 

the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area that were studied at that time. A new eligibility 

evaluation was conducted in 2004 which determined this segment did not meet the eligibility 

criteria outlined in BLM policy due to a lack of intermittent or perennial flow. For this reason 

it was not carried forward for suitability study into this RMP revision. 

 Management prescriptions for designated WSRs are listed in the BLM Manual 8351, WSRs 

– Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and Management (BLM 

1993b) by tentative classification: wild, scenic, and recreational. 

 Appendix P outlines the suitability study process to determine whether eligible rivers would 

be appropriate additions to the National River System. 

Management Actions: 

WSR-1 

The BLM will work with state, 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). The BLM will work with the state, local, and tribal 
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Designations: Wild & Scenic Rivers

129

governments, and the agencies involved to coordinate its decision making on WSR issues and to 

achieve consistency wherever possible. 

WSR-2 

The BLM recognizes that water resources on most river and stream segments within the State of 

Utah are already fully allocated. Before stream segments that have been recommended as 

suitable under this approved RMP are recommended to Congress for designation, the BLM will 

continue to work with affected local, state, federal, and tribal partners to identify in-stream flows 

necessary to meet critical resource needs, including values related to the subject segment(s). 

Such quantifications will be included in any recommendation for designation. The BLM will 

then seek to jointly promote innovative strategies, community-based planning, and voluntary 

agreements with water users, under State law, to address those needs. 

WSR-3 

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 National 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 National 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. The BLM's intent will be to 

leave existing water rights undisturbed and to recognize the lawful rights of private, municipal, 

and state entities to manage water resources under state law to meet the needs of the community. 

Federal law, including Section 13 of the Act and the McCarren Amendment (43 United States 

Code [U.S.C.] 666), recognizes state jurisdiction over water allocation in designated streams. 

Thus, it is the BLM's position that existing water rights, including flows apportioned to the State 

of Utah interstate agreements and compacts, including the Upper Colorado River Compact, and 

developments of such rights will not be affected by designation or the creation of the possible 

federal reserved water right. The BLM will seek to work with upstream and downstream water 

users and applicable agencies to ensure that water flows are maintained at a level sufficient to 

sustain the values for which affected river segments were designated. 

Colorado River Segment 1

WSR-4 

The Colorado River Segment 1 is not identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild 

and Scenic River System. 

Colorado River Segment 2 (Map 12)

WSR-5 

The Colorado River Segment 2 is identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild 

and Scenic River System. The Segment specifics include: 

 Recommendation: Suitable—Scenic 
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Designations: Wild & Scenic Rivers

130

 Size: 880 acres 

 Location: State lands near river mile 44 to approximately river mile 38.5 (5.5 miles). 

 Total river miles: 6.8 

 BLM river miles: 6.8 

WSR-6 

This segment is managed with the following prescriptions: 

 VRM Class II.

 Available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. 

 Motorized boat use allowed on the river. 

 ROW avoidance area. 

Colorado River Segment 3 (Map 12)

WSR-7 

The Colorado River Segment 3 is identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild 

and Scenic River System. The Segment specifics include: 

 Recommendation: Suitable—Scenic 

 Size: 1,040 acres 

 Location: From approximately river mile 37.5 at state land to boundary of Canyonlands 

National Park near river mile 31 (6.5 miles). 

 Total river miles: 6.5 

 BLM river miles: 6.5 

WSR-8 

This segment is managed with the following prescriptions: 

 VRM Class I 

 Unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

 Closed to OHV use. 

 Recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. 

 Motorized boat use allowed on the river 

 ROW exclusion area. 

Indian Creek

WSR-9 

The Indian Creek Segment is not identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and 

Scenic River System.

Fable Valley

WSR-10 

The Fable Valley Segment is not identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Designations: Wild & Scenic Rivers

131

Dark Canyon (Map 12)

WSR-11 

The Dark Canyon Segment is identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. The Segment specifics include: 

 Recommendation: Suitable—Wild. 

 Size: 2,048 acres 

 Location: Forest boundary to Glen Canyon NRA below Young's Canyon. 

 Total river miles: 13.6 

 BLM river miles: 6.4 

WSR-12 

This segment is managed with the following prescriptions: 

 VRM Class I. 

 Unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

 Closed to OHV use. 

 Recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry.

San Juan River Segment 1

WSR-13 

The San Juan River Segment 1 is not identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild 

and Scenic River System 

San Juan River Segment 2

WSR-14 

The San Juan River Segment 2 is not identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild 

and Scenic River System. 

San Juan River Segment 3

WSR-15 

The San Juan River Segment 3 is not identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild 

and Scenic River System. 

San Juan River Segment 4

WSR-16 

The San Juan River Segment 4 is not identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild 

and Scenic River System. 

San Juan River Segment 5 (Map 12)

WSR-17 

The San Juan River Segment 5 is identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. The Segment specifics include: 

 Recommendation: Suitable—Wild. 

 Size: 2,768 acres 

 Location: River mile 28 to Glen Canyon NRA at river mile 45. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Designations: Wild & Scenic Rivers

132

 Total river miles: 17.3 

 BLM river miles: 17.3 

WSR-18 

This segment is managed with the following prescriptions: 

 VRM Class I. 

 Closed to oil and gas leasing 

 Closed to OHV use. 

 Recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. 

 ROW exclusion area.

Arch Canyon

WSR-19 

The Arch Canyon Segment is not identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild 

and Scenic River System. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas

133

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA)

Goals and Objectives: 

Manage FLPMA Section 603 WSAs in a manner that does not impair their suitability for 

congressional designation into the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Management Actions: 

WSA-1 

WSAs will continue to be managed in a manner that does not impair their suitability for 

congressional designation in accordance with FLPMA Section 603(c), subject to valid existing 

rights. Actions may be allowed on a case-by-case basis only where the BLM determines that 

such action will not impair the lands' wilderness suitability. 

WSA-2 

The Monticello FO manages 13 WSAs (Map 10) [389,444 acres as identified in the Statewide 

Report to Congress and (386,027 GIS acres)]: Mancos Mesa (51,440 acres), Grand Gulch ISA 

Complex (105,520), Road Canyon (52,420), Fish Creek Canyon (46,440), Mule Canyon (5,990), 

Cheesebox Canyon (15,410), Dark Canyon ISA Complex (68,030), Butler Wash (24,190), 

Bridger Jack Mesa (5,290), Indian Creek (6,870), South Needles (160), Squaw and Papoose 

Canyons (6,676), and Cross Canyon (1,008). 

WSA-3 

Only Congress can release a WSA from wilderness consideration. Should any WSA, in part or in 

whole, be released from wilderness consideration, examine proposals in the released area on a 

case-by-case basis for consistency with the goals and objectives of the RMP decisions. Actions 

inconsistent with RMP goals and objectives will be deferred until completion of requisite plan 

amendments. Because the management direction of the released land will continue in accordance 

with the goals and objectives established in the RMP, no separate analysis is required in this 

LUP to address resource impacts if any WSAs are released by Congress. 

WSA-4 

Within the area managed by the Monticello FO, there is an area totaling 2,155 acres contiguous 

to the Butler Wash WSA that was studied as a boundary variation during the wilderness review 

mandated by Congress in FLPMA Sections 603(a) and (b). These lands were addressed in the 

Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness Final EIS (November, 1990) and were recommended for 

congressional wilderness designation in the Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Reports (October, 

1991). This recommendation was forwarded by the President of the United States to Congress in 

1993. The lands will continue to be managed in a manner that does not impair their suitability for 

congressional designation in accordance with FLPMA Section 603(c). Subject to valid existing 

rights, the only case-by-case actions that will be considered will be those where it is determined 

that wilderness suitability will not be adversely impacted. Lands within this administratively 

endorsed area are not under IMP management. RMP decisions protect those lands until Congress 

acts. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas

134

WSA-5 

WSAs are managed in a manner consistent with the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review (IMP) (BLM 1995). The only decisions related to WSA management that 

will be made in this plan are VRM, OHV designations, and conditional use of specific ways. 

Any ways established for use through this planning effort must have been previously identified 

during the initial wilderness inventory. 

WSA-6 

WSA management prescriptions, as stipulated in the IMP, will take precedence over other 

management prescriptions throughout this RMP, unless the other management prescriptions are 

more restrictive. 

WSA-8 

Where vehicle ways 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 the use of these ways does not impair 

wilderness suitability, as provided by the IMP. If Congress designates the area as wilderness, the 

routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or noncompliance are found through monitoring 

efforts to impair the area's suitability for wilderness designation, the BLM will take further 

action to limit use of the ways or close them. The continued use of these ways, therefore, is 

based on user compliance and non-impairment of wilderness values. This applies to the 0.08 

miles open to motorized recreation use to the Moon House ruin. This can also be applied to 

administrative access. 

WSA-9 

WSAs are managed as VRM Class I. 

WSA-10 

WSAs including the Butler Wash administratively endorsed lands are closed to OHV use. 

WSA-11 

One way in Fish Creek WSA totaling 0.08 miles will remain conditionally open to motorized 

recreation use in order to access the Moon House ruin. In addition, four ways will remain 

available for administrative access only and are not available for motorized recreation use: 

 Two ways in Grand Gulch ISA-Pine Canyon and Slickhorn units: totaling 3.1 miles and 

located east of Pine Canyon and Point Lookout areas. 

 One way in Fish Creek WSA-Lower Baullies Mesa; totaling 4.93 miles. 

