BLM Mission 

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

enjoyment of present and future generations. 

BLM-UT-PL-07-009-1610 

UT-110-2007-022 

DES 07-46 



This page intentionally left blank 
Draft EIS Abstract 

Kanab RMP i 

Kanab Field Office Planning Area 

Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Type of Action: Administrative 

Jurisdiction: Portions of Kane and Garfield Counties, Utah 

Abstract: The Kanab Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) (Draft RMP/EIS) describes and analyzes alternatives for the planning and management 

of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Kanab Field 

Office. The Kanab planning area is located in south-central Utah and includes approximately 2,847,200 

acres of land in Kane and Garfield Counties. Within the Kanab planning area, the BLM manages and 

administers approximately 554,000 acres of public land surface. 

The BLM is revising this RMP to address changes in policy, changes in resource condition or demands, 

and changes in administrative boundaries, and to consolidate the existing five land use plans (LUP) and 

their amendments. As part of the RMP revision process, the BLM conducted a scoping period to solicit 

input from the public and interested agencies on the nature and extent of issues and impacts to be 

addressed in the Draft EIS. Planning issues identified in this RMP focus on recreation and travel 

management, special designations, minerals and energy, and non–Wilderness Study Area (WSA) lands 

with wilderness characteristics. 

To assist the BLM Authorized Officer in making decisions and to help cooperating agencies and the 

public focus on appropriate solutions to planning issues, four alternatives for the RMP are considered in 

the Draft EIS. Alternative A (No Action) is a continuation of the current management direction contained 

in the five LUPs and off-highway vehicle (OHV) management actions. This alternative describes the 

current goals and actions for management of resources and land uses in the decision area. Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) provides opportunities to use and develop resources within the decision area while 

also ensuring resource protection. Alternative B would provide for continued access and development of 

resources with stipulations and mitigation to protect natural and cultural resources. Alternative C

emphasizes the protection of the decision area’s resource values while allowing commodity uses as 

consistent with current law, regulation, and policy. Management actions would emphasize resource values 

such as habitat for wildlife and plant species (including special status species); protection of riparian areas 

and water quality; preservation of ecologically significant areas; maintenance of wilderness 

characteristics; and protection of scientifically significant cultural and paleontological sites. Access to and 

development of resources within the decision area could occur with intensive management and mitigation 

of surface disturbing and disruptive activities. Alternative D emphasizes opportunities to use and develop 

resources within the decision area. It would provide for motorized access and commodity production with 

minimal restrictions, while providing protection of natural and cultural resources to the extent required by 

law, regulation, and policy. This alternative would largely rely on existing laws, regulations, and policies, 

rather than on management or special designations, to protect sensitive resources. 

When completed, the revised RMP will provide a set of comprehensive, long-range decisions for: (1) 

managing resources throughout the planning area and (2) identifying allowable uses on the public land 

administered by the BLM. Comments are accepted for 90 days following the date the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability for this Draft RMP/DEIS in the Federal Register. 

Comments should be submitted via the RMP web site at www.blm.gov/rmp/ut/kanab or via e-mail at 

UT_Kanab_Comments@blm.gov. Alternatively, comments can be mailed to: 

Bureau of Land Management, Kanab Field Office, Attn: RMP Comments 

318 North 100 East 

Kanab, UT 84741 
Abstract Draft EIS 

ii Kanab RMP 

This page intentionally left blank 
Draft EIS Table of Contents 

Kanab RMP iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

VOLUME I 

ABSTRACT 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION 

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES 

CHAPTER 3—AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

CHAPTER 5—CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

GLOSSARY 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

REFERENCES 

VOLUME II 

APPENDICES 

MAPS 
Table of Contents Draft EIS 

iv Kanab RMP 

VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................................i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................iii 

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

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.1.2 Need.................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DECISION AREA.......................................................................................... 1-2 

1.3 SCOPING AND PLANNING ISSUES.................................................................................................... 1-5 

1.3.1 Planning Issues Addressed ............................................................................................................... 1-5 

1.3.2 Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed ..................................................................................1-13 

1.4 PLANNING CRITERIA.........................................................................................................................1-15 

1.5 PLANNING PROCESS..........................................................................................................................1-16 

1.5.1 Relationship to Other Plans .............................................................................................................1-17 

1.5.2 Plan Monitoring, Maintenance, Amendment, Revision, and Implementation.................................1-18 

CHAPTER 2 —ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.1 Alternative A (No Action)................................................................................................................ 2-2 

2.1.2 Alternative B (Preferred) .................................................................................................................. 2-3 

2.1.3 Alternative C .................................................................................................................................... 2-4 

2.1.4 Alternative D .................................................................................................................................... 2-5 

2.2 MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES .................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.1 Resources.......................................................................................................................................... 2-6 

Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2-6 

Soil Resources................................................................................................................................................................ 2-7 

Water Resources ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-7 

Vegetation...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-8 

Special Status Species (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive)................................................................................. 2-10 

Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-14 

Wildland Fire Ecology................................................................................................................................................. 2-15 

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 2-21 

Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 2-22 

Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-23 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 2-23 

2.2.2 Resource Uses .................................................................................................................................2-23 

Forestry and Woodland Products ................................................................................................................................. 2-23 

Livestock Grazing........................................................................................................................................................ 2-24 

Recreation .................................................................................................................................................................... 2-24 

Transportation.............................................................................................................................................................. 2-25 

Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-26 

Minerals and Energy .................................................................................................................................................... 2-27 

2.2.3 Special Designations........................................................................................................................2-28 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.................................................................................................................... 2-28 

Wild and Scenic Rivers................................................................................................................................................ 2-28 

Wilderness ................................................................................................................................................................... 2-29 

Wilderness Study Areas............................................................................................................................................... 2-30 

Other Designations....................................................................................................................................................... 2-30 

2.2.4 Social and Economic .......................................................................................................................2-31 

2.2.5 Adaptive Management.....................................................................................................................2-32 

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL ............................................2-32 

2.3.1 Vermilion Cliffs Heritage Plan........................................................................................................2-32 
Draft EIS Table of Contents 

Kanab RMP v 

2.3.2 Closing the Decision Area to Livestock Grazing ............................................................................2-32 

2.4 ALTERNATIVE TABLES.....................................................................................................................2-33

2.4.1 Resources.........................................................................................................................................2-34 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 2-34 

Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 2-34 

Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-36 

Vegetation.................................................................................................................................................................... 2-38 

Special Status Species (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive)................................................................................. 2-44 

Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-49 

Wildland Fire Ecology................................................................................................................................................. 2-54 

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 2-55 

Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 2-57 

Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-58 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 2-59 

2.4.2 Resource Uses .................................................................................................................................2-61 

Forestry and Woodland Products ................................................................................................................................. 2-61 

Livestock Grazing........................................................................................................................................................ 2-64 

Recreation .................................................................................................................................................................... 2-68 

Transportation.............................................................................................................................................................. 2-81 

Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-87 

Minerals and Energy .................................................................................................................................................... 2-92 

2.4.3 Special Designations........................................................................................................................2-97 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.................................................................................................................... 2-97 

Wild and Scenic Rivers.............................................................................................................................................. 2-103 

Wilderness ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-108 

Wilderness Study Areas............................................................................................................................................. 2-109 

Other Designations..................................................................................................................................................... 2-110 

