Kanab Field Office

Record of Decision and 

Approved Resource Management Plan

October 2008

BLM

Kanab Field Office
Bureau of Land Management

BLM-UT-PL-09-006-1610

UT-110-2007-022

BLM Mission

To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the 

public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations.
United States Department of the Interior

 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Utah State Office

P.O. Box 45155

Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0155

http://www.blm.gov

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610

(UT-935)

Dear Reader/Interested Party: 

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

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

will provide guidance for the management of over 554,000 acres of public land and an additional 

167,000 acres of Federal mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

in Kane and Garfield Counties in south-central Utah.

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

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

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

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

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

Statement (FEIS) that was released on July 18, 2008 and subject to a 30-day protest period that 

ended on August 18, 2008. Fourteen protest letters with standing were received. The protests 

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

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

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

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

incorporated into the Approved RMP in response to issues raised in the protest process and final 

BLM review. These minor changes are discussed in the ROD under the section titled Notice of 

Modifications and Clarifications, but the protest review did not result in any significant changes 

from the Proposed RMP. 

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

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

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

land use plan decisions (e.g., coal leasing, oil and gas development, and land and realty 

decisions) will not be undertaken without suitable further NEPA analysis, including all 

appropriate public involvement and any hearings available to the public.

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

releases and on the Kanab Field Office website at:

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

KANAB FIELD OFFICE 

RECORD OF DECISION 

AND 

APPROVED 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

October 2008 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Kanab Field Office 

Kanab, Utah 

Cooperating Agencies: 

State of Utah 

Kane County 

Garfield County 

Kaibab Paiute Tribe 

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

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. IV

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

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

Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................... 1

Description of the Decision Area ...................................................................................................... 2

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

Alternative A (No Action) .................................................................................................................. 5

Alternative B (Preferred) .................................................................................................................. 5

Alternative C ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Alternative D ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 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.................................................................................... 16

Implementation Decisions .............................................................................................................. 17

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

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

Clarifications ................................................................................................................................... 22

F. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING THE APPROVED RMP ............................ 23

All Surface Disturbing Activities ..................................................................................................... 24

Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 24

Soil Resources ............................................................................................................................... 24

Water Resources ........................................................................................................................... 24

Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Special Status Species (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive) ............................................... 25

Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 26

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

Visual Resources ........................................................................................................................... 27

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

Livestock Grazing ........................................................................................................................... 28

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

Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 29

Lands and Realty ........................................................................................................................... 30

Minerals and Energy ...................................................................................................................... 30

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ....................................................................................... 31

Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................................................. 33

G. CONSISTENCY AND CONSULTATION REVIEW ........................................................................ 34

Governor’s Consistency ................................................................................................................. 35

NHPA Section 106 Consultation .................................................................................................... 35

Native American Consultation ........................................................................................................ 35

Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act .......................................................... 35

H. MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................................. 36

I. PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 36

J. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT................................................................................................................ 37

K. AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN ........................................................................................................ 38
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - Table of Contents 

ii 

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................. 40 

A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 40

B. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER BLM PLANS AND POLICIES ....................................................... 40

C. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 42

General Implementation Schedule of “One-Time” Actions ............................................................ 42

Maintaining the Plan ....................................................................................................................... 43

Changing the Plan .......................................................................................................................... 43

D. PLAN EVALUATION ...................................................................................................................... 44

F. MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ......................................................................................................... 44

RMP Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 45

Air Quality (AQ) .............................................................................................................................. 47

Soil Resources (SOL) .................................................................................................................... 49

Water Resources (WAT) ................................................................................................................ 51

Vegetation (VEG) ........................................................................................................................... 54

Special Status Species (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive) (SSS) .................................... 59

Fish and Wildlife (WL) .................................................................................................................... 67

Wildland Fire Ecology (FIRE) ......................................................................................................... 72

Cultural Resources (CUL) .............................................................................................................. 80

Paleontological Resources (PAL) .................................................................................................. 84

Visual Resources (VRM) ................................................................................................................ 86

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (WC) ................................................................ 87

Drought and Natural Disasters (DND) ........................................................................................... 88

Forestry and Woodland Products (FOR) ....................................................................................... 89

Livestock Grazing (GRA) ............................................................................................................... 90

Recreation (REC) ........................................................................................................................... 94

Transportation (TRC), (TRR), (TRV) ............................................................................................ 106

Transportation-Travel Management Area Categories, (TRC) ...................................................... 106

Transportation-Travel Management OHV Route Identification, (TRR) ........................................ 107

Transportation-Travel Management, (TRV) ................................................................................. 108

Lands and Realty (LAR) ............................................................................................................... 109

Minerals and Energy (MIN) .......................................................................................................... 114

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ....................................................................... 117

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) .................................................................................................... 119

Wilderness (DW) .......................................................................................................................... 124

Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) ................................................................................................... 126

Other Designations ...................................................................................................................... 128

Public Safety (HAZ) ...................................................................................................................... 129

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 131

GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................. 133

LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................................. 157

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 158

Appendix 1. Best Management Practices for Land Uses 

Appendix 2. Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats 

Appendix 3. Surface Stipulations Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other 

Surface Disturbing Activities 

Appendix 4. Recreation Management for Special Recreation Management Areas and 

the Kanab Extensive Recreation Management Area 

Appendix 5. Lands Designated for Potential Disposal Via Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act Section 203 Sale 

Appendix 6. Kanab Field Office: Coal Unsuitability Report 

Appendix 7. Travel Management/Route Designation Process 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - Table of Contents 

iii 

Appendix 8. Wildland Fire Resource Protection Measures and Reasonable and 

Prudent Measures, Terms and Conditions, and Reporting Requirements 

Identified Through Section 7 Consultation 

Appendix 9. Conservation Measures, Oil and Gas Lease Notices, and Recovery 

Plans for Threatened and Endangered Species 

Appendix 10. State of Utah Letter Addressing Air Quality 

Appendix 11. Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process 

Appendix 12. Letter from State Historic Preservation Officer Related to Section 106 

Consultation 

Appendix 13. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Related to the Biological 

Opinion 

Appendix 14. The Grazing Allotment Forage Allocation 

Appendix 15. RMP Monitoring Plan 

Appendix 16. Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Management 

Appendix 17. Hydraulic Considerations for Pipelines Crossing Stream Channels 

MAPS ........................................................................................................................................................ 159

Map 1 Land Ownership 

Map 2 Mule Deer Habitat 

Map 3 Elk Habitat 

Map 4 Pronghorn Habitat 

Map 5 Priority Areas for Vegetation Treatment 

Map 6 Visual Resource Management 

Map 7 Non-WSA Lands Managed for Wilderness Characteristics 

Map 8 Special Recreation Management Areas 

Map 9 Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations 

Map 10 Route Designations 

Map 11 Right-of-Way Restrictions 

Map 12 Locatable Minerals – Recommended Withdrawals 

Map 13 Areas Available for FLPMA Section 203 Sales 

Map 14 Oil and Gas Leasing 

Map 15 Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining 

Map 16 Mineral Material (Salable) Disposal 

Map 17 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Map 18 Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Map 19 General Surface Disturbance Restrictions 

Map 20 Areas with Fragile Soils or Relict Vegetation 

Map 21 Mexican Spotted Owl Critical Habitat 

Map 22 Greater Sage-Grouse Brooding and Winter Habitat 

Map 23 Desert Big Horn Sheep Habitat 

Map 24 Paleontological Resource Potential 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - List of Acronyms

iv 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADC Animal Damage Control 

AML Appropriate Management Level 

AMLIS Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System 

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) 

AUM Animal unit month 

BA Biological Assessment 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BCF Billion cubic feet (a measure of quantity of natural gas) 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BO Biological Opinion 

BOR (United States) Bureau of Reclamation 

CAA Clean Air Act (of 1970) 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CBNG Coal Bed Natural Gas 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (of 

1980) 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

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

CHL Combined Hydrocarbon Lease 

CLDQ Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

COA Conditions of Approval 

CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan 

CSU Controlled Surface Use 

CWA Clean Water Act (of 1977) 

CWD Chronic Wasting Disease 

CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Area 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DFC Desired Future Condition 

DOGM (Utah) Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 

DOI (United States) Department of the Interior 

DPC Desired Plant Community 

DWFC Desired Wildland Fire Conditions 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - List of Acronyms

v 

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act (of 1975) 

ERMA Extended Recreation Management Area 

ESA Endangered Species Act (of 1973) 

ESR Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute (makers of GIS software) 

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 

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class 

FWMP Forest and Woodlands Management Plan 

GAP Geographical Analysis Program 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

GY Grazing Year 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act (of 2003) 

HMA Herd Management Area 

HMAP Herd Management Area Plan 

HMP Habitat Management Plan 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 

IMP Interim Management Policy 

ISA Instant (Wilderness) Study Area 

KFO Kanab Field Office 

KPA Kanab Planning Area 

KGS Known Geologic Structure 

KRCRA Known Recoverable Coal Resource Area 

LTA Land Tenure Agreement 

LUP Land Use Plan 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act (of 1918) 

MCF Thousand cubic feet 

MFP Management Framework Plan (pre-FLPMA BLM land use plan) 

MLRA Major Land Resource Area 

MMCF Million cubic feet 

mmhos/cm Millimhos per centimeter (in soils, a measure of electrical conductivity) 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MSA Management Situation Analysis 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

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

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (of 1969) 

NHL National Historic Landmark 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - List of Acronyms

vi 

NHS National Health Services 

NNL National Natural Landmark 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOA Notice of Availability (published in the Federal Register) 

NOI Notice of Intent (published in the Federal Register) 

NOSR2 Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 2 

NPS National Park Service 

NRA National Recreation Area 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

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

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River System 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 

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

PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition (of riparian/wetland areas) 

PFO Price Field Office 

PIF Partners-in-Flight 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM2.5 Particulate Matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter) 

PM10 Particulate Matter (less than 10 microns in diameter) 

PMP Population Management Plan 

PRMA Price River Management Area 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

R&I Relevance and Importance 

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

RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan 

RCA Raptor Concentration Area 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) 

RDCC (Utah) Resource Development and Coordinating Committee 

RFA Reasonably Foreseeable Action (or Activity) 

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

RFFA Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

RHS Rangeland Health Standards 

RMA Recreation Management Area 

RMIS Recreation Management Information System 

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

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW Right of Way 

S&G Standards & Guidelines 

SARA Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SITLA (Utah) School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan - List of Acronyms

vii 

SOX Sulfur Oxides 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

SRP Special Recreation Permit 

SRRMP San Rafael Resource Management Plan 

SUWA Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

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

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TL Timing Limitations 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TPY Tons Per Year 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act (of 1976) 

UAAQS Utah Ambient Air Quality Standards 

UAC Utah Administrative Code 

UDA Utah Division of Aeronautics 

UDAQ Utah Department of Air Quality 

UDEQ Utah Division of Environmental Quality 

UDOGM Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation 

UDWaR Utah Division of Water Resources 

UDWQ Utah Division of Water Quality 

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

UGS Utah Geological Survey 

UP&L Utah Power and Light 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

VRI Visual Resource Inventory 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WAFWA Western Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

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

WUG Western Utility Group 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 

Kanab 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 Kanab Field Office (KFO) as presented in the attached 

Resource Management Plan (RMP). This RMP was described as the Proposed RMP in the July 

2008 Kanab Field Office 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 RMP, and describes the clarification and/or 

modifications made to address protests received on the plan. The attached Kanab Field Office 

RMP (also referred to as the Approved RMP) includes the decisions themselves. 

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 that it is necessary to revise existing land use plans 

(LUP) 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 to: 

• 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. 

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 that have resulted in existing plans needing new or additional program direction in some 

areas. The three key changes necessitating a new RMP are: (1) changes in policy; (2) changes in 

resource conditions, uses, or demands; and (3) changes in administrative boundaries of the 

planning area. The following provides a brief summary of these key changes. 

Changes in Policy 

National-level BLM policies have been revised since completion of the existing LUPs. Such 

changes in policy include the development of Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management; revisions in cultural and paleontological resources 

management; new special status species listings; development of a statewide riparian policy; a 
Kanab Record of Decision 

2 

new Executive Order addressing Migratory Bird Treaty Act compliance; implementation of the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005; 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and management, soil, water, and air management. This current 

planning process will allow for these policies to be integrated into the new RMP. 

Changes in Resource Condition or Demands 

Since completion of the existing LUPs there have been changes in resource conditions or 

demand for resource use. Many of the changes were identified in a Special Evaluation Report 

completed in 2002 by the KFO (BLM 2002a), which concluded that some of the decisions within 

the existing LUPs are in need of revision. For example, OHV use has substantially increased 

throughout the planning area, increasing the potential for impacts on resources and conflicts with 

other uses. There are several species that have been federally listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), critical habitat designated, and other special status species identified since 

the existing plans were developed. In addition, changes in resource use levels and patterns have 

created areas of conflict between resource protection and resource uses. This planning effort will 

provide new management direction to address existing and foreseeable changes to resource 

conflicts, conditions, and demands. 

Changes in Administrative Boundaries 

The need for this planning effort, as noted above, is 

partly due to changes in administrative boundaries since 

the existing LUPs were completed. Land transfers, 

realignment of BLM administrative units, and the 

designation of Grand Staircase–Escalante National 

Monument (GSENM) have changed the land ownership 

and land use patterns throughout the planning area. This 

planning effort will update resource management and 

use allocations based on these new managerial 

responsibilities and the associated impacts these 

changes have on land use patterns. 

Description of the Decision Area

The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) 

differentiates between geographic areas associated with 

planning. They include the planning area and decision 

area. 

Planning Area

The planning area is the region within which the BLM makes decisions during a planning effort. 

A planning area boundary includes all lands regardless of jurisdiction; however, the BLM will 

make decisions only on lands that fall under BLM jurisdiction (including subsurface minerals). 

Figure 1 shows the planning area in relation to the State of Utah. 

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 

Figure 1. Kanab RMP Planning Area
Kanab Record of Decision 

3 

Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (NRA) on the east. The planning area also 

includes the Utah portion of the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness, which is 

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. Intermingled with and adjacent to BLM-administered lands are resources of 

national and international significance, including Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National 

Park, the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, Glen Canyon NRA, Pipe Spring National Monument, 

Cedar Breaks National Monument, GSENM, Grand Canyon–Parashant and Vermilion Cliffs 

National Monuments, Kodachrome Basin State Park, Escalante Petrified Forest State Park, and 

Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park. 

The planning area contains historical communities, diverse terrains, scenic landscapes, and 

recreational attractions which figure prominently in the settlement, history, culture, and 

enjoyment of southern Utah. Traditional occupational pursuits historically associated with Utah 

include farming, ranching, mining, tourism, retail trade, transportation, and construction. Major 

transportation routes include U.S. Highway 89, State Route 9, State Route 14, State Route 12, 

Johnson Canyon/Glendale Bench Road, Yellowjacket Road, Hancock Road, Posey Lake Road, 

and Upper Cottonwood Canyon Road. 

Decision Area

This includes the lands within a planning area for which the BLM has authority to make land use 

and management decisions. The BLM directly manages all BLM-administered public lands 

(surface and subsurface). The BLM also manages mineral operations on those federal lands 

managed by other federal agencies. In addition, it manages mineral operations on split estate 

lands where a private or other non-federal party (state) owns the surface while the Federal 

Government owns the subsurface minerals. The Kanab RMP will not include any planning and 

management decisions for areas where the land surface and minerals are both privately owned or 

owned by the State of Utah or local governments. For the purposes of this document, the 

decision area refers to all BLM-administered surface (Map 1) and subsurface. 

Of approximately 2,847,200 acres of land within the planning area, this RMP will make 

decisions for the BLM surface estate and the federal mineral estate managed by the KFO (Table 

1 and Map 1). 

Table 1. Land and Minerals Ownership within the Planning Area 

Jurisdiction Acres1

Total BLM-administered federal land surface to be covered by RMP decisions 554,000 

Total land surface area in the Kanab RMP planning area (all ownerships)1 2,847,200 

Split Estate Federal Minerals (All Minerals) 167,000 

Split Estate Federal Minerals (Coal Only) 75,000 

Split Estate Federal Minerals (Oil and Gas Only) 10,000 

Split Estate Federal Minerals (Geothermal Only) 110 
Kanab Record of Decision 

4 

Jurisdiction Acres1

Split Estate Federal Minerals (Other Minerals) 13,800 

Notes: 1 - Because of land surface and mineral ownership overlaps and administrative responsibility overlaps, acreage figures 

are not additive. For the purpose of the Kanab RMP, where one or more of the mineral resource categories are federally 

owned, the acres are listed as if all minerals in the area were federally owned. Where mixed minerals ownership occurs (for 

example, privately owned oil and gas, overlapping with federally owned coal in the same area), minerals planning and 

management decisions in the RMP will pertain only to the federally owned minerals. 

Sources: Kanab BLM Geographic Information System (GIS) Program, LR2000 

In areas where the land surface is privately owned or owned by the State of Utah or local 

governments and the minerals are federally owned, the RMP will include planning and 

management decisions for only the BLM-administered federal mineral estate. The land and 

resource uses and values on the non-federal surface will be taken into account in the impact 

analysis and will affect development of the federal minerals. However, the RMP decisions will 

not pertain to non-mineral state and private actions on non-federal surface. 

In areas where the federal land surface is administered by the United States Forest Service 

(USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), or other federal agencies and the federal mineral estate 

is administered by the BLM, the land surface planning and management decisions are the 

responsibility of these “other” federal surface management agencies. BLM administrative 

responsibilities within these areas (for example, actions concerning the federal mineral estate) 

are handled on a case-by-case basis and are guided by the other surface management agencies’ 

policies, procedures, and plans when applying stipulations or restrictions. 

B. OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

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

RMP/EIS October 2007 and in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS July 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 the Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah, developed in 

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

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

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

alternatives. 

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

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

program goals were met in using a variety of approaches across the alternatives. However, each 

alternative allowed for some level of support of all resources present in the planning area. The 

alternatives differed in how fast the goals would be met, the degree to which they would be met, 

the emphasis placed on certain programs and activities, and whether active or passive 

management would occur. Management scenarios for programs not tied to major planning issues 

and/or mandated by law often contain minor or no differences in management between 

alternatives. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

5 

Alternative A (the No Action Alternative) is the continuation of the 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 is 

provided as a baseline for comparison. Alternative C is considered the environmentally 

preferable alternative, offering the most intensive, active management for protection of the area’s 

natural and biological values and favors natural systems over commodities development, 

including protecting all non-WSA lands BLM found to have wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative D emphasizes commodity development and provides the greatest economic benefit 

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

B, (the Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS and largely the baseline for the Proposed 

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

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

provided below. 

Alternative A (No Action)

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

present management practices defined in the five existing land use plans and the emergency 

OHV restriction orders (BLM 2000, BLM 2005). Direction contained in existing laws, 

regulations, and policies would have continued to be implemented, sometimes superseding 

provisions of the five existing plans. 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 Kanab FO. 

The decisions made by the 1981 MFP’s and 1986 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 plans do not address many recent issues, nor 

do they address the increased levels of controversy some existing issues are facing. Special status 

species, including threatened and endangered species, are not fully addressed within the 

parameters of Alternative A. Alternative A designates 466,600 acres as open to OHV use. This 

large open acreage within the planning area results in unacceptable resource damage which is 

contrary to BLM policy. The No Action Alternative would continue the designation of the one 

existing ACEC, but does not 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 (Preferred)

Alternative B was selected as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Kanab Draft RMP/EIS. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 

Alternative C

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

landscapes. Commodity production and human activities would be more constrained. This 

alternative provides more opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Compared to all 

alternatives, Alternative C protects the most land area for sensitive resources, designates the 

most Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), finds all eligible Wild and Scenic River 

segments suitable, and protects, preserves and maintains non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. It is also the most restrictive to OHV use and all surface disturbing activities 

(including oil and gas leasing). Although Alternative C is the environmentally preferable 

alternative, there are many uses that are overly restricted by the decisions in this alternative. The 

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

Lands and Realty: In Alternative C, 255,200 acres are managed as exclusion areas for rights-ofway and 3,400 acres are managed as avoidance areas for rights of way. Managing 47 percent of 

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

powerlines could severely limit development of and access to existing oil and gas leases as well 

as restricting the development of other necessary infrastructure. 

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

the following stipulations: Closed -- 72,600 acres; No Surface Occupancy (NSO) -- 83,100 acres; 

Timing Limitations/Controlled Surface Use -- 269,900 acres; Open (subject to standard terms 

and conditions) -- 28,400 acres. Alternative C is the most restrictive to oil and gas development 

and other surface disturbing activities, even in areas with high development potential for oil and 

gas. It has the least amount of acreage open under standard terms and conditions to oil and gas 

leasing. The acreage included in the Closed and No Surface Occupancy stipulation totals 46 

percent of the acreage in the planning area that would be essentially unavailable to oil and gas 

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

stipulations in Alternative C would add another 49 percent of the planning area in which oil and 

gas development would be prohibited during certain times and subject to specified conditions for 

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

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

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

resource goals and objectives. In total, about 95 percent of the planning area would be subject to 

restrictions above standard terms and conditions for development. This amount of acreage is 

unnecessarily restrictive to protect at-risk resources. The restrictions in this alternative do not 

meet the objectives of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act which directs BLM to minimize 

impediments to oil and gas leasing and development. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative C manages 89,780 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 C have conflicts with 
Kanab Record of Decision 

7 

high development potential areas for oil and gas. The management of all the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics in Alternative C would be restrictive on other resources and uses 

of the public lands because extractive uses and rights of ways would be difficult to develop due 

to the restrictive decisions in these areas. 

Recreation: Alternative C establishes seven Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

which are to be managed to highlight non-motorized activities, generally. In addition, nine 

Recreation Management Zones within these SRMAs emphasize various types of non-motorized 

recreation. The Kanab planning area is known for a multitude of recreational activities, 

attracting about 200,000 visitors a year. These visitors engage in numerous activities not 

provided for in Alternative C such as many forms of motorized activity (jeeping, dirt biking, 

ATVing). Alternative C does not provide for the full range of recreational activities known to 

occur in the planning area or for many of the businesses that depend upon these activities. 

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

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

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

unnecessary to protect the relevant and important values. For example, the relevant and 

important value of cultural resources in the White Cliffs potential ACEC is protected by applying 

a closed to leasing stipulation for oil and gas leasing due to management of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness character. In addition, many ACECs overlap with WSAs where relevant and 

important values are already protected through IMP management. The multiple special 

designation layering is duplicative and unnecessary where relevant and important values are 

already protected through Interim Management Policy. 

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

segments found eligible for potential designation into the National Wild and Scenic River 

system. Many of the river segments found suitable in Alternative C include scenery and river 

related non-motorized recreational activities as outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). 

Scenery and non-motorized recreational activities, especially non-boating activities, are more 

amenable for management by other means, such as SRMAs, WSAs and management for nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. As a consequence, Alternative C would impose 

unnecessary restrictions that provide no additional management protections that are not 

otherwise available through existing or alternative management options. 

Travel Management: Alternative C designates no areas for open OHV use, and therefore does 

not meet the needs of all recreational users, such as cross country motorized travel. Alternative 

C closes 30 percent of the land managed by the field office to OHV use. 