 One way in Road Canyon WSA-Perkins Point; totaling 2.67 miles. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Designations: Historic Trails

135

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: HISTORIC TRAILS (HT)

Management Actions:

HT-1 

The designated Old Spanish National Historic Trail is managed to protect the resource values for 

which it was designated (Public Law 107-325). 

HT-2 

Hole in the Rock Trail is managed for Heritage Tourism in consultation with Utah State Historic 

Preservation Office and Native American tribes, as well as interested stakeholder groups. 

HT-3 

The BLM will coordinate with the NPS and other managing agencies in management of the Old 

Spanish National Historic Trail. 

HT-4 

All interpretation projects will be done in consultation with Native Americans and other 

interested parties including the Old Spanish Trail Association and NPS. 

HT-5 

Segments (linear) of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail (Map 11) will be identified and 

classified for historic integrity and condition. These segments will then be designated for 

appropriate types of travel. 

HT-6 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) on the Old Spanish National Historic Trail will be authorized 

only for heritage tours and reenactments. 

HT-7 

Landmarks (structures) along the Old Spanish National Historic Trail will be identified for 

historic integrity and interpreted only if the action will not impact the values at the site. 

HT-8 

Segments of the Hole in the Rock Trail will be identified and evaluated for historic integrity and 

appropriate use (Map 11). 

HT-9 

Landmark (structures, features) will be interpreted only if the action will not impact the values of 

the site/landmark.
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Status Species

136

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES (SSP)

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 or prevent the 

listing of species under the Endangered Species Act. 

 Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats of the BLM State Director's sensitive plant and 

animal species to ensure that actions requiring authorization or approval by the BLM are 

consistent with the conservation needs of special status species and do not contribute to the 

need to list any special status species, either under provisions of ESA or other provisions in 

the BLM Manual 6840 (BLM 2001c). 

 Develop and implement conservation measures to minimize long-term habitat fragmentation 

through avoidance and site-specific reclamation to provide habitat quality and quantity 

adequate to fulfill the life history requirements and to support a natural diversity of species. 

Management Actions: 

SSP-1 

Threatened and Endangered species conservation measures and lease notices will be used for all 

surface-disturbing activities to comply with the Endangered Species Act, and the BLM Manual 

6840, Special Status Species Management (Appendix B, E, I, and M). These species include: 

California condor, Mexican spotted owl, Southwestern willow flycatcher, Yellow-billed cuckoo, 

Bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, Humpback chub, Razorback sucker, and Navajo sedge. 

 Appendix B includes stipulations applicable to Oil and Gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities regarding the 10 listed and candidate species. 

 Appendix E includes USFWS correspondence. 

 Appendix I provides wildland fire protection/management measures for special status 

species. 

 Appendix M provides the finalized conservation measures and BMPs for T&E species 

resulting from programmatic Section 7 Consultation with USFWS (2007). 

SSP-2 

Oil and gas and mineral development BMPs will be used, including minimizing roadbed width 

and footprint size, co-location of facilities, etc., to minimize habitat fragmentation. 

SSP-4 

Inventories and monitoring studies will be conducted in order to determine special status plant 

and animal species locations, potential habitat, population dynamics, and existing and potential 

threats. 

SSP-5 
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Status Species

137

The protection of species and potential and/or occupied habitat for special status species will be 

considered and implemented prior to any authorization or action by the BLM that could alter or 

disturb such habitat. 

SSP-6 

No management action will be permitted on BLM lands that will jeopardize the continued 

existence of species that are listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

SSP-7 

The BLM will follow and implement the guidelines and management recommendations 

presented in species recovery or conservation plans (as updated), or alternative management 

strategies developed in consultation with USFWS. 

SSP-8 

The BLM will support and implement where possible current and future sensitive species 

Conservation Agreements, including the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation 

Agreement and Strategy and Conservation Agreement for the roundtail chub, bluehead sucker, 

and flannelmouth sucker. 

SSP-9 

The BLM will continue to work with USFWS and others to ensure that plans and agreements are 

updated to reflect the latest scientific data. 

SSP-10 

The BLM will work cooperatively with USFWS and UDWR to obtain and/or maintain maps of 

current occupied and potential habitats for special status species. 

SSP-11 

The BLM will work with the UDWR to implement the Utah Wildlife Action Plan (UDWR 2005) 

to coordinate management decisions that will conserve native species and prevent the need for 

additional listings. 

SSP-12 

Translocations of population augmentation of special status species will be allowed to aid in 

conservation and recovery efforts. Necessary habitat manipulations and monitoring will be 

implemented to ensure successful translocation efforts. 

SSP-13 

The BLM will implement and follow the guidelines in the Colorado River Fishes Recovery and 

Implementation Program (as updated). 

SSP-14 
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Status Species

138

Implement the BLM's Guidance for the Management of Sagebrush Plant Communities for Sagegrouse Conservation and the BLM's National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. 

SSP-15 

Consistent with RMP goals and objectives, the following plans or best available scientific 

information will be utilized and applied, as needed, as part of implementing the BLM's National 

Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy: Strategic Management Plan for Sage-grouse (BLM 

2004d), WAFWA Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats 

(Connelly et al. 2004), and the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (2005, as 

revised). 

SSP-16 

The Gunnison Sage-grouse Conservation Easement (320 acres) will be managed as outlined in 

the easement to protect and enhance habitat for sage-grouse. The easement is in perpetuity, even 

as ownership changes. 

SSP-17 

Retain potential/occupied special status species habitat in federal ownership. Acquisition of 

potential/occupied special status species habitat will be high priority. These acquired/exchanged 

lands will be managed according to BLM land management prescriptions for special status 

species. 

SSP-18 

Any nonessential routes developed for a project located in special status species habitat will be 

closed and rehabilitated when the project is complete. 

SSP-19 

Raptor management will be guided by the use of Best Management Practices for Raptors and 

Their Associated Habitats in Utah (Appendix N), utilizing seasonal and spatial buffers, as well as 

mitigation, to maintain and enhance raptor nesting and foraging habitat, while allowing other 

resource uses. 

SSP-20 

The BLM will implement and follow the Finalized Conservation Measures and Best 

Management Practices for Bald Eagle and Threatened and Endangered Species of Utah from the 

Land Use Plan Programmatic BAs and Section 7 Consultation (2007, as revised) (Appendix M). 

Gunnison Prairie Dogs

SSP-21 

Site-specific analysis will be conducted to determine presence or absence of prairie-dog colonies 

within potential/occupied habitat (Map 14). Colonies will be protected from surface-disturbing 

activities with the use of Best Management Practices, standard oil and gas lease terms (60 
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Status Species

139

days/200 meters rule), Conditions of Approval, and Standard Operating Procedures. Site-specific 

analysis will mitigate impacts from other BLM-authorized activities. 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse

SSP-22 

The following prescriptions apply to crucial Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat (145,583 acres of 

which 4,884 acres are on BLM lands) on BLM lands and/or BLM-permitted activities associated 

with the administration of federal minerals on split-estate lands. See Appendix B, Stipulations 

Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface Disturbing Activities, for exceptions, 

modifications and waivers that can be applied by the Authorized Officer, on a case-by-case basis 

for reasons outlined in the appendix. 

SSP-23 

Lek habitat (within 0.6 miles of active strutting ground): 

 Prohibit year-round construction of fences. Retrofit visual devices on existing fences to 

prevent collisions. Where opportunity exists, remove existing fences. 

 Prohibit construction of power lines or permanent aboveground structures year-round. 

 NSO for oil and gas leasing activities. 

 Unavailable for non–ground-disturbing geophysical work from March 20 to May 15. 

 Prohibit construction of roads year-round. 

 Prohibit construction of wind power turbines year-round. 

 Avoid all permitted activities from March 20 to May 15. If impractical to avoid all permitted 

activities, then no activity from sunset the evening before to 2 hours after sunrise the next 

morning. 

SSP-24 

Year-round habitat (within 4 miles of active strutting ground): 

 Sagebrush treatments must have recovery objectives that meet the habitat objectives listed in 

the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (2005, as amended). Any variance 

from these recovery objectives will be subject to site-specific NEPA, including collaboration 

with stakeholder groups. 

 Avoid construction of new fences. If impracticable, increase the visibility of the fences 

(flagging, white-tipped T-posts, etc.) and monitor effectiveness of visual devices and modify 

or remove fences if necessary to minimize sage-grouse mortality. 

 Leasing will be available with standard stipulations for oil and gas development. Follow 

Suggested Management Practices, where applicable, for oil and gas development listed in the 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (2005, as amended). 

 Avoid the construction of power lines, wind power turbines, or other aboveground structures. 

If impractical, bury power lines or retrofit them to prevent perching by raptors. Follow 

Suggested Management Practices for wind power turbines or other aboveground structures as 

listed in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (2005, as amended). 

 Limit grazing use levels as necessary to maintain and/or improve sage-grouse habitat. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Special Status Species

140

SSP-25 

The following grazing allotments will not be grazed from March 20 to May 15: 

 Sage Flat 

 Upper East Canyon 

 Sage-grouse 

 Dry Farm. 

Habitat for Mexican Spotted Owl and Flannelmouth Sucker (Arch Canyon)

SSP-26 

In Arch Canyon, OHV use is limited to the designated route up to the national forest boundary, a 

total of 8 miles one way. Organized and commercial groups will be required to obtain a Special 

Recreation Use Permit. This permit will allow access on the designated route up to the National 

Forest boundary except from March 1 through August 31. During this period, access will be 

limited to 7.5 miles of the designated route. Therefore, during this period motorized access will 

not be allowed within 0.5 miles of the National Forest boundary.
Monticello Approved RMP—Travel Management

141

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT (TM)

Goals and Objectives: 

 The BLM will provide opportunities for a range of motorized recreation experiences on 

public lands while protecting resources and minimizing conflicts among various users. 