2.5 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ....................................................................................2-112 

CHAPTER 3—AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2.1 Air Quality........................................................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.2.2 Geology, Topography, and Climate.................................................................................................. 3-4 

3.2.3 Soil Resources .................................................................................................................................3-10 

3.2.4 Water Resources..............................................................................................................................3-12 

3.2.5 Vegetation........................................................................................................................................3-16 

3.2.6 Special Status Species (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive)....................................................3-29 

3.2.7 Fish and Wildlife .............................................................................................................................3-42 

3.2.8 Wildland Fire Ecology.....................................................................................................................3-51 

3.2.9 Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................................3-58 

3.2.10 Paleontological Resources...............................................................................................................3-61 

3.2.11 Visual Resources .............................................................................................................................3-64 

3.2.12 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics..........................................................................3-66 

3.3 RESOURCE USES.................................................................................................................................3-71 

3.3.1 Forestry and Woodland Products.....................................................................................................3-72 

3.3.2 Livestock Grazing............................................................................................................................3-72 

3.3.3 Recreation........................................................................................................................................3-77 

3.3.4 Transportation..................................................................................................................................3-82 

3.3.5 Lands and Realty .............................................................................................................................3-85 

3.3.6 Minerals and Energy........................................................................................................................3-89 

3.4 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ..................................................................................................................3-93 

3.4.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern .......................................................................................3-94 

3.4.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...................................................................................................................3-94 

3.4.3 Wilderness .......................................................................................................................................3-96 

3.4.4 Wilderness Study Areas...................................................................................................................3-96 

3.4.5 Other Designations ........................................................................................................................3-100 

3.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FEATURES............................................................................................3-103 

3.5.1 Socioeconomic Conditions ............................................................................................................3-103 
Table of Contents Draft EIS 

vi Kanab RMP 

3.5.2 Tribal Interests...............................................................................................................................3-113 

3.5.3 Hazardous Materials and Public Safety.........................................................................................3-114 

CHAPTER 4 —ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1.1 Organization of Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................ 4-1 

4.1.2 Types of Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.1.3 General Analytical Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 4-2 

4.1.4 Determining Significance of Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-3 

4.1.5 Critical Elements .............................................................................................................................. 4-3 

4.1.6 Incomplete or Unavailable Information............................................................................................ 4-4 

4.2 RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................................... 4-6 

4.2.1 Impacts on Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 4-6 

4.2.2 Impacts on Soil Resources...............................................................................................................4-16 

4.2.3 Impacts on Water Resources ...........................................................................................................4-25 

4.2.4 Impacts on Vegetation.....................................................................................................................4-36 

4.2.5 Impacts on Special Status Species (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive) .................................4-49 

4.2.6 Impacts on Fish and Wildlife Habitat..............................................................................................4-70 

4.2.7 Impacts on Wildland Fire Ecology ..................................................................................................4-87 

4.2.8 Impacts on Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................4-96 

4.2.9 Impacts on Paleontological Resources ..........................................................................................4-116 

4.2.10 Impacts on Visual Resources.........................................................................................................4-130 

4.2.11 Impacts on Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics .....................................................4-141 

4.3 RESOURCE USES...............................................................................................................................4-159 

4.3.1 Impacts on Forestry and Woodland Products ................................................................................4-159 

4.3.2 Impacts on Livestock Grazing.......................................................................................................4-165 

4.3.3 Impacts on Recreation ...................................................................................................................4-175 

4.3.4 Impacts on Transportation .............................................................................................................4-189 

4.3.5 Impacts on Lands and Realty.........................................................................................................4-193 

4.3.6 Impacts on Minerals and Energy ...................................................................................................4-198 

4.4 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ................................................................................................................4-210 

4.4.1 Impacts on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern...................................................................4-210 

Water Canyon/South Fork Indian Canyon ACEC...................................................................................................... 4-211 

Cottonwood Canyon ACEC....................................................................................................................................... 4-211 

Welsh’s Milkweed ACEC.......................................................................................................................................... 4-212 

Vermilion Cliffs ACEC ............................................................................................................................................. 4-213 

White Cliffs ACEC.................................................................................................................................................... 4-215 

Parunuweap Canyon ACEC....................................................................................................................................... 4-217 

4.4.2 Impacts on Wild and Scenic Rivers...............................................................................................4-219 

4.4.3 Impacts on Wilderness...................................................................................................................4-230 

4.4.4 Impacts on Wilderness Study Areas ..............................................................................................4-233 

4.4.5 Impacts on Other Designations......................................................................................................4-238 

4.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ................................................................................................................4-241 

4.5.1 Impacts on Social and Economic Conditions ................................................................................4-241 

4.5.2 Impacts on Tribal Interests ............................................................................................................4-268 

4.5.3 Impacts on Public Safety ...............................................................................................................4-273 

4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS..................................................................................................................4-274 

4.6.1 Cumulative Analysis Methodology ...............................................................................................4-274 

4.6.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions...........................................................4-275 

4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts by Resource ..................................................................................................4-278 

CHAPTER 5—CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................. 5-1 

5.1 COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 5-1 

5.2 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION............................................................................................. 5-2 

5.3 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................................ 5-3 

5.4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.......................... 5-4 

5.4.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................... 5-4 
Draft EIS Table of Contents 

Kanab RMP vii 

5.4.2 National Park Service ....................................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.4.3 U.S. Forest Service ........................................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.4.4 Environmental Protection Agency.................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.5.1 Scoping Period.................................................................................................................................. 5-5 

5.5.2 Mailing List ...................................................................................................................................... 5-7 

5.5.3 Planning Bulletins............................................................................................................................. 5-7 

5.5.4 Website............................................................................................................................................. 5-8 

5.6 FUTURE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................................................................... 5-8 

5.7 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................................................ 5-9 

GLOSSARY..............................................................................................................................................................G-1 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................A-1 

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................................R-1 
Table of Contents Draft EIS 

viii Kanab RMP 

VOLUME I TABLES 

Table 1-1. Land and Minerals Ownership Within the Planning Area........................................................1-4 

Table 1-2. Nine Basic Planning Steps......................................................................................................1-17 

Table 2-1. DWFC by Major Vegetation Group and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC ............................2-16 

Table 2-2. Summary Comparison of Impacts ........................................................................................2-112 

Table 3-1. 2002 Criteria Pollutant Inventory (tons per year).....................................................................3-2 

Table 3-2. Fourth-Order Watersheds .......................................................................................................3-13 

Table 3-3. River and Stream Assessment Units That Require a TMDL..................................................3-14 

Table 3-4. SWReGAP Vegetation Communities.....................................................................................3-16 

Table 3-5. Successional Status.................................................................................................................3-17 

Table 3-6. Upland Functioning Condition ...............................................................................................3-18 

Table 3-7. Plant and Seed Collection – FY04 through FY06 ..................................................................3-24 

Table 3-8. Vegetation Departure from Historic and Estimated Disturbance Acreages ...........................3-25 

Table 3-9. Decision Area Riparian Condition .........................................................................................3-27 

Table 3-10. Acres of Weed Treatments ...................................................................................................3-28 

Table 3-11. Utah Noxious Weed List ......................................................................................................3-28 

Table 3-12. Federally Listed Animal and Plant Species..........................................................................3-30 