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

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

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

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

In summary, this alternative would not provide adequate or balanced consideration of existing 

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

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

8 

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. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D emphasizes commodity production and human activities, which would be less 

constrained in Alternative D than in other alternatives. Alternative D, like Alternative A, 

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

managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Other than Alternative A, 

Alternative D provides more opportunities for motorized recreation, is the least restrictive to 

OHV use and all surface disturbing activities (including oil and gas leasing). Alternative D does 

not provide sufficient restrictions on uses to protect important natural resources. For these 

reasons, this alternative did not achieve the balance between resource protection and resource use 

that provides enhancement of resource use and conditions. The rationale for not selecting 

Alternative D is outlined below for the major management actions. 

Lands and Realty: In Alternative D, 75,200 acres (all within designated wilderness and WSAs) 

are managed as exclusion areas for rights-of-way and no acres are managed as avoidance areas 

for rights of way. The exclusion areas for designated wilderness and WSAs are nondiscretionary, and identifying no acres of avoidance areas is not sufficient to adequately protect 

the important natural resources that have been identified within the planning area. In particular, 

the exclusion areas in Alternative D are not sufficient to protect sensitive visual resources, 

heavily used recreation areas, sage grouse leks and habitats, and the relevant and important 

values in potential ACECs. 

Livestock Grazing: Alternative D allows grazing on the Water Canyon Allotment (48 animal 

unit months-AUMs) which has been identified as conflicting with protecting the culinary water 

system of Fredonia, Arizona, (which uses surface water collection as part of the system). 

Alternative D was not selected because, under this alternative, this issue would remain 

unresolved. 

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

the following stipulations: Closed -- 75,100 acres (all non-discretionary since it is entirely within 

designated wilderness and WSAs); No Surface Occupancy -- 23,000 acres; Timing 

Limitations/Controlled Surface Use -- 64,600 acres; Open (subject to standard terms and 

conditions) -- 391,300 acres. Alternative D is the least restrictive to oil and gas leasing and other 

surface disturbing activities. Alternative D has the most acreage open subject to standard terms 

and conditions. Although the oil and gas restrictions are more conducive to development, they 

are not sufficient to protect the important resources identified within the planning area. In 

particular, the NSO acreage in Alternative D is not sufficient to protect the municipal watersheds 

of Fredonia, Arizona, sensitive visual resources, heavily used recreation areas, and the relevant 

and important values in potential ACECs. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

9 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative D manages no non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. 

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

adversely affected. 

Recreation: Alternative D establishes four SRMAs which are managed primarily to emphasize 

motorized activities. The Kanab planning area is known for a multitude of recreational activities, 

attracting about 200,000 visitors a year. These visitors engage in numerous non-motorized 

activities not specifically managed for in Alternative D such as hiking, horseback riding, 

backpacking, and mountain biking. The seven Recreation Management Zones in four SRMAs 

provided in Alternative D do not provide sufficient opportunities for these popular nonmotorized activities. In Alternative D other heavily used recreation areas such as the North Fork 

Virgin River, would not be afforded the management as an SRMA, leading to inadequate 

management for recreational opportunities. Alternative D does not provide for the full range of 

recreational activities known to occur in the planning area or for many of the businesses that 

depend upon these activities. 

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

determined to have relevant and important values as ACECs. The management prescriptions in 

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

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

the Cottonwood Canyon ACEC are managed as VRM Class III under Alternative D. This visual 

management class is not sufficient to protect the scenic values. 

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 (ORVs). For example, the ORVs of scenery, wildlife, and 

recreation in North Fork Virgin River would not be protected in Alternative D and could be 

subject to adverse impacts from oil and gas development and other surface disturbing activities. 

Travel Management: Alternative D designates only 27,600 acres (five percent) as closed to 

OHV travel, and leaves ephemeral washes open to cross country OHV use. While this 

alternative accommodates many motorized travel opportunities, it conflicts with other uses, 

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

users. 

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

smallest amount of area for various species and applying the minimum timing limitations in 

these areas. The timing limitations imposed in Alternative D are shorter and cover less acreage 

than necessary for sustaining the species. For example, Alternative D requires no restrictions to 

oil and gas leasing and surface disturbing activities in mule deer, elk, and pronghorn habitat. 

Alternative D does not provide sufficient protection for wildlife habitats. 

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

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

would result in adverse impacts to wildlife, loss of primitive recreation opportunities, and would 
Kanab Record of Decision 

10 

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

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

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

foregone. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Several organizations and individuals provided components of alternatives and management 

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

However, none of the submissions address the purpose and need of this RMP revision, including 

the multiple-use requirements identified in FLPMA. While BLM considered components of 

some of the submissions in developing alternatives, none provided the full range of decisions 

required by the purpose and need. 

Vermilion Cliffs Heritage Plan 

The Vermilion Cliffs Heritage Plan was developed and/or endorsed by a number of state and 

national organizations and was provided to the BLM during the public scoping period. The 

Vermilion Cliffs Heritage Plan, as presented, incorporated many timely issues and concerns that 

would be required of any balanced approach to managing public lands. Specifically, the plan 

identifies several points to be considered during the route designation process and identifying 

stipulations to be attached to oil and gas leases. The BLM gave careful consideration to the 

Vermilion Cliffs Heritage Plan and incorporated parts of the plan into the range of RMP 

alternatives. While the Vermilion Cliffs Heritage Plan appears to be multiple use in nature, it 

does not meet the purpose and need for the RMP revision because it does not address all resource 

values and uses that the BLM is required to manage on public lands. 

Closing the Decision Area to Livestock Grazing 

An alternative that proposes to close the entire decision area to livestock grazing would not meet 

the purposes and need 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 issue or conflict has 

been identified during this land use planning effort that requires the complete elimination of 

grazing within the decision area for its 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 RMP. 

Because the BLM has considerable discretion through its grazing regulations to determine and 

adjust stocking levels, seasons of use, and grazing management activities and to allocate forage 

to uses of the public lands in RMPs, the analysis of an alternative to entirely eliminate grazing is 

not needed. 

An alternative that proposes to close the entire decision area to grazing would also be 

inconsistent with the intent of the Taylor Grazing Act, which directs the BLM to provide for 

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

improvement, and development of the range; and stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon 

the public range. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

11 

FLPMA requires that public lands be managed on a “multiple use and sustained yield basis” 

(FLPMA Sections 302(a) and 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 decision area would be arbitrary and would 

not meet the principle of multiple use and sustained yield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

entire decision area has been dismissed from further consideration in this RMP. 

Livestock Grazing Adjustments Alternative 

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

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

grazed on allotments within the Kanab Field Office in order to benefit wildlife and protect and 

promote land health including soils, hydrologic cycles, and biotic integrity. 

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

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

as indicated by this data to help ensure that Standards for Rangeland Health 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 Kanab Field Office or 

in the area as a whole in the Approved RMP. 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 is an implementation decision (H-1610-1, Appendix C, 

page 15). BLM assesses the condition of rangeland health, conducts monitoring and inventories, 

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

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

Guidelines for Rangeland Management are implemented through a proposed decision in 

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

conformance with the LUP and to meet resource objectives and maintain or enhance land health. 

For these reasons this alternative has been dismissed from further consideration in this LUP 

revision. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

12 

No Leasing Alternative 

During scoping for the Draft RMP/EIS it was suggested that BLM should address a "No Leasing 

Alternative" and that No Leasing must be addressed because it is the "No Action Alternative" 

that must be analyzed in all EISs. 

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

where lands have already been leased, the no-action for NEPA purposes continues to allow for 

(honor) valid existing rights. Proposing a “No-Leasing Alternative” would require revisiting 

existing leases and either buying them back from the leasee, or allowing them to expire on their 

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

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

regularly include a “No-Leasing Alternative.” 

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

competing resource uses rather than to eliminate a principal use of the public lands in the Kanab 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

complete elimination of oil and gas leasing within the planning area for their resolution. BLM's 

Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM Manual Ref. 1-1693), Appendix C, item H, requires that 

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

Given these potential categories of decisions, the alternatives analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS 

included no leasing for certain areas, but a field office-wide no leasing alternative was not 

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

As mentioned above, a "No Leasing Alternative" should not be confused with the "No Action 

Alternative" for purposes of NEPA compliance. Leasing and No Leasing on the public lands has 

previously been analyzed in several NEPA documents. In 1973 the Department of Interior 

published the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Federal Upland Oil and Gas Leasing 

Program. 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, BLM prepared a series of high intensity 

Environmental Assessments (then titled "Environmental Analysis Records or EARs") including 

the Oil and Gas Leasing Program Kanab District Environmental Analysis Record (EAR), 1976 

which addressed oil and gas leasing for the public lands in the Kanab Field Office area. 

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

category system for leasing which categorized all public and Forest Service lands into four 

groups: 1) open to leasing with standard lease stipulations, 2) Special Stipulations to address 
Kanab Record of Decision 

13 

special concerns, 3) No surface occupancy and 4) No Leasing. Since completion of the EAR in 

1976, oil and gas leasing in the Kanab Field Office Area has been an ongoing federal program 

under the established categories. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

plan where ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations 

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

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

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

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

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

Consequently, projected impacts of alternative management schemes would be 

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

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

especially greater and lesser levels of resource development. 

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, for the Kanab Draft RMP/EIS, the No Action Alternative would continue the status 

quo which is to lease under the oil and gas categories established in the current land use plans. 

C. RESULTS OF PROTEST PERIOD 

The BLM received 14 protest letters with standing during the 30-day protest period provided for 

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

accordance with 43 CFR Part 1610.5-2. Of these, 12 presented valid protest issues. Protesting 

parties with valid protests included: 

Eleven letters from organizations: Western Watersheds Project, Inc.; Land Use 

Volunteers of Kane County; Alton Coal Development LLC; Kaibab Band of Paiute 

Indians; Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance; ECOS Consulting; Utah Rivers 

Council; Garkane Energy; Kane County Commission; Private Land Owners Upper 

Valley; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), Public Employees for 

Environmental Responsibility (PEER) - Southwest Chapter, The Wilderness Society 

(TWS), Center for Native Ecosystems, Wild Earth Guardians, Sierra Club - Utah 

Chapter. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

14 

One letter from an individual: Laura Welp 

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 and 

protection of the relevance and importance values thereof. In addition, protests declared that 

BLM did not adequately analyze effects of planning actions on air quality or appropriately 

analyze impacts of climate change. Some protestors did not feel that their comments and/or 

submitted information provided on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS were satisfactorily responded to in 

the Proposed Plan/Final EIS. 

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

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

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

RMP/Final EIS. Two of the protests were granted in part, and two changes were made to the 

decisions in the Approved Plan in response to the protests. These included changing the VRM 

objectives on 3,500 acres of lands from a VRM III to VRM II to protect scenic relevant and 

important values in a proposed ACEC, and deleting two parcels of land from the FLPMA 

Section 203 sale disposal list in Appendix 5 because they do not meet BLM’s sale criteria. In 

addition, minor adjustments and clarifications were made and all changes are 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 

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

the Escalante MFP (1981), Paria MFP (1981), Vermilion MFP (1981), Zion MFP (1981), CedarBeaver-Garfield-Antimony (CBGA) RMP (1986) and amendments. 

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 presented in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS, with minor modifications. Management decisions and guidance for public lands 

under the jurisdiction of the Kanab Field Office are presented in the Approved RMP. All 

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

decisions and are effective upon signature of the ROD. 

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

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

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

15 

consideration the human (social and economic) environment as well as the natural environment. 

The Approved RMP supports the six broad policy goals for all Federal plans, programs, and 

policies: 

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

succeeding generations; 

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

pleasing surroundings; 

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

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

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

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

individual choice; 

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

standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; 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, land use allocations and management actions. 

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

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

timeframes for achievement. 

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 to: 

• Designate the Cottonwood Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

and manage according to the special management prescriptions. 

• Designate 51,570 acres as avoidance areas for rights-of-way; and 75,700 acres as 

exclusion areas for rights-of-way. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

16 

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

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

outstandingly remarkable values. 

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

27,770 acres in five areas. 

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

Historic Preservation Act. 

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

- Designate 528,000 acres as limited to off-highway vehicle use, 

- Designate 25,000 acres as closed to off-highway vehicle use, and 

- Designate 1,000 acres in two areas as open to cross country off-highway vehicle 

use. 

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

- Make an estimated 475,000 acres of the 554,000 acres of federal mineral estate 

available for oil and gas leasing; 

- Make an estimated 95,400 acres available for oil and gas leasing under standard 

lease terms; an estimated 296,200 acres available subject to Controlled Surface 

Use or Timing Limitation stipulations; and an estimated 83,400 acres available 

subject to No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations. 

- Make approximately 79,000 acres closed to oil and gas leasing, 

• Recommend to withdraw approximately 9,500 acres from locatable mineral entry. 

• Designate six Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and identify special 

recreational management zones. 

• Manage the five Wilderness Study Areas as VRM Class I and either open (sand dune 

area of Moquith Mountain), closed or limited to designated routes for OHV use. 

• Close the Water Canyon Allotment to livestock grazing (48 animal unit months 

[AUM]) 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. 

• Designate the following VRM management classes: 

- VRM Class I: 76,000 acres 

- VRM Class II: 99,600 acres 

- VRM Class III: 205,500 acres 

- VRM Class IV: 172,900 acres 

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

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

available for these land use plan decisions. 

What the Decision/RMP Does Not Provide

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

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

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

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

private or state lands are shown on a map included in the RMP. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

17 

• The Approved RMP does not affect valid existing rights. 

• The Approved RMP does not create new wilderness or wilderness study areas. 

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

Lands under Wilderness Review. 

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

Congress takes action. 

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

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

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

reasonable administrative and legal measures to protect and preserve valid existing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

permits, or other permits issued by the BLM. 

• The designated Paria Wilderness would continue to be managed under the Wilderness 

Management Plan. 

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

the ROD. Examples of these types of decisions include: 

Statutory requirements: The Approved RMP will not change the BLM's responsibility to 

comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 

National policy: The Approved RMP will not change BLM's obligation to conform to current 

or future national policy. 

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

are beyond the control of the field office. 

Implementation Decisions 

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

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

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

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

identified on Map 10 are effective upon issuance of this Record of Decision. All area 

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

Public notice was provided for both the area designation decisions and the route decision upon 
Kanab Record of Decision 

18 

publication of the Federal Register Notice of Availability of the Proposed RMMP/Final EIS on 

July 18, 2008. 

Route Designation Process 

Designation of specific motorized vehicle routes for the Approved RMP was undertaken 

addressing each route’s purpose and need and weighing the purpose and need against potential 

resource conflicts. Routes were not designated in the Approved RMP where BLM determined 

that the routes have no purpose and need (e.g., duplicative routes) or where resource conflicts 

outweighed the purpose and need. Several interdisciplinary team meetings were held, including 

representatives of Kane and Garfield Counties, to evaluate all the routes inventoried within the 

planning area. BLM inventoried 1,482 miles of routes as baseline and considered for 

designation. Each route was evaluated for its purpose and need and any resulting resource 

conflicts. A total of 76 miles of routes were determined to have either no valid purpose and need 

or resource conflicts that outweighed the purpose and need for the route. Consequently, these 76 

miles of routes, were not designated for motorized travel. Wildlife sensitive habitat accounts for 

the majority of route mileage identified for non-designation. Other major resource conflicts 

derive from wilderness and riparian values, non-motorized recreation needs and at-risk cultural 

resources. The route evaluation process resulted in the designation of 1,402 miles of full sized 

vehicle routes in the Approve RMP. The public and BLM staff specialists did not submit or 

identify routes specifically for ATVs, motorcycles or mountain bikes; therefore, none were 

identified for those specialized uses in the Approved RMP. 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Ways Designated for Travel: Inventoried ways within the 

five Wilderness Study Areas (53,910 acres) managed by the Kanab Field Office total 32.6 miles. 

Out of these 32.6 miles, 7.6 miles are not designated for motorized travel in the Approved RMP. 

The remaining 25.0 miles of inventoried ways, consisting of seven ways in two of the 

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

considered to serve other purposes and needs that could be accommodated while not impairing 

wilderness suitability. The most controversial ways are located in the Moquith Mountain and 

Parunuweap Canyon WSAs. (Note that travel within those two WSAs as well as the Orderville 

Canyon and North Fork Virgin River WSAs has been restricted for the past several years as a 

result of two Federal Register Restriction Notices (FRNs)). The FRNs essentially limited 

motorized travel to only those ways identified during the original wilderness inventory compiled 

by BLM in 1980. The Moquith Loop and Hell Dive inventoried ways in the Moquith Mountain 

WSA provide access to scenic overlooks and a cultural site to be managed for public use. In the 

Parunuweap Canyon WSA, ways accessing Rock Canyon, Poverty Flat, Steep Trail, Elephant 

Cove and two State sections are highly popular with many local residents and hunters who have 

traditionally enjoyed outings along those routes. 

Although very popular with motorized users, these ways pose potential resource conflicts with 

cultural, wildlife, and vegetation resources. Both of these WSAs have experienced occasional 

off-way vehicle travel in the past which has resulted in impacts primarily to vegetation resources. 

However, the BLM has found that the resource impacts could be prevented by clearly signing 

WSA boundaries and the allowable ways. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

19 

BLM intends to further prevent impairment to wilderness resources through land use planning. 

Prior to the Approved RMP, cross-country travel by OHVs had been permitted on all BLM lands 

surrounding the WSAs managed by the Kanab Field Office. This freedom to ride cross-country 

near sensitive WSA resources often led to unintentional off-way travel as OHV operators enter 

the WSAs from the unrestricted lands surrounding them. Designation of lands surrounding the 

WSA as restricted to designated routes and enforcement of all travel designations throughout the 

decision area would provide BLM with a great deal more ability to control off-way travel in the 

WSAs. Upon signature of this ROD, OHV operators will be on notice of designated route 

restrictions prior to reaching the WSA boundaries and violations of these designations could lead 

to law enforcement activity. 

Where ways would remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use would continue 

on a conditional basis. Use of the existing ways would continue as long as the use of these routes 

does not impair wilderness suitability (IMP, BLM 1995). Through monitoring efforts, if use 

and/or non-compliance are found to impair the area’s suitability for wilderness designation, 

BLM would take further action to limit use of the routes or close them to motorized travel. The 

continued use of these routes, therefore, is based on user compliance and non-impairment of 

wilderness values. 

WSA Ways Not Designated for Travel: The Approved RMP did not designate all of the ways 

within WSAs. There are 7.6 miles of ways not designated in the Approved RMP which are 

disputed by groups and individuals favoring continued OHV access. One way in the Moquith 

Mountain WSA accesses a popular viewpoint on the Kaibab Paiute reservation just over the state 

line in Arizona. The BLM has not designated this way for motorized travel in order to resolve a 

conflict with tribal resource management goals and objectives. Other controversial ways in the 

Parunuweap Canyon WSA were not designated in the Approved RMP due to their duplicative 

nature or due to conflicts with and threatened impacts to riparian, cultural and wildlife resources. 

Monitoring of these WSAs over the past few years has revealed recurring off-route travel along 

those ways that would threaten impairment of wilderness values if allowed to continue. 

Repeated attempts to prevent off-route travel along those ways have largely proven timeconsuming and ultimately unsuccessful. 

Designated Routes within Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: In the 

Approved RMP, a total of 26.2 miles of routes are designated within areas specified as non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. These routes provide access to destinations which include 

scenic overlooks and slot canyon access points. These routes were found not to have a negative 

effect on the wilderness characteristics in the area because travel on them is very light and the 

topographical masking found in the area makes them largely unnoticeable. 

Modifications to Designated Routes: BLM received many comments on the Draft RMP/EIS 

that suggested additions, deletions, and modifications to the proposed route system for the 

Preferred Alternative. The route designation process entailed the analysis of thousands of route 

segments covering 554,000 acres. The Approved RMP identifies that specific designated routes 

may be modified through subsequent implementation planning and project planning on a caseby-case basis and based on site-specific documentation with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). Modifications to the route system in the Approved RMP will not be considered 
Kanab Record of Decision 

20 

until implementation of the travel portion of the plan has been substantially completed, which 

includes mapping, signing, monitoring, and evaluation. Routes throughout the decision area 

would be monitored according to regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 8341.2 

requiring the BLM to monitor the effects of OHV use. In the future, BLM will use the criteria in 

Appendix 7 of the PRMP/FEIS to make adjustments (additions, deletions, or modifications) to 

the route network, based on site-specific monitoring and NEPA analysis. 

E. NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS 

Modifications and clarifications were made to the Approved Plan based on the review and 

resolution of the protest letters, as well as from internal review by the BLM. The modifications 

or clarifications to the decisions are provided below. 

Modifications

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

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

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

Plan includes these modifications. 

• In response to a protest concerning protecting the relevance and important values for 

potential ACECs that were not designated in the Proposed Plan, the BLM changed a 

VRM decision. Approximately 3,500 acres of the potential White Cliffs ACEC has a 

relevant and important value of scenery and was proposed to be managed as VRM III 

in the Proposed RMP without ACEC designation. In order to protect this relevant 

and important value, these 3,500 acres will be managed as VRM II in the Approved 

RMP, but will not be designated an ACEC. 

• In response to a protest on two tracts of land available for FLPMA Section 203 sales 

in the Proposed RMP, the following lands were removed from the list in Appendix 5 

of the Approved RMP because they do not meet the Section 203 sale criteria: 

- Township 35 South, Range 1 East, Section 33 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

- Township 36 South, Range 1 East, Section 4, Lots 1, 2 

• The following lands were removed from the list in Appendix 5 in the Approved RMP 

concerning lands available for FLPMA Section 203 sales because they have been 

conveyed through patent to the State of Utah by Congressional legislation, in Public 

Law 105-355: 

- T. 38 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 11, SW1/4NW1/4, W1/2SW1/4 

- T. 38 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 14, W1/2NW1/4, and the portion of land north of 

Cottonwood Road in the NW1/4SW1/4 

- T. 38 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 15, and the portion of land north of Cottonwood Road 

in the SE1/4NE1/4, SW1/4NW1/4 
Kanab Record of Decision 

21 

• After further coordination with Zion National Park, two routes in the Orderville 

Canyon area totaling one mile will be closed in order to help limit unauthorized OHV 

access into the park. 

• After further coordination with Zion National Park concerning the western portion of 

the Kanab Field Office along the boundary with the Park, 1,500 acres of land that 

were managed as VRM III in the Proposed RMP will be managed as VRM II in the 

Approved RMP. This minor modification was made to better manage visual 

intrusions in an area that has visual sensitivity near the Park. 

• As a result of modifying the VRM decisions discussed above, the VRM acres in 

Management Decision of the Approved RMP have been changed from VRM II – 

94,400 acres in the Proposed RMP to 99,600 acres in the Approved RMP; and VRM 

III – 210,700 in the Proposed RMP to 205,500 in the Approved RMP acres. 

• As a result of further BLM internal review and coordination with the State of Utah, 

the following decisions regarding the Greater sage-grouse from the Proposed RMP 

were not included in the Approved RMP. Not including these decisions was analyzed 

in the Draft RMP/EIS (October 2007) under Alternative D and is not considered a 

significant change. These changes make the Kanab planning decision consistent with 

BLM conservation strategies and the UDWR Greater sage-grouse policy, as well as 

Greater sage-grouse BLM land use plan decisions state-wide: 

a) The following decisions from page 2-15 of the Proposed RMP are not included in 

the Approved RMP under the Greater sage-grouse decisions: 

- Preclude cross-country OHV use in Greater sage-grouse nesting and broodrearing habitats. (Note: This decision is already cross-tracked as part of the 

OHV decisions in the Approved RMP.) 