 All BLM lands are designated as open, limited, or closed. Seasonal restrictions can be 

applied to the limited category. 

 Any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle being used for emergency or 

administrative purposes is exempt from OHV decisions. 

Management Actions: 

TM-1 

OHV vehicle use is managed in accordance with the BLM's National OHV strategy. 

TM-2 

Through future implementation level planning, designated routes will be categorized as 

mechanized only (bicycles), single-track motorized (dirt bikes), or two-track motorized (fourwheelers, jeeps), or available to all vehicles, or any combination of these categories. Adjustments 

of these categories will be made based on recreational demand and potential conflict. All nonmotorized travel is allowed on designated routes unless otherwise prohibited. 

TM-3 

Mechanized travel (bicycles) is limited to designated roads and trails. 

TM-4 

There are no exceptions that allow for cross-country travel for game retrieval or antler gathering 

in areas designated as limited or closed. OHV use for game retrieval will adhere to all OHV 

classifications. 

TM-5 

BLM Back Country Byways and National Recreation Trails may be designated in the future, as 

deemed appropriate, with site-specific environmental analysis. 

TM-6 

Appendix O outlines the processes and procedures for making modifications to the travel plan 

designated route network. 

TM-7 

The BLM, in preparing its RMP designations and its implementation-level travel management 

plans, is following policy and regulation authority found at: 43 CFR Part 8340; 43 CFR Subpart 

8364; and 43 CFR Subpart 9268. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Travel Management

142

TM-8 

Where the authorized officer determines that OHVs are causing or will cause considerable 

adverse impacts, the authorized officer shall close or restrict such areas. The public will be 

notified. The BLM could impose limitations on types of vehicles allowed on specific designated 

routes if monitoring indicates that a particular type of vehicle is causing disturbance to the soil, 

wildlife habitat, cultural or vegetative resources, especially by off-road travel in an area that is 

limited to designated routes. 

TM-9 

Where routes 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 the use of these routes does not impair wilderness 

suitability, as provided by the IMP (BLM 1995). If Congress designates the area as wilderness, 

the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or noncompliance are found through 

monitoring efforts to impair the area's suitability for wilderness designation, the BLM will take 

further action to limit use of the routes, or close them. The continued use of these routes, 

therefore, is based on user compliance and non-impairment of wilderness values. This applies to 

the 0.08 miles open to motorized recreation use to the Moon House ruin. This can also be applied 

to administrative access. 

OHV Area Designations (Map 13)

TM-10 

Open to OHV use: 0 acres 

TM-11 

Limited to designated routes: 1,388,191 acres 

TM-12 

Mountain bike use is limited to the same designated routes as OHV travel. 

TM-13 

Closed to OHV Use: 393,895 acres 

To protect the following vegetation study areas: 

 Bridger Jack Mesa WSA 

 Lavender Mesa ACEC 

To protect the following scenic values: 

 Indian Creek ACEC 

To protect the following cultural, scenic, and recreational values: 

 A portion of the San Juan River SRMA 

To protect the following cultural values: 

 Tank Bench SRMA, Outlaw Canyon 
Monticello Approved RMP—Travel Management

143

 Tank Bench SRMA, South Cottonwood Wash 

To protect the wilderness character of the following: 

 Cross Canyon WSA 

 Squaw and Papoose WSA 

 Mule Canyon WSA 

 Fish Creek WSA 

 Grand Gulch WSA ISA Complex 

 Road Canyon WSA 

 Dark Canyon WSA 

 Indian Creek WSA 

 Bridger Jack Mesa WSA 

 Butler Wash WSA 

 Mancos Mesa WSA 

 Cheesebox Canyon WSA 

 South Needles WSA and the Administratively Endorsed Lands that are contiguous to Butler 

Wash WSA. 

TM-14 

One way in Fish Creek WSA totaling 0.08 miles remains conditionally open to motorized 

recreation use in order to access the Moon House ruin. In addition, four ways remain available 

for administrative access only and are not available for motorized recreation use: 

a. Two ways in Grand Gulch ISA-Pine Canyon and Slickhorn units: totaling 3.1 miles and 

located east of Pine Canyon and Point Lookout areas. 

b. One way in Fish Creek WSA-Lower Baullies Mesa; totaling 4.93 miles. 

c. One way in Road Canyon WSA-Perkins Point; totaling 2.67 miles. 

Miles of Designated and Non-Designated Routes on Public Lands within the Monticello PA

TM-15 

Open 2,820 miles 

Closed 316 miles 

Special Stipulation Areas within the Limited to Designated Routes Category

Arch Canyon (to protect wildlife)

TM-16 

OHV use is limited to the designated route up to the USFS boundary year-round, a total of 8 

miles one way. 

TM-17

Organized and commercial groups are required to obtain a Special Recreation Use Permit. This 

permit will allow access on the designated route up to the National Forest boundary except 
Monticello Approved RMP—Travel Management

144

March 1–August 31. During this period, access will be 7.5 miles of the designated route. 

Motorized access will not be allowed within 0.5 miles of the national forest boundary. 

McLoyd Canyon–Moon House (for Cultural Protection)

TM-18 

No motorized travel is allowed on the northern section of road (approximately 500 feet) D4798, 

which crosses onto BLM land (and lies within Fish Creek WSA) at the northern State Section 

boundary. 

Non-mechanized (e.g., Hiking, Equestrian, and Backpacking)

TM-19 

Nonmechanized 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. 

TM-20 

Provide opportunities for non-mechanized travel (hiking) on all routes open to mechanized use. 

Manage routes to exclude motorized and mechanized use and provide opportunities for nonmechanized travel independent of motorized and mechanized routes. 

TM-21 

Limit non-mechanized travel on specific lands to designated routes for resource protection 

purposes. 

TM-22 

Manage the following trails for non-mechanized use: 

 Open to Foot Travel: Kane Gulch, Todie Canyon, Bullet Canyon, Shieks Canyon, 

Government Trail, Collins Canyon, Slickhorn Canyon, Point Lookout Canyon, Grand Gulch 

(from junction to San Juan River), Fish Canyon, Owl Canyon, Road Canyon, McLoyd 

Canyon, Lime Creek Canyon, North Mule Canyon, South Mule Canyon, Lower Mule 

Canyon from Comb Wash, Mule Canyon or Cave Canyon Towers, Arch Canyon, Johns 

Canyon, Honaker Trail, Keeley Trail, Dark Canyon (Sundance Trail), Fable Valley Trail, 

Salt Creek Mesa Trail, Butler Ruin Interpretative Trail, Sand Island Petroglyph Trail, Shay 

Canyon Petroglyph Trail, Newspaper Rock Trail, Salvation Knoll Trail, Monarch Cave Trail, 

Fish Mouth Trail, Cold Springs Trail, Procession Panel Trail, Wolf Man Panel Trail, Moon 

House Trail, Ball Room Cave Trail. 

 Open for Stock Overnight Use: Kane Gulch, Government Trail, Collins Canyon, Grand 

Gulch (from Kane Gulch to the junction of Collins Canyon; no stock below Collins Canyon), 

Fish Canyon (from Comb Wash to confluence with Owl Canyon), Road Canyon, Lime Creek 

Canyon, Lower Mule Canyon from Comb Wash, Arch Canyon, Johns Canyon, Salt Creek 

Mesa Trail. 

 Open for Stock Day Use: Bullet Canyon (from Grand Gulch to Jailhouse Ruin), Fish Canyon 

(2 miles above the confluence with Owl Canyon), Owl Canyon (to Neville's Arch), Road 

Canyon, McLoyd Canyon (to the impassible pour-off), Lime Creek Canyon, Salt Creek Mesa 

Trail, Monarch Cave Trail, Fish Mouth Trail, Cold Springs Trail, and Procession Panel Trail. 

TM-23 
Monticello Approved RMP—Travel Management

145

Non-mechanized routes may be added through subsequent planning at the activity plan level on a 

case by case basis. 

TM-24 

Indian Creek Climbing Trails include the following: Bridger Jack Mesa, Super Crack Buttress, 

Cat Wall, Broken Tooth Wall, Scarface, and Battle of the Bulge.
Monticello Approved RMP—Vegetation

146

VEGETATION (VEG)

Goals and Objectives: 

 Manage vegetation resources for desired future conditions, as determined by site-specific 

BLM objectives and rangeland functionality and health, thereby ensuring ecological 

diversity, stability, and sustainability, including the desired mix of vegetation types, 

structural stages, and landscape/riparian/watershed function, and provide for native plant, 

fish, and wildlife habitats. 

 Provide sustainable forage for livestock and wildlife with a plant community that 

incorporates and meets the standards for rangeland health. 

 Provide opportunities for plant material gathering (seed collection, plant collection, etc.) of 

various vegetation types while protecting other resources. 

 Maintain existing vegetative treatment areas as appropriate. 

 Sustain the integrity of the sagebrush steppe community type to provide the amount, 

continuity, and quality of habitat that is necessary to maintain sustainable populations of 

sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species. 

 Control invasive and non-native weed species and prevent the introduction of new invasive 

species through the implementation of a comprehensive weed program, including 

coordination with partners; prevention and early detection; education; inventory and 

monitoring; and principles of integrated weed management. 

 Control invasive and non-native weed species and prevent the introduction of new invasive 

species through the implementation of the BLM National Strategy and Action Plan as 

outlined in documents such as, "Pulling Together: National Strategy for Invasive Plant 

Management Initiative" and "Partners Against Weeds" (1994). 