Table 3-13. Sensitive Animal and Plant Species .....................................................................................3-34 

Table 3-14. Migratory and Non-Migratory Bird Species.........................................................................3-49 

Table 3-15. Fire Occurrence (Size and Acreage), 1991-2001 .................................................................3-52 

Table 3-16. Fire Regimes Within the Planning Area...............................................................................3-52 

Table 3-17. Condition Class Definitions and Acreages...........................................................................3-52 

Table 3-18. Cultural Time Periods...........................................................................................................3-59 

Table 3-19. Geologic Formations Present in the Decision Area..............................................................3-62 

Table 3-20. VRM Inventory Classes........................................................................................................3-64 

Table 3-21. Visual Resource Inventory Class Definitions.......................................................................3-65 

Table 3-22. Non-WSA Lands Evaluated for Wilderness Characteristics ................................................3-67 

Table 3-23. Woodland Product Harvest...................................................................................................3-72 

Table 3-24. Livestock Grazing Allotments..............................................................................................3-73 

Table 3-25. Domestic Livestock Forage Active Use ...............................................................................3-76 

Table 3-26. Recreation Visitation ............................................................................................................3-79 

Table 3-27. Kanab Field Office RUPs and Individual SRPs: FY01–05 ..................................................3-82 

Table 3-28. OHV Registrations by County, 1998–2005..........................................................................3-84 

Table 3-29. Surface Land Ownership in the Planning Area ....................................................................3-85

Table 3-30. Existing Withdrawals within the Decision Area ..................................................................3-87

Table 3-31. Existing Rights-of-Way within the Decision Area...............................................................3-88 

Table 3-32. Communication Sites within the Decision Area...................................................................3-88

Table 3-33. Oil and Gas Wells Drilled in the Kanab Field Office (1960s–2000s)..................................3-90 

Table 3-34. Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern .............................................................3-94 

Table 3-35. Rivers Determined Eligible for Designation into the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System ................................................................................................................3-95 

Table 3-36. Wilderness Study Areas........................................................................................................3-97 

Table 3-37. Local Property Taxes Charged Against Natural Resource Properties, 2003......................3-110 

Table 3-38. Payments in Lieu of Taxes, 1999–2004 .............................................................................3-111 

Table 4-1. Types of Impacts ......................................................................................................................4-1 

Table 4-2. Critical Elements ......................................................................................................................4-3 

Table 4-3. Base Year (2006) Emissions Inventory for the Decision Area (tons per year) ........................4-9 
Draft EIS Table of Contents 

Kanab RMP ix 

Table 4-4. Alternative A Long-Term (2026) Emissions Inventory for the Decision 

Area (tons per year) .......................................................................................................4-10

Table 4-5. Alternative B Long-Term (2026) Emissions Inventory for the Decision 

Area (tons per year) .......................................................................................................4-11

Table 4-6. Alternative C Long-Term (2026) Emissions Inventory for the Decision 

Area (tons per year) .......................................................................................................4-12

Table 4-7. Alternative D Long-Term (2026) Emissions Inventory for the Decision 

Area (tons per year) .......................................................................................................4-13

Table 4-8. Long-Term (2026) Emissions Inventory for the Decision Area (tons per year).....................4-14 

Table 4-9. Increase in Annual Air Emissions from 2006 Conditions in the Decision Area ....................4-14 

Table 4-10. Visual Resource Management Class Acreages—Differences from Inventory Class 

Acreages.......................................................................................................................4-133 

Table 4-11. Alternative A Acres of Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations within WC Areas .....................4-144 

Table 4-12. Alternative A VRM Class of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics..............4-145 

Table 4-13. Alternative B Acres of Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations within WC Areas .....................4-147 

Table 4-14. Alternative B VRM Class of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics..............4-149 

Table 4-15. Alternative C Acres of Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations within WC Areas .....................4-151 

Table 4-16. Alternative C VRM Class of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics..............4-152 

Table 4-17. Alternative D Acres of Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations within WC Areas .....................4-154 

Table 4-18. Alternative D VRM Class of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics..............4-155 

Table 4-19. Alternative A Oil and Gas Leasing Restrictions and Cumulative Timing Limitations ......4-200 

Table 4-20. Alternative A EPCA Analysis ............................................................................................4-200 

Table 4-21. Alternative B Oil and Gas Leasing Restrictions and Cumulative Timing Limitations ......4-202 

Table 4-22. Alternative B EPCA Analysis ............................................................................................4-203 

Table 4-23. Alternative C Oil and Gas Leasing Restrictions and Cumulative Timing Limitations ......4-205 

Table 4-24. Alternative C EPCA Analysis ............................................................................................4-206 

Table 4-25. Alternative D Oil and Gas Leasing Restrictions and Cumulative Timing Limitations ......4-207 

Table 4-26. Alternative D EPCA Analysis ............................................................................................4-208 

Table 4-27. Alternative A Eligible Segments Coinciding with ACECs, WSAs, or Wilderness Area..4-222 

Table 4-28. Alternative B Suitable Segments Coinciding with ACECs, WSAs, or Wilderness Area..4-225 

Table 4-29. Alternative C Suitable Segments Coinciding with ACECs, WSAs, or Wilderness Area..4-227 

Table 4-30. Data Types and Sources for Sectors for Which Quantification of Employment and 

Income Impacts Is Possible..........................................................................................4-242 

Table 4-31. Annual Coal Mining Value of Production from Federal Mineral Estate............................4-244 

Table 4-32. Assumptions for Fluid Minerals Economic Impact Analysis (in 2005 Dollars) ................4-245 

Table 4-33. Livestock Use per Alternative (AUMs)..............................................................................4-246 

Table 4-34. Estimated Value of Cattle AUMs.......................................................................................4-247 

Table 4-35. Estimated Range of Values of Livestock Production by Alternative per Year ..................4-247 

Table 4-36. Sectors for Which Quantification of Economic Impacts Is Not Possible...........................4-248 

Table 4-37. Annual Employment and Income (in 2006 Dollars) Generated in the Socioeconomic 

Study Area from Use of BLM Lands Under RMP/EIS Alternatives...........................4-249 

Table 4-38. Costs and Values of Harvests from BLM Public Lands.....................................................4-250 

Table 4-39. 2002 Criteria Pollutant Inventory (tons per year)...............................................................4-278 

Table 4-40. Acres of Areas with Wilderness Characteristics in the Cumulative Impact 

Analysis Boundary.......................................................................................................4-282 

Table 5-1. Meeting Location/Attendance ..................................................................................................5-6 

Table 5-2. Kanab RMP/EIS Written Comments Medium .........................................................................5-6 

Table 5-3. Planning Bulletins/Postcards ....................................................................................................5-8 

Table 5-4. List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................5-9 
Table of Contents Draft EIS 

x Kanab RMP 

VOLUME I FIGURES 

Figure 1-1. Kanab RMP Planning Area.....................................................................................................1-3 

Figure 3-1. Average Monthly Total Precipitation –(1971-2000)...............................................................3-9 

Figure 3-2. Socioeconomic Study Area Population Trends and Projections .........................................3-104 

Figure 3-3. Trends in Wages and Salaries by Industry for Garfield County, 1980–2000......................3-106 

Figure 3-4. Trends in Wages and Salaries by Industry for Kane County, 1980–2000 ..........................3-107 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Best Management Practices for Land Uses 