- Avoid new ROWs with high-profile structures (e.g., buildings, storage tanks, 

overhead powerlines, wind turbines, towers, and windmills) within 1 mile of 

an active Greater sage-grouse lek or in nesting and brood-rearing habitat. 

(Note: This decision was changed to 1⁄2 mile to be consistent on a state-wide 

basis.) 

- Avoid insecticide use in Greater sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing 

habitats during the early developmental stage (March 15 to July 15) of Greater 

sage-grouse chicks. (Note: This decision will be analyzed as part of activitylevel planning on future actions.) 

b) The following decisions from page 2-45 of the Proposed RMP are not included in 

the Approved RMP: 

- Avoid new ROWs (106,670 acres) in the following areas (Map 11): 

 Within 1 mile of an active Greater sage-grouse lek (avoid ROWs with 

high-profile structures [e.g., buildings, storage tanks, overhead powerlines, 
Kanab Record of Decision 

22 

wind turbines, towers, and windmills]) (Note: This decision was changed 

to 1⁄2 mile to be consistent on a state-wide basis.) 

 Within Greater sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat (avoid 

ROWs with high-profile structures [e.g., buildings, storage tanks, 

overhead powerlines, wind turbines, towers, and windmills]). (Note: This 

decision was deleted because it is not consistent with BLM or State 

Greater sage-grouse plans or policies.) 

• As a result of modifying some of the Greater sage-grouse decisions in the Approved 

RMP, the total acreage of ROW avoidance has been changed to 51,570 acres in the 

Approved RMP LAR – 5 and the ROW Map 11 has been modified to reflect this 

change. 

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: 

• In response to a protest, the BLM noted that in Appendix 13 (pp. 18-19) of the 

Proposed RMP, the BLM incorrectly identified a Kane County claimed RS-2477 

route as a factor to downgrade a Wild and Scenic River segment of the East Fork 

Virgin River (Segment 37-41). This should have been identified as a “way” that was 

open to motorized use. The presence of the way was the factor considered in 

classifying the segment as “scenic.” Whether the county claims the route under RS2477 is not a determining factor, and the BLM erred by including the RS 2477 

reference. This clarification has been made in Appendix 11 of the Approved RMP. 

• As a result of BLM review and coordination with the State of Utah, the following 

decision on page 2-49 of the Proposed RMP regarding coal unsuitability was clarified 

in order to more closely reflect the coal regulations found in 43 CFR 3400, as follows 

in the Approved RMP: 

- Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining: 

 MIN-9: Approximately 35,538 acres (Map 15) are determined to be 

unsuitable for surface mining and surface operations incident to an 

underground mine as stated in 43 CFR 3400.0-5(mm) based on the 20 

criteria identified in Appendix 6. 

Additional changes to reflect this clarification in wording have been made to Appendix 6 (Kanab 

Field Office: Coal Unsuitability Report) of the ROD. 

• After reviewing the areas listed as ROW avoidance areas in the Lands and Realty 

section on page 2-45 of the Proposed RMP, BLM noted that the following areas were 

omitted from the list and added to the list in the Approved RMP. These areas were 

included in the total acreage figure in the Proposed RMP. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

23 

- LAR – 5: Within 1⁄2 mile of active, suitable (currently inactive) Utah prairie 

dog habitats and within potential reintroduction sites. 

The BLM clarified the language in the decision for Special Status Species, SSS-53, SSS-54, 

SSS-55, SSS-56 in the Approved RMP regarding the Greater sage-grouse for better 

understanding and command of the decisions being made. 

• The following appendices have been added to the Approved RMP for ease of 

reference: 

- Appendix 16 - Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Management 

- Appendix 17 - Hydraulic Considerations for Pipelines Crossing Stream 

Channels 

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 and numerous other laws and regulations that govern the management of 

public lands. Due to the diversity of community needs and stakeholders affected by management 

of BLM lands, there has been both support and opposition to certain components of the Proposed 

Plan. BLM's objective in choosing Alternative B as the Preferred Alternative, and later using it 

as the base for the Proposed Plan (with modifications selected from the range of alternatives) 

was to address these diverse needs and concerns in a fair manner and provide a practical and 

workable framework for public land management. The BLM is ultimately responsible for 

preparing a plan consistent with its legal mandates, which reflects its collective professional 

judgment, incorporating the best from competing viewpoints and ideas. The Approved RMP (the 

Proposed Plan as clarified and modified in consideration of public comments and internal 

review) provides a balance between those reasonable measures necessary to protect the existing 

resource values and the continued public need for use of the public lands within the planning 

area. Both local and national interests were taken into account in arriving at this balance. The 

practical application of decisions was considered in light of land ownership patterns and the 

degree of federal control over the resources in a given area. 

Approval of a plan that provides a balance to meet both resource concerns and social and 

economic concerns in the planning area was a major factor in its selection. The Proposed Plan 

was selected because it proposed management that will improve and sustain properly functioning 

resource conditions while considering needs and demands for existing or potential resource 

commodities and values. In the end, resource use is managed by integrating ecological, 

economic, and social principles in a manner that safeguards the long term sustainability, 

diversity and productivity of the land. 
Kanab 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 3. 

Air Quality

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

or state lands. BLM relies on the agency with jurisdiction over air quality to set regulatory 

standards and criteria to protect the air quality in a particular area. Once these standards are 

established, BLM references them in its permitting documents and ensures that all permitted 

activities on public lands refer to the appropriate agency's standard. With this regulatory 

framework in place the Approved RMP, by necessity, does not make any air quality decisions. 

Instead, the Approved RMP references standards set by the State of Utah (Appendix10). 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 KFO 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. 

Soil Resources

The Approved RMP will limit and mitigate surface disturbance activities such as mineral 

development and cross country travel. This is especially important in areas where sensitive or 

fragile soils exist that may be susceptible to accelerated erosion, soil loss, and reduced 

productivity as a result of these surface disturbing activities. Under the Approved RMP soil 

resources will also benefit from vegetation treatments. Although vegetation treatments are 

initially surface disturbing, over the long term vegetation treatments will improve soil stability 

and improve soil condition by improving the vegetation that helps bind it together. 

Water Resources

The Approved RMP will continue to protect and maintain water quality standards on BLM lands 

managed by the Kanab Field Office. The Approved RMP includes closing the Water Canyon 

grazing allotment which will improve water quality for the town of Fredonia, Arizona, which 

uses the canyon as their culinary water source. The Approved RMP will also limit impacts from 

oil and gas leases by making all riparian areas subject to major constraints (NSO) and by placing 
Kanab Record of Decision 

25 

a 330 foot buffer on each riparian area. Under the Approved RMP, BLM will continue to 

monitor and manage watersheds to meet or make progress toward water quality standards set by 

the State of Utah. 

Vegetation

Decisions regarding vegetation improve the vegetative communities over the life of the plan. 

Under the Approved RMP land treatments (Map 5) would be prioritized and implemented on a 

case-by-case basis to improve vegetation communities throughout the planning area. These 

treatments would be conducted in areas where the desired vegetation community has been 

invaded or has reached an undesirable monoculture. Although short term losses of vegetation 

would occur, over the long term these actions would help to remove undesirable species, increase 

species diversity and age class, improve vegetation composition and structure, and increase 

vegetation cover and ecological condition. 

Special Status Species (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive)

Informal Section 7 consultation, as directed by the Endangered Species Act, subsequent 

regulations, and BLM policy, was conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

throughout the development of the RMP. The BLM submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) 

and requested initiation of formal consultation on July 21, 2008. The USFWS responded with a 

Biological Opinion (BO) on September 29, 2008 completing the formal section 7 consultation 

process (Appendix 13). 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 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 (see Appendix 13 and 

the enclosed CD). These are committed measures that will be included as part of the proposed 

action of any subsequent site specific activities authorized by the RMP. Should any changes be 

made 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 Kanab RMP. All site specific level actions potentially impacting listed 

species or their critical habitat will implement these measures. Incorporating these measures will 

ensure that the BLM is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and will meet necessary 

management and recovery goals. If BLM determines that any deviations, modifications, or 

waiver of these conservation measures may be necessary on a given project, re-initiation of 

Section 7 consultation with USFWS will be necessary. 

BLM notes that the Biological Opinion (Appendix 13 and enclosed CD) provides a number of 

recommended conservation measures that are beyond the scope of this Approved Plan, but may 

be considered in tiered consultation with this programmatic opinion when project-specific 

analysis is conducted in the future. These recommended conservation measures are optional 

measures additional to the committed mitigation contained in Appendix 9, that BLM will 
Kanab Record of Decision 

26 

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 Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA), BLM management guidelines, and policy contained in the BLM’s 6840 Manual. 

Fish and Wildlife

The Approved RMP responds to issues regarding wildlife by providing restrictions to uses in 

crucial wildlife habitat areas. BLM uses the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 

crucial habitat boundaries (Map 2 through 4) to apply these restrictions because UDWR is the 

entity with jurisdiction and expertise over wildlife in Utah. The crucial habitat identified in the 

Approved RMP for deer, elk, bighorn sheep and other big game species is the result of the 

State’s combination of two previous UDWR categories of habitat – “critical” and “high value.” 

The State uses the term “crucial” habitat as a trigger to initiate a close examination of proposed 

projects in order to determine the appropriate management response. BLM and the State 

recognize that some of the land within the defined area, depending on season and timing, may 

not support the respective species for various reasons. The BLM will coordinate with the State 

on issues related to crucial habitat to determine stipulations necessary to address impacts to the 

subject wildlife species. Following consultation, the BLM may grant an exception, modification, 

or waiver. BLM and the State will execute a protocol to implement this provision. 

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are protected by several federal laws and regulations as well as BLM policies 

and procedures. Under the Approved RMP, the basic legal protections provided by these laws 

and regulations would be enforced and implemented. Under the Approved RMP, cultural 

resources would be provided with additional protections by the further regulation of OHV travel 

routes (eliminating cross country use on all but 1,000 acres) and the designation of an ACEC and 

management of SRMAs. The Cottonwood Canyon ACEC has cultural resources as one of its 

relevant and important values; these resources would benefit from the associated protections 

offered by ACEC designation. SRMA management would help focus recreation use and 

increase interpretation and public outreach to reduce impacts to cultural resources. The 

Approved RMP sets priorities for future Section 110 inventories to identify sites for management 

purposes. Three sites are allocated for public use that will provide opportunities for education 

and interpretation. The protections offered for cultural resources under the Approved RMP are 

beneficial to cultural resources. 

Native American consultation was conducted during the RMP process through mailings to the 

Zuni, the Paiute Tribes of Utah (PITU), Navajo, and Ute tribes, and through face-to-face 
Kanab Record of Decision 

27 

meetings with the Kaibab Paiute and Hopi tribes. The Kaibab Paiute tribe participated in the 

planning process as a cooperating agency attending ID Team meetings and helping to develop 

the Draft RMP/EIS alternatives. Comments on the Draft RMP/EIS were received from the 

Kaibab Paiute and Hopi tribes. A meeting was held with the Kaibab Paiute tribe in April 2008 to 

discuss the Proposed RMP/FEIS. 

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

Preservation Office (SHPO). The July 17, 2008, letter from the SHPO concurred with BLM’s 

recommendation of No Adverse Effect from any actions proposed in the PRMP/FEIS. (See 

Appendix 12) The Approved Plan will reduce imminent threats to significant cultural resources 

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

Visual Resources

The Kanab Field Office is home to nationally recognized scenery in southern Utah. These 

settings attract thousands of visitors a year who come to the Kanab area to enjoy the landscape 

and scenery. Scenic attractions in the Kanab planning area include Paria Canyon, Parunuweap 

Canyon, Moquith Mountain, Coral Pink Sand Dunes, and the North and East Forks of the Virgin 

River corridors. The Approved RMP provides protection for 76,000 acres of VRM I and 99,600 

acres of VRM II, where changes to the landscape must be low, thus safeguarding the visitation 

and tourism industry, which is a significant contributor to the Kanab economy. At the same 

time, VRM class III objectives (205,500 acres) and IV (172,900 acres) (Map 6) are applied as 

necessary to allow for exploration and the associated infrastructure to support mineral resource 

development in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and to implement 

vegetation treatments in support of the Healthy Lands Initiative. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts on uses as a result of discretionary focused management, such as the protection, 

preservation, and maintenance of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, were disclosed 

in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, and considered in conjunction with impacts to resource values. 

There are 27,770 acres within five areas (Upper Kanab Creek, Moquith Mountain, Orderville 

Canyon, Parunuweap Canyon, and East of Bryce) (Map 7) that are carried forward for protection 

of their wilderness characteristics. They are managed primarily with a no surface occupancy 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing and all other surface disturbing activities, and as an avoidance 

area for rights-of-way. 

Upper Kanab Creek and Moquith Mountain are the largest stand-alone blocks of undeveloped 

land of all the inventoried areas for wilderness characteristics. The size of these two areas makes 

them more suitable for effectively protecting, preserving, and maintaining their wilderness 

characteristics. In addition, managing these areas for wilderness characteristics is compatible 

with other management actions in the Approved RMP. Moquith Mountain substantially 

overlaps a portion of the Kanab Community SRMA in the non-motorized RMZ (Recreation 

Management Zone), which is managed for primitive recreation opportunities. Orderville Canyon 

and Parunuweap Canyon are small areas that are contiguous to WSAs and can be effectively 

managed for wilderness values. East of Bryce is contiguous to lands inside Bryce Canyon 

National Park that are recommended for wilderness by the National Park Service, and managing 
Kanab Record of Decision 

28 

this area for wilderness values compliments management of the National Park. Thus, all five 

areas are managed for primitive recreation opportunities which coincide with managing these 

areas for wilderness characteristics. 

There were many areas found to have wilderness characteristics (89,780 acres) 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 would conflict 

with protection, preservation, or maintenance of the wilderness characteristics. For example, 

even though no oil and gas leases encumbered these lands, they have high potential for future 

development. In addition, rights of way development (like the West Wide Energy Corridor), 

vegetation treatment areas (Healthy Lands Initiative), future water development for 

livestock/wildlife, and anticipated increased OHV use demands, would make managing for 

wilderness characteristics inappropriate. In other cases, management under the Approved RMP 

will provide some protection of wilderness values. For example, the Vermilion Cliffs unit 

overlaps the Kanab Community SRMA, which has a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and 

gas development. 

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. 

Livestock Grazing

The Approved RMP responds to issues related to managing for healthy rangelands and riparian 

and upland vegetation while still providing for livestock grazing by making most of the planning 

area available for livestock grazing, as long as Standards for Rangeland Health continue to be 

met, and restricting grazing where it is incompatible with resource values. For example, the 

Water Canyon Allotment is closed to livestock grazing in the Approved RMP to protect the 

water system of Fredonia, Arizona. 

According to BLM policy, decisions about season of use, stocking densities, forage allocation, 

and utilization are made using Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

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

decisions based on monitoring and inventory of range conditions and evaluation of such data. 

Changes in specific livestock management practices are, therefore, minimal in the Approved 
Kanab Record of Decision 

29 

RMP. The decisions made in the Approved RMP are limited to whether an allotment is available 

or not available for grazing during the life of the Plan. 

Overall, the Approved RMP provides the best balance in allowing grazing to occur while 

protecting important natural resources. 

Recreation

There are six SRMAs (Map 8) that are designated with nine Recreation Management Zones 

(RMZs) which are intensively managed under the Approved RMP. Although several of these 

would be partially or wholly contained in existing WSAs or designated wilderness, the current 

and potential recreational values warrant additional management direction typically provided by 

SRMAs. The combination of diverse settings and recreation experiences potentially provided by 

these areas needs to be addressed more specifically through activity plans that will be developed 

for each SRMA. By focusing recreation management on these areas, BLM will be able to 

provide enhanced recreation experiences and opportunities while protecting other resource 

values such as cultural, riparian, and wildlife. The Approved RMP provides additional guidance 

and criteria for issuance of Special Recreation Permits. These criteria will help reduce user 

conflicts, enhance recreation experiences, and protect other resource values. 

Transportation

The Approved RMP responds to the issue of OHV use by designating all BLM lands as open, 

closed, or limited. Out of about 554,000 acres within the planning area, 1,000 acres are open to 

cross-country travel, 25,000 acres are closed to motorized travel, and 528,000 acres are limited to 

designated routes (Map 9). 

The Travel Management Plan in the Approved RMP provides a network of transportation routes 

that tie into roads administered by the counties, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest 

Service, and State of Utah. The Approved Plan closes 25,000 acres (designated wilderness and 

wild and scenic river corridors) to motorized use to accommodate users who value nonmotorized areas for hunting, hiking, solitude, etc. There are also many opportunities in the 

limited areas where routes have not been designated for motorized use for these types of 

recreational experiences. Natural and cultural resource protection is also accomplished by 

limiting motorized travel to the routes designated in the Approved RMP. BLM worked closely 

with the counties to identify the baseline routes. Specific designations were made as a result of 

interdisciplinary team reviews, identification of resource conflicts, needed access points, and 

duplication of routes. In compliance with BLM policy and guidelines, OHV area designations in 

the Approved RMP were developed to meet the needs and demands for motorized travel and 

recreation throughout the decision area while substantially reducing impacts from cross-country 

OHV use and taking into consideration other resources and uses. 

The designation of 1,000 acres as open to OHV use refers to the open sand dunes within the 

Moquith Mountain WSA and adjacent to the Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park. Under the IMP, 

travel across open sand dunes may be allowed since tracks typically disappear with the evershifting dunes. The challenge in managing the Moquith dunes is keeping vehicles out of 
Kanab Record of Decision 

30 

surrounding and intermingled vegetation. The BLM depends on a formal partnership with the 

State Park, as well as the presence of its own staff to monitor use and enforce OHV rules. 

Lands and Realty

The Approved RMP protects resources while allowing for community growth, expansion needs, 

and the development of rights-of-way using sound management practices. Land ownership was 

considered to enhance multiple use, access to public lands, acquisition of lands with valuable 

resources, and disposal of lands which are difficult or uneconomic to manage or that are no 

longer needed for a federal purpose. The Approved RMP provides rights-of-way exclusion and 

avoidance areas (Map 11) to protect sensitive wildlife habitats and other sensitive resources, 

while allowing areas for placement and development of new ROWs. 

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 (Map 13) 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 Kanab Field Office that have 

been identified for consideration for disposal by sale in the Approved RMP meet one or more of 

these criteria. 

A prerequisite for entering into the exchange of Federal for non-Federal lands is the BLM 

determination that such an exchange is in the public interest. To make this determination, 

general criteria have been developed in the Approved RMP for both disposal of Federal lands 

and acquisition of non-Federal lands. Every exchange proposal during the life of the Approved 

RMP will meet the criteria for disposal and acquisition. The value(s) of acquisition must 

outweigh the value(s) of disposal for the proposal to be in the public interest and an exchange to 

be considered. 

Minerals and Energy

The Approved RMP specifies restrictions for permitted activities to resolve concerns regarding 

the impacts of these uses. These conditions apply not only to oil and gas leasing, but also apply, 

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

authorizations, permits, and leases, including other mineral resources. 

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

following stipulations: Closed – 79,000 acres; No Surface Occupancy – 83,400 acres; Timing 

Limitations/Controlled Surface Use Stipulations – 296,200 acres; open with standard stipulations 

95,400 acres (Map 14). 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 allowing for development. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

31 

The majority (99 percent) of the lands closed to leasing are areas made unavailable by law or 

regulation. These include designated wilderness, WSAs, and public lands within city/town 

municipal boundaries. The remaining one percent of the lands closed to leasing is due to suitable 

wild and scenic river corridors. Closing these areas to leasing is consistent with BLM national 

policy. 

The Approved RMP incorporates resource protection while allowing exploration and 

development of mineral and energy resources. Oil and gas leasing categories were developed to 

limit impacts to wildlife, recreation, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and other 

sensitive resources. The Approved RMP increases oil and gas leasing constraints by 

approximately 60 percent from the No Action (Alternative A of the Draft RMP/EIS). This 

increase mostly relates to timing restrictions for crucial big game habitat that would still allow 

access for exploration and development of oil and gas resources and are subject to a waiver, 

exception or modification when appropriate. 

Lands unsuitable for surface coal mining (Map 15) were identified in a detailed analysis as 

required in 43 CFR 3461.5. Therefore, decisions for surface coal mining suitability did not vary 

between alternatives. The development potential for locatable mineral resources (e.g. gold 

silver, uranium, etc.) is considered low for the Field Office decision area. As a result, lands 

recommended for withdrawal from location (Map 12) did not change significantly from the No 

Action (Alternative A of the Draft RMP/EIS). Sand and gravel and other mineral material 

excavations will continue to be issued on a case-by-case permit authorization (Map 16). 

Therefore, the approved RMP provides the best balance between protection of resources and 

commodity use and development. 

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 many instances, 

WSAs overlay some of the potential ACECs and management under IMP more than adequately 

protected the relevance and importance 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 have to provide protection to the relevant and important values 

identified. 

Since standard management contained in the Approved RMP protects all of the relevant and 

important values in the planning area, only one area was designated as ACEC (Map 17) where 

additional special management is necessary. The following table (Table 2) provides a list of the 

potential ACECs that were not designated in the Approved RMP, their relevance and importance 

criteria, and planning decisions carried forward that protect those criteria. 

Table 2. Potential ACECs Not Designated in the Approved RMP 

Name of Potential ACEC not 

Designated in Approved RMP 

Relevance & Importance 

Criteria 

Management Protection 

Provided in Approved RMP 

Welsh’s Milkweed Potential Scenic, geologic, or special Manage 96 percent of the area 
Kanab Record of Decision 

32 

Name of Potential ACEC not 

Designated in Approved RMP 

Relevance & Importance 

Criteria 

Management Protection 

Provided in Approved RMP 

ACEC 

1,300 acres 

status species (Coral Pink Sand 

Dunes tiger beetle and Welsh’s 

milkweed) values 

under the IMP (Moquith 

Mountain WSA). 

Prohibit harvest of woodland 

products. 

Manage 50 acres of the 

Potential ACEC outside the 

WSA as VRM Class II 

Prohibit motorized use in and 

through vegetation in 

designated critical habitat for 

Welsh’s milkweed. 

Implement conservation actions 

identified in the Conservation 

Agreement and Strategy for the 

Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger 

beetle, including maintaining the 

established 370-acre 

conservation area. 

Vermilion Cliffs Potential ACEC 

23,400 acres 

Scenic and cultural values, 

wildlife resources, and botanical 

and geologic systems or 

processes 

Manage 56 percent of the 

potential ACEC as VRM Class 

II, 39 percent as VRM Class III. 

Manage 80 percent of the 

potential ACEC as open for oil 

and gas leasing subject to major 

constraints (NSO). 

Manage 20 percent of the 

potential ACEC as open for oil 

and gas leasing subject to 

moderate constraints (CSU for 

visual resources and seasonal 

wildlife stipulations). 

Prohibit disruptive activities 

within established buffers and 

seasons to protect raptor 

species. 

Cultural and historic properties 

are protected by law, policy and 

regulation 

Limit OHV use throughout the 

potential ACEC to 63 miles of 

designated routes that already 

exist, with use being closed 

seasonally on 2 miles to protect 

raptor species. 