 Control insect pest species as necessary to protect vegetation resources in conjunction with 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

Management Actions: 

VEG-1 

Areas that meet Utah's Rangeland Health Standards are open to seed gathering and plant 

collection, including commercial seed gathering. The entire field office or certain localities may 

be closed to seed gathering dependent upon annual seed production of native plants in relation to 

sustainable landscapes. 

VEG-2 

Seed gathering is managed according to Utah BLM guidance for Seed Collection Policy and 

Pricing (as amended). 

VEG-3 

Implement Guidance for Addressing Sagebrush Habitat Conservation (November, 2004) as 

described in the BLM's National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (WO-IM-2005-

024). 
Monticello Approved RMP—Vegetation

147

VEG-4 

Necessary vegetation information will be gathered and monitoring continued to assess if 

planning objectives are being met. 

VEG-5 

Invasive and non-native weed species (as identified in Table 3.59 of the PRMP, Invasive and 

Noxious Weeds of San Juan County) will be controlled, and the infestation and spread of new 

invasive species prevented through cooperative agreements and implementation of the principles 

in BLM weed management policies and action plans. 

VEG-6 

Poisonous plant species will be controlled as necessary based on site-specific needs. 

VEG-7 

Cooperating agreements with other federal, state, local, and private organizations will be 

developed to control invasive non-native species, control insect pest species, and implement 

fuels vegetation treatments and WUI risk assessments and management. 

VEG-8 

Prevention measures (SOPs and mitigation measures) from the 2007 ROD Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States PEIS 

(and associated document] are incorporated. Those BMPs are located in Appendix B and 

mitigation measures in Table 2 of that ROD. 

VEG-9 

Upland areas are managed to achieve DFC. 

VEG-10 

Unnecessary social footpath trails will be minimized throughout the PA. 

VEG-11 

Pack stock and riding stock users on BLM-administered land are required to use certified weedfree feed. 

VEG-12 

Restoration/rehabilitation activities are required to use certified weed-free seed mixes, mulch, 

fill, etc. 

VEG-13 

The power washing of equipment used for permitted uses may be required to help control 

noxious weeds. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Vegetation

148

VEG-14 

Continue implementation of noxious weed and invasive species control actions as per affected 

counties, adjoining private land owners and other partners or interests directly affected. 

VEG-15 

Implement 30,000 to 50,000 acres of vegetation treatments in Fire Regime Condition Class III 

areas over a 15-year period. 

VEG-16 

The following sagebrush communities are prioritized for treatment: Harts Draw, Beef Basin, 

Black Mesa, Alkali, Mustang, Cedar Point, Shay Mesa, and all areas with Gunnison Sage-grouse 

habitat. 

VEG-17 

Treat greasewood in Comb Wash, Butler Wash, Montezuma, East Canyon, Indian Creek, South 

and North Cottonwood Wash, and Cross Canyon to improve ground cover, biodiversity, and 

water quality. 

VEG-18 

Maintain an estimated 1,500 acres/year of existing land treatments and implement new 

vegetation treatments to restore ecosystem health, functioning condition, etc. in the following 

vegetation cover types (Map 15): 

 sagebrush 1,500 acres/year 

 weed treatments 3,000 acres/year 

 pinyon-juniper 3,000 acres/year 

 riparian 100 acres/year 

 greasewood 200 acres/year
Monticello Approved RMP—Visual Resource Management

149

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) 

Goals and Objectives: 

 All permitted activities must comply with VRM management class objectives, unless a 

waiver, exemption, or modification is granted by the Authorized Officer. 

 WSAs are managed as VRM Class I. 

 Allow for recreational viewing platforms and special recreation facilities in all high scenic 

areas. 

 VRM classifications must match Minimum Impact Criteria. 

 Visual resources are managed as the VRM inventory class (Map 16) unless specified 

otherwise in the management prescriptions. 

 In areas available for oil and gas leasing subject to standard lease terms or available to oil 

and gas leasing subject to Timing and CSU, visual resources are managed as VRM Class III 

or IV (depending on inventory) unless otherwise specified in the management prescriptions. 

 Areas that inventory as VRM Class II but are in areas that are available for oil and gas 

leasing subject to standard lease terms or available to oil and gas leasing subject to Timing 

and Controlled Surface Use are managed as VRM Class III unless otherwise specified in the 

management prescriptions below. 

 Wild segments of a WSR are managed as VRM Class I. 

 Scenic segments of a WSR are managed as VRM Class II. 

 Visual Impact analysis will use GIS technology. 

Management Actions: 

VRM-1 

422,989 acres are managed as VRM Class I (Map 16). These areas include: 

WSAs: 

13 WSAs (389,440 acres): Mancos Mesa (51,440 acres), Grand Gulch ISA Complex (37,810), 

Road Canyon (52,420), Fish Creek Canyon (46,440), Mule Canyon (5,990), Cheesebox Canyon 

(15,410), Dark Canyon ISA Complex (62,040), Butler Wash (22,030), Bridger Jack Mesa 

(5,290), Indian Creek (6,870), South Needles (160), Squaw and Papoose Canyons (6,560), Cross 

Canyon (1,008), and the Butler Wash lands administratively endorsed for wilderness. 

ACECs:

 Valley of the Gods 

 Indian Creek 

WSRs:

 Dark Canyon Suitable River Segment 

 Colorado River Suitable Segment 3 

 San Juan River Suitable Section 3 
Monticello Approved RMP—Visual Resource Management

150

 San Juan River Suitable Segment 5 

VRM-2 

262,256 acres aree managed as VRM Class II including but not limited to the following (Map 

16): 

ACECs:

 Lavender Mesa 

 Shay Canyon 

 San Juan River (portions) 

 Hovenweep Visual Emphasis Zone 

WSRs:

 Colorado River Suitable Segment 2 

Other Areas:

 Mesa tops for Tables of the Sun 

 Comb Ridge Management Zone of Cedar Mesa SRMA 

 Indian Creek SRMA from Indian Creek ACEC south to USFS boundary and Davis and 

Lavender Canyons 

 Harmony Flat 

 White Canyon area 

 Dripping Canyon/Chicken Corners area 

 Non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics (Dark Canyon, Mancos Mesa, Grand Gulch, 

Nokai Dome East and Nokai Dome West) 

 Lockhart Basin 

VRM-3 

473,368 acres are managed as VRM Class III including but not limited to the following (Map 

16): 

ACECs:

 Hovenweep (outside of Visual Emphasis Zone) 

 Alkali Ridge 

 San Juan River Sections 2 and 4 

Other Areas:

 Cedar Mesa SRMA (portions) 

 Moqui Canyon 

 North Cottonwood area 

 North of Highway 95 in the South Cottonwood area 
Monticello Approved RMP—Visual Resource Management

151

 Grand Flat area 

 Upper Montezuma Creek Watershed 

 Dry Valley – Upper Hart Draw 

 Beef Basin (portions) 

 Gravel, Long and Short Canyon areas 

 Cal Black Airport east area 

 Other areas illustrated on Map 16

VRM-4 

623,002 acres will be managed as VRM Class IV, as illustrated on Map 16.
Monticello Approved RMP—Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

152

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES (FWL)

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. 

 Recognize crucial and non-fragmented habitats as management priorities. 

 Maintain or improve vegetation condition and/or avoid long-term disturbance in habitat sites 

for wildlife and fish species. 

 Minimize long-term habitat fragmentation as much as possible through avoidance and sitespecific reclamation to provide habitat quality and quantity adequate to fulfill the life history 

requirements and to support a natural diversity of species. 

 Maintain and enhance aquatic and wildlife resources, and provide for biological diversity of 

plants and wildlife resources while ensuring healthy ecosystems. 

Management Actions: 

Migratory Birds 

FWL-1 

Comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and 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" (BCC) (2002 or as updated), and Partners-in-Flight 

priority species (as updated). As specific habitat needs and population distribution to Birds of 

Conservation Concern and Partners-in-Flight priority species the Partners-In-Flight Avian 

Conservation Strategy (UDWR, 2000, as updated) priority species are identified, the BLM will 

use adaptive management strategies to further conserve habitat and avoid impacts to these 

species. 

FWL-2 

During nesting season for migratory birds (May 1–July 30), avoid or minimize surfacedisturbing activities and vegetative-altering projects and broad-scale use of pesticides in 

identified occupied priority migratory bird habitat. 

FWL-3 

Prioritize the maintenance and/or improvement of lowland riparian, wetlands, and low and high 

desert shrub communities, which are the four most important and used habitat types by migratory 

birds in the Monticello PA. 

FWL-4 

Prevent the spread of invasive and non-native plants, especially cheatgrass, salt cedar, and 

Russian olive. Strive for a dense understory of native species with a reduction in salt cedar and 

improvement of cottonwood and willow regeneration. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

153

FWL-5 

As a supplement to comply with Executive Order 13186, the Bird Habitat Conservation Areas 

identified in the Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah (2005, or as 

updated), will receive priority for conducting bird habitat conservation projects through 

cooperative funding initiatives such as the Intermountain West Joint Venture. 

FWL-6 

Land-use decisions that contain migratory birds and their habitats will consider the goals and 

objectives established in respective bird conservation strategies: bird conservation plans and 

Utah wildlife action plan. 

FWL-7 

Management of habitat for species conservation will incorporate statewide conservation 

strategies. 

Raptors

FWL-8 

Raptor management will be guided by the use of Best Management Practices for Raptors and 

Their Associated Habitats in Utah (Utah BLM 2006, Appendix N), utilizing seasonal and spatial 

buffers, as well as mitigation, to maintain and enhance raptor nesting and foraging habitat, while 

allowing other resource uses. 