Appendix B. Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats 

Appendix C. Surface Stipulations Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface Disturbing 

Activities 

Appendix D. Recreation Management for Special Recreation Management Areas and the Kanab 

Extensive Recreation Management Area 

Appendix E. Lands Designated for Potential Disposal Via Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

Section 203 Sale 

Appendix F. Kanab Field Office - Coal Unsuitability Report 

Appendix G. Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process 

Appendix H. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report 

Appendix I. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario 

Appendix J. Summary of County General Plan Public Land Decisions 

Appendix K. Travel Management/Route Designation Process 

Appendix L. Wildland Fire Resource Protection Measures and Reasonable and Prudent Measures, 

Terms and Conditions, and Reporting Requirements Identified Through Section 7 

Consultation 

Appendix M. Conservation Measures, Oil and Gas Lease Notices, and Recovery Plans for Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

LIST OF MAPS 

CHAPTER 1–INTRODUCTION

Map 1-1. Land Ownership 

CHAPTER 2–ALTERNATIVES

Map 2-1. Existing Land Use Plan Boundaries 

Map 2-2. Priority Areas for Vegetation Treatment – Alternative A 

Map 2-3. Priority Areas for Vegetation Treatment – Alternatives B and D 

Map 2-4. Priority Areas for Vegetation Treatment – Alternative C 

Map 2-5. Visual Resource Management Classes – Alternative A 

Map 2-6. Visual Resource Management Classes – Alternative B 

Map 2-7. Visual Resource Management Classes – Alternative C 
Draft EIS Table of Contents 

Kanab RMP xi 

Map 2-8. Visual Resource Management Classes – Alternative D 

Map 2-9. Special Recreation Management Areas – Alternative B 

Map 2-10. Special Recreation Management Areas – Alternative C 

Map 2-11. Special Recreation Management Areas – Alternative D 

Map 2-12. Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations – Alternative A 

Map 2-13. Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations – Alternative B 

Map 2-14. Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations – Alternative C 

Map 2-15. Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations – Alternative D 

Map 2-16. Route Designations – Alternative A 

Map 2-17. Route Designations – Alternative B 

Map 2-18. Route Designations – Alternative C 

Map 2-19. Route Designations – Alternative D 

Map 2-20. Right-of-Way Restrictions – Alternative B 

Map 2-21. Right-of-Way Restrictions – Alternative C 

Map 2-22. Right-of-Way Restrictions – Alternative D 

Map 2-23. Locatable Mineral Restrictions – Alternative B 

Map 2-24. Locatable Mineral Restrictions – Alternative C 

Map 2-25. Locatable Mineral Restrictions – Alternative D 

Map 2-26. Areas Available for FLPMA Section 203 Sales – Alternative B 

Map 2-27. Areas Available for FLPMA Section 203 Sales – Alternative C 

Map 2-28. Areas Available for FLPMA Section 203 Sales – Alternative D 

Map 2-29. Oil and Gas Leasing – Alternative A 

Map 2-30. Oil and Gas Leasing – Alternative B 

Map 2-31. Oil and Gas Leasing – Alternative C 

Map 2-32. Oil and Gas Leasing – Alternative D 

Map 2-33. Areas Available for Further Coal Leasing Consideration – Alternatives B – D 

Map 2-34. Mineral Material Restrictions – Alternative B 

Map 2-35. Mineral Material Restrictions – Alternative C 

Map 2-36. Mineral Material Restrictions – Alternative D 

Map 2-37. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern – Alternative A 

Map 2-38. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern – Alternative B 

Map 2-39. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern – Alternative C 

Map 2-40. Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers – Alternative A 

Map 2-41. Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers – Alternative B 

Map 2-42. Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers – Alternative C 

Map 2-43. Surface Disturbance Restrictions – Alternative A 

Map 2-44. Surface Disturbance Restrictions – Alternative B 

Map 2-45. Surface Disturbance Restrictions – Alternative C 

Map 2-46. Surface Disturbance Restrictions – Alternative D 

CHAPTER 3—AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Map 3-1. Surface Geology 

Map 3-2. Physiographic Sub-Units 

Map 3-3. Precipitation 

Map 3-4. Areas with Fragile Soils or Relict Vegetation 

Map 3-5. Fourth Order Watersheds (Hydrologic Sub-Basins) 

Map 3-6. Vegetation Communities and Associations 

Map 3-7. Inventoried Riparian/Wetland Areas 

Map 3-8. Mexican Spotted Owl Critical Habitat 
Table of Contents Draft EIS 

xii Kanab RMP 

Map 3-9. Greater Sage-Grouse Brooding and Winter Habitat 

Map 3-10. Mule Deer Habitat

Map 3-11. Elk Habitat 

Map 3-12. Pronghorn Habitat 

Map 3-13. Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat 

Map 3-14. Paleontological Resource Potential 

Map 3-15. Lands With Wilderness Characteristics 

Map 3-16. Livestock Grazing Allotments 

Map 3-17. Inventoried Routes 

Map 3-18. Oil and Gas Development Potential and Existing Oil and Gas Leases and Fields 

Map 3-19. Coal Development Potential 

Map 3-20. Gypsum Development Potential 

Map 3-21. Sand and Gravel Development Potential 

Map 3-22. Stone and Clay Development Potential 

Map 3-23. Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas 

Map 3-24. Byways, Backways, Historic Trail 

Map 3-25. Socioeconomic Study Area 

CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Map 4-1. EPCA Analysis – Alternative A 

Map 4-2. EPCA Analysis – Alternative B 

Map 4-3. EPCA Analysis – Alternative C 

Map 4-4. EPCA Analysis – Alternative D 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Kanab RMP ES-1 

Figure ES-1. Kanab RMP Planning Area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kanab Field Office (KFO) is revising its current land use plans. 

Public lands in the KFO area are currently managed under five different land use plans (LUP) (Escalante 

Management Framework Plan [MFP] [1981], Paria MFP [1981], Vermilion MFP [1981], Zion MFP 

[1981], and Cedar-Beaver-Garfield-Antimony Resource Management Plan [RMP] [1986], and their 

amendments, as well as two temporary administrative actions. The new plan revision, which is to be 

called the Kanab RMP, and its accompanying Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), will provide the 

management direction for public lands within the boundaries of the KFO area. The KFO planning area 

comprises approximately 2,847,200 acres of land, of which approximately 554,000 acres is public land 

surface estate administered by the BLM. 

The planning area is located in south-central Utah and is 

bordered by Piute and Wayne counties on the north, 

Washington County and Zion National Park on the west, 

Arizona on the south (including a boundary with the 

Kaibab-Paiute Tribe Reservation), and Capitol Reef 

National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

on the east (Figure ES-1). The planning area is situated 

within the Colorado Plateau and Wasatch and Uinta 

Mountains Ecoregions (Omernik 1987). The Utah portion 

of the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness is also 

administered by the KFO. Major drainages in the 

planning area include the North Fork of the Virgin River, 

Orderville Gulch, East Fork of the Virgin River, Kanab 

Creek, Sevier River, Paria River, Birch Creek, and North 

Creek (Escalante River). Elevations range from more than 

10,000 feet northeast of the town of Escalante to about 

4,500 feet at the Barracks along the East Fork of the 

Virgin River. 