White Cliffs Potential ACEC 

26,000 acres 

Scenic and cultural values, 

wildlife resources, and botanical 

natural systems or processes 

Manage 100 percent of the 

potential ACEC as VRM Class II 

. 

Manage 55 percent of the 

potential ACEC as open to 
Kanab Record of Decision 

33 

Name of Potential ACEC not 

Designated in Approved RMP 

Relevance & Importance 

Criteria 

Management Protection 

Provided in Approved RMP 

leasing subject to major 

constraints (NSO) or closed to 

leasing. 

Cultural and historic properties 

are protected by law, policy and 

regulation 

Manage 45 percent of the 

potential ACEC as open to 

leasing subject to moderate 

constraints (CSU for visual 

resources and seasonal wildlife 

stipulations) 

Limit OHV use to 35 miles of 

designated routes that already 

exist. 

Manage 55 percent of the 

potential ACEC for wilderness 

character (Upper Kanab Creek). 

Relevant and important values 

will be protected through NSO, 

right-of-way avoidance areas, 

and other restrictive 

management. 

Parunuweap Canyon Potential 

ACEC 

6,100 acres 

Scenic and cultural values and 

wildlife resources 

Manage 100 percent of the area 

under the IMP (Parunuweap 

Canyon WSA) 

Use environmental education, 

interpretation and signage to 

control unauthorized use. 

Cultural and historic properties 

are protected by law, policy and 

regulation. 

Issue Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) following 

evaluation of various factors 

including specific resources that 

could be impacted such as 

cultural values and wildlife 

resources. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are six eligible river segments (30 miles) carried forward as suitable for inclusion into the 

National Wild and Scenic River system in the Approved RMP (Map 18) to protect the freeflowing nature and outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) associated with the river segments. 

The segments recommended as suitable (East Fork Virgin River – two segments, North Fork 

Virgin River, Orderville Canyon, Meadow Creek/Mineral Gulch and Paria River) all conform to 
Kanab Record of Decision 

34 

corresponding recommendations from Zion National Park and BLM’s Arizona Strip Field 

Office. 

All river segments found suitable in the Approved RMP are those in which recreation and 

scenery were key ORVs. The unique nature of the recreation ORV centers around regionally, 

nationally, and internationally significant hiking and backpacking opportunities involving 

exceptionally scenic, deep canyon settings. The Paria River canyon, especially, is renowned as 

one of the top slot canyon destinations worldwide. The imposition of dams or other man-made 

structures or facilities along these segments would eliminate these important recreation 

opportunities and several commercial guiding and canyoneering enterprises which depend upon 

them. 

In the Approved RMP, all segments are classified as “wild” except for one segment (East Fork 

Virgin River - segment 37-40a) classified as “scenic” due to vehicle ways within the river 

corridor. 

Eligible river segments that were not carried forward as suitable in the Approved RMP are 

protected by various other management decisions. Many of these river segments include 

scenery, cultural and recreation as Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs). These ORVs are 

more amenable for management by other means such as WSAs, non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, ACECs and SRMAs. The Cottonwood Complex (Cottonwood Creek, Indian 

Canyon, South Fork Indian Canyon, North Branch South Fork Indian Canyon, Water Canyon 

and Hell Dive Canyon) are within the Moquith Mountain SRMA and partially within the 

Moquith Mountain WSA and/or the Cottonwood Canyon ACEC, and are closed to surface 

disturbing activities. The segment of Deep Creek that is on public land is physically isolated and 

has a lack of legal public access that provides protection to this area. The BLM is working 

cooperatively with the UDWR to manage Three Mile Creek as habitat for the Bonneville 

cutthroat trout. The free-flowing nature of this stream is not at risk, and the identified ORV on 

public lands would be effectively managed under the Approved RMP. 

Therefore, the ORVs along these eligible segments are protected by other management actions in 

the Approved RMP. 

In addition, BLM looks forward to working with the State of Utah, local and tribal governments, 

and other federal agencies during the next phase of the Wild and Scenic River process. BLM 

will work cooperatively with the above entities in a statewide study to reach consensus regarding 

recommendations to Congress for the inclusion of rivers into the NWSR system. BLM will also 

continue to work with affected local, state, federal, and tribal partners to identify in-stream flows 

necessary to meet critical resource needs, including values related to the subject segments, so 

that they may be identified for inclusion into future recommendations to Congress. 

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 
Kanab Record of Decision 

35 

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 July 18, 2008, in accordance with planning regulations at 43 CFR Part 

1610.3- 2(e), and concluded on September 16, 2008). 

NHPA Section 106 Consultation

A letter was received from the Utah SHPO on July 17, 2008, after reviewing BLM’s decisions in 

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. In the letter, the SHPO concluded that the decisions in the 

Proposed RMP will have no adverse affects on historic properties. Because there has been no 

appreciable change between the Proposed RMP and the Approved RMP, no further SHPO 

consultation is required and all decisions in the Approved RMP will have no adverse affects on 

historic properties. The letter of concurrence from the SHPO is found in Appendix 12. 

Native American Consultation

Consultations with Native Americans on the RMP have been ongoing since 2003. A thorough 

discussion of Native American Consultation in included under “Cultural Resources” in Section F 

of this ROD. 

In addition, the Kaibab Paiute Tribe has participated in the Kanab RMP as a Cooperating 

Agency. The Tribe filed protest on the Proposed RMP/Final EIS concerning OHV route 

designation and the potential coal development in the Alton area. The protest was denied by the 

BLM Director because it did not present any protest issues that resulted in a change to the 

Approved RMP. 

Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act

Informal Section 7 consultation, as directed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), subsequent 

regulations, and BLM policy, was conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

throughout the development of the RMP. Formal consultation with the USFWS was initiated on 

July 21, 2008. As required by Section 7(a) of the ESA, the Kanab Field Office prepared a 

Biological Assessment (BA) to evaluate the listed species in its planning area. The BA analyzed 

the potential impacts on threatened and endangered species which could result from 

implementing management actions authorized under the proposed land use plan for the Field 

Office. The Kanab Field Office determined that some of the proposed actions "may affect, and 

are likely to adversely affect" the listed species and "may affect" designated critical habitat. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a Biological Opinion (BO), in which they concurred 

with BLM’s determination on September 29, 2008, and is included in Appendix 13, and enclosed 
Kanab Record of Decision 

36 

CD. The USFWS further determined that implementation of the RMP, including committed 

mitigation measures, would not jeopardize the existence of any of the listed species. 

H. MITIGATION MEASURES 

Measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm were built into the Approved RMP where 

practicable. Many of the standard management provisions will minimize impacts when applied 

to activities proposed in the planning area. The Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland 

Health (see Appendix 16) will be used as the base standards to assess the health of BLM lands in 

the planning area. Best management practices (BMPs) will be used (when applicable) for a 

number of uses including livestock grazing, forest activities, mining, oil and gas development, 

and other surface disturbing activities (see Appendix 1). 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. 

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. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

37 

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. 

See monitoring plan in Appendix 15. 

J. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

One of BLM’s primary objectives during development of the Kanab Field Office RMP was to 

understand the views of various publics by providing opportunities for meaningful participation 

in the resource management planning process. In-depth information on these efforts is included 

in the Scoping Report, the Kanab Field Office Draft RMP/EIS, and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination. Below is a summary of these public involvement 

efforts. 

The planning process formally began with the publication of the NOI in the Federal Register on 

April 2, 2004, which announced the BLM’s intent to revise its LUPs. The formal public scoping 

period ended on February 15, 2005. Public scoping meetings were held in four locations with 

167 participants. In addition, 997 written public scoping comments were received during this 

period. Further opportunities for public participation were provided in April 2005 during a data 

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

areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC) and WSRs. In January 2006, the public was 

invited to provide further input in the planning process by commenting on the preliminary ACEC 

and WSR reports. 

Six bulletins/postcards were developed to keep the public informed of the Kanab RMP planning 

process. Planning bulletins and postcards provided planning updates to individuals, 

organizations, government agencies, and tribes on the mailing list. In addition, the project 

website provides the public with the opportunity to send requests to be added to the project 

mailing list to receive periodic bulletins and announcements. 
Kanab Record of Decision 

38 

On October 2, 2007, the BLM filed the KFO Draft RMP/EIS with the EPA. On October 12, 

2007, the BLM and EPA published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, which 

marked the beginning of the formal 90-day public review comment period. The formal 90-day 

public comment period ended on January 10, 2008. During the 90-day public comment period, 

the BLM held five public meetings with 209 participants. The BLM received 8,571 public 

comments during the formal 90-day public comment period on the Draft RMP/EIS. In-depth 

information on these efforts is included in both the Kanab Draft RMP/EIS and the Kanab 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination. 

On July 18, 2008, the BLM and the Environmental Protection Agency published a Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register which announced the publication of the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS. The public was informed of the availability of the Proposed RMP/FEIS via news releases, 

the planning website and the RMP mailing list. The Proposed RMP/FEIS as well as all the 

background documents were available on the Kanab RMP planning website. A 30 day protest 

period commenced on July 18, 2008 and ended on August 18, 2008. In addition, a 60-day 

Governor’s Consistency Review period ran concurrently with the protest period. 

The BLM will continue to actively seek the views of the public, using techniques such as news 

releases and web-site information to seek 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 Kane and Garfield Counties within the planning area. 

K. AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN 

Copies of the Record of Decision and the Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan are 

available by request from the following locations: 

BLM Kanab Field Office 

318 North 100 East 

Kanab, Utah 84741 

By contacting the Kanab Field Office at: 

(435) 644-4600 

Or on the Kanab Field Office website at: 

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


Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

40 

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

A. INTRODUCTION 

The Kanab Field Office Approved Plan replaces public land decisions in the Escalante MFP 

(1981), Paria MFP (1981), Vermilion MFP (1981), Zion MFP (1981), Cedar-Beaver-GarfieldAntimony (CBGA) RMP (1986) and amendments. The Approved Plan is now the base land use 

plan for public lands administered by the BLM Kanab Field Office. The Approved Plan adopts 

the management described in Proposed Plan and the Management Common to All Alternatives 

section presented in the Kanab Field Office Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2008), with 

adjustments as described in the Notice of Modification and Clarification sections of the ROD. 

B. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER BLM PLANS AND 

POLICIES 

FLPMA Title II, Section 202, provides guidance for the BLM’s planning process to coordinate 

planning efforts with American Indian tribes, other federal agencies, and state and local 

governments. To accomplish this directive, the BLM has kept abreast of other federal, state, local 

plans, and tribal government plans; considered such plans in the development of the alternatives 

for the Draft RMP/EIS; and worked with these other entities to avoid inconsistencies among their 

various plans. FLPMA and the planning regulations require that BLM plans be consistent with 

other officially approved or adopted resource related plans of other federal, state, and local 

governments to the extent those plans are consistent with federal law and regulations applicable 

to the public lands. In keeping with the above mandates, the Kanab Field Office asked federal, 

state, and local agencies and tribal councils to review the Draft RMP/EIS and inform the BLM of 

any inconsistencies, and members of the planning team reviewed the following federal, state, and 

local plans, Acts, and policies: 

• Kane County, Utah, General Plan (1998 and amended 2007) 

• Garfield County, Utah, General Plan (1995 and amended 1998 and 2007) 

• Scenic Byway 12 Corridor Management Plan (2001) 

• State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (2003) 

• Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005) 

• Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park General Management Plan (2004) 

• Utah’s Water Resources: Planning for the Future, Utah Division of Water Resources 

(2001) 

• Utah State Law 63j-4-401 

• Zion National Park General Management Plan (2001) 

• Bryce Canyon National Park Fire Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment/Assessment of Effects (2004) 

• Arizona Strip District Proposed Plan/Final EIS (2007) 

• St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan (1999) 

• Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument Management Plan (1999) 

• Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative EIS (1994) 

• Southern Utah Support Area Fire Management Plan (2005) 
Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

41 

• Endangered Species Recovery Plans and Conservation Agreements, including: 

- Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, 1995 

- Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan, 1991 

- Utah Prairie Dog Interim Conservation Strategy, 1997 

- Welsh’s Milkweed Recovery Plan, 1992 

- Siler Pincushion Cactus Recovery Plan, 1986 

- Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger 

Beetle, March 31, 1997 

- Recovery Plan for the California Condor, 1996 

- Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, 2002. 

• Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Report, 2007 

• Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement, 2007 

• Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 13 

Western States and Associated Records of Decision, 1991 

• Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 

• Energy Policy Act of 2005 

• Western Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS 

• Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Department Of The Interior, BLM and 

U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

In the event there are inconsistencies or discrepancies between previously approved plans and 

this Approved Plan, the decisions contained in the Approved Plan will be followed. The Kanab 

Field Office will continue to tier to statewide, national, and programmatic EISs and other NEPA 

and planning documents, as well as consider and apply Best Management Practices or other 

management protocols contained in other planning documents after appropriate site-specific 

analysis. 

All future resource authorizations and actions will conform to, or be consistent with the decisions 

contained in this Approved Plan. 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 Kanab Field Office RMP constitutes compliance with NEPA for the 

broad-scale decisions made in this Approved Plan, BLM will continue to prepare Environmental 

Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impacts Statements (EISs) where appropriate as part of 

implementation level planning and decision-making. 
Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

42 

C. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

Plan implementation is a continuous and active process. Decisions presented in the Management 

Decisions section of this Approved Plan 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 Plan. These include decisions such as the allocation of lands as available or 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing, ACEC designations, and OHV designations. Immediate 

decisions require no additional analysis and provide the framework for any subsequent activities 

proposed in the planning area. Proposals for actions such as oil and gas leasing, land 

adjustments, and other allocation-based actions will be reviewed against these 

decisions/allocations to determine if the proposal is in conformance with the plan. 

One-Time Decisions: These types of decisions include those that are implemented after 

additional site-specific analysis is completed. Examples are implementation of the 

recommendations to withdraw lands from locatable mineral entry or development of a habitat 

management plan or a special recreation management area plan. One-time decisions usually 

require additional analysis and are prioritized as part of the BLM budget process. 

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. 

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). 

General Implementation Schedule of “One-Time” Actions

Decisions in this plan will be implemented over a period of years depending on budget and staff 

availability. After issuing the ROD/Approved Plan, BLM will prepare an Implementation Plan 

that establishes tentative timeframes for completion of “one-time” actions identified in the 

Approved Plan. Most of these actions require additional analysis and site specific activity 

planning. This schedule 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 
Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

43 

accomplishments and provide information that can be used to develop annual budget requests to 

continue implementation. 

Maintaining the Plan

Land use plan decisions and supporting information can be maintained to reflect minor changes 

in data, but maintenance is limited to refining, documenting, and/or clarifying previously 

approved decisions. Some examples of maintenance actions include: 

• Correcting minor data, typographical, mapping, or tabular data errors 

• Refining baseline information as a result of new inventory data (e.g., changing the 

boundary of an archaeological district, refining the known habitat of special status 

species or big game crucial winter ranges, or adjusting the boundary of a fire 

management unit based on updated fire regime condition class inventory, fire 

occurrence, monitoring data, and/or demographic changes) 

• Applying an existing oil and gas lease stipulation to a new area prior to the lease sale 

based on new inventory data (e.g., apply an existing protective stipulation for sagegrouse to a newly discovered sage-grouse lek.) 

The BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, 

research, other agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data and/or support new 

management techniques, best management practices, and scientific principles. Adaptive 

management strategies may be used when monitoring data is available as long as the goals and 

objectives of the plan are met (see the Adaptive Management section). 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 Plan 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. 
Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

44 

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 Kanab Field 

Office RMP: 

• September 2013 

• September 2018 

• September 2023 

• September 2028 

Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H1601-1) or other appropriate guidance in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated. 

F. MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 

This section of the Approved Plan presents the goals and objectives, land use allocations, and 

management actions established for public lands managed by the Kanab Field Office. These 

management decisions are presented by program area. Not all types of decisions were identified 

for each program. A Monitoring section is also included for each program to describe how the 

program decisions will be tracked to ensure implementation (see Appendix 15). 

Data used in development of the Approved Plan are dynamic. The data and maps used 

throughout the Approved Plan are for land use planning purposes and will be refined as sitespecific planning and on-the-ground implementation occurs. Updating data is considered plan 

maintenance which will occur over time as the RMP is implemented (see the section on Plan 

Implementation). 

Note: All acreages presented in the Approved RMP are estimations, even when presented to the 

nearest acre. 

 
Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

45 

This section is organized as presented in the Kanab Proposed RMP/Final EIS. For ease of 

identification into the future, each program area has an identified abbreviation (see below) and 

each decision in that program is numbered in coordination with the abbreviation: 

• Air Quality – AQ

• Soil Resources – SOL

• Water Resources – WAT

• Vegetation –VEG 

• Special Status Species (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive) – SSS 

• Fish and Wildlife – WL 

• Wildland Fire Ecology – FIRE

• Cultural Resources – CUL

• Paleontological Resources – PAL 

• Visual Resources – VRM

• Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics – WC

• Drought and Natural Disasters – DND

• Forestry and Woodland Products – FOR

• Livestock Grazing – GRA

• Recreation – REC 

• Transportation 

- Travel Management – Area Categories – TRC

- Travel Management – OHV 

- Route Identification – TRR

- Travel Management – TRV

• Lands and Realty – LAR

• Minerals and Energy – MIN 

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern – ACEC

• Wild and Scenic Rivers – WSR

• Wilderness (designated) – DW

• Wilderness Study Areas – WSA

• Other Designations – OD

• Public Safety – HAZ 

This section lists the RMP goals developed by the BLM with input from cooperating agencies 

and the public. This section also identifies the objectives and describes management decisions 

applicable to the decision area. 

RMP Goals

• Manage public lands for multiple uses of public resources within the framework of 

applicable laws, regulations, and agency policies. 

• Use adaptive management to meet resource objectives. 

• Apply rangeland standards and guidelines to the decision area. 

• Implement ecosystem management in an open, cooperative, responsive atmosphere to 

involve agencies, groups, and individuals in monitoring and addressing resource 

issues on public lands—issues that often span administrative and ownership 

boundaries. 
Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

46 

• Maintain, improve, and restore (where needed) healthy ecosystems and habitat to 

support viable populations of fish, plants, and wildlife species while reducing habitat 

loss and fragmentation. 

• Protect and enhance cultural and natural resources and values using the diversity of 

tools available to the BLM. 

• Provide a variety of recreational, educational, and interpretive opportunities for 

people to experience public land resources and values. 

• Reduce conflicts between uses and user groups. 

• Recognize the unique cultural, historical, and social values of the decision area in 

developing a plan that manages the land and protects the heritage it engenders.
Kanab Approved RMP - Air Quality 

47 

Air Quality (AQ)

Goals and Objectives: 

Maintain air quality in accordance with standards prescribed by federal and state laws and 

regulations. 

Management Actions: 

AQ-1 

Manage air quality in accordance with the air quality standards prescribed by federal, state, and 

local laws, regulations, and policies including the following: 

• Applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

• Applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

• State or tribal implementation plans 

• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), if applicable 

• Conformity analyses and determinations 

• Regional haze regulations, including visibility impacts on mandatory federal Class I 

areas 

• Utah Smoke Management Plan. 

AQ-2 

Comply with the Clean Air Act through the application of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process on a case-by-case basis. 

AQ-3 

Comply with Utah Administrative Code Regulation R307-205, which prohibits the use, 

maintenance, or construction of roadways in disturbed areas without taking appropriate dust 

abatement measures. Compliance would be obtained through site-specific stipulations identified 

on a case-by-case basis for new projects and through the use of dust abatement control 

techniques in problem areas. 

AQ-4

Mitigate actions that compromise ambient air quality standards or visibility within the Class I air 

areas. 

AQ-5 

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-6 

BLM will continue to work cooperatively with the Utah Airshed Group to manage emissions 

from wildland and prescribed fire activities. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Air Quality 

48 

AQ-7 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards are enforced by the Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality, Division of Air Quality, with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversight. 

Special requirements to reduce potential air quality impacts will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis in processing land use authorizations. 

AQ-8 

BLM will utilize BMPs and site specific mitigation measures, when appropriate, based on site 

specific conditions, to reduce emissions and enhance air quality. Examples of these types of 

measures can be found in the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force Report of Mitigation Options, 

November 1, 2007. 

AQ-9 

Project specific analyses will consider use of quantitative air quality analysis methods (i.e. 

modeling), when appropriate as determined by BLM, in consultation with state, federal, and 

tribal entities. 
Kanab Approved RMP – Soil Resources

49 

Soil Resources (SOL)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Maintain and/or restore overall watershed health and reduce erosion, stream 

sedimentation, and salinization of water, with particular emphasis on the Colorado 

River System. 

• Soils would exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates appropriate for the 

soil type, climate, and landform. 

• Maintain and restore areas of biological soil crust appropriate for the soil type, 

climate, and landform. 

• Maintain or enhance soil stability, productivity, and infiltration to prevent accelerated 

erosion and to provide for optimal plant growth and the site’s potential. 

Management Actions: 

Maintaining Soil Resources

SOL-1 

 Implement BMPs designed to minimize impacts on soils from ground disturbing activities, as 

appropriate (Appendix 1). 

SOL-2 

Reduce soil loss on watersheds by performing appropriate land treatments (Map 5). 

SOL-3 

Land treatments would be prioritized in the following fifth-field watersheds: 

• Upper Sevier River Watershed: 

- Pass Creek/Sevier River 

- City Creek/Sevier River 

- Bear Creek/Sevier River. 

• Upper Virgin River/Kanab Creek Watersheds: 

- Muddy Creek 

- Upper Kanab Creek 

- Skutumpah/Mill Creek. 

SOL-4 

Initiate reclamation of surface disturbances, where appropriate, during or upon completion of the 

authorized project. 

SOL-5 

Close and reclaim temporary roads upon completion of the project that required the roads. 
Kanab Approved RMP – Soil Resources

50 

SOL-6 

Remove and reclaim facilities or improvements no longer necessary or desirable, provided no 

historic properties are affected. 

Sensitive/Fragile Soils

SOL-7 

Identify areas of “fragile soils” during preparation of project-level plans, as well as necessary 

mitigation measures to minimize risks and degradation. 

SOL-8 

Develop and implement site-specific restrictions and/or mitigations for activities proposed in 

fragile soil areas on a case-by-case basis. Surface disturbing activities must be approved by the 

BLM before construction and maintenance is authorized. 

SOL-9 

Allow surface disturbance in fragile soil areas as long as impacts would be mitigated or 

disturbance would be beneficial to rangeland health. 

SOL-10 

Preclude cross-country OHV use in areas identified as fragile soils to minimize soil loss and 

salinity of water runoff. 

SOL-11 

Allow land treatments (i.e., vegetation treatment and soil stabilization) in fragile soil areas where 

such treatment would reduce erosion and restore watersheds. 

SOL-12 

Manage land uses according to the Standards for Rangeland Health (Appendix 16) to maintain or 

improve soil conditions. 

SOL-13 

Incorporate BMPs and soil protection measures into developments on sensitive soils. Measures 

to stabilize soils and minimize surface water runoff would be required for slopes greater than 15 

percent, both during project activities and following project completion. 
Kanab Approved RMP – Water Resources

51 

Water Resources (WAT)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Maintain and/or restore natural hydrologic functions of watersheds, including the 

capability to capture, store, and beneficially release water. 