FWL-9 

Cooperate with utility companies, UDWR, and USFWS to prevent electrocution of raptors. 

FWL-10 

Temporarily close areas (amount of time depends on species) near raptor nests to rock climbers 

or other activities if activity may result in nest abandonment. 

Bighorn Sheep

FWL-11 

Five mesa tops (56,740 acres) within the crucial bighorn sheep habitat have been identified as 

areas of potential conflict between bighorn and activities that cause surface disturbance resulting 

in permanent loss of bighorn sheep habitat. Bighorn sheep habitat improvement projects will be 

prioritized in these areas. 

FWL-12 

Livestock grazing and associated range improvement projects are not allowed on the five mesa 

tops. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

154

FWL-13 

Any future proposal for a change in kind of livestock from cattle to sheep in crucial desert 

bighorn sheep habitat will be denied in order to prevent competition for forage and the 

transmission of disease from domestic to wild sheep. 

FWL-14 

Adhere to the recommendations in the BLM Bighorn Sheep Rangeland Management Plan (BLM 

1993c, as revised); and the Utah BLM Statewide Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Plan, 1996 

(as revised), where practicable. 

Introduction, Transplantation, Augmentation, and Reestablishment

FWL-15 

The BLM will continue to cooperate with and provide support to UDWR in reintroducing native 

fish and wildlife species into historic or suitable ranges, as determined appropriate through caseby-case NEPA analysis. 

FWL-16 

Introduction, transplantation, augmentation, and re-establishment of both native and naturalized 

species will be considered and will include but may not be limited to pronghorn, desert bighorn 

sheep, wild turkey, beaver, chukar, Colorado River cutthroat trout, and Endangered Colorado 

River fish species. 

Animal Damage Control 

FWL-17 

Predator management will continue to be coordinated with APHIS and UDWR, and will be 

conducted utilizing the guidance provided by the existing MOU with APHIS. 

Habitat Improvements and Protection

FWL-18 

In areas lacking proper water distribution or natural water sources, allow for installation of 

precipitation catchments (guzzlers) or the development of springs on rangelands. 

FWL-19 

Adhere to BLM fence standards to allow wildlife movement when fences are being developed or 

maintained. 

FWL-20 

Wildlife habitat objectives will be considered in all reclamation activity. Priority will be given to 

meeting Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management (BLM 1997). 

FWL-21
Monticello Approved RMP—Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

155

Adhere to the recommendations in the BLM Habitat Management Guides for the American 

Pronghorn Antelope (1980 as revised), wherever practicable. 

FWL-22 

Ground-disturbing and permitted activities carried out in all seasonal wildlife protection areas 

will be subject to special conditions regulating use during certain seasons. These seasonal 

conditions will not impact maintenance and operation activities for mineral production or 

hunting during a recognized hunting season established by the UDWR. 

FWL-23 

Recognize 17,300 acres as allotted to wildlife (parts of the slopes of Peter's Canyon and East 

Canyon). 

FWL-24 

Ground-disturbing actions in crucial habitats will be avoided where practical. Where unavoidable 

disturbances are required, the BLM will follow BLM Washington Office Guidance (IM 2005-

069) on application of compensatory measures. 

Off-site Mitigation

FWL-27 

The BLM will approach compensatory mitigation on an "as appropriate" basis where it can be 

performed on site, and on a voluntary basis where it is performed off-site, or, in accordance with 

current guidance. 

Habitat Boundaries

FWL-28 

Minor adjustments to crucial wildlife habitat boundaries periodically made by the UDWR will be 

accommodated through plan maintenance. 

Seasonal Wildlife Protection Areas 

FWL-25 

In addition to any other special conditions that may be in effect, crucial big game habitats are 

subject to special conditions regulating use during certain seasons. These seasonal conditions 

will not impact maintenance and operation activities for mineral production or hunting during a 

recognized hunting season established by the UDWR. 

FWL-26 

See Appendix B, Stipulations Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface Disturbing 

Activities, for exceptions, modifications and waivers that can be applied by the Authorized 

Officer, on a case-by-case basis for a myriad of reasons outlined in the appendix. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

156

FWL-29 

Special conditions for the seasonal wildlife protection areas include the following for all land-use 

authorizations, with the exception of private woodland harvest: 

 No use of low-flying aircraft.

 Closed to the following uses, among others, (refer to Appendix B) during the established 

season: 

 No oil and gas exploration, drilling and production activities or geophysical work. 

 Permitted or commercial OHV use may be limited in number of participants and duration 

depending on the event. 

 No use of pyrotechnics, shooting, etc. during permitted filming because of noise impacts. 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing and Rutting Areas

FWL-30 

Adhere to special conditions (FWL-29 and Appendix B) on 453,388 acres (Map 14) from April 1 

to June 15 for lambing, and from October 15 to December 15 for rutting. 

Pronghorn Fawning Area 

FWL-31 

Adhere to special conditions (FWL-29 and Appendix B) on 29,365 acres (Map 14) from May 1 

to June 15. 

Grazing Management in Pronghorn Ranges 

FWL-32 

Current livestock-grazing prescriptions will continue and, where opportunities exist, will be 

adjusted to enhance forb production on pronghorn ranges. This will include the following 

grazing allotments: Mail Station, Upper Mail Station, Dry Valley/Deer Neck, Lone Cedar, Tank 

Draw, and Hart Draw. 

Deer Winter Range 

FWL-33 

Adhere to special conditions (FWL-29 and Appendix B) on 383,098 acres (Map 14) from 

November 15 to April 15. 

Elk Winter Range 

FWL-34 

Adhere to special conditions (FWL-29 and Appendix B) on 97,471 acres (Map 14) from 

November 15 to April 15. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Woodlands

157

WOODLANDS (FOR)

Goals and Objectives: 

 Manage woodlands for Desired Future Condition (DFC), ensuring ecological diversity, 

stability, and sustainability (including the desired mix of structural stages and 

landscape/watershed functions), and provide for native plant and wildlife habitats (Map 17). 

 Provide woodland products on a sustainable basis to meet local needs where such use does 

not limit the accomplishment of goals for the management of other resources. 

 Provide opportunities for pine nut gathering on a sustainable basis while protecting other 

resources. 

 Encourage, where feasible, the harvest of woodland products in areas of proposed or existing 

vegetative treatments to lessen the need for additional treatment or land disturbance, and in 

areas that need restoration for ecological benefits (for example, Pinus edulis). Use the 

document, "Recommended Old-Growth Definitions and Description, USDA Forest Service 

Southwestern Region (Sept. 1992)." 

 Identify, maintain, and restore forest and woodland old-growth stands to a pre-fire 

suppression condition. The Monticello FO 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 doesn't apply (for example, pinyon pine). 

Management Actions: 

FOR-1 

Implement the Healthy Forest Initiative and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. 

FOR-2 

Follow National BLM Forest Health and Forest Management Standards and Guidelines to assess 

conditions and guide management decisions for woodland resources. 

FOR-3 

Prioritize treatment in high-value/high-risk areas (WUI, developed recreation facilities including 

campgrounds, FRCC III).

FOR-4 

Allow live woodland harvest in areas with pinyon pine and juniper encroachment with focus on 

the restoration of the sagebrush steppe community. 

FOR-5 

Fuel treatment projects will allow for harvest of woodland products. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Woodlands

158

FOR-6 

Permits for private and/or commercial use of woodland products will continue to be issued to the 

public, consistent with the availability of woodland products and the protection of other resource 

values. 

FOR-7 

Cottonwood and willow harvest will be allowed for Native American ceremonial uses only by 

permit. Restrictions on this permitted harvest will be implemented as necessary to achieve or 

maintain Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), and to maintain or improve threatened and 

endangered species/special status species (TES/SSS) habitat. 

FOR-8 

Harvesting of woodland products is subject to the following exceptions: 

 Exclude from woodland product use except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for 

campfires in all WSAs, Arch Canyon, Alkali Ridge NHL, Grand Gulch NHD (mesa top), 

Beef Basin, Fable Valley, Comb Ridge SRMA (south of Highway 95), San Juan River 

SRMA and the 5 non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics (Map 8) (Dark Canyon, 

Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome West, Nokai Dome East and Grand Gulch). 

 Exclude from all woodland product use, including on-site collection of dead wood for 

campfires, all developed recreation sites, livestock/wildlife exclosures, cultural sites, Indian 

Creek SRMA, McLoyd Canyon–Moon House Ruin, Cedar Mesa SRMA (in-canyon), and 

Grand Gulch NHD (in canyon). 

 Exclude floodplains, riparian/aquatic areas from woodland product use except for limited onsite collection of driftwood for campfires, and uses for Native American ceremonial purposes 

as determined on a site-specific basis. 

 Limitations on off-road travel for wood gathering will be modified as necessary to maintain 

long-term sustainability or facilitate wood gathering where resource impacts are not a 

concern. 

FOR-9 

Permits will be limited and/or areas closed, as necessary, to maintain sustainability and protect 

resources. 

FOR-10 

Zones in the Field Office considered for private and/or commercial use of woodland products: 

East Canyon; Harts Draw; Salt Creek Mesa; Dark Canyon Plateau; White Canyon; Cedar Mesa; 

North Comb Ridge; South Cottonwood; and Montezuma Watershed (Map 17). 

FOR-11 

Areas not identified in zones below, or not restricted as defined in this plan, will be available for 

private use of woodland products limited to designated routes and available to pinyon pine nut 

gathering. 
Monticello Approved RMP—Woodlands

159

East Canyon (64,559 acres) 

(Including Peter’s Point Big Indian, East Canyon, Peters Canyon, NE of Monticello, and South 

Canyon) 

FOR-12 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel 

within 150 feet of designated routes to collect wood. 