PURPOSE AND NEED

Purpose 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (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 existing LUPs and prepare a new RMP for the KFO based 

on a number of new issues that have arisen since preparation of the existing plans. In general, the purpose 

of this RMP is the following: 

• Ensure that public lands are being managed according to the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield 

• Provide an overview of goals, objectives, and needs associated with public land management 

• Resolve multiple use conflicts or issues between resource values and resource uses 

• Consolidate the existing five LUPs and their amendments. 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

ES-2 Kanab RMP 

The resulting Kanab RMP will establish consolidated guidance and updated objectives and management 

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

address issue categories that have been identified through agency, interagency, and public scoping efforts. 

Need 

Since completion of the existing LUPs, considerable changes have occurred within the planning area, 

resulting in a need for new or additional program direction in existing plans in some areas. These changes 

have resulted in three key topics that necessitate preparation of a new RMP. The three key topics include 

changes in policy, changes in resource conditions or demand for resource use, and changes in 

administrative boundaries. Changes in policy include, but are not limited to, the development of standards 

for rangeland health, new special status species listings, implementation of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 2000 (EPCA), and policies addressing off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. Examples of 

changes in resource conditions or demand for resource use include a substantial increase in OHV use, the 

federally listing of several species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and changes in resource use 

levels and patterns that have created areas of conflict between resource protection and resource uses. 

Changes in administrative boundaries include land transfers, realignment of BLM administrative units, 

and designation of the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument (GSENM). 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public participation is integral to ensuring that the wide range of planning issues important to public land 

users are addressed. Public participation in the BLM planning process includes a variety of efforts to 

identify and address public concerns and needs. Public involvement helps the agencies in the following 

ways: 

• Broadening the information base for decision-making 

• Informing the public about the Draft RMP/EIS and the potential impacts associated with various 

management decisions 

• Ensuring that public needs and viewpoints are understood by the BLM. 

Public input is generated through a formal public scoping period, which began with the publication of the 

Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on April 2, 2004. The scoping period included four public 

scoping meetings (held in Kanab, Panguitch, Escalante, and Salt Lake City). These meetings were 

announced in the local media, through a planning bulletin and a follow-up postcard, on the RMP and Utah 

BLM websites, as well as in fliers throughout the counties in locations of heavy traffic such as post 

offices, local convenience stores, supermarkets, municipal buildings, local businesses, and local 

recreation sites. The formal scoping period ended February 15, 2005. During the scoping period, more 

than 1,160 individuals provided comments to the BLM or attended public scoping meetings. The majority 

of comments emphasized recreation and OHV management, special designations, minerals and energy, 

and non–Wilderness Study Area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics (WC) areas. Other issues of 

high interest included livestock grazing, access to public lands, and social and economic issues. More 

information on the scoping process is presented in Chapter 5 and in the Scoping Report for the Kanab 

RMP and EIS. 

Additional opportunities for public participation were provided in April 2005 during a data call for 

information (e.g., route data and resource inventories and/or condition) and nominations for areas of 

critical environmental concern (ACEC) and wild and scenic rivers (WSR). In January 2006, the public 

was invited to provide additional input into the planning process by commenting on the preliminary 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Kanab RMP ES-3 

ACEC and WSR reports. For each of these requests for comments, the BLM provided at least 30 calendar 

days for public response, as directed by BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.2(e)). 

PLANNING ISSUES 

For each public comment received, a position-neutral issue was identified. Planning issues are generally 

related to concerns or controversies about existing and potential land and resource allocations; levels of 

resource use, production, and protection; and related management practices. This process was used for all 

scoping input. The issues identified from comments at public scoping meetings were added to written 

public scoping comments, internal BLM scoping, and interagency scoping. These issues were used 

throughout creation of the range of alternatives (see Chapter 2). The primary issues identified through this 

process include non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (WC areas), recreation, transportation, 

minerals and energy resources, ACECs, and WSAs. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

In September 2005, the U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Central District, approved an agreement to 

settle a lawsuit challenging BLM’s authority to conduct new wilderness inventories. The policies 

stemming from the settlement stipulated that the BLM’s authority to designate new WSAs expired no 

later than October 21, 1993. The BLM retains its Section 201 FLPMA authority to inventory resources or 

other values, including areas with wilderness characteristics such as naturalness or opportunities for 

solitude and that are conducive to primitive, unconfined recreation. 

The BLM’s policy for considering wilderness characteristics in LUPs is contained in Section 202 of 

FLPMA and clarified in the Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM-H-1601-1). According to the handbook, 

lands with wilderness characteristics may be managed to protect and/or preserve some or all of those 

characteristics. This may include protecting certain lands in their natural condition and/or providing 

opportunities for solitude or for primitive and unconfined types of recreation. The BLM can make a 

variety of LUP decisions to protect wilderness characteristics, such as establishing visual resource 

management (VRM) class objectives to guide the placement of roads, trails, and other facilities; 

establishing conditions of use to be attached to permits, leases, and other authorizations to achieve the 

desired level of resource protection; and designating lands as open, closed, or limited to OHV use to 

achieve a desired visitor experience. 

There are areas in the decision area outside of existing WSAs that were determined by the BLM in the 

1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory (BLM 1999a) to have wilderness characteristics. In addition, since 1999 

and during scoping for this LUP members of the public submitted information suggesting that additional 

areas outside of existing WSAs have wilderness characteristics and should be managed to preserve those 

values. All the WC areas evaluated in this process are described in Chapter 3. Using the RMP planning 

process, the BLM will consider all available information to determine the appropriate mix of resource use 

and protection that best serves the FLPMA multiple-use mandate. 

Recreation 

Since completion of the existing LUPs, considerable changes to recreation use have occurred within the 

decision area. In certain areas, increased visitor use is affecting soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife, and 

the potential for conflicts between recreationists is increasing. In addition to changes in use, BLM 

recreation management policy has changed. This RMP applies the new policies in providing recreation 

opportunities and benefits while protecting natural and cultural resources. 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

ES-4 Kanab RMP 

Conflict between motorized and non-motorized users was identified as a concern during the public 

scoping process. Specific management initiatives such as travel plans, recreation zoning, developed sites, 

and improved interpretation and education were considered to improve opportunities and to reduce 

conflict. 

The existing extensive recreation management area (ERMA) was identified primarily because there was 

no need for more intensive recreation management; however, recreation use has increased significantly 

since the implementation of current management direction. Portions of the existing ERMA were reviewed 

for their potential to be identified as special recreation management areas (SRMA) to effectively manage 

the area’s changing recreation patterns. The planning process considers a benefits-based recreation 

planning system to identify recreation niche opportunities that exist and to identify potential SRMAs. The 

new RMP protects resources from the impacts of recreation use and improves recreational opportunities, 

including the potential for new developed recreation sites. 

Recreation that occurs along travel corridors and at highly developed sites remains popular. As visitation 

to these sites increases, management of the areas may need to focus more heavily on providing defined 

recreation experiences. Users of front country recreation sites typically expect more extensive interpretive 

information and facilities. Areas that were once dispersed recreation sites may have become de facto front 

country recreation sites through increased use. This RMP addresses these high-use areas and is intended 

to protect recreation opportunities while also protecting the resource values. 