• Reduce flood-related damage to infrastructure and downstream private lands. 

• Improve watershed conditions on eroding sites and on other sensitive watershed 

areas, such as riparian areas. 

• Maintain and improve water quality to meet state standards for water quality in order 

to protect established beneficial uses. 

Management Actions: 

Management of Water Quality and Watershed Health

WAT-1 

Monitor water quality in coordination with the State Division of Water Quality to determine if 

progress toward meeting water quality standards and watershed objectives is being achieved. 

WAT-2 

Monitor the management activities to determine if progress toward meeting watershed objectives 

is being achieved. Make appropriate adjustments where and when necessary to ensure progress 

toward meeting watershed objectives. 

WAT-3 

Implement BMPs designed to protect water quality for all ground disturbing activities 

(Appendix 1).

WAT-4 

Provide for the improvement and protection of water quality of the culinary water supply for 

Fredonia, Arizona, by limiting livestock grazing and OHV use above the legally approved water 

collection points for the city in Cottonwood and South Fork Indian Canyons. 

WAT-5 

Identify public water systems with surface water or groundwater sources (i.e., delineated 

drinking water source protection zones) that may be affected by BLM-authorized activities. 

Ensure that BLM-authorized activities do not pose a threat to public water systems. 

WAT-6 

Coordinate with local, state, tribal, and federal authorities on water- and riparian-related issues. 

WAT-7 

Implement BMPs designed to improve vegetation cover and reduce soil erosion for surface 

disturbing activities, especially with regard to sources of saline sediments in the Colorado River 

Basin (Appendix 1). Coordinate with the Virgin River Management Plan Watershed Advisory 

Committee (and other applicable committees for other Colorado River tributaries) to reduce 

salinity. 
Kanab Approved RMP – Water Resources

52 

WAT-8 

Improve watershed health by performing appropriate land treatments (Map 5). 

WAT-9 

Land treatments would be prioritized in the following fifth-field watersheds: 

• Upper Sevier River Watershed: 

- Pass Creek/Sevier River 

- City Creek/Sevier River 

- Bear Creek/Sevier River 

• Upper Virgin River/Kanab Creek Watersheds: 

- Muddy Creek 

- Upper Kanab Creek 

- Skutumpah/Mill Creek. 

WAT-10 

Continue to cooperatively implement the Upper Sevier River Watershed Management Plan with 

the Upper Sevier Watershed Committee. 

WAT-11 

Manage the Sevier River in accordance with the total maximum daily load (TMDL) and Upper 

Sevier River Watershed Management Plan. 

WAT-12 

Avoid or minimize impacts on water quality through the application of specific mitigation 

measures identified in activity-level plans. 

WAT-13 

Manage oil and gas leasing as open to leasing subject to moderate constraints to protect culinary 

water supply as directed by the Land Use Agreement for Kanab City Existing Wells in the 

following sections: 

• T 42 S R 6 W Sections 19, 31 

• T 42 S R 7 W Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35. 

In these areas (1) oil and gas well placement would be relocated to eliminate potential 

contamination sources or pollution sources, and/or (2) design standards would be implemented to 

prevent contaminated discharges to groundwater. 

Management of Water to Meet Resource Management Objectives

WAT-14 

Cooperate with the State Division of Water Rights and apply for state water rights to meet 

resource objectives, as necessary. 
Kanab Approved RMP – Water Resources

53 

Water Resources and Discharge of Produced Waters from Energy Development Activities

WAT-15 

Cooperate with the Utah Division of Water Quality; Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining; and 

affected water users to address permitting requirements for any proposed treatment, surface 

discharge, or underground injection of water produced during mineral exploration and 

production (Utah Administrative Rule R649-5, Underground Injection Control of Recovery 

Operations and Class II Injection Wells). 

WAT-16 

Apply coalbed natural gas BMPs to preserve groundwater quality (Appendix 1). 

WAT-17 

Encourage treatment (as needed) and onsite or offsite beneficial use of produced water, so long 

as that water is of adequate quality and the rate of use does not cause adverse impacts on other 

resources. If treatment of produced water is not practical, require reinjection or offsite disposal. 

WAT-18 

Do not allow surface discharge of produced water in the Colorado River Basin. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Vegetation 

54 

Vegetation (VEG)

Goals and Objectives: 

• A mosaic of non-invasive perennial and annual vegetation communities would be 

present across the landscape with diversity of species, canopy, density, and age class 

in accordance with ecological site potential. 

• Protect, enhance, and/or restore ecological processes and functions by allowing tools 

that are necessary and appropriate to mitigate adverse impacts of allowable uses and 

undesirable disturbances and which contribute to meeting the Utah BLM Standards 

for Rangeland Health. 

• Sustain or reestablish the integrity of the sagebrush communities to provide the 

quantity, continuity, and quality of habitat necessary to maintain sustainable 

populations of Greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species. 

• Manage rangelands to prevent net loss of properly functioning sagebrush steppe 

habitat. 

• Contain or reduce invasive plant species from existing extent; prevent establishment 

of new invasive species through early detection and rapid response actions. 

• Restore native species to meet desired plant community objectives where appropriate. 

• Maintain health of ponderosa pine stands within the decision area. 

• Maintain and/or restore riparian areas to proper functioning condition, or to making 

significant progress toward proper functioning condition, where BLM-managed or 

BLM-authorized activities have been identified as contributing to riparian 

impairment. 

• Ensure water availability for multiple-use management and functioning, healthy 

riparian and upland systems. 

Management Actions: 

General Vegetation

VEG-1 

 Apply Standards for Rangeland Health (Appendix 16) to all rangelands. 

VEG-2 

Apply Guidelines for Grazing Management on BLM Lands in Utah (BLM 1997a) and 

Guidelines for Recreation Management for Public Lands in Utah [BLM no date] for maintenance 

and rehabilitation of rangelands. 

VEG-3 

Rehabilitation target would be to manage for 51 percent or higher of Potential Natural 

Community (PNC) unless site-specific management objectives for other resources dictate 

otherwise (e.g., special status species adapted to 0 percent to 25 percent of PNC). 

VEG-4 

Identify, maintain, and restore forest and woodland old-growth stands to a pre-fire suppression 

condition. Adopt the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) old-growth definitions and identification 
Kanab Approved RMP - Vegetation 

55 

standards as per the USFS document Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain 

Region (Hamilton 1993). In instances where the area of application in the previous document 

does not apply (for example, Pinus edulis), use the document Recommended Old-Growth 

Definitions and Descriptions, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region (USFS 1992). 

Management of Riparian Areas

VEG-5 

Maintain and/or enhance riparian areas (Utah Riparian Management Policy 2005) through 

project design features and/or stipulations that protect riparian resources. 

VEG-6 

Consult with water rights holders when rights-of-way (ROW) are renewed or amended to 

determine if water necessary to prevent riparian and aquatic degradation could be left in-stream 

through design or operation stipulations. 

VEG-7 

Analyze proposed new or amended ROWs for water diversions to determine the amount of water 

that must be retained to prevent riparian and aquatic degradation. Incorporate design and 

operation stipulations as necessary to protect riparian and aquatic resources. 

VEG-8 

Monitor riparian conditions, as needed, for any surface disturbing activity that could affect 

riparian areas. 

 

VEG-9 

Retain riparian areas in the public ownership unless it can be clearly demonstrated that specific 

sites cannot be managed in an effective manner by the BLM or through agreements. Exchanges 

involving public land containing riparian areas would generally not be allowed unless it could be 

shown that parcels containing superior public values are being acquired or that existing riparian 

areas would be enhanced. 

VEG-10 

Prioritize monitoring in functioning at-risk and then non-functioning riparian areas. Additional 

monitoring would occur on an as-needed basis (e.g., to assess impacts of specific projects or to 

establish reference conditions). 

VEG-11 

Prioritize rehabilitation efforts and management adjustments in functioning at-risk and then nonfunctioning riparian areas where livestock grazing has been determined to be a significant 

contributing factor. As opportunities arise (e.g., cooperative proposals), actions would also be 

taken to initiate recovery and rehabilitation within the site’s potential in non-functioning riparian 

areas. 

VEG-12 

Emphasize management of uses rather than structural efforts when rehabilitating degraded 

riparian areas. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Vegetation 

56 

VEG-13 

As necessary and appropriate (indicated by monitoring results and interdisciplinary analysis), 

livestock numbers, seasons of use, and grazing systems would be modified when necessary to 

meet riparian objectives. 

VEG-14 

Existing and new water developments would be maintained and/or managed to reduce 

detrimental impacts on riparian areas (i.e., dewatering) and to change grazing management 

within riparian areas when grazing has been identified as a significant contributing factor. 

VEG-15 

Fencing, erosion control structures, and vegetation treatments would each be an option where 

changes in use would not meet management objectives within the desired time frame. 

VEG-16 

Do not allow new surface disturbing activities within 330 feet of riparian/wetland areas unless it 

could be shown that (1) there are no practical alternatives, (2) all long-term impacts could be 

fully mitigated, or (3) the activity would benefit and enhance the riparian area. 

VEG-17 

Maintain sufficient water, to the extent possible, to sustain native flora and fauna when 

developing/redeveloping springs. Return unused or overflow water to its original drainage. 

Plant and Seed Collection

VEG-18 

Permit commercial seed collection. Areas and species available for commercial collection would 

be determined on a case-by-case basis as climatic conditions allow, in accordance with statewide 

guidance and policy. 

VEG-19 

Allow vegetation materials use (excluding seed collection, which is addressed above; pine nut 

harvest; and forest and woodland products) and collection in specified areas identified by permit 

on a case-by-case basis as climatic conditions allow. 

VEG-20 

Allow the collection/harvesting of vegetative materials in riparian areas in proper functioning 

condition on a case-by-case basis as climatic conditions allow. 

VEG-21 

Allow Native American non-commercial traditional use of vegetation products for the collection 

of herbs, medicines, traditional use items, or items necessary for traditional, religious, or 

ceremonial purposes, through permits. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Vegetation 

57 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

VEG-22 

Implement noxious weed and invasive species control actions as per national guidance and local 

weed management plans in cooperation with state and federal agencies, affected counties, 

adjoining private land owners, and other interests directly affected. 

VEG-23 

Apply approved weed control methods to all invasive species in an integrated weed management 

program (including preventive management; education; and mechanical, biological, wildland or 

prescribed fire, and chemical techniques). 

VEG-24 

Use minimum tool analysis (in designated wilderness) or the non-impairment standard (in 

WSAs) to identify vegetation treatment methods and approved herbicides to treat invasive plants 

such as tamarisk and Russian olive for the purpose of restoring ecological conditions and 

functions. 

VEG-25 

Require certified weed-free feed for all stock to limit the introduction and spread of noxious 

weeds and other undesirable species. 

Relict Plant Communities and Hanging Gardens

VEG-26 

Manage relict plant communities and hanging gardens to maintain and enhance the biological 

diversity and health of these areas. 

VEG-27 

Restrict surface occupancy (NSO) for surface disturbing activities to protect relict vegetation at 

Diana’s Throne and Elephant Butte. 

VEG-28 

Recommend Diana’s Throne and Elephant Butte for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

VEG-29 

Protect hanging gardens by implementing the no surface disturbance actions identified in the 

Riparian section of this chapter. 

Sagebrush Steppe

VEG-30 

Treat sagebrush steppe communities to restore natural disturbance processes and a healthy, 

diverse mosaic of different height and age structures with components of native grasses and forbs 

and an appropriate pinyon-juniper component for a given ecological site. Mosaics may include 

stands of young and old sagebrush, openings (ranging from bare ground to short or sparse 

vegetation to high-density grasslands), wet meadows, seeps, healthy streamside (riparian) 

vegetation, and other interspersed shrub and woodland habitats. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Vegetation 

58 

VEG-31 

Follow the Connelly guidelines (Connelly et al. 2000) for vegetation treatment prescriptions for 

projects occurring in occupied and/or historic Greater sage-grouse habitat. Adjust and/or modify 

these guidelines with cooperators (e.g., Utah Division of Wildlife Resources [UDWR], local 

sage-grouse working group, and Utah Partners for Conservation and Development, as necessary, 

within the range of variability described in the appropriate ecological site description. 

Vegetation Restoration Treatments

VEG-32 

Limit acres of vegetation treatments (e.g., wildlife habitat treatments, watershed treatments, 

livestock rangeland treatments, wildland fire use, fuels treatments, and stewardship contracting) 

to an annual average of no more than 22,300 acres (446,000 acres over the life of the plan). 

VEG-33 

Use the full range of upland vegetation treatment methods and tools (i.e., prescribed fire, 

mechanical, chemical, biological, woodland product removal, and wildland fire use). 

VEG-34 

Vegetation treatments may be authorized where protection of sensitive resources would be 

ensured. 

VEG-35 

Focus restoration or vegetation treatment projects based on the following factors: 

• Restore areas functioning at less than 51 percent of PNC 

• Restore areas with noxious weed and/or non-native invasive plants 

• Maintain previously treated areas 

• Achieve other objectives identified in this RMP 

• Restore special status species habitats to achieve long-term conservation and recovery 

objectives 

• Achieve rangeland health objectives. 

VEG-36 

Manage areas with ponderosa pine to maintain the stand health through use of stand health 

exams, vegetation treatments, wildland fire, and prescriptions on permitted activities on a caseby-case basis. Manage stands to be predominantly park like, resilient to low-intensity fire, and 

have normally expected levels of mortality. 

VEG-37 

Focus treatment objectives in ponderosa pine vegetation communities on restoring natural 

disturbance processes such as fire; increasing vegetative ground cover of native grasses, forbs, 

and shrubs; and removing invasive, non-native species.
Kanab Approved RMP - Special Status Species 

59 

Special Status Species (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive)

(SSS)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Maintain, protect, and recover habitats of federally listed threatened, endangered, or 

candidate plant, animal, or fish species, and actively promote recovery to the point 

that provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are no longer required. 

• Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats of the latest Utah BLM State Director’s 

sensitive plant and animal species list to ensure that BLM-authorized or approved 

actions are consistent with the conservation needs of the species and do not contribute 

to the need to list any species under the ESA. 

• Cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other agencies, such 

as UDWR, in managing special status species and their habitat. 

• Allow, initiate, and/or participate in scientific research of listed and sensitive species 

and their habitats. 

• To the maximum extent possible, maintain habitat connectivity and avoid habitat 

fragmentation for special status plant and animal species. 

• Develop and implement conservation measures to minimize long-term habitat 

fragmentation through avoidance and site-specific reclamation in order to provide the 

habitat quality and quantity to meet ecological requirements and support a natural 

diversity of species. 

Management Actions: 

Special Status Species Conservation and Habitat Enhancement

SSS-1 

Implement Recovery Plan, Conservation Agreement, and Strategy decisions to increase 

populations and improve habitat of special status species, including federally listed species, by 

enhancing, protecting, and restoring occupied and potential habitat. 

SSS-2 

Collaborate with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies to promote public education on 

species at risk, their importance to the human and biological community, and reasons for 

protective measures that would be applied to the lands involved. 

SSS-3 

Develop and implement monitoring and conservation measures for listed and non-listed special 

status species and their habitats where land use and human disturbances have been identified as 

having potential for adverse impacts. 

SSS-4 

Incorporate USFWS references for listed species, designated critical habitat, down-listed or delisted species, and non-listed special status species into management actions authorized within 

the decision area. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Special Status Species 

60 

SSS-5 

Work with the UDWR to implement the Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

(UDWR 2005a) to coordinate management actions that would conserve native species and 

prevent the need for additional listings (WO IM 2006-114). 

SSS-6 

Apply lease notices and conservation measures (Appendix 9) to leases and other applicable 

activities occurring in special status species habitat. 

SSS-7 

Avoid, control, or regulate surface disturbing and disruptive activities on a case-by-case basis to 

minimize impacts on identified crucial habitat for sensitive species for the purpose of protecting 

these species and their associated habitats. 

SSS-8 

Should special status species be found, temporarily stop surface disturbing and disruptive 

activities until species-specific protective and/or mitigative measures are developed and 

implemented, in consultation with USFWS and/or UDWR when applicable. 

SSS-9 

Apply BMPs to avoid or reduce fragmenting habitat, including: 

• Collocating communication and other facilities 

• Employing directional drilling for oil and gas 

• Using topographic and vegetative screening to reduce the influence of intrusions. 

SSS-10 

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 offsite, or in accordance with 

current guidance. 

Bald Eagles and Other Special Status Raptor Species

SSS-11 

Implement conservation measures (Appendix 9) on actions affecting bald eagles or their habitat. 

SSS-12 

Do not authorize future ground disturbing activities within 1⁄2 mile of active bald eagle nest sites 

year-round. Deviations may be made only after appropriate levels of consultation and 

coordination with USFWS. 

SSS-13 

Manage stands of ponderosa pine for winter roosting sites for bald eagles and nesting sites for 

other raptors (see Vegetation section for specific management). 

SSS-14 

Use BMPs (Appendix 2) to implement raptor guidelines established by USFWS. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Special Status Species 

61 

SSS-15 

Work with UDWR to identify locations for all known special status raptor species nests, roost 

sites, and winter roost sites on or within 1⁄2 mile of BLM lands. 

SSS-16 

Prohibit surface disturbing activities within 1⁄2 mile around special status raptor species nest sites 

during the following time periods: 

• Mar 1–Aug 1: Ferruginous hawk 

• Mar 1–Aug 15: N. Goshawk. 

SSS-17 

Prohibit surface disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile around special status raptor species nest sites 

during the following time periods: 

• Mar 1–Aug 1: Short-eared owl 

• Mar 1–Aug 31: Burrowing owl. 

SSS-18 

Comply with Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 

2006 (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 2006) and Avian Protection Plan (APP) 

Guidelines (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and USFWS 2005) for new powerline 

construction (including upgrades and reconstruction) to prevent electrocution of raptors. 

SSS-19 

Protect unoccupied special status species raptor nests in compliance with BLM’s raptor BMPs 

(Appendix 2). 

California Condor

SSS-20 

Avoid disruptive activities in California condor communal roosting or nesting areas. Appropriate 

measures would depend on whether the proposed activity is temporary or permanent, and 

whether it occurs within or outside the condor nesting season. (A temporary action is completed 

outside of the breeding season, leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent 

habitat loss. A permanent action continues for more than one breeding season and/or causes a 

loss of condor habitat or displaces condors through disturbances, i.e., creation of a permanent 

structure.) 

SSS-21 

Apply the following avoidance and minimization measures: 

• Surveys could be required prior to implementation of a proposed action to determine 

presence/absence if information suggests birds could be present. Surveys must be 

conducted by qualified individuals, be conducted according to protocol, and be 

acceptable to the BLM. 

• Preclude disruptive activities within 1 mile of a California condor nest site during the 

breeding season. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Special Status Species 

62 

• Monitor recreation uses within 1 mile of condor nest sites and temporarily restrict 

activities if necessary to protect the condor. 

• Preclude special use permit group events within 1 mile of condor nest sites during the 

breeding season. 

• Preclude placement of new permanent structures or roads within 1 mile of condor 

nest sites. 

Utah Prairie Dog

SSS-22 

Implement conservation measures (Appendix 9) on actions affecting Utah prairie dogs or their 

habitat. 

SSS-23 

Permit no surface disturbing activities or surface occupancy within 1⁄2 mile of active, suitable 

(currently inactive), or potential reintroduction (BLM 2002b) Utah prairie dog habitats/sites. 

Seismic activities would avoid these areas, particularly during the active season (April 1 to 

September 30). 

SSS-24 

Allow introduction, augmentation, restocking, translocations, transplantation, and/or 

reestablishments of special status species in cooperation and collaboration with USFWS, 

UDWR, and other agencies as necessary, subject to guidance provided by BLM’s 6840 policy 

and by existing or future memoranda of understanding (MOU). 

SSS-25 

Require deterrent devices designed to prevent raptors from perching on powerline structures on 

all new construction (including upgrades and reconstruction) to discourage predation on Utah 

prairie dogs. 

SSS-26 

Reroute renewed or amended ROWs on public land that have the potential to disturb active and 

inactive Utah prairie dog colonies. 

SSS-27 

Preclude cross-country OHV use in occupied or inactive Utah prairie dog colonies. 

SSS-28 

Allow for the treatment of plague and other diseases that may impact Utah prairie dogs. 

Mexican Spotted Owl

SSS-29 

Implement conservation measures (Appendix 9) on actions affecting MSOs or their habitat. 

SSS-30 

Restrictions (from the Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection From Human and 

Land Use Disturbances [Appendix 2]) include: 
Kanab Approved RMP - Special Status Species 

63 

• Permit no surface disturbing activities from March 1 to August 31 in PACs, breeding 

habitats, or designated critical habitat to avoid disturbance to breeding MSOs. 

• If a disruptive or surface disturbing action occurs entirely outside of the MSO 

breeding season (March 1 to August 31) and leaves no permanent structure or 

permanent habitat disturbance, the action may proceed without an occupancy survey. 

Land disposal actions would require breeding season surveys (see Lands and Realty 

management actions). 

• If disruptive actions would occur during the season restriction (March 1 to August 

31), surveys according to USFWS protocol for MSOs would be required prior to 

commencement of activities. If MSOs are detected, activities should be delayed until 

after the seasonal restriction. 

SSS-31 

Retain, where appropriate, large down logs, large trees (generally greater than 24 inches in 

diameter at breast height [DBH]), and snags as prey habitats in occupied and suitable MSO 

habitat. 

SSS-32 

Allow fuels treatments and prescribed fire on a case-by-case basis to reduce fire hazard and 

improve habitat condition for MSO prey. 

SSS-33 

Meet or make significant progress toward meeting BLM Utah’s Standards for Rangeland Health 

in protected and restricted (as defined in recovery plan) MSO habitats. 

SSS-34 

Prohibit new recreation facilities or trails within PACs. Continue maintenance restrictions and 

seasonal closure (March 1 to August 31) of existing facilities. Comply with conservation 

measures in Appendix 9. 

SSS-35 

Limit special recreation permit (SRP) group size to 12 or fewer according to the recovery plan in 

protected and restricted (as defined in the recovery plan) MSO habitat. 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout, Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker, and Flannelmouth Sucker

SSS-36 

Monitor stream habitat to detect changes every 5 to 10 years in streams with historic or currently 

occupied habitat, in cooperation with UDWR. 

SSS-37 

Maintain or improve stream habitat for those locations with historic or currently occupied habitat 

identified in cooperation with UDWR. Maintain, improve, or provide missing habitat 

components using appropriate habitat improvement techniques. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Special Status Species 

64 

Federally Listed and Candidate Plants

SSS-38 

Surveys would be required prior to surface disturbance unless species presence and distribution 

information is complete and available. Surveys would be conducted by a BLM-approved 

botanist. In the event species presence is verified, the project proponent may be required to 

modify operational plans, at the discretion of the authorized officer, to include appropriate 

protection and/or avoidance measures or practices for the minimization of impacts on listed and 

candidate plants and their habitats. 

SSS-39 

Initiate Section 7 consultation with USFWS for any planned or authorized activity that is 

determined to have the potential to result in an impact on listed and candidate plants and their 

habitats. 

SSS-40 

Implement the Siler’s pincushion cactus recovery plan. 