NE of Monticello, South Canyon 

(Part of East Canyon Zone) 

FOR-13 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel 

within 150 feet of designated routes to collect wood. 

Harts Point, Harts Draw, Shay Mesa, Photograph Gap/Lone Cedar (64,671 acres)

FOR-14 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel 

within 150 feet of designated routes to collect wood.

Salt Creek Mesa (5,271 acres)

FOR-15 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel 

in chained areas to collect wood.

Dark Canyon Plateau (23,288 acres)

FOR-16 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel 

within 150 feet of designated routes and permitted off-road travel in chained areas to collect 

wood.

White Canyon (255,267 acres) Wooden Shoe, Deer Flat, Horse Flat (extending out toward 

Jacob’s Chair, Pinyon Point) 

FOR-17 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel 

within 150 feet of designated routes and permitted off-road travel in chained areas to collect 

wood. 

Moss Back and Grand Flats (Part of the White Canyon Zone) 

FOR-18 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel 

within 150 feet of designated routes to collect wood.

Cedar Mesa (outside of WSAs) (65,807 acres)

FOR-19 
Monticello Approved RMP—Woodlands

160

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products, however, vehicles must 

remain on designated routes (no cross county travel). 

FOR-20 

Additional routes may be identified for wood harvest dependent on cultural Class III surveys. In 

the interim of designating woodland harvest areas and completing associated cultural surveys, 

woodland harvest is allowed and travel is limited to designated routes.

North Comb Ridge (North of Highway 95) (5,833 acres)

FOR-21 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products, however, vehicles must 

remain on designated routes (no cross county travel). 

 FOR-22 

Additional routes may be identified for wood harvest dependent on cultural Class III surveys. In 

the interim of designating woodland harvest areas and completing associated cultural surveys, 

woodland harvest is allowed and travel is limited to designated routes.

South Cottonwood (117,399 acres)

Texas Flat 

FOR-23 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel 

within 150 feet of designated routes and permitted off-road travel in chained areas to collect 

wood.

South Cottonwood (117,399 acres)

Brushy Basin, Black Mesa, Little Baullies, Upper South Cottonwood 

FOR-24 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel 

within 150 feet of designated routes and permitted off-road travel in chained areas to collect 

wood.

Montezuma Watershed (239,841 acres)

FOR-25 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products, however, vehicles must 

remain on designated routes (no cross county travel). 

FOR-26 

Additional routes may be identified for wood harvest dependent on cultural Class III surveys. In 

the interim of designating woodland harvest areas and completing associated cultural surveys, 

woodland harvest is allowed and travel is limited to designated/existing routes. 

As appropriate, maps depicting the management decisions are provided in Appendix A.
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RM—References 

161

REFERENCES 

BLM. 1985. Management Situation Analysis for the San Juan Resource Management Plan, 

4111-4142. Bureau of Land Management, Moab District, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1990. Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Bureau of 

Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

BLM. 1991 Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 

Thirteen Western States and associated Records of Decision. BLM Wyoming State Office, 

Casper, Wyoming. (BLM-WY-ES-91-036-4320) 

BLM. 1991a. Resource Management Plan Record of Decision and Rangeland Program Summary 

for the San Juan Resource Area, Moab District, Utah. March. 

BLM. 1991b. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (Utah) Vegetation 

Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. 

BLM. 1991c. Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report, Volume IIB, Summary Analysis of 

Study Area Recommendations, USDOI, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, 

Salt Lake City. October. 

BLM. 1993a. Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for Identification, 

Evaluation, and Management. BLM Manual 8351. Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C. December 22. 

BLM. 1993b. Bighorn Sheep Rangeland Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Moab 

Field Office, Moab, Utah.C 

BLM. 1993c. Grand Gulch Plateau Cultural and Recreation Area Management Plan. Monticello 

BLM Field Office, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 1993d. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. BLM, Proper Functioning 

Condition Work Group, TR 1737-9. 51 pp. 

BLM. 1995. Manual Handbook H-8550-1, Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands 

Under Wilderness Review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington D.C. 

BLM 1996. Utah BLM Statewide Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. 

BLM 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management on BLM 

Lands in Utah. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington. 

D.C. May 20. 

BLM. 1998b. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting 

Science for Lotic Areas. BLM, USDA-FS, and USDA-NRCS, TR 1737-15. 126 pp. 

BLM. 1999a. Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Handbook. BLM Manual Handbook H-1742-1. 

Available at http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/handbook/h1742-1.pdf -3.7M. Accessed 

8/9/06. 

BLM. 2002d. Draft BLM Sensitive Plant Species List. Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RM—References 

162

BLM 2003b. as amended Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services Work Plan. May . 

BLM 2004b. Scoping Report. Bureau of Land Management, Moab and Monticello Field Offices, 

Utah. June. 

BLM. 2004c. Monticello Field Office Final Eligibility Report, Wild and Scenic River Eligible 

WSR Segments, Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 2004d. National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. November. 

BLM. 2004e. Monticello Field Office. San Juan County, Utah Social and Economic Baseline 

Study. April. 

BLM. 2004g. Pinyon-Juniper Treatment Inventory, Monticello Field Office. Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 2005. Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record Environmental Assessment. 

UT-090-00-47 Indian Creek Corridor Plan and EA, BLM Monticello Field Office. 

BLM. 2005a. Land Use Planning Handbook. BLM Handbook H-1601-1. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 2005b. Monticello FO. Mineral Potential Report for the Monticello Planning Area. 

Monticello, Utah. July 2005 

BLM. 2005c. Analysis of Management Situation (AMS) for the Monticello Planning Area. 

Bureau of Land Management, Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. January

BLM. 2005d. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas. Bureau of Land 

Management, Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 2005e. ACEC Evaluations. Bureau of Land Management, Monticello Field Office, 

Monticello, Utah. July. 

BLM. 2005f. Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in 

the Western United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C. June. 

BLM. 2005g. Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management. UT-USO-04-01; 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. September 

BLM. 2005h. Land and Mineral Records – LR2000 System Data [online database]. Bureau of 

Land Management, Washington, D.C. [Accessed January 15, 2005]. http://www.blm.gov/ 

lr2000/. 

BLM. 2005k. Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment. Bureau of 

Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

BLM. 2005l. Suggested Management Practices in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide 

Conservation Plan. Prepared by Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. minerals 

BLM, 2005m. Indian Creek Corridor Plan and and Environment Assessment UT- 090-00-47, 

BLM Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. October. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RM—References 

163

BLM. 2006c. Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah. 

Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 

BLM. 2007. Final Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and associated Record of Decision. USDI, 

BLM (FES 07-21) 

BLM 2007a. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Evaluations, BLM Monticello 

Field Office, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM 2007b Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Report 

National Park Service (NPS). 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation 

Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States and associated Records of Decision. 

BLM Wyoming State Office, Casper Wyoming. 1991. (BLM-WY-ES-91-036-4320) 

National Park Service. Glenn Canyon National Recreation Area. 1999. Grazing Management 

Plan. 

San Juan County. 2008. San Juan County Community Development Department. San Juan 

County Master Plan. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Webpage: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html 

Accessed: January 30, 2006. 

Utah Administrative Code (UAC). 2006. Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R307-204 Smoke 

Management and Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R307-205 Fugitive Emissions and 

Fugitive Dust. Aug 01. Available for download from the State of Utah, Division of 

Administrative Rules Homepage under: Title R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality at: 

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r307/r307.htm 

Utah Department of Community and Culture, Division of Housing and Community 

Development. 2005. Legislative Report of the Permanent Community Impact Fund. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2000a. Southeast Colorado Watershed 

Management Water Quality Assessment Report. 

UDEQ. 2000b. Utah Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan. Prepared by the Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality in cooperation with the Utah Nonpoint Source Task Force. October. Available 

at: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/NPS_Mgmt_Plan_2001.pdf 

UDEQ. 2002. Utah's 2002 303(d) List of Waters. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake 

City. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

164

GLOSSARY 

Activity Plan: Site-specific plan which precedes actual development. This is the most detailed 

level of BLM planning. 

All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV): A wheeled or tracked vehicle, other than a snowmobile or work 

vehicle, designed primarily for recreational use or for the transportation of property or 

equipment exclusively on undeveloped road rights-of-way, open country or other 

unprepared surfaces. 

Allotment: An area of land where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. 

Allotments generally consist of BLM lands but may also include other federally 

managed, state owned, and private lands. An allotment may include one or more separate 

pastures. Livestock numbers and periods of use are specified for each allotment. 

Allotment Categorization: Grazing allotments and rangeland areas used for livestock grazing 

are assigned to an allotment category during resource management planning. Allotment 

categorization is used to establish priorities for distributing available funds and personnel 

during plan implementation to achieve cost-effective improvement of rangeland 

resources. Categorization is also used to organize allotments into similar groups for 

purposes of developing multiple use prescriptions, analyzing site-specific and cumulative 

impacts, and determining trade-offs. 

Animal Unit Month (AUM): A standardized measurement of the amount of forage necessary 

for the sustenance of one cow unit or its equivalent for 1 month. Approximately 800 

pounds of forage. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): Areas within the public lands where 

special management attention is required to: (1) protect and prevent irreparable damage 

to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other 

natural systems or processes, or (2) protect life and safety from natural hazards. 

Authorized Officer: The Federal employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific 

decision. 

Avoidance Areas: Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way leases, and 

easements would be strongly discouraged. Authorization made in avoidance areas would 

have to be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated and not is 

otherwise feasible on lands outside the avoidance area. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. Best management practices are 

often developed in conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a land use 

plan decision unless the land use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be 

updated or modified without a plan amendment if they are not mandatory. 