Transportation 

Existing transportation management decisions are out of date given the increased levels of OHV use and 

current policies. The OHV area designations do not provide for existing OHV use demands while 

providing for sustained resource protection. Other than two administrative actions, there are no route 

designations. OHV use and management was addressed in conformance with the National Management 

Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands. Existing OHV area and route 

designations were reviewed and modified to meet changing levels of OHV use, existing resource 

conditions, and changing resource objectives. 

Closures for Parunuweap Canyon, North Fork Virgin River, and Orderville Canyon WSAs were reviewed 

to determine how OHV use in these areas should occur to protect wilderness values. An administrative 

action in the Hog Canyon area was also reviewed. 

Minerals and Energy Resources 

The Draft RMP/EIS addresses the continued sale, leasing, and location of mineral and energy resources 

within the decision area. Oil and gas leasing stipulations were revised to incorporate new resource data. A 

coal screening process was applied to identify areas acceptable for further leasing consideration. A 

reasonably foreseeable development scenario was identified for leasable, locatable, and salable minerals, 

and helped focus analysis on the development of these resources. The Draft RMP/EIS identifies areas 

recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry and identifies areas as open or closed to 

disposal of salable minerals. 

The EPCA directed the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Department of 

Agriculture and the Department of Energy, to conduct an inventory of oil and gas resources beneath 

federal lands. The inventory is presented in the January 2003 EPCA Report. The EPCA inventory 

provided estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable resources and proved reserves of oil and gas 

beneath five major geologic basins in the western United States and an inventory of the extent and nature 

of limitations to their development. The Paradox/San Juan Basin, which is partly located within the 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Kanab RMP ES-5 

decision area, is one of the five primary inventory areas. The Paradox/San Juan Basin and the other four 

basins were selected because these basins contain most of the onshore natural gas and much of the oil 

under federal ownership. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

In accordance with FLPMA, consideration will be given to the designation of additional ACECs during 

the RMP process. As part of the RMP process, the Water Canyon/South Fork Indian Canyon ACEC was 

reevaluated to determine if the relevant and important values were still present. The ACEC designation 

and management prescriptions for this area were reviewed to ensure they can protect any remaining 

relevant and important values. In addition, through scoping, several ACECs were nominated for review 

during this planning process. The BLM identified the areas that meet the requisite relevance and 

importance criteria for ACEC designation and developed the management processes needed to protect 

relevant and important values, resources, natural systems or processes, or hazards/safety/public welfare 

(referred to collectively as values), and brought these issues forward for analysis in one or more of the 

Draft RMP/EIS alternatives. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs federal agencies to consider the potential for 

national wild, scenic, and recreational river areas in land use planning documents; therefore, a Wild And 

Scenic River (WSR) review was part of the RMP revision process. All potentially eligible rivers were 

reviewed by the interdisciplinary team to determine if they were free-flowing and if they contain 

outstandingly remarkable values (ORV) that make them eligible for congressional designation into the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). All eligible river segments were assigned a tentative 

classification of “wild,” “scenic,” or “recreational,” and were considered in the Draft RMP/EIS with 

regard to their suitability for congressional designation into the NWSRS. Management processes were 

designed to protect the tentative classification, free-flowing nature, and ORVs of suitable segments 

Wilderness Study Areas 

For the most part, current management of the five WSAs is adequate to protect the wilderness 

characteristics of those areas. However, problems have arisen in some areas. Increased OHV use has 

begun to threaten the wilderness characteristics of the Moquith and Parunaweap WSAs. The Draft 

RMP/EIS addressed increased OHV use through route designations (implementation-level decision) and 

travel management decisions (RMP-level decisions) to continue to protect the WSAs’ wilderness 

characteristics. As directed by BLM policy, the Draft RMP/EIS also set objectives for management of 

visual resources within the WSAs. 

ALTERNATIVES

The Draft RMP/EIS considers four alternatives in detail, three action alternatives (B, C, and D) and the 

No Action Alternative, for management of the decision area. Each alternative varies in both context and 

intensity of potential management actions, and includes a set of designations, land use allocations, and 

management actions needed to implement the goals and objectives. Specific management decisions that 

are common to all alternatives are presented in Section 2.2. Management decisions that are specific to 

each alternative are described in Section 2.4. There are five WSAs (53,900 acres) and one wilderness area 

(21,200 acres) that would remain under all alternatives. An overview of the key decisions associated with 

each alternative is provided below. A full discussion of each alternative is provided in Chapter 2. 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

ES-6 Kanab RMP 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Alternative A is defined as a continuation of the current management direction contained in the five LUPs 

and emergency OHV management actions. This alternative describes the current goals and actions for 

management of resources and land uses in the decision area. The management direction could also be 

modified by current law, regulation, and policy. Alternative A represents the baseline to which the other 

management alternatives are compared. Key resource decisions on public lands within the decision area 

include the following: 

• Oil and gas leasing: 

– 76 percent (422,200 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to the standard terms and 

conditions of the lease form 

– 9 percent (51,200 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to moderate constraints (timing 

limitations, controlled surface use [CSU], lease notices) 

– 1 percent (5,500 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (no surface 

occupancy [NSO]) 

– 14 percent (75,100 acres) closed to leasing. 

• Prescribe vegetation treatments to improve wildlife habitat, increase forage production for 

livestock grazing, provide for watershed protection, and reduce soil loss. Direction for vegetation 

treatments is not consistent across the five LUPs, focusing on treating pinyon-juniper woodlands 

and old sagebrush stands. No ponderosa pine trees could be removed. 

• Do not change livestock grazing for other resource purposes, and continue existing allotments as 

currently allocated unless otherwise allowed by law or regulation. 

• Recommend no rivers or river segments as suitable for designation as a Wild and Scenic River. 

Suitability determinations would not be made for any of the 15 eligible river segments; they 

would remain eligible and would be managed on a case-by-case basis to protect their ORVs, freeflowing nature, and tentative classification to the degree that the BLM has authority (BLM lands 

within the corridor) until such time as suitability determinations are made. Protective 

management would apply to BLM lands along eligible river segments, with 7,680 acres of river 

corridor (39 miles) tentatively classified as “wild,” 0 acres as “scenic,” and 1,550 acres (7 miles) 

as “recreational.” 

• Continue the existing Water Canyon/South Fork Indian Canyon ACEC designation and 

management as an ACEC (220 acres); designate no additional areas as an ACEC. 

• Manage no areas as a SRMA, although the area surrounding the Coral Pink Sand Dunes would 

receive considerable management attention. 

• Manage OHV use according to the five LUPs and two emergency orders: 

– 466,600 acres open to cross-country OHV use 

– 21,200 acres closed to OHV use 

– 66,200 acres of limited OHV use, with 55 miles of “designated routes” and 2 miles of routes 

closed seasonally. 

• Manage visual resources to preserve the existing character of the landscape (VRM Class I) in the 

portions of the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area in the decision area. VRM 

Classes and associated acreage include the following: 

– VRM Class I: 21,200 acres 

– VRM Class II: 99,900 acres 

– VRM Class III: 68,600 acres 

– VRM Class IV: 321,800 acres 

– Unknown/no VRM Class: 42,500 acres 

• Require no prescriptions specifically to maintain WC areas. 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Kanab RMP ES-7 

Alternative B (Preferred) 

Alternative B is the BLM’s preferred alternative. It provides opportunities to use and develop resources 

within the decision area while ensuring resource protection. Alternative B would provide for continued 

access and development of resources with stipulations and mitigation to protect natural and cultural 

resources. Key resource decisions on public lands within the decision area include the following: 

• Oil and gas leasing: 

– 48 percent (263,400 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to the standard terms and 

conditions of the lease form 

– 28 percent (156,700 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to moderate constraints (timing 

limitations, CSU, lease notices) 

– 10 percent (58,100 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (NSO) 

– 14 percent (75,800 acres) closed to leasing. 