SSS-41 

Manage oil and gas leasing as open subject to moderate constraints (CSU) in federally listed and 

candidate plant species occupied and suitable habitat. In these areas, well placement would be 

located to not adversely affect the species or their habitats. 

SSS-42 

Limit species for rehabilitation and emergency stabilization in federally listed and candidate 

species habitat to species that would not inhibit the listed or candidate species. 

Welsh’s Milkweed

SSS-43 

Implement applicable portions of the Welsh’s Milkweed (Asclepias welshii) Recovery Plan. 

Consider new scientific information obtained since completion of the recovery plan. Include this 

information and management guidance in a joint management plan to be prepared by the BLM 

and the State of Utah. 

SSS-44 

Close approximately 790 acres of designated critical milkweed habitat on the BLM-administered 

portion of the Coral Pink Sand Dunes to OHV use. 

SSS-45 

Manage oil and gas leasing as open subject to major constraints (NSO) in Welsh’s milkweed 

designated critical habitat. 

Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle

SSS-46 

Implement the conservation actions identified in the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for 

the Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle, as amended. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Special Status Species 

65 

SSS-47 

Maintain the established 370-acre tiger beetle conservation area on BLM-administered lands in 

the northeast corner of the sand dunes. 

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

SSS-48 

Implement conservation measures (Appendix 9) on actions affecting Southwestern willow 

flycatcher or its habitat. 

SSS-49 

Manage for regeneration and multiple age classes in cottonwood/willow vegetation in yellowbilled cuckoo and Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. 

SSS-50 

Identify sites where Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat restoration (i.e., occupied, suitable, 

and potentially suitable sites) is warranted. Prioritize riparian restoration in Southwestern willow 

flycatcher habitat consistent with riparian rehabilitation decisions in the Water section. 

SSS-51 

Prohibit surface disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of occupied breeding habitat from May 1 to 

August 15. 

SSS-52 

Where possible, collocate roads, new trails, and ROWs and develop stream crossings at right 

angles to yellow-billed cuckoo and Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat to minimize impacts. 

Management of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

SSS-53 

Implement the most current UDWR Strategic Management Plan for Sage-Grouse (UDWR, 2002 

and its future revisions), the BLM National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM, 

2004), and recommendations from local sage-grouse working groups to protect, maintain, 

enhance, and restore Greater sage-grouse populations and habitat. 

SSS-54 

All surface disturbing activities would be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of Greater sage-grouse leks 

on a year-round basis. Oil and gas leasing would be open subject to major constraints (NSO). 

SSS-55 

Allow no surface disturbing or otherwise disruptive activities within 2 miles of Greater sagegrouse leks from March 15 to July 15 to protect nesting and brood rearing habitat. Oil and gas 

leasing would be open subject to a controlled surface use and timing stipulation. 

SSS-56 

Allow no surface disturbing or otherwise disruptive activities within Greater sage-grouse winter 

habitat from December 1 – March 14. Oil and gas leasing would be open subject to a controlled 

surface use and timing stipulation. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Special Status Species 

66 

SSS-57 

See Appendix 3 for exceptions, modifications, or waivers. 

SSS-58 

Prioritize habitat vegetation treatments to maintain and/or improve habitat function in the 

following areas (Map 5): 

• Sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat 

• Sage-grouse winter range. 

Management of Pygmy Rabbit Habitat

SSS-60 

Apply restrictions (e.g., avoidance or mitigation) to surface disturbing and disruptive activities 

on a case-by-case basis in occupied and potential pygmy rabbit habitat for the protection of this 

species and its associated habitat. Site-specific NEPA documentation would address restrictions 

around pygmy rabbit habitat. 

Recovery Plan Actions for Special Status Species

SSS-61 

Consider and implement the appropriate guidelines and management recommendations presented 

in current and future species recovery or conservation plans (as revised), or alternative 

management strategies developed in consultation with USFWS and/or UDWR. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Fish and Wildlife 

67 

Fish and Wildlife (WL)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Maintain habitat quantity and quality (forage, water, cover, space, and security) 

sufficient to sustain diverse wildlife populations, meeting objectives identified in 

cooperation with UDWR where applicable. 

• Maintain and/or improve aquatic stream habitat to support productive and diverse 

fisheries and other aquatic populations. 

• Maintain habitat connectivity and unrestricted wildlife movement between ecological 

zones to the maximum extent possible. 

• Maintain and enhance aquatic and wildlife resources and provide for biological 

diversity of plants and wildlife resources while ensuring healthy ecosystems. 

• Manage habitats on an ecosystem basis, ensuring that all parts of the ecosystem on 

public lands are preserved. 

• Conserve habitat for migratory birds as directed by Executive Order 13186 

(Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds) and the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and emphasize management of migratory birds listed on the USFWS 

current list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and the Partners-in-Flight (PIF) 

priority species. 

Management Actions: 

Important Wildlife and Fish Habitat

WL-1 

Consider the USFWS BCC and the Utah PIF Priority Species to identify and conserve priority 

nesting habitats for migratory birds. 

WL-2 

Use Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah (Appendix 2) 

to guide raptor management, using seasonal and spatial buffers and mitigation to maintain and 

enhance raptor nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat while allowing other resource uses to 

occur. 

WL-3 

Work cooperatively with other agencies, such as UDWR or Utah Partners for Conservation and 

Development, to identify and manage habitat for non-listed fish and wildlife species. 

WL-4 

Allow, initiate, and/or participate in scientific research of species and their habitats. 

WL-5 

Complete and assist with inventories and map current occupied and potential habitats for species. 

WL-6 

Conduct habitat improvement treatments for species in accordance with current species-specific 

guidelines and local working group prescriptions. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Fish and Wildlife 

68 

WL-7 

Prioritize Bird Habitat Conservation Areas identified in the Coordinated Implementation Plan for 

Bird Conservation in Utah (IWJV 2005, as updated) for conducting bird habitat conservation 

projects through cooperative funding initiatives such as the Intermountain West Joint Venture. 

WL-8 

Coordinate predator management with U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service/Wildlife Services and UDWR in accordance with the guidance provided in 

the existing MOU with Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services. 

WL-9 

Maintain existing vegetation treatments that benefit wildlife. 

WL-10 

Prioritize habitat vegetation treatments to maintain and/or improve habitat function in areas of 

crucial mule deer winter range (Map 5). 

WL-11 

Road crossings of water bodies that support fish would be designed to provide for fish passage. 

Management of Deer and Elk Habitats

WL-12 

Preclude surface disturbing activities in crucial mule deer and elk winter range from November 

15 to April 15 unless the activity would improve mule deer or elk habitat. 

WL-13 

Preclude oil and gas exploration and development and ROW construction/reconstruction in 

identified big game migration and transitional ranges from October 1 to November 15. 

WL-14 

Limit OHV use to designated routes. 

Management of Bighorn Sheep Habitats

WL-15 

Preclude surface disturbing activities in crucial Desert bighorn sheep habitat during lambing 

season (April 15 to June 15) (Bighorn Institute 2008). 

WL-16 

Do not authorize changes in kind of livestock to sheep or goats within 9 miles of Desert bighorn 

sheep habitat. 

Management of Pronghorn Habitat

WL-17 

Preclude surface disturbing activities in crucial pronghorn habitat from May 15 through June 15 

during fawning season. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Fish and Wildlife 

69 

Management of Habitat to Provide for Wildlife Management Objectives as Established by 

UDWR

WL-18 

Require wildlife-passable fences, consistent with the species found in the area, and essential for 

effective range management or other administrative functions. 

WL-19 

Continue to work with UDWR and conservation organizations to establish additional water 

developments, subject to NEPA consideration, and maintain existing water developments to 

improve wildlife distribution and encourage habitat use by native wildlife species and introduced 

non-native species. 

WL-20 

Authorize construction of wildlife habitat improvement projects (including water developments 

and vegetation treatments) to meet wildlife goals and objectives, provided that the project 

complies with NEPA, ESA, and other applicable laws and policies. 

WL-21 

Retain crucial wildlife habitat in public ownership, unless the land tenure adjustment would meet 

one or more of the land tenure adjustment criteria identified in Lands and Realty management. 

WL-22 

Develop present use area water needs for wildlife as capabilities exist; maintain water throughout 

the spring and fall in existing and new livestock range improvements (e.g., tanks and pipelines). 

WL-23 

Manage livestock grazing in riparian areas/fisheries habitat according to the Utah Guidelines for 

Grazing Management. Livestock grazing in riparian areas/fisheries habitat would be evaluated 

through compliance with the Standards for Rangeland Health. 

WL-24 

Minor adjustments to crucial wildlife habitat boundaries periodically made by UDWR would be 

accommodated through plan maintenance. 

Management of Raptor Habitats

WL-25 

Implement raptor guidelines associated with level of duration of activities established by 

USFWS. 

WL-26 

Guide raptor habitat management by use of Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their 

Associated Habitats in Utah (Romin and Muck 2002, as amended) and BLM’s raptor BMPs 

(Appendix 2) using seasonal and spatial buffers and mitigation to maintain and enhance raptor 

nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat while allowing other resource uses to occur. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Fish and Wildlife 

70 

WL-27 

Prohibit disruptive activities within 1 mile of peregrine falcon nest sites from February 1 to 

August 31. 

WL-28 

Prohibit disruptive activities to nesting raptors within 1⁄2 mile of raptor nests during the following 

time periods: 

• Jan 1–Aug 31: golden eagle 

• Mar 15–Aug 15: red-tailed hawk 

• Mar 15–Aug 31: Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk 

• Mar 1–Aug 31: Swainson’s hawk 

• Apr 1–Aug 15: Northern harrier 

• Apr 1–Aug 31: merlin, osprey 

• May 1–Aug 15: Turkey vulture. 

WL-30 

Prohibit disruptive activities to nesting raptors within 1⁄4 mile of a raptor nest during the 

following time periods: 

• Dec 1–Sep 31: Great-horned owl 

• Feb 1–July 31: boreal owl 

• Feb 1–Aug 15: long-eared owl 

• Mar 1–Aug 15: W. screech owl 

• Mar 1–Aug 31: N. saw-whet owl 

• Apr 1–Aug 1: N. pygmy owl 

• Apr 1–Aug 31: prairie falcon 

• Apr 1–Sep 30: Flammulated owl. 

WL-29 

Protect unoccupied raptor nests in compliance with BLM’s raptor BMPs (Appendix 2) yet allow 

for permanent (long-term) facilities and structures to be constructed within the spatial buffer 

zone, identified above by alternative, outside of the breeding season as long as they would not 

cause the nest site to become unsuitable for future nesting. Non-permanent (short-term) activities 

would be allowed within the spatial buffer of nests during the nesting season as long as those 

activities are shown to be non-impacting to nesting raptors. 

Fish and Wildlife Reintroductions

WL-30 

Allow introduction, translocation, transplantation, restocking, augmentation, and reestablishment 

of native and naturalized fish and wildlife species in cooperation and collaboration with UDWR, 

subject to guidance provided by BLM’s 1745 policy and by existing or future MOUs with 

UDWR. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Fish and Wildlife 

71 

Management of Forage Allocations for Big Game Species (as established by the Division of 

Wildlife Resources)

WL-31 

Allocate 11,045 AUMs to wildlife as shown in the grazing allotment forage allocation table 

(appendix 14) 

Compensatory Mitigation

WL-32 

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 offsite, or in accordance with 

current guidance. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wildland Fire Ecology

72 

Wildland Fire Ecology (FIRE)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Firefighter and public safety would be the primary goal in all fire management 

decisions and actions. 

• Wildland fire would be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and, when 

possible, be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. 

• Hazardous fuels would be reduced to restore ecosystems; protect human, natural, and 

cultural resources; and reduce the threat of wildfire to communities. 

• Fires would be suppressed at minimum cost, taking into account firefighter and public 

safety and benefits and values to be protected, consistent with resource objectives. 

• The BLM would provide a consistent, safe, and cost-effective fire management 

program through appropriate planning (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 402, 

Counterpart Regulations), staffing, training, equipment, and management. 

• Every area with burnable vegetation would have a Fire Management Plan (FMP) 

based on a foundation of sound science. 

• Emergency stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration efforts would be undertaken 

to protect and sustain resources, public health and safety, and community 

infrastructure. 

• The BLM would work together with its partners and other affected groups and 

individuals to reduce risks to communities and restore ecosystems. 

• The general Desired Wildland Fire Condition (DWFC) is to have ecosystems that are 

at a low risk of losing ecosystem components following wildfire and that function 

within their historical range. In terms of Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC), the 

DWFC outside Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) is to trend to a lower FRCC using 

the least intrusive methods possible. In other words, the DWFC is to move lands in 

FRCC 3 to FRCC 2 and lands in FRCC 2 to FRCC 1 through fire and non-fire 

treatments where wildland fire use is the preferred method of treatment, when 

feasible. Inside the WUI, the general DWFC is to have less potential for values to be 

threatened by wildland fire, usually through some modification of fuels. Table 1 

identifies DWFC by major vegetation type and actions needed to meet DWFC. 

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

Major Vegetation 

Group DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC 

Salt Desert Scrub 

The DWFC, both outside and inside the WUI, is native, open salt desert 

scrub vegetation with little to no invasive species cover. Fire would be 

mostly excluded from these vegetation types. Due to the historical lack of 

surface fuels, the historical fire-return interval is extremely infrequent. 

• Due to the historical lack of fire and current potential for cheatgrass 

invasion, do not allow wildland fire to burn into salt desert scrub 

vegetation types. Wildland fire is not desired due to the high 

potential for cheatgrass invasion following wildfire and loss of native 

salt desert scrub communities. 

• Treat salt desert scrub types using a combination of mechanical, 

chemical, seeding, and biological treatments to reduce cheatgrass 

cover and restore native communities. Prescribed fire may be used 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wildland Fire Ecology

73 

Major Vegetation 

Group DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC 

in conjunction with seeding when part of a cheatgrass control 

objective. 

• Due to the high incidence of cheatgrass in this vegetation type, 

consider seeding following any surface disturbing activity. 

• Following wildland fire, aggressively seed to reduce potential for 

cheatgrass and other noxious weed invasion. 

Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland 

Where pinyon and juniper occurred historically, the DWFC outside and 

inside the WUI is open stands of pinyon and juniper with native grass and 

shrub understory. Where pinyon and juniper did not occur historically, the 

DWFC is the native shrub, grass, and forest communities that the pinyon 

and juniper have invaded. The historical role of fire (estimated 15- to 50-

year fire-return interval) prevented encroachment of pinyon and juniper into 

other vegetation communities. Most pinyon and juniper encroachment has 

occurred in the past 100 years. Follow treatments with seeding in FRCC 2 

and FRCC 3 stands that lack native understory vegetation. Historical 

occurrence of pinyon and juniper is difficult to map, but pre-settlement trees 

are generally located in shallow, rocky soils and tend to have unique growth 

form characterized by rounded, spreading canopies; large basal branches; 

large irregular trunks; and furrowed fibrous bark. Historic fire-return intervals 

in these protected sites are more than 100 years. 

• When possible, allow wildland fire to play its natural role, which 

mimics the historical fire-return interval and severity in FRCC 1 and 

FRCC 2 lands that have some cover of native understory 

vegetation. Due to the high risk of losing key ecosystem 

components in FRCC 2 (lacking native understory vegetation) and 

FRCC 3 lands, avoid wildland fires in these areas. Prescribed fires 

should be applied to pinyon and juniper communities when native 

surface fuels will carry fire and when there is low risk of invasive 

species. 

• Prescribed fire should be used to approximate historical fire-return 

intervals and promote recovery of the pre-settlement vegetation 

cover types. Remove most young (less than100 years old) pinyon 

and juniper trees through fire or mechanical treatments. In the WUI, 

construct fuel breaks between BLM and private land or other values 

at risk. 

• Following wildfire in FRCC 3 (and some FRCC 2 areas that are 

lacking native understory vegetation), aggressively seed to reduce 

invasive species establishment and to restore native communities. 

Sagebrush 

The DWFC, outside and inside the WUI, is healthy sagebrush defined as 

diverse age classes with an understory of native grasses and forbs. 

Research suggests that stand-replacement should be burned every 10 to 

100 years depending on the particular sagebrush species and its associated 

habitat. Fire management actions in sagebrush must be carefully balanced 

between invasive species concerns, wildlife habitat, and the need to restore 

fire. 

• When possible, allow wildland fire to play its natural role, which 

mimics the historical fire-return interval and severity in FRCC 1 and 

FRCC 2 lands that have a low potential for cheatgrass invasion. 

Areas with low potential for cheatgrass invasion include higher 

elevation sites and/or sites that have very low incidence of 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wildland Fire Ecology

74 

Major Vegetation 

Group DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC 

cheatgrass pre-fire. 

• Treat dense sagebrush (more than 30 percent) with fire, 

mechanical, or chemical treatments to reduce sagebrush canopy 

cover and improve native grass and forb density and cover; an 

additional objective in treating sagebrush is to remove encroaching 

pinyon and juniper trees. In the WUI, construct fuel breaks between 

BLM and private land (or other values at risk) in dense stands of 

sagebrush. 

• Following wildfire in FRCC 2 and FRCC 3 lands, aggressively seed 

to promote native understory grasses and forbs and reduce invasion 

of cheatgrass and noxious weeds. Consider including sagebrush in 

seeding mixes or planting sagebrush seedlings in high-value wildlife 

areas following large, high-severity wildfires when natural seed 

sources would be lacking. 

Grassland 

Where native grasslands occurred historically, the DWFC outside the WUI is 

native grass and forb communities. Native grasslands have been lost to 

pinyon and juniper encroachment, cheatgrass invasion, and non-native plant 

seedlings (e.g., crested wheatgrass, perennial ryegrass, etc.). Where nonnative grasslands occur, the DWFC is the restoration of the native grassland 

or shrub community. The historical role of fire in Utah’s grasslands is similar 

to pinyon and juniper and sagebrush community types with fires every 15 to 

50 years. 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the 

historical fire-return interval and severity. 

• Treat native grasslands with fire, mechanical, or chemical 

treatments to reduce encroaching trees (mainly juniper), shrubs, 

and invasive plants. Fire treatments alone should be avoided where 

there is potential for cheatgrass invasion (areas below 7,000 feet 

elevation that have adjacent cheatgrass populations). In the WUI, 

consider green stripping between BLM and private lands and other 

values at risk. 

• Following wildfire in FRCC 2 and FRCC 3 lands, aggressively seed 

to reduce potential for cheatgrass and other invasive weeds 

Mountain Shrub 

The DWFC outside of the WUI is stands with patches of differing age 

classes. In the WUI, the DWFC is greatly reduced vegetation density or a 

conversion to less-flammable vegetation between BLM and private lands or 

other values at risk. 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the 

historical fire-return interval and severity in all FRCCs. 

• Treat large expanses of even-aged, dense, homogeneous stands to 

result in patches of diverse age classes. To achieve greater habitat 

diversity and decreased potential for large-scale high-severity fire, 

reduce invasion of pinyon and juniper and reduce the average age 

of stands through fire, mechanical, or biological (e.g., grazing goats) 

treatments. In the WUI, consider aggressive vegetation 

manipulation to create fire breaks in highly flammable shrub types 

(e.g., Gambel oak) when there are values at risk. 

• Because most of these species sprout following wildfire, consider 

seeding only to reduce potential for invasive weeds. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wildland Fire Ecology

75 

Major Vegetation 

Group DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC 

Mixed Conifer 

The DWFC outside the WUI is landscapes with a mosaic of age classes. In 

the WUI, the DWFC is reduced canopy density and reduced ladder fuels 

between BLM and private lands and other values at risk. 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the 

historical fire-return interval and severity in FRCC 1 and FRCC 2 

stands. In FRCC 3 stands (dense stands with high fuels loadings), 

consider mechanical treatments prior to reintroducing fire. 

• Treat areas to result in a landscape of diverse age classes while 

retaining patches of large old trees. In the WUI, remove ladder fuels 

and create shaded fuel breaks between BLM and private land when 

values are at risk. 

• Consider tree planting following wildland fire to restore or 

rehabilitate the forest resource to promote forest regeneration. 

Ponderosa Pine 

The DWFC, outside and inside the WUI, is open stands with a native grass 

and forb understory. 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the 

historical fire-return interval and severity. Restore fire (natural or 

prescribed fire) to FRCC 1 and FRCC 2 stands. 

• Consider mechanical treatments in dense FRCC 3 stands until they 

reach a lower FRCC before restoring fire. Reduce juniper 

encroachment through fire (preferred when fuels conditions allow) 

or mechanical treatments. In the WUI, remove ladder fuels and 

create fuel breaks between BLM and private land and other values 

at risk. 

• Following wildfires, consider seeding to reduce invasive weeds and 

planting ponderosa pine seedlings for forest restoration and 

rehabilitation. 

Riparian Wetland 

The DWFC, outside and inside the WUI, is riparian and wetland areas with 

the appropriate composition of native species (e.g., reduction of tamarisk 

and other invasive species). 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, mimicking the 

historical fire-return interval and intensity. Allow low to moderate 

severity fire to burn into riparian and wetland areas when natural 

ignitions are managed as wildland fire use. 

• Restore native riparian and wetland species through fire and 

mechanical treatments. Reduce flammable invasive species along 

riparian corridors (e.g., tamarisk) through mechanical, chemical, 

biological, and fire treatments. For prescribed fire, allow lowintensity fire to back into riparian and wetland areas through ignition 

outside of these areas. Mechanical treatment as the initial treatment 

would be emphasized where there is a moderate to high potential 

for riparian and wetland to be burned to a high severity. 

• Consider active restoration options when native riparian and 

wetland communities are unlikely to recover with passive restoration 

(due to invasive species, stream bank erosion, etc.). 

Aspen 

The DWFC, outside and inside the WUI, is healthy clones with diverse age 

classes represented and ample regeneration. 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, mimicking the 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wildland Fire Ecology

76 

Major Vegetation 

Group DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC 

historical fire-return interval and severity in all FRCCs, because 

aspen readily sprouts following fire. 

• Treat aspen stands with fire or mechanical treatments to reduce 

encroaching junipers and conifers and to stimulate sprouting. If 

treated aspen stands are small, consider excluding big game and 

livestock until the regeneration can withstand grazing. In the WUI, 

consider increasing aspen cover if possible to create a shaded fuel 

break between private land (and other high-value areas) and the 

more flammable conifer trees on BLM land. 

• Following wildfire, most aspen stands would need little stabilization, 

except soil stabilization on steep slopes. However, burned areas 

may need to be fenced to exclude wildlife and livestock until the 

regeneration can withstand grazing. 

Source: BLM 2005c 

Management Actions: 

FIRE-1 

The September 2005 completion of the Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record 

(UT-USO-04-01) for the Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management 

amended the wildland fire ecology portions of the existing LUPs. No significant changes in 

resource condition, data, or policy have become available since completion of this amendment. 

Therefore the decisions from the 2005 document have been brought forward in their entirety into 

the Approved RMP under the Wildland Fire Ecology header. 

Fire Management Strategies and Actions

FIRE-2 

The appropriate management response would be applied to all wildland fires, emphasizing 

firefighter and public safety and considering suppression costs, benefits, and values to be 

protected. The appropriate management response would be consistent with resource objectives, 

standards, and guidelines. Response to wildland fire would be based on ecological and social 

costs and benefits of the fire. The circumstances under which the fire occurs and the likely 

consequences to firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and 

values to be protected would dictate the appropriate management response to the fire. Fire 

Management Unit objectives (as included in the FMP) would further guide the appropriate 

management response. 