Big Game: Large species of wildlife that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and 

pronghorn antelope. 

Browse: To browse (verb) is to graze; also, browse (noun) is the tender shoots, twigs, and leaves 

and shrubs often used as food by livestock and wildlife. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

165

Candidate Species: Any species included in the Federal Register notice of review that are being 

considered for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Casual Use: Mining activities that only negligibly disturb federal lands and resources. Casual 

use generally includes the collecting of geochemical, rock, soil, or mineral specimens 

using hand tools, hand panning, and nonmotorized sluicing. It also generally includes use 

of metal detectors, gold spears, and other battery-operated devices for sensing the 

presence of minerals, and hand battery-operated dry washers. Casual use does not include 

use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, suction 

dredges, motorized vehicles in areas designated as closed to off-road vehicles, chemicals, 

or explosives. It also does not include occupancy or operations where the cumulative 

effects of the activities result in more than negligible disturbance. 

Closed: Generally denotes that an area is not available for a particular use or uses; refer to 

specific definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to 

individual programs. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The official, legal tabulation or regulations directing 

federal government activities. 

Collaboration: A cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied 

interests, work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and 

other lands. This may or may not involve an agency as a cooperating agency. 

Competitive Forage: Those forage species utilized by two or more animal species. 

Conditions of Approval: Conditions or provisions (requirements) under which an Application 

for a Permit to Drill or a Sundry Notice is approved. 

Conformance: That a proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, 

if not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or 

standards of the approved land use plan. 

Conservation Agreement: A formal signed agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or National Marine Fisheries Service and other parties that implements specific 

actions, activities, or programs designed to eliminate or reduce threats or otherwise 

improve the status of a species. CA's can be developed at a State, regional, or national 

level and generally include multiple agencies at both the State and Federal level, as well 

as tribes. Depending on the types of commitments the BLM makes in a CA and the level 

of signatory authority, plan revisions or amendments may be required prior to signing the 

CA, or subsequently in order to implement the CA. 

Conservation Strategy: A Strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to 

the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate 

such a decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of 

plants and animals that are designated as BLM Sensitive species or that have been 

determined by the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service to be 

Federal candidates under the Endangered Species Act. 

Contiguous: Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary; lands having only a 

common corner are not contiguous. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

166

Cooperating Agency: Assists the lead Federal agency in developing an Environmental Analysis 

or Environmental Impact Statement. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

implementing NEPA defines a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA. Any tribe of Federal, State, or 

local government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency 

by agreement with the lead agency. 

Corridor: A wide strip of land within which a proposed linear facility could be located. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President of the United 

States established by the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews Federal 

programs for their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and 

advises the president on environmental matters. 

Critical Habitat. For listed species. Consists of 1) the specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, on which are found those physical or biological 

features (constituent elements) a) essential to the conservation of the species and b) 

which may require special management considerations or protection; and 2) specific 

areas outside the geographical are occupied by the species at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act upon a 

determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 

species. Designated critical habitats are described in 50 CFR§ 17 and 226. 

Crucial Habitat. Habitat on which a species depends for survival because there are no 

alternative ranges or habitats available. 

Crucial Winter Habitat (Range): Parts of the habitat necessary to sustain a wildlife population 

at critical periods of its life cycle. This is often a limiting factor on the populations, such 

as breeding habitat, winter habitat, etc. 

Cryptobiotic (Cryptogammic) 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. 

Cryptobiotic 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 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

167

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. 

Desired Future Condition: The desired mix of vegetation types, structural stages, and 

landscape/riparian/watershed function, as determined by management objectives and 

rangeland functionality and health, that ensures ecological diversity, stability and 

sustainability to provide for plant, fish and wildlife habitats. 

Designated Routes: Designated routes can be categorized as mechanized only (bicycles), single-track 

motorized (dirt bikes), two-track motorized (four-wheelers, jeeps), available to all vehicles, or 

any combination of these categories. 

Development Well: A well drilled within the known or proven productive area of an oil field 

with expectation of producing oil or gas from the producing reservoir. 

Discretionary Closure: Those lands where the BLM has determined that fluid minerals leasing, 

even with the most restrictive stipulations, would not adequately protect other resources, 

values, or land uses. 

Dispersed/Extensive Recreation: Recreation activities of an unstructured type, which are not 

confined to specific locations such as recreation sites. Example of these activities may be 

hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use, hiking, and sightseeing. 

Disturbance Area: Area of influence around a disturbance causing a change in animal behavior 

such as: leaving the area, increased stress, abandoning young, not breeding, and aberrant 

behavior. 

Drought: Drought is a protracted period of deficient precipitation resulting in extensive damage 

to crops, resulting in loss of yield. 

Easement: A right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of another's real property for 

access or other purposes. 

Endangered Species: A plant or animal species whose prospects for survival and reproduction 

are in immediate jeopardy, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior, and as is further 

defined by the Endangered Species Act. 

Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise public document that analyzes the environmental 

impacts of a proposed federal action and provides sufficient evidence to determine the 

level of significance of the impacts. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written statement required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act when an agency proposes a major federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment. 

Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological 

agents. 

Exception: Exemption from a stipulation of a land use authorization on a one-time basis. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

168

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. The LUP Handbook Appendix C, Recreation and Visitor 

Services, defines an extensive recreation management area (ERMA) as an areas not 

delineated as an SRMA. Management within all ERMAs is restricted to custodial actions 

only 

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. 

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. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

169

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. 

Instant Study Area: A natural area formally identified by BLM for accelerated wilderness 

review by notice published before October 21, 1975.

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. 

Interim Management Policy (IMP): The policy, under which the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) manages wilderness study areas (WSAs), to protect their wilderness 

characteristics, as required by Section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA). This policy requires BLM to manage WSAs so as not to 

impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness, until Congress either designates 

them wilderness or releases them for management of other values and uses. 

Irretrievable: An environmental effect caused by an action, or series of actions, that cannot be 

reversed or undone, until or unless the cause of the effect is removed or the effect is 

restored or rehabilitated (e.g., inundating a river canyon by construction of a dam, clear 

cut logging a forest). The loss of production of renewable resources during the life of a 

land use plan. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

170

Irreversible: An environmental effect caused by an action, or series of actions, that can never be 

reversed or undone (e.g., removal of minerals from the ground, extinction of a plant or 

animal species, loss of a cultural resource). 

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, sulfur, potassium, and sodium 

minerals, and oil, gas, and geothermal. 

Lease: (1) A legal document that conveys to an operator the right to drill for or develop oil, gas, 

or other leasable mineral; (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. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

171

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. 

Management Zone (MZ): Area of special management within a SRMA that may include 

additional stipulations. 

Mechanized Travel: Travel by use of a machine either motorized or non-motorized. 

Mineral Entry: The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any minerals it may 

contain. 

Mineral Estate: The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations. 

Mineral Materials: Materials such as common varieties of sand, stone, building stone, gravel, 

and clay that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be acquired 

under the Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended. These are also called salable 

minerals. 

Mineral Reserves: Known mineral deposits that are recoverable under present conditions but are 

as yet undeveloped. 

Mineral Withdrawal: A formal order that withholds federal lands and minerals from entry 

under the Mining Law of 1872 and closes the area to mineral location (staking mining 

claims) and development. 

Minimize: To reduce the adverse impact of an operation to the lowest practical level. 

Mining Claim: A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, having 

acquired the right of possession by complying with the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, 

and local laws and rules. A single mining claim may contain as many adjoining locations 

as the locator may make or buy. 

Mitigation Measures: Methods or procedures that reduce or lessen the impacts of an action. 

Modification: Changes in the language or provisions of a surface stipulation, either temporarily 

or permanently. 

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 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

172

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 types of river classifications: (1) recreation-rivers 

or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad and that may have 

some development along their shorelines and may have undergone some impoundments 

or diversion in the past, (2) scenic-rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments with 

shorelines or watersheds still largely undeveloped but accessible in places by roads, and 

(3) wild-rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally inaccessible 

except by trails, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters 

unpolluted. 

Non-mechanized Travel: Travel by foot or on an animal. 

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 leasing use 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-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. (See also definition of “Wilderness Characteristics”, below) 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. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

173

Open: Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific 

program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to 

individual programs. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV): Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or 

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any nonamphibious 

registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while 

being used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by 

the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and 

(5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense 

emergencies. 

One-Hundred-Year Flood: A hydrologic event with a magnitude that has a recurrence interval 

of 100 years. 

Open OHV Areas: Designated areas where off-road vehicles may engage in cross country 

travel. 

Operator: Any person who has taken formal responsibility for the operations conducted on the 

leased lands. 

Outstandingly Remarkable River Values: Values between those listed in Section 1(b) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are "scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, 

historical, cultural, or other similar values..." Other similar values, which may be 

considered, include botanical, hydrological, paleontological, or scientific. Professional 

judgment is used to determine whether values exist to an outstandingly remarkable 

degree. 

Paleontological Resources (Fossils): The physical remains of plants and animals preserved in 

soils and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are important for 

understanding past environments, environmental change, and the evolution of life. 

Paleontology: A science dealing with the life forms of past geological periods as known from 

fossil remains. 

Plan of Development: A mandatory plan, developed by an applicant of a mining operation or 

construction project that specifies the techniques and measures to be used during 

construction and operation of all project facilities on public land. The plan is submitted 

for approval to the appropriate Federal agency before any construction begins. 

Plan of Operations: A plan for mining exploration and development that an operation must 

submit to BLM for approval when more than 5 acres a year will be disturbed or when an 

operator plans to work in an area of critical environmental concern or a wilderness area. 