• Limit vegetation treatments (e.g., wildlife habitat, watershed, and livestock rangeland treatments, 

wildland fires, fuels treatments, and stewardship contracting) to an annual average of no more 

than 22,300 acres. Manage sagebrush steppe communities to restore natural disturbance processes 

with an appropriate pinyon-juniper component for a given ecological site. Manage ponderosa 

pine stands to restore natural disturbance processes through treatments, resulting in 

predominantly park-like stands. 

• Reallocate 48 animal unit months (AUM) on the Water Canyon Allotment to wildlife for the life 

of the plan. Combine the Lydia’s Canyon Allotment with the Lydia Allotment, and combine the 

Sawmill Allotment with the South Canyon Allotment. The BLM would not be party to or accept 

any contingencies or conditions associated with a relinquishment that would require future BLM 

actions. 

• Apply protective management to river corridors associated with seven suitable river segments, 

along 4,570 acres (25 miles) tentatively classified as “wild,” 960 acres (5 miles) tentatively 

classified as “scenic,” and 780 acres (3 miles) tentatively classified as “recreational.” 

• Designate and manage the potential Cottonwood Canyon ACEC (3,800 acres) as an ACEC; 

designate no additional areas as an ACEC. 

• Identify 7 SRMAs with 12 recreation management zones (RMZ) (125,800 acres): 

– Manage three RMZs specifically for motorized uses (21,700 acres) 

– Manage six RMZs specifically for non-motorized uses (44,900 acres) 

– Manage three RMZs for both motorized and non-motorized uses (59,200 acres) 

• Manage OHV use according to open, closed, or limited (seasonally and/or spatially) area and 

“route designations” as follows: 

– Approximately 1,100 acres open to cross-country OHV use 

– 28,900 acres closed to OHV use. 

– 524,000 acres of limited OHV use, with 1,385 miles of “designated routes,” 2 miles of routes 

closed seasonally, and 118 miles of closed routes. 

• Manage visual resources to preserve the existing character of the landscape (VRM Class I) in the 

portions of the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area in the decision area, all the 

WSAs, and river corridors associated with wild suitable segments. VRM Classes and acreages 

include the following: 

– VRM Class I: 76,000 acres 

– VRM Class II: 93,600 acres 

– VRM Class III: 211,500 acres 

– VRM Class IV: 172,900 acres 

• Require no prescriptions specifically to maintain WC areas. 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

ES-8 Kanab RMP 

Alternative C 

Alternative C emphasizes the protection of the decision area’s resource values while allowing commodity 

uses as consistent with current law, regulation, and policy. Management actions would emphasize 

resource values such as habitat for wildlife and plant species (including special status species); protection 

of riparian areas and water quality; preservation of ecologically significant areas; maintenance of 

wilderness characteristics; and protection of scientifically significant cultural and paleontological sites. 

Access to and development of resources within the decision area could occur with intensive management 

and mitigation of surface disturbing and disruptive activities. Key resource decisions on public lands 

within the decision area include the following: 

• Oil and gas leasing: 

– 5 percent (28,400 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to the standard terms and 

conditions of the lease form 

– 49 percent (269,900 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to moderate constraints (timing 

limitations, CSU, lease notices) 

– 15 percent (83,100 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (NSO) 

– 31 percent (172,600 acres) closed to leasing. 

• Implement vegetation treatments (e.g., wildlife habitat, watershed, and livestock rangeland 

treatments, wildland fires, fuels treatments, and stewardship contracting) on an annual average of 

at least 4,650 acres, but on no more than 22,300 acres annually. Manage sagebrush steppe 

communities to restore natural disturbance processes with an appropriate pinyon-juniper 

component in a given ecological site. Mange ponderosa pine stands to restore natural disturbance 

processes through treatments, resulting in predominantly park-like stands. 

• Suspend 88 AUMs on the Water Canyon, Lower North Fork, and Sawmill Allotments to 

livestock grazing for the life of the plan. The BLM would not be party to or accept any 

contingencies or conditions associated with a relinquishment that would require future BLM 

actions. 

• Apply protective management to river corridors associated with the 15 suitable river segments, 

along 7,680 acres (39 miles) tentatively classified as “wild,” 0 acres (0 miles) tentatively 

classified as “scenic,” and 1,550 acres (7 miles) classified as “recreational.” 

• Designate and manage all five areas with identified relevant and important values (potentially 

Cottonwood Canyon, Welsh’s Milkweed, Vermilion Cliffs, White Cliffs, and Parunuweap 

Canyon ACECs) as ACECs (60,600 acres). 

• Identify 7 SRMAs with 10 RMZs (129,050 acres): 

– Manage no RMZs specifically for motorized uses (0 acres) 

– Manage seven RMZs specifically for non-motorized uses (60,250 acres) 

– Manage three RMZs for both motorized and non-motorized uses (68,800 acres) 

• Manage OHV use according to open, closed, or limited (seasonally and/or spatially) area and 

route designations as follows: 

– 0 acres open to cross-country OHV use 

– 165,700 acres closed to OHV use. 

– 388,300 acres of limited OHV use, with 884 miles of “designated routes,” 306 miles of routes 

closed seasonally, and 315 miles of closed routes. 

• Manage visual resources to preserve the existing character of the landscape (VRM Class I) on the 

portions of the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area in the decision area, all the 

WSAs, the Orderville Canyon SRMA, and river corridors associated with wild suitable segments. 

VRM Classes and the acreages include the following: 

– VRM Class I: 168,300 acres 

– VRM Class II: 100,000 acres 

– VRM Class III: 128,300 acres 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Kanab RMP ES-9 

– VRM Class IV: 157,400 acres 

• Manage the 10 WC areas (approximately 89,780 acres) to specifically maintain their wilderness 

characteristics. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D emphasizes opportunities to use and develop resources within the decision area. It would 

provide for motorized access and commodity production with minimal restrictions, while providing 

protection of natural and cultural resources to the extent required by law, regulation, and policy. 

Alternative D would largely rely on existing laws, regulations, and policies, rather than on special 

management or special designations, to protect sensitive resources. Key resource decisions on public 

lands within the decision area include the following: 

• Oil and gas leasing: 

– 71 percent (391,300 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to the standard terms and 

conditions of the lease form 

– 12 percent (64,600 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to moderate constraints (timing 

limitations, CSU, lease notices) 

– 4 percent (23,000 acres) open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (NSO) 

– 13 percent (75,100 acres) closed to leasing. 

• Limit vegetation treatments (e.g., wildlife habitat, watershed, and livestock rangeland treatments, 

wildland fires, fuels treatments, stewardship contracting) to an annual average of no more than 

22,300 acres. Manage sagebrush steppe communities to restore natural disturbance processes with 

an appropriate pinyon-juniper component for a given ecological site. Manage ponderosa pine 

stands to restore natural disturbance processes through treatments, resulting in predominantly 

park-like stands. 