FIRE-3 

Wildland fire would be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and, when possible, 

would be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. Areas where wildland fire use is 

appropriate and not appropriate are identified in Table 1. The FMP would provide further 

operational guidance for wildland fire use. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wildland Fire Ecology

77 

FIRE-4 

To reduce risks and to restore ecosystems, the following fuels management tools would be 

allowed: wildland fire use; prescribed fire; and mechanical, chemical, seeding, and biological 

actions. As conditions allow, the BLM would employ the least intrusive method over more 

intrusive methods. For example, wildland fire use is the preferred method of treatment. Where 

wildland fire use is not feasible, prescribed burning would be the preferred method. Where prescribed 

burning is not feasible, non-fire fuels treatments would become the preferred method of treatment. 

FIRE-5 

Work with partners in the WUI in wildland firefighting, hazardous fuels reduction, cooperative 

fire prevention education, and technical assistance. Unauthorized wildland fire ignitions would 

be prevented through coordination with partners and affected groups and individuals. The full 

range of prevention and mitigation activities would be used: personal contacts, mass media, 

education programs, and signage. 

FIRE-6 

The following Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation actions (after wildfire suppression) 

and restoration for planned actions may be used to reduce potential for soil erosion and invasive 

species spread: seeding or planting native and/or non-native species; applying approved 

herbicides; implementing soil stabilization measures (e.g., stabilization structures and mulches); 

protecting cultural resources; repairing or replacing facilities; fencing, herding, or removing 

livestock; and resting allotments. Specific actions could include brush/tree chopping; contour 

tree felling; silt catchments; waddles, straw, or fabric silt traps; mulching; drill seeding; aerial 

seeding; aerial seeding followed by mechanical seed covering (chaining, harrowing, or other 

mechanical means); planting seedlings; fence construction or rebuilding; road/trial maintenance 

or closures; cattle guards; road culvert installation or cleaning; water bars; sign installation and 

maintenance; herbicidal or mechanical weed treatments; weather station installation and 

maintenance; and repairing or rebuilding of minor facilities (e.g., cross-fencing, wildlife 

structures, recreational facilities). 

FIRE-7 

Monitoring actions would be undertaken to determine results from fire management decisions 

and actions. Monitoring results would be used in determining the need for further amendment or 

revisions. 

Wildland Fire Suppression Objectives and Management Actions

FIRE-8 

Fires would be suppressed at minimum cost, considering firefighter and public safety, benefits, 

and values to be protected, consistent with resource objectives. 

FIRE-9 

The BLM would provide a consistent, safe, and cost-effective fire management program through 

appropriate planning, staffing, training, equipment, and management. 

Limited Suppression and Wildland Fire Use Objectives and Actions 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wildland Fire Ecology

78 

FIRE-10 

Wildland fire would be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and, when possible, 

would be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. However, due to resource conditions 

and proximity to values at risk, fire cannot be allowed to resume its natural role on public lands. 

The DWFC is that as lands are transitioned from a higher FRCC to a lower FRCC, the 

applicability of wildland fire use would increase. Therefore, fire managers would periodically 

assess the FRCC following changes in vegetation due to management actions and natural 

changes. This alternative authorizes wildland fire use as a tool, when appropriate, to reach the 

DWFC. 

FIRE-11 

Wildland fire use would be an appropriate management response to naturally ignited wildland 

fires to accomplish specific resource management objectives in predefined designated areas. 

Operational management of wildland fire use is described in the Wildland Fire Implementation 

Plan. This alternative attempts to in general clarify the types of areas that are not suitable for 

wildland fire use while leaving other areas open for possible wildland fire use. 

FIRE-12 

Although specific areas for wildland fires use would be identified in the FMPs, wildland fire use 

may be authorized for all areas, except when the following resources and values may be 

negatively impacted and there are no reasonable Resource Protection Measures to protect such 

resources and values: 

• WUI areas 

• Areas that are known to be highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or invasive weed 

invasion 

• Important terrestrial and aquatic habitats 

• Non-fire adapted vegetation communities 

• Sensitive cultural resources 

• Areas of soil with high or very high erosion hazard 

• Class I air-shed areas and particulate matter (less than 10 microns in diameter) (PM10) 

non-attainment areas 

• Administrative sites 

• Developed recreation sites 

• Communication sites 

• Oil, gas, and mining facilities 

• Above-ground utility corridors 

• High-use travel corridors, such as interstates, railroads, and/or highways. 

FIRE-13 

The appropriate management response for areas containing these resources or values may be 

wildland fire use, but Resource Protection Measures would be necessary to protect these values 

if they are threatened. Additional protection actions may include employing strategies and tactics 

to avoid these values (e.g., using fire retardant to reduce fire spread in certain areas). In fire 

situations where these resources or values would not be impacted, wildland fire use may still not 

be employed due to other parameters (weather, personnel availability, etc.). In these situations, 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wildland Fire Ecology

79 

the appropriate management response—from aggressive initial action to monitoring—would be 

used. The DWFC would be to restore fire to ecosystems when feasible; therefore, fuel treatments 

should focus on protecting the resources and values listed above so future wildland fire use 

actions could be more easily implemented. 

FIRE-14 

Current BLM regulations do not allow for funding of emergency stabilization or rehabilitation 

actions following wildland fire use. Utah BLM land managers often prefer to evaluate a fire after 

it occurs to determine if there is a need for any post-fire rehabilitation or stabilization. The 

inability to rehabilitate or stabilize burned areas following wildland fire use restricts some acres 

from being considered by BLM managers for wildland fire use. 

Prescribed Fire Objectives and Actions

FIRE-15 

All prescribed fire acres would be for a primary purpose of hazardous fuels reduction or 

community protection from fires. While these acres would likely also accomplish other resource 

objectives, this plan aims to directly analyze effects from fire management decisions. 

Non-Fire Fuels Objectives and Actions 

FIRE-16 

All non-fire treatment acres would be for a primary purpose of hazardous fuels reduction or 

community protection from fires. While these acres would likely also accomplish other resource 

objectives, this plan aims to directly analyze effects from fire management decisions. 

Criteria for Establishing Fire Management Priorities 

FIRE-17 

Protection of human life is the primary priority. Setting priorities among protecting human 

communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and 

cultural resources would be based on human health and safety, the values to be protected, and the 

costs of protection. Priorities for all aspects of fire management decisions and actions would be 

based on the following: 

• WUI 

• Maintain existing healthy ecosystems 

• High priority sub-basin (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 4) or watershed (HUC 5) 

• Special status species 

• Cultural resources and cultural landscapes. 

Resource Protection Measures for Fire Management Practices

FIRE-18 

Resource Protection Measures for fire management practices to protect natural or cultural 

resource values are described in Appendix 8 (obtained from the Utah Land Use Plan Amendment 

for Fire and Fuels Management Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record). 
Kanab Approved RMP - Cultural Resources

80 

Cultural Resources (CUL)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are 

available for appropriate uses by present and future generations (Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act [FLPMA] Sections 103(c) and 201(a) and (c); National Historic 

Preservation Act [NHPA] Section 110(a); and 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 Sections 106 and 110(a)(2)) by ensuring that all authorizations 

for land use and resource use would comply with NHPA Section 106. 

• Provide opportunities for scientific and educational uses of cultural resource sites. 

Interpretation of and education about previous human occupation and use of the area 

would be accomplished using appropriate sites and methods. 

• Provide opportunities for traditional (Native American) uses of cultural resources and 

sites. 

• Ensure compliance with Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA). 

Management Actions: 

Protection of Cultural Resources

CUL-1 

Mitigate adverse impacts on cultural resources resulting from authorized surface disturbing 

activities. 

CUL-2 

Mitigate and/or preserve cultural and historic values on cultural properties eligible for National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listing. 

CUL-3 

Meet responsibilities under the NHPA as addressed in the State Protocol Agreement Between the 

Utah State Director of BLM and the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the 

National Cultural Programmatic Agreement. 

CUL-4 

Complete cultural resources inventories prior to allowing permitted surface disturbing activities, 

excluding those areas and circumstances identified in BLM-M-8110.23, UT-BLM-H-8110 

Section II.C, and UT-BLM-H-8110 Appendix 1. 

CUL-5 

Continue geographic and archaeological scientific inventories based on imminent threats from 

natural or human-caused deterioration, on potential conflict with other resource uses, and for 

compliance with NHPA Section 110. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Cultural Resources

81 

CUL-6 

Update the Class I cultural resources inventory every 10 years. 

CUL-7 

Provide opportunities for local interpretation (for local population) of cultural resources and 

public education (for general resource users). 

CUL-8 

Use proactive research, protection, and inventories involving universities, avocational and 

service groups, site stewards, tribes, and community outreach to gain a better understanding of 

cultural resources and preserve them for present and future study and use. 

CUL-9 

Consider land acquisitions from willing parties to preserve cultural resources, as appropriate (as 

identified in criteria #2 (LAR-19) for land tenure adjustments in the lands and realty decisions). 

CUL-10 

Preclude surface disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile or within the visual horizon, whichever is 

closer, of cultural sites where landscape association contributes to eligibility for the NRHP. 

Unevaluated portions of the setting would be managed as contributing until a cultural inventory 

and evaluation is completed and the setting is determined to be contributing or non-contributing. 

CUL-11 

Establish a comprehensive monitoring program emphasizing: 

• Cultural sites that have been previously identified as being impacted (e.g., from 

vandalism, erosion, grazing, or other) 

• Cultural sites identified on maps, brochures, or other media that bring the site into 

public awareness 

• Sites that are known to be popular for public visitation (e.g., public use site) 

• A representative sample of sites known to be prone to impacts from predictable 

sources (e.g., vandalism, recreation, grazing, or development). 

Management of Scientific, Traditional, Educational, Public, and Research Cultural Resource 

Values

CUL-12 

Allocate and manage cultural resource sites for scientific, public, conservation, traditional, and 

experimental uses and discharged from management categories described in BLM-M-8110.4 as 

follows: 

• South Fork Indian Cave (42Ka1576), Helldive Canyon (42Ka1695), and Mansard 

(42Ka4427) would be placed in the Public Use category. 

• Sites identified as Native American Traditional Cultural Properties would be placed 

in the Traditional Use category. 

• All other sites considered eligible to the NRHP would be placed in the Most 

Appropriate Use category. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Cultural Resources

82 

CUL-13 

Sites would be included in the Discharged from Management category if both of the following 

conditions are met and documented: 

• The BLM and the SHPO have formally agreed that the site is not eligible for listing 

on the NRHP. 

• The site has no value for other cultural uses (as described in BLM-M-8110.4). 

CUL-14 

Allocations should be reevaluated and revised by site or area when circumstances change or 

when new data becomes available. Consult with the SHPO and Native American tribes as 

appropriate. 

Proactive Cultural Resource Inventories

CUL-15 

Prioritize new field inventories (Class II or III) directed by NHPA Section 110 as follows: 

• Recreation areas identified for public use (i.e., OHV open areas) 

• 100 feet (30 meters) (depending on topography) on either side from the centerline of 

designated OHV routes 

• Areas of special cultural designation (ACECs, National Register sites, etc.) that have 

not been fully inventoried 

• Resources eligible for the NRHP at a national level of significance that have not been 

fully inventoried 

• Road systems—100 feet (30 meters) (depending on topography) on either side from 

the centerline of road 

• Areas lacking existing inventories (large areas with no inventory data) 

• 5-mile vulnerability zones surrounding cities and towns 

• Hiking/equestrian trails. 

Areas and Values of Importance to Native American Tribes

CUL-16 

Identify and manage traditional cultural properties in coordination with Native American tribes. 

CUL-17 

Work with Native American tribes to ensure compliance with NAGPRA, when needed. 

CUL-18 

Work with Native American tribes to protect their rights including access to sacred sites and 

traditional cultural areas. Accommodate tribal access to sacred sites and traditional cultural 

properties when planning and implementing land uses. Prevent or mitigate physical damage or 

intrusions that might impede use of sacred sites and traditional cultural properties. 

CUL-19 

Establish and maintain agreements with all Native American tribes interested in specific projects 

or areas on which they wish to consult. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Cultural Resources

83 

CUL-20 

Allow Native American non-commercial traditional use of vegetation and forest and woodland 

products for the collection of herbs, medicines, traditional use items, or items necessary for 

traditional, religious, or ceremonial purposes, through permits. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Paleontological Resources

84 

Paleontological Resources (PAL)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Protect scientifically significant paleontological resources. 

• Protect paleontological resources with exceptional historic, cultural, or interpretive 

significance. 

• Provide opportunities for scientific, educational, and recreational uses of 

paleontological resources. 

• Cooperate with other federal, state, and local agencies in paleontological resources 

management activities. 

Management Actions: 

Protection of Paleontological Resources

PAL-1 

Monitor the highest priority scientifically significant paleontological sites for trend and 

condition. 

PAL-2 

Require on-the-ground paleontological inventories (field surveys) prior to permitting surface 

disturbing activities in paleontological Class I areas. Require paleontological assessments 

(formal analysis of existing data) prior to permitting surface disturbing activities in 

paleontological Class II areas. 

PAL-3 

Allow surface collection (as defined in BLM Manual 8270) of common invertebrate and 

botanical paleontological resources for personal (non-commercial) use without permits unless 

such resources are of critical scientific or recreational value and need to be protected, or where 

collection is incompatible with other resource protection. 

PAL-4 

Consult/coordinate with other local, state, and federal land agency paleontological resource 

specialists (if available) before undertaking significant ground disturbing activities in Class I 

areas to ensure protection of adjacent resources. 

Proactive Paleontological Inventories

PAL-5 

Conduct non-Section 106 proactive inventories intermittently as resources allow. 

PAL-6 

Prioritize paleontological resource inventories in the following areas (Map 24): 

• High resource potential 

• Medium resource potential 

• Low resource potential. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Paleontological Resources

85 

Management of Scientific, Traditional, Educational, Public, and Research Paleontological 

Resource Values

PAL-7 

Provide opportunities for local interpretation of paleontological resources. 

PAL-8 

When appropriate, target fossil sites with high scientific value for excavation and curation either 

by the BLM or by an outside academic or curatorial/research facility to protect them from theft, 

erosion, and/or vandalism. If excavation is not carried out within one field season, periodic 

monitoring should be conducted to document the integrity of the site until complete collection is 

accomplished. 

PAL-9 

Monitor high-significance (scientific or interpretive) sites with fossil resources that are not 

feasible or desirable to excavate or collect when possible to document their condition. Frequency 

of monitoring action for identified sites would be determined by the physical nature of the 

resource and potential threats. 

PAL-10 

Develop onsite or community-based interpretation for significant sites/specimens to foster an 

appreciation for the unique nature of the resource and to create opportunities for public access to 

such resources. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Visual Resources

86 

Visual Resources (VRM)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Plan, modify, and implement resource management activities in a manner that would 

minimize impacts on visual resources. 

• Manage the diversity of landscapes in the decision area for a desired level of change 

consistent with and giving consideration to other resource values and uses. 

Management Actions: 

Visual Resource Management Classes

VRM-1 

Designate the following acreages for the objectives defined for each VRM class (Map 6): 

• Class I: 76,000 acres 

• Class II: 99,600 acres 

• Class III: 205,500 acres 

• Class IV: 172,900 acres. 

VRM-2 

WUI areas would be in VRM Class III or IV. 

Visual Intrusions

VRM-3 

To the extent practicable, bring existing visual contrasts into VRM class conformance as the 

opportunity arises. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

87 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (WC)

Goals and Objectives: 

Protect, preserve, and maintain wilderness characteristics (appearance of naturalness, outstanding 

opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfined recreation) of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, as appropriate. Manage these primitive and backcountry landscapes 

for their undeveloped character and to provide opportunities for primitive recreational activities 

and experiences of solitude, as appropriate. 

Management Actions: 

Maintenance of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

WC-1 

Manage the following non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (27,770 acres, Map 7) 

specifically to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics: 

• East of Bryce (850 acres) 

• Moquith Mountain (9,600 acres) 

• Orderville Canyon (2,700 acres) 

• Parunuweap Canyon (120 acres) 

• Upper Kanab Creek (14,500 acres) 

WC-2 

Protect, preserve, and maintain wilderness characteristics through the following prescriptions: 

• Designate as VRM Class II (Map 6). 

• Close to commercial and personal-use forest and woodland product harvest (e.g., 

pole, post, firewood cutting, Christmas trees, seed collection, and wildings) except for 

incidental collection for onsite campfire use and administrative purposes. 

• Limited to designated routes (Map 10). 

• Avoid new ROWs (linear, communication sites, and wind and solar projects) (Map 

11). 

• Retain public lands in federal ownership 

• Close to mineral material disposals (Map 16). 

• Open to fluid mineral leasing with major constraints (NSO) (Map 14).
Kanab Approved RMP - Drought and Natural Disasters

88 

Drought and Natural Disasters (DND)

Management Actions: 

DND-1 

Coordinate appropriate management responses with affected parties when natural resources may 

be affected by drought, insects, diseases, or natural disasters. A variety of emergency or interim 

actions may be necessary to minimize land health degradations such as reduced forage 

allocations, reductions in the number of livestock and/or wildlife, increased mitigation measures 

to ensure reclamation, and limitations on energy field activities and recreational uses. 

DND-2 

Incorporate current Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland Health, as appropriate, across all 

resource programs. Management prescriptions in the form of constraints to use, terms and 

conditions, and stipulations may be needed to sustain rangeland health and viability. 

Management prescriptions will consider the following: 

• Surface disturbing activities—These will be closely monitored to ensure compliance 

with authorizations and permit’s conditions of approval or terms and conditions. 

Action minimizing new surface disturbance, allowed by regulations, and actions 

ensuring successful reclamation, will be emphasized. During periods of drought, the 

BLM could require additional actions such as changes to standard seed mix 

compositions, amount, and/or method of application. Additionally, methods to ensure 

successful revegetation following disturbance could include hydromulching, 

installation of drip irrigators, and fencing to exclude ungulate grazing/browsing. 

• Livestock grazing—During periods of prolonged drought use will be allowed in both 

quantity and timing that will not result in a downward shift in rangeland health and/or 

production. The BLM will work cooperatively to effect a grazing strategy specific to 

a grazing permittee’s individual grazing allotment(s) and make changes to the grazing 

authorizations, as appropriate, in accordance with the grazing regulations. In the case 

of drought, the BLM could temporarily close the range, or portions of it, to livestock 

grazing. 

• Wildlife management—During periods of prolonged drought to the extent that 

vegetation monitoring indicate that habitat for wildlife ungulate populations cannot be 

sustained and overall animal health is compromised, the BLM will enter into 

discussions with the UDWR regarding herd numbers and overall management options 

to combat the effects of drought. 

• Recreation—During periods of prolonged drought, the BLM, in cooperation with 

local and state fire management agencies, will limit campfires to established fire rings 

or fully contained fires. The last resort will be to close the public lands to campfires 

of any kind. 

• OHVs—Off-highway/road vehicle use during periods of prolonged drought could be 

further restricted, or 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. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Forestry and Woodland Products

89 

Forestry and Woodland Products (FOR)

Goals and Objectives: 

Provide a sustainable supply of a variety of commercial and non-commercial forest and 

woodland products. 

Management Actions: 

Commercial Timber Harvest

FOR-1 

Permit commercial timber harvest on a case-by-case basis for the purposes of promoting or 

sustaining forest health. 

Woodland Product Harvest

FOR-2 

Permit commercial and non-commercial harvest of green or dead pinyon and juniper woodland 

products (e.g., cedar posts, Christmas trees, fuel wood, and biomass utilization) areawide unless 

otherwise designated or stipulated. Permit harvest of other woodland species on a case-by-case 

basis. 

FOR-3 

Close WSAs and non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to woodland product harvest, 

except for incidental collection for onsite campfire use and administrative purposes. 

FOR-4 

Permit harvesting of woodland products in riparian areas in proper functioning condition on a 

case-by-case basis for the maintenance and/or improvement of riparian ecosystems. 

FOR-5 

Prohibit the removal of ponderosa pine for Christmas trees. 

FOR-6 

Develop a Forest Woodland Management Plan as required in the Utah Forest and Woodland 

Management Action Plan. 

Native American Use of Forestry and Woodland Products

FOR-7 

Allow Native American non-commercial traditional use of forest and woodland products for the 

collection of herbs, medicines, traditional use items, or items necessary for traditional, religious, 

or ceremonial purposes, through permits.
Kanab Approved RMP - Livestock Grazing

90 

Livestock Grazing (GRA)

Allotments in the decision area that are managed under the Escalante and Paria Management 

Framework Plans (MFP) will be addressed by the Rangeland Health EIS being prepared by 

Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument (GSENM). 

Goals and Objectives: 

• Maintain or restore healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems to meet BLM Utah’s 

Standards for Rangeland Health and to produce a wide range of public values such as 

wildlife habitat, livestock forage, recreation opportunities, clean water, and functional 

watersheds. 

• Integrate livestock use and associated management practices with other multiple-use 

needs and objectives to maintain, protect, and improve rangeland health. 

• Reduce or eliminate livestock-related rangeland resource problems on all allotments 

not meeting rangeland health standards while maintaining a production goal of 

livestock forage in the long term. 

Management Actions: 

GRA-1 

Manage livestock grazing allotments within the decision area as available for livestock grazing. 

Forage Allocation

GRA-2 

Use an interdisciplinary allotment evaluation process to provide specific guidance and actions for 

managing livestock grazing. 

GRA-3 

Allocate long-term increases and decreases in forage on a case-by-case basis based on an 

allotment-specific analysis through the NEPA process. 

GRA-4 

Allocate forage for livestock as noted in the grazing allotment forage allocation table (Appendix 

14), except as noted below: 

• Close the Water Canyon Allotment to livestock grazing for the life of the plan in 

order to protect the Fredonia City Culinary water supply. 

• In order to have the RMP accurately reflect current management, combine the 

Lydia’s Canyon Allotment with the adjacent Lydia Allotment. The resulting Lydia 

Allotment would be available for livestock grazing with no additional livestock 

AUMs. 

• Maintain existing forage allocations on the Lower North Fork Allotment. 

• Maintain existing forage allocations on the Zion Park Allotment. 

• In order to have the RMP accurately reflect current management, combine the 

Sawmill Allotment with the adjacent South Canyon Allotment. The resulting South 
Kanab Approved RMP - Livestock Grazing

91 

Canyon Allotment would be available for livestock grazing with no additional 

livestock AUMs. 

Grazing Management Practices

GRA-5 

Manage livestock grazing according to the Guidelines for Grazing Management on BLM Lands 

in Utah (BLM 1997a), implementing these guidelines when authorizing livestock grazing use 

and related activities. 

GRA-6 

Use livestock grazing to enhance ecosystem health and/or help accomplish resource objectives 

(e.g., noxious/invasive weed control and hazardous fuel reduction) on allotments where 

authorized by the authorized officer on a case-by-case basis. 

GRA-7 

Consider requests for changes in kind of livestock on a case-by-case basis (except as outlined 

below), and after review evaluate potential impacts on riparian and upland vegetation and other 

resource uses. 

GRA-8 

Allow motorized access to range improvements within WSAs according to the Interim 

Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP). 