A plan of Operations must document in detail all actions that the operator plans to take 

from exploration through reclamation. 

Planning Area: A geographical area, including all land ownerships, for which BLM land use 

and resource management plans are developed and maintained for the BLM-administered 

lands within that geographical area. 

Planning Criteria: The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and 

interdisciplinary teams for their use in forming judgments about decision making, 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

174

analysis, and data collection during planning. Planning criteria streamline and simplify 

the resource management planning actions. 

Potential Wild and Scenic River: A flowing body of water or estuary or a section, portion, or 

tributary thereof, including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, rills, and small lakes. 

Prescribed Fire: The introduction of fire to an area under regulated conditions for specific 

management purposes. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Non-motorized, non-mechanized and undeveloped 

types of recreational activities. 

Production Well: A well drilled in a known field that produces oil or gas. 

Project Area: The area of land upon which an operator conducts mining operations, including 

the area needed for building or maintaining of roads, transmission lines, pipelines, or 

other means of access. 

Project Plan: Detailed survey and design plan. 

Public Land: Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the BLM, except lands located on the Outer Continental 

Shelf, and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

Quarry: An open or surface working, usually for the extraction of stone, slate, limestone, etc. 

Range Development: A structure, excavation, treatment or development to rehabilitate, protect, 

or improve lands to advance range betterment. 

Rangeland: Land used for grazing by livestock and big game animals on which vegetation is 

dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs. 

Raptor: Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks such as hawks, owls, vultures, 

and eagles. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD): The prediction of the type and amount 

of oil, gas and other mineral activity that would occur in a given area. The prediction is 

based on geologic factors, past history of drilling, projected demand for oil and gas, and 

industry interest. 

Record of Decision (ROD): A document signed by a responsible official recording a decision 

that was preceded by the preparing of an environmental impact statement. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A recreation management tool used to identify existing 

outdoor recreational opportunities and management potential, based on a combination of 

three criteria: recreational activity, setting and experience. Although used in the 

development of the 1991 San Juan RMP, it is not used in the current Monticello RMP. 

Recreational River: A wild and scenic river classification that identifies those rivers or sections 

of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development 

along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in 

the past. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

175

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: The natural, biological, and cultural components of the environment, including air, 

soil, water, vegetation, wildlife, minerals, historic and prehistoric (cultural) sites and 

features, and fossils. Land use plans set goals and objectives for desired outcomes for 

management of the various resources in a planning area. 

Resource Use: Human uses of resources for the social and economic benefit of society, 

including mining, energy production, livestock production (grazing), recreation 

(motorized, non-motorized), forest production (timber, fire wood, fence posts), utility 

corridors (power lines, pipelines, roads), and communication sites. Land use plans 

identify allowable uses of the public lands and set goals and objectives for desired 

outcomes for resource uses. 

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. 

Route: Linear line for motorized travel. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

176

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. 

Sediment Yield: The amount of sediment produced in a watershed, expressed in tons, acre feet, 

or cubic yards, of sediment per unit of drainage are per year. 

Sensitive Soils: Sensitive soils" are those identified as having characteristics that make them 

extremely susceptible to impacts or they may be more difficult to restore or reclaim after 

disturbance -- characteristics such as high wind or water erosion hazard (steep slopes), 

moderate to high salinity, low nutrient levels, low water holding capacity (droughty), or 

high water table (wetland/riparian soils). Information used to identify sensitive soils 

includes NRCS published soil surveys, ecological site descriptions, local monitoring 

records and research studies. 

Sensitive Species: All species that are under status review, have small or declining populations, 

live in unique habitats, or need special management. Sensitive species include threatened, 

endangered, and proposed species as classified by the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Significant: An effect that is analyzed in the context of the proposed action to determine the 

degree or magnitude of importance of the effect, wither beneficial or adverse. The degree 

of significance can be related to other actions with individually insignificant but 

cumulatively significant impacts. 

Slope: The degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal. 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA): Areas, which require explicit recreation 

management to achieve recreation objectives and provide specific recreation 

opportunities. They are defined under Planning Handbook Appendix C, Recreation and 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

177

Visitor Services, as "... having a distinct, primary recreation-tourism market as well as a 

corresponding and distinguishing recreation management strategy...” For each SRMA 

identified, delineate discrete recreation management zone (RMZ) boundaries. Each RMZ 

has four defining characteristics; it: 1) serves a different recreation niche within the 

primary recreation market; 2) produces a different set of recreation opportunities and 

facilitates the attainment of different experience and benefit outcomes (to individuals, 

households and communities, economies, and the environment; 3) has distinctive 

recreation setting character; and 4) requires a different set of recreation provider actions 

to meet the strategically targeted primary recreation market demand." SRMAs are 

designated to meet the goals and objectives of the recreation program and to adhere to 

agency guidance. 

Special Status Species: Includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under 

the Endangered Species Act; State-listed species; and BLM State Director-designated 

sensitive species (see BLM Manual 6840-Special Status Species Policy). 

Stipulations: Requirements that are part of the terms of a mineral lease. Some stipulations are 

standard on all Federal leases. Other stipulations may be applied to the lease at the 

discretion of the surface management agency to protect valuable surface resources and 

uses. 

Strategic Plan: A plan that establishes the overall direction for the BLM. This plan is guided by 

the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act or 1993, covers a 5-

year period, and is updated every 3 years. It is consistent with FLPMA and other laws 

affecting the public lands. 

Surface Disturbance: activities that normally result in more than negligible disturbance to 

public lands and that accelerate the natural erosive process. These activities normally 

involve use and/or occupancy of the surface, cause disturbance to soils and vegetation, 

and are usually caused by motorized or mechanical actions. Surface disturbance may 

result from activities using earth-moving and drilling equipment; geophysical 

exploration; off road vehicle travel; vegetation treatments; the use of pyrotechnics and 

explosives; and construction of facilities like powerlines, pipelines, oil and gas wells, 

recreation sites, livestock facilities, wildlife waters, or new roads. Surface disturbance is 

not normally caused by casual use. Activities that are not typically surface disturbing 

include, but are not limited to, proper livestock grazing, cross-country hiking, minimum 

impact filming and vehicle travel on designated routes. 

Sustainability: The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, 

biological diversity, and productivity over time. 

Threatened Species: Any plant or animal species defined under the Endangered Species Act as 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range; listings are published in the Federal Register. 

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. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

178

Undertaking: A project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or 

indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a 

Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a 

Federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to State or local regulation 

administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency. 

User Day: Any calendar day, or portion thereof, for each individual accompanied or serviced by 

an operator or permittee on the public lands of related waters; synonymous with 

passenger day or participant day. 

Utility Corridor: A parcel of land that has been identified by law, Secretarial order, through a 

land use plan or by other management decision as being the preferred location for 

existing and future right-of-way grants and suitable to accommodate one type of right-ofway 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-ofway authorizations. Examples of how BLM views valid existing rights including oil and 

gas leasing stipulations specified for specific areas in this new 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. See also Exception and Modification. 

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 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

179

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: Key characteristics of wilderness listed in section 2 (c) of the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 and used by BLM in conducting wilderness inventories. These 

characteristics are 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). 

Wildfire: Any unwanted wild land fire. 

Wildland Fire: Any nonstructural fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wild land. 

Winter Range. The portion of the winter range to which a wildlife species is confined during 

periods of heaviest snow cover. 

Withdrawal: An action that restricts the use of public lands by removing them from the 

operation of some or all of the public land or mining laws. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—Glossary 

180

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. 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP—List of Preparers

181

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Name Position Planning Role 

Jed Carling, B.S. Rangeland Management 

Specialist 

Vegetation & Woodlands 

Paul Curtis, B.S. Range Management Specialist Soils, Livestock & Riparian 

Maxine Deeter, B.A. Lands and Realty Specialist Lands and Realty, Visual Resources and 

Travel 

Laura Kochanski, B.A. Archeologist Cultural, Paleontology, Native American 

Paul Leatherbury, B.S. GIS Mapping 

Ted McDougall, B.S. Geologist Minerals 

Brian Quigley, B.S. Recreation Specialist Recreation, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers and Travel 

Nick Sandberg, B.S. Assistant Field Office Manager Livestock and Special Designations 

Pam Schuller, B.S. Planning NEPA Lead NEPA 

Tammy Wallace, M.A. Wildlife Biologist Water, Wildlife and Special Status Species 

Lisa Bryant , M.S. Soil Scientist Air Quality & Weeds 

Jeff Brown Petroleum Engineer Technician Health and Safety 

Katie Juenger Planning Coordinator, Fire Fire 

Susan Caplan, M.S. 

(reviewer) 

Physical Scientist Air Quality (NOC) 
Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP‐List of Appendices

182

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A Maps 

Appendix B Stipulations Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other SurfaceDisturbing Activities 

Appendix C State of Utah Air Quality Monitoring 

Appendix D SHPO Correspondence 

Appendix E USFWS Correspondence 

Appendix F Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health 

Appendix G Best Management Practices and Standard Operating Procedures 

Applicable to Oil and Gas Appendix Operations and Other Public LandUse Authorizations 

Appendix H Monitoring 

Appendix I Fire Management 

Appendix J Tracts Identified for Disposal 

Appendix K Recreation Management Guidelines 

Appendix L Guidance for Pipeline Crossings 

Appendix M Finalized Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices for 

T&E Species of Utah from the Land Use Plan Programmatic BAs and 

Section 7 Consultations 

Appendix N Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in 

Utah 

Appendix O Travel Plan 

Appendix P Wild and Scenic Rivers