• Reallocate 40 AUMs on the Lower North Fork and Sawmill Allotments to wildlife for the life of 

the plan. The BLM would not be party to or accept any contingencies or conditions associated 

with a relinquishment that would require future BLM actions. 

• Determine no eligible rivers or river segments as suitable for congressional Wild and Scenic 

River designation. Do not apply protective management to any acres within eligible river 

corridors. 

• Do not designate or manage any areas with identified relevant and important values (existing or 

potential ACECs) as ACECs. 

• Identify four SRMAs with seven RMZs (122,800 acres): 

– Manage three RMZs specifically for motorized uses (81,500 acres) 

– Manage three RMZs specifically for non-motorized uses (27,300 acres) 

– Manage one RMZ for both motorized and non-motorized uses (14,000 acres). 

• Manage OHV use according to open, closed, or limited (seasonally and/or spatially) area and 

route designations as follows: 

– Approximately 1,100 acres open to cross-country OHV use; in addition ephemeral washes 

throughout the decision area would be open. 

– 27,600 acres closed to OHV use. 

– 525,300 acres of limited OHV use, with 1,462 miles of “designated routes,” 2 miles of routes 

closed seasonally, and 41 miles of closed routes. 

• Manage visual resources to preserve the existing character of the landscape (VRM Class I) on the 

portions of the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area in the decision area and all the 

WSAs. VRM Classes and acreages include the following: 

– VRM Class I: 75,400 acres 

– VRM Class II: 59,900 acres 

– VRM Class III: 245,600 acres 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

ES-10 Kanab RMP 

– VRM Class IV: 173,100 acres 

• Require no prescriptions specifically to maintain WC areas. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Draft RMP/EIS decision area is geographically located in an area that results in a diverse array of 

natural resources and subsequent opportunities for use of those resources. Resources within the decision 

area are important ecologically and scientifically, as evidenced by the continued interest in the area by 

recreationists, biologists, hunters, researchers, and environmentalists. The decision area’s natural areas 

and values, such as the large open landscapes, soil and water resources, and vegetation communities 

provide important habitat for a variety of wildlife and special status species, including high-quality big 

game populations. The remote nature of the area and the dispersed uses have protected cultural and 

paleontological resources. The resources in the decision area have also provided the context for diverse 

land uses. 

Resource uses have historically focused on livestock grazing and recreation and tourism, including 

several destination locations for OHV use. Use of forest and woodland products is minimal, but 

consistent. Mineral uses focus on sand and gravel, although there is a coal lease currently being 

considered, and there is a potential for low levels of oil and gas exploration and development. The 

decision area is viewed as some of the remaining lands in the region where traditional commercial uses 

and relatively unrestricted recreational activities can still occur. These lands are considered by many vital 

to meet the developing needs of neighboring communities and to contribute to the economic and social 

well-being of the area. 

Special designations are designed to protect or preserve unique values or uses of specific areas. These 

areas require management activities different from those that would be applied to the surrounding public 

lands. There is one existing ACEC and five ACECs nominated for review during this planning process. In 

addition, there are 15 river segments eligible for suitability considerations into the NWSRS. Five WSAs 

(53,900 acres) and one wilderness area (21,200 acres) are wholly or partially within the decision area. In 

addition, small portions of two segments of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail follow U.S. Highway 

89 in the northern and southern portions of the decision area. 

Socioeconomic conditions indicate that there are small but increasing populations within the two counties 

that have lower income and higher unemployment rates than the average for the State of Utah. Labor 

income has been decreasing over the past 20 years, while investment and transfer income has increased. 

The services sector and the government sector have provided the greatest amount of wages and salaries, 

and both show substantial upward trends. In Garfield County, both mining and construction earnings 

declined substantially in the early 1980s and have not gone back up. In Kane County, the trade industry 

has provided substantial and increasing amounts of wages and salaries. Agricultural wages and salaries 

have been volatile in both counties, including some periods of negative earnings. Today, although fewer 

families earn their livelihood solely from natural resources such as grazing, timber, and minerals than in 

previous times, the descendants of the area’s settlers still have strong connections to the land. Access to 

public land and resources, whether for earning a living or for recreation, is important to the local people. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Selection of Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would maintain the current rate of progress in 

meeting land health standards and protecting resource values. It would allow for use levels to continue 

mostly at current levels in the same places in the planning area, with adjustments required to meet 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Kanab RMP ES-11 

Standards for Rangeland Health or to mitigate resource concerns in compliance with existing laws and 

regulations. Impacts from increasing levels of cross-country OHV use would affect long-term condition 

of soils, water quality, and vegetation communities. 

Alternative B would allow for many uses to continue, but would constrain certain activities to maintain or 

protect important natural resources. Limiting OHV use to “designated routes” would continue to provide 

for this experience, but it would reduce the impacts to soil, water, vegetation, and cultural resources while 

also protecting much of the undeveloped nature of the decision area. Although restrictions in some areas 

could result in a loss of opportunities to resource-extraction businesses, the areas remaining open for such 

uses would provide for the anticipated levels of demand. Local economies would retain natural resource 

development opportunities while allowing for economic development of diverse recreational 

opportunities. 

Alternative C would provide the greatest level of protection to physical, biological, and cultural resources 

and would protect a variety of vegetation types and wildlife habitats. Managing all WC areas for their 

wilderness characteristics would preserve existing vegetation and wildlife trends. Alternative C would be 

the most restrictive to resource extraction. Consequently, Alternative C would have the greatest potential 

to limit opportunities for natural resource use and development. In addition, recreation would be limited 

to non-motorized opportunities in approximately 30 percent of the decision area, and closing OHV routes 

to protect various natural and cultural resources and values would limit access to much of the decision 

area to non-motorized transportation. 

Alternative D would offer the greatest potential for development of natural resources within the 

constraints of existing laws and policies. Resource extraction uses would generally be least encumbered 

by management decisions under this alternative. Water, soil, vegetation, and wildlife resources could be 

affected by development, which would be allowed in more areas of the decision area, including some 

sensitive soil and habitat areas. 

A summary of potential impacts by alternative is presented in Table 2.5 in Chapter 2. Detailed 

descriptions of impacts of the four alternatives are provided in Chapter 4, along with a discussion of the 

cumulative impacts, irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources, and unavoidable adverse 

impacts of the alternatives. 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Alternative B is the BLM’s preferred alternative based on the following factors: 

• Balance of use and protection of resources 

• Extent of environmental impacts 

• Incorporation of formal recommendations from cooperating agencies and the public. 

Alternative B was selected because it resolves the major planning issues while also providing for common 

ground among conflicting opinions and multiple uses of public lands in a sustainable fashion. It provides 

the best balance of resource protection and use within legal constraints. 

NEXT STEPS

The comment period on this Draft RMP/EIS will extend for 90 days following publication of the EPA’s 

Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. After comments are received they will be evaluated. 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

ES-12 Kanab RMP 

Substantive comments could lead to changes in one or more of the alternatives, or in the analysis of 

environmental consequences. A Proposed RMP/Final EIS will then be completed and released. If protests 

are received on the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, they will be reviewed and addressed by the Director of the 

BLM before a Record of Decision and Approved Plan is released.