GRA-9 

Design grazing systems and range improvements to achieve and maintain healthy rangelands. 

GRA-10 

Analyze conversions in kind of livestock (such as from sheep to cattle) in light of the Standards 

for Rangeland Health. Allow conversion where they would not be adverse to achieving a 

standard, or they would not be in conflict with other decisions in this plan. 

GRA-11 

Limit allocation of AUMs to the following kinds of livestock: 

• Domestic cattle 

• Horses 

• Sheep 

• Goats. 

GRA-12 

Do not authorize changes in kind of livestock to sheep or goats within 9 miles of Desert bighorn 

sheep habitat (same as decision in the Fish and Wildlife section). 

Allocation of Relinquished Preference for Livestock Forage

GRA-13 

A grazing permittee may voluntarily relinquish in writing all or a percentage of the grazing 

preference that is attached to the base property they own for any reason they may choose. This 
Kanab Approved RMP - Livestock Grazing

92 

action would not require consent or approval by the BLM or any other entity. The BLM would 

not be a party to or accept any contingencies or conditions associated with a relinquishment that 

would require future BLM action(s) such as discontinuing livestock grazing. Once the preference 

and associated permitted use has been relinquished in whole or in part, it would remain available 

for application for preference and a grazing permit. However, upon relinquishment, the BLM 

may determine through a site-specific evaluation and associated NEPA analysis that the public 

lands within a grazing allotment are better used for other purposes, such as recreation, wildlife, 

watershed for a culinary water source, disposal, etc. or a combination of these and/or other uses. 

Grazing may then be discontinued on the allotment through an amendment to the existing RMP 

or a new RMP effort. Any decision issued concerning discontinuance of livestock grazing on 

federal lands would not be permanent and would be subject to reconsideration during subsequent 

revision or amendment of the RMP. The evaluation and associated NEPA analysis may also 

determine that resource conditions are such that livestock grazing should be temporarily 

discontinued until site-specific resource objectives have been achieved. This evaluation and 

NEPA analysis would include a narrative with an evaluation time frame and process identified, 

indicating that once the objectives have been achieved the BLM would reconsider application(s) 

for grazing use. 

Mitigating Conflicts Between Livestock Grazing and Other Uses

GRA-14 

Give emphasis to changes in grazing management practices (e.g., changing season of use and 

fencing) before reducing AUMs on allotments to resolve conflicts with other uses. 

GRA-15 

Suspend authorization of AUMs in areas of intensive surface disturbance (such as surface coal 

mining) until rehabilitation is complete. 

Range Treatments for Livestock Grazing

GRA-16 

Complete land treatments to maintain or provide additional AUMs needed to meet the demand 

for livestock forage and divide the AUMs proportionally among all operators within the affected 

allotments. 

GRA-17 

Prioritize treatments on the following allotments (Map 5): 

• South Canyon 

• Sethy’s Canyon 

• Sandy Creek 

• Sanford Bench 

• Sugar Knoll 

• Spring Hollow 

• Circleville Cove 

• Kane Spring (non-WSA portion) 

• Buck Knoll 

• Spencer Bench 
Kanab Approved RMP - Livestock Grazing

93 

• Clay Flat 

• Harris Flat 

• Three Mile 

• Limestone Canyon 

• Spry 

• Chris Spring 

• Big Flat 

• Limekiln Creek 

• Poverty Flat (non-WSA portion) 

• Roller Mill 

• Oak Spring 

• Yellowjacket (non-WSA portion) 

• Dog Valley 

• Bald Knoll 

• Alton Cove 

• Coop Creek 

• Areas that are not achieving Standards for Rangeland Health. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

94 

Recreation (REC)

OHV and other transportation decisions are primarily included in the transportation management 

decisions. 

Goals and Objectives: 

• Provide recreational activities in a variety of physical, social, and administrative 

settings, from primitive to near-urban, that allow visitors to have desired recreational 

experiences and enjoy the resulting benefits. 

• Provide for public health and safety through interpretation, facility development, and 

visitor management. 

• Manage and protect recreational areas and resources containing significant scenic, 

natural, and cultural values as well as areas with scientific importance. 

• Provide opportunities for visitor use and enjoyment of the area, consistent with 

resource capabilities and mandated resource requirements; provide for visitor 

education and interpretation of the recreational opportunities within the decision area. 

• Maintain important recreational values and sites in federal ownership to ensure a 

continued diversity of recreation activities, experiences, and benefits. 

Management Actions: 

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

REC-1 

Identify the following Recreation Management Areas (RMA) (Map 8): 

• Kanab Community SRMA (community) (33,100 acres) 

• Paria SRMA (destination) (21,200 acres) 

• Moquith Mountain SRMA (community) (15,000 acres) 

• Orderville Canyon SRMA (undeveloped) (1,950 acres) 

• North Fork Virgin River SRMA (undeveloped) (1,050 acres) 

• Escalante SRMA (community) (22,800 acres) 

• Kanab Field Office Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) (458,900 

acres). 

REC-2 

Recreation management direction for each SRMA is outlined in Appendix 4. This includes 

direction for the following recreation management components: 

• Recreation Niche 

• Recreation Management Objectives 

• Primary Activities 

• Experiences 

• Benefits 

• Setting Character Conditions. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

95 

REC-3 

Develop SRMA management plans that identify site-specific development needs to achieve 

recreation benefits, experiences, and objectives. 

REC-4 

Portions of the decision area not identified as an SRMA will be identified as an ERMA. ERMAs 

will receive only custodial management (which addresses only activity opportunities) of visitor 

health and safety, user conflict, and resource protection issues with no activity-level planning. 

Therefore, actions within ERMAs will generally be implemented directly from LUP decisions. 

Kanab Community SRMA: 

Market Strategy: Community 

REC-5 

OHV RMZ (18,500 acres) 

• Recreation Niche: 

- Close-to-town OHV travel in an exceptionally scenic setting with a variety of 

trails for different skill levels. 

• Primary Activities: 

- Driving OHVs, viewing scenery and wildlife, photography, spending time 

with friends and family, and participating in and/or viewing 

competitive/organized events. 

Required Management: 

• OHV: 

- Minimal designated routes to access RMZ and provide a variety of OHV 

opportunities 

• VRM: 

- Class III 

• Minerals: 

- Open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (NSO) 

• Facilities: 

- Provide support facilities for recreation experience. 

REC-6 

Non-Motorized RMZ (14,600 acres) 

• Recreation Niche: 

- Town-accessible hiking and equestrian trail network offering outstanding 

views and varied terrain. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

96 

• Primary Activities: 

- Hiking, rock-scrambling, viewing scenery and wildlife, photography, 

equestrian, spending time with friends and family, and participating in and/or 

viewing competitive/organized events. 

Required Management (outside the Moquith Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics area) (10,700 acres): 

• OHV: 

- Limit to designated routes to access trail heads 

• VRM: 

- Class II 

• Minerals: 

- Open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (NSO) 

• Facilities: 

- Provide support facilities for recreation experience. 

Required Management (inside the Moquith Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics area) (3,900 acres): 

• Designate as VRM Class II. 

• Close to commercial and personal-use forest and woodland product harvest (e.g., 

pole, post, firewood cutting, Christmas trees, seed collection, and wildings) except for 

incidental collection for onsite campfire use and administrative purposes. 

• Limited to designated routes. 

• Avoid new ROWs (linear, communication sites, and wind and solar projects). 

• Retain public lands in federal ownership 

• Close to mineral material disposals. 

• Open to fluid mineral leasing with major constraints (NSO). 

Paria SRMA: 

Market Strategy: Destination 

REC-7 

Canyon RMZ (1,100 acres) 

• Recreation Niche: 

- World-class wilderness trekking adventure viewing deeply entrenched 

slickrock canyon and associated slot canyon features. 

• Primary Activities: 

- Hiking and scrambling, backpacking, canyoneering, outdoor photography, 

camping, viewing scenic vistas, viewing cultural sites, and wilderness 

exploration. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

97 

Required Management: 

• Manage according to the management actions for the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs 

Wilderness 

REC-8 

Uplands RMZ (20,100 acres) 

• Recreation Niche: 

- Unique, world-class primitive and backcountry adventure recreation viewing 

unique upland geologic features. 

• Primary Activities: 

- Hiking and scrambling, outdoor photography, viewing wildlife and scenic 

vistas, wilderness exploration, equestrian, and camping. 

Required Management: 

• Manage according to the management actions for the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs 

Wilderness 

Moquith Mountain SRMA

Market Strategy: Community 

REC-9 

Dunes RMZ (1,000 acres) 

• Recreation Niche: 

- Unique, scenic, and expansive sand dunes OHV opportunities. 

• Primary Activities: 

- Driving among sand dunes, camping along dune fringes, photography, and spending 

time with friends and family. 

Required Management (the Dunes RMZ is entirely within the Moquith Mountain WSA): 

• According to IMP 

• OHV: 

- Open beyond vegetated and conservation areas. All vehicles on the dunes are 

required to stay at least 10 feet from vegetation. 

• VRM: 

- Class I. 

• Facilities: 

- Provide support facilities for recreation experience. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

98 

Dry Lakebed : 

• No dumping of grey water or black water from RV units. 

• Firepans required for all open fires, and firewood must be packed in from outside the 

SRMA. 

• No digging of holes or pits. 

• No construction of fire-rings. 

• All trash and fire residue must be packed out and not left in the SRMA. 

REC-10: 

Non-Dunes Wooded RMZ (14,000 acres) 

• Recreation Niche: 

- Scenic and extensive OHV trail network accessing vistas, overlooks, flora and 

fauna, and cultural sites. 

• Primary Activities: 

- Driving OHVs; viewing flora/fauna, geology, and cultural sites; hiking; 

equestrian; camping; hunting; photography; and spending time with friends 

and family. 

Required Management (the Non-Dunes Wooded RMZ is partially inside the Moquith Mountain 

WSA) (10,600 acres): 

• According to IMP 

• OHV: 

- Limit to designated routes to access trail heads 

• VRM: 

- Class I. 

• Facilities: 

- Provide support facilities for recreation experience. 

Required Management (the Non-Dunes Wooded RMZ is partially inside the Cottonwood 

Canyon ACEC) (3,700 acres): 

• OHV: 

- Limit to designated routes to access trail heads 

• VRM: 

- Class II. 

• Minerals: 

- Open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (NSO), recommend 

withdrawing from mineral entry, close to mineral material disposals 

• Facilities: 

- Provide support facilities for recreation experience. 

Required Management (for the remainder of the Non-Dunes Wooded RMZ): 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

99 

• OHV: 

 Limit to designated routes to access trail heads 

• VRM: 

- Class III 

• Minerals: 

- Open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (NSO) 

• Facilities: 

- Provide support facilities for recreation experience. 

Ponderosa Grove Campground

• No dumping of grey water or black water from RV units. 

• No fires outside of established campsite fire grates. 

• No digging of holes or pits. 

Orderville Canyon SRMA

Market Strategy: Undeveloped 

REC-11 

(1,950 acres) 

• Recreation Niche: 

- Spectacular, primitive riparian canyon travel with abundant geologic 

formations and diverse flora and fauna. 

• Primary Activities: 

- Canyoneering, hiking, backpacking, hunting, camping, outdoor photography, 

viewing nature and wildlife, equestrian, and studying geology. 

Required Management (the Orderville Canyon SRMA is entirely within the Orderville Canyon 

WSA and 500 acres of the SRMA are within the Orderville Canyon suitable “wild” segment): 

• According to IMP 

• OHV: 

- Limit to designated routes except closed to OHV use within the 500 acres of the 

Orderville Canyon suitable “wild” segment 

• VRM: 

- Class I 

• Facilities: 

- Provide support facilities for recreation experience. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

100 

North Fork Virgin River SRMA

Market Strategy: Undeveloped 

REC-12 

(1,050 acres) 

• Recreation Niche: 

- Spectacular, primitive riparian canyon travel with abundant geologic 

formations and diverse flora and fauna. 

• Primary Activities: 

- Canyoneering, hiking, backpacking, hunting, camping, outdoor photography, 

viewing nature and wildlife, equestrian, and studying geology. 

Required Management (the North Fork Virgin River SRMA is entirely within the North Fork 

Virgin River WSA and 200 acres of the SRMA are within the North Fork Virgin River suitable 

“wild” segment): 

• According to IMP 

• OHV: 

- Limit to designated routes except closed to OHV use within the 200 acres of the 

North Fork Virgin River suitable “wild” segment 

• VRM: 

- Class I 

• Facilities: 

- Provide support facilities for recreation experience. 

Escalante SRMA

Market Strategy: Community 

REC-13 

(22,800 acres) 

• Recreation Niche: 

- Town-accessible OHV touring, mountain biking, and hiking/equestrian trail 

networks offering outstanding views and varied terrain. 

• Primary Activities: 

- OHV touring, mountain biking, hiking, rock-scrambling, viewing scenery and 

wildlife, photography, equestrian, spending time with friends and family, and 

participating in and/or viewing competitive/organized events. 

Required Management: 

• OHV: 

- Limit to designated routes 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

101 

• VRM: 

- Class III 

• Minerals: 

- Open to leasing subject to standard terms and conditions 

• Facilities: 

- Provide support facilities for recreation experience. 

Kanab Field Office ERMA

REC-14 

(458,900 acres) 

• Primary Activities: 

- OHV touring; hiking; picnicking; backpacking; hunting; fishing; camping; 

equestrian; outdoor photography; viewing geologic features, nature, and wildlife; and 

participating in and/or viewing competitive/organized events. 

Required Management: 

• Facilities: 

- Provide support facilities for recreation experience. 

General Recreation Management

REC-15 

Develop recreation sites and facilities needed to accommodate users, facilitate recreational uses 

of public lands, and protect resources. 

REC-16 

Implement the necessary safety measures to protect visitors in the Coral Pink Sand 

Dunes/Moquith Mountain area through coordination between the BLM and the State of Utah. 

Emphasis would be placed on minimizing interaction between motorized and non-motorized 

uses on the sand dunes, as well as enforcement of existing state and federal laws and policies. 

The existing OHV trails adjacent to Hancock Road would be closed. BLM and State Park 

personnel would continue to cooperate with local authorities on law enforcement matters. 

REC-17 

Regulate rock climbing within 300 feet of cultural sites. Climbing routes that impact cultural 

resource sites will generally not be allowed, and climbing routes designed to access cultural 

resource sites will not be allowed unless under permit for scientific investigation. 

REC-18 

No person or persons should occupy one area on BLM lands within the decision area for longer 

than 14 consecutive days in any 28-day period; however, extensions beyond the 14-day length of 

stay could be authorized for permitted uses on a case-by-case basis. Any site on public land 

within 30 air miles constitutes the same area for the purpose of this management decision. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

102 

REC-19 

Close areas to rock climbing within the distance and time restrictions identified in the 

management of raptor habitat decisions. 

REC-20 

Use the minimum necessary signage to provide for public safety and information or to control 

unauthorized use. 

REC-21 

Design facilities to be compatible with the local landscapes and recreation experience. 

REC-22 

Management responses to unacceptable resource and/or social conditions will range 

from least restrictive methods (e.g., information and education) to most restrictive (e.g., visitor 

limits, supplemental rules, or restrictions). Where feasible, the least restrictive methods will be 

the first priority. (Recognize that various levels of regulations and limits are necessary. 

Restrictions and limitations on public uses should be as small as possible without compromising 

the primary goal.) Use on-the-ground presence as a tool to protect public lands. 

REC-23 

Developed recreation sites will be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry, closed to 

mineral material disposal, and open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (NSO). 

REC-24 

Developed recreation sites will be fenced to exclude grazing use. 

REC-25 

Identify areas for rock crawling where impacts could be minimized or eliminated and where such 

use would be compatible with other resource goals and objectives. 

Dispersed Camping

REC-26 

Allow dispersed camping throughout the decision area without permit, unless specified in the 

plan. 

REC-27 

Limit vehicle parking for dispersed camping within 150 feet of designated routes. 

Interpretation and Environmental Education

REC-28 

Provide information regarding recreation opportunities, interpretation of natural and human 

history, and specific rules and regulations pertaining to use of public lands to visitors. 

REC-29 

Provide education and outreach programs such as Tread Lightly or Leave No Trace. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

103 

REC-30 

Provide information on the area’s cultural and natural resources through outreach programs (e.g., 

organizations, schools, and partnerships) to build emotional, intellectual, and recreational ties 

with the area. 

REC-31 

Public information will be provided only for those cultural sites designated for public use. 

Heritage Tourism

REC-32 

Coordinate with local communities and other groups to foster heritage tourism throughout the 

decision area. 

Big Game Retrieval

REC-33 

Allow use of non-motorized wheel carriers to retrieve game kills outside of WSAs. 

Acquisition of Easements

REC-34 

Acquire legal access to areas of high recreation interest from willing parties. 

Night Skies and Soundscapes

REC-35 

Impacts on night sky would be considered and mitigated through the application of specific 

mitigation measures (e.g., down lighting and low-level lighting) identified in activity-level 

planning and NEPA review. See also Lands and Realty restrictions on the use of strobe lights. 

REC-36 

Impacts to soundscapes around national parks would be considered and mitigated through the 

application of specific mitigation measures identified in activity-level planning and NEPA-level 

review. 

Special Recreation Permits

REC-37 

Issue SRPs after evaluation of the various factors including the following: 

• Use conforms to the recreation goals and objectives outlined in the Resource 

Management Plan 

• Nature of proposed event or activity (i.e., commercial versus competitive) 

• Size (acreage) and sensitivity of land and resources affected (ACEC, WSA, VRM) 

• Compatibility with other uses, activities, and visitors in that area 

• Proposed number of participants and group size 

• Associated vehicle and equipment 

• Time (daily, seasonally) and duration of proposed use 

• Potential social impacts (crowding, group encounters, conflicting activities, and/or 

experiences) 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

104 

• Specific resources impacted (e.g., wildlife, cultural, paleontology, visual, riparian, 

soil, air, and water) 

• Rehabilitation and monitoring needs and feasibility 

• Support needs (people, equipment, supplies, vehicles) 

• Safety issues. 

REC-38 

Vending will be authorized in conjunction with organized events when it directly supports the 

recreation experience and is appropriate to support the experience and setting as outlined in the 

Resource Management Plan and when the vending is necessary to support resource protection or 

appropriate recreation use. 

REC-39 

Vending along scenic byways and backways would be coordinated with the Scenic Byway 

coordination committees and local government and highway authorities. 

REC-40 

In protected and restricted MSO habitat, limit SRP group size to no more than 12 according to 

recovery plan. 

REC-41 

Prohibit OHV or mountain bike tours in the following areas: 

• Where compliance with the Utah Riparian Policy would not be achieved 

• The loop within Moquith Mountain WSA 

• The Elephant Cove Way within Parunuweap WSA. 

REC-42 

Limit camping associated with SRPs to areas beyond 200 feet of riparian areas unless specific 

campsites are required during permitting. Approval of these specific campsites would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

REC-43 

Group size would be limited to 12 people total (including tour guides) in the following areas: 

• Wetlands/riparian zones 

• WSAs 

• Designated critical habitat for special status species. 

REC-44 

Group size would be limited to 25 people total in the remainder of the decision area, with permits 

for groups of more than 25 people being considered on a case-by-case basis in areas where 

resources would not be damaged. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Recreation

105 

REC-45 

SRPs will be subject to the following restrictions unless specifically authorized: 

• No collection of natural resources (not including firewood for personal onsite use). 

• No SRP activities will be authorized in bald eagle winter roost areas from November 

15 through March 15 during critical roosting hours (from 1 hour after sunset to 9 

a.m.). 

• If surveys reveal the presence of nesting Southwestern willow flycatchers, authorize 

no SRP activities in these locations between May 15 and June 30. 

• No Greater sage-grouse lek areas will be advertised by SRP holders or the BLM. 

• Implement seasonal/area closures during Greater sage-grouse breeding (March 1 to 

April 30) and/or wintering (November 1 to February 28) seasons if BLM biologists 

determine that breeding or wintering is being impacted by SRP activities.
Kanab Approved RMP - Transportation

106 

Transportation (TRC), (TRR), (TRV)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Maintain access, where needed, to meet public and administrative needs including 

acquiring or maintaining necessary access across non-federal land. 

• Compatible traditional, current, and future use of the land would be sustained by 

establishing a route system that contributes to protection of sensitive resources, 

accommodates a variety of uses, and minimizes user conflicts. 

• Public access, resource management, and regulatory needs would be considered 

through transportation planning, incorporating consideration of access needs and the 

effects of and interaction among all forms of travel, including motorized, mechanized, 

and non-motorized/mechanized travel. 

• Coordinate OHV management with adjacent BLM field offices and other agencies 

where possible. 

• Provide opportunities for OHV use on public lands. 

Transportation-Travel Management Area Categories, (TRC)

Management Actions: 

OHV Area Designations

TRC-1 

Management of motorized access would balance protection of resources while providing for 

resource use needs. Area designations would be as follows (Map 9): 

• Open to cross-country OHV use: 1,000 acres 

• Limited to designated routes: 528,000 acres 

• Closed to OHV use: 25,000 acres. 

• See Recreation section for specific management of OHV use in SRMAs. 

Areas Open for Cross-Country OHV Use

TRC-2 

Designate the following managed open areas: 

• Moquith Mountain SRMA: Dunes RMZ beyond vegetated and conservation areas 

• DD Hollow topsoil pit. 

Spatial Limitations

TRC-3 

Management of OHV use in areas not designated as open or closed would be limited to 

designated routes (528,000 acres) (Map 9). 
Kanab Approved RMP - Transportation

107 

Seasonal Limitations

TRC-4 

Designated routes on the north side of Pugh Canyon are closed annually to motorized use 

between February 1 and August 31 if a breeding pair of raptors is using the area (to protect the 

reproductive success of a breeding pair of raptors). If no nesting behavior is initiated prior to 

June 1, a BLM authorized officer could open the route to motorized use. During the remainder of 

the year OHV use will be limited to designated routes. 

Areas Closed to OHV Use

TRC-5 

Designate the following areas as closed to OHV use: 

• Paria SRMA—both RMZs 

• Designated wilderness (by Congressional designation) 

• In and through islands of vegetation in Welsh’s milkweed designated critical habitat 

(790 acres) 

• Suitable “wild” river corridors. 

Transportation-Travel Management OHV Route Identification, (TRR)

Management Actions: 

TRR-1 

Manage inventoried routes as follows (Map 10): 

• Open to motorized vehicle use: 1,402 miles 

• Limited (closed seasonally) to motorized vehicle use: 2 miles 

• Closed to motorized vehicle use: 76 miles. 

TRR-2 

Consideration of route and trail modifications (new or existing) will be conducted on a case-bycase basis in accordance with resource/use objectives and after appropriate NEPA review and 

analysis (Appendix 7). 

Transportation System Management

TRR-3 

Where the authorized officer determines that OHVs are causing or would cause considerable 

adverse impacts, the authorized officer shall close or restrict such areas. Local highway 

authorities would be consulted as appropriate. The public would be notified. 

TRR-4 

BLM could impose limitations on the 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. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Transportation

108 

TRR-5 

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) 

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 non-compliance are found through monitoring efforts to 

impair the area’s suitability for wilderness designation, BLM would 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. 

Transportation-Travel Management, (TRV)

Management Actions: 

TRV-1 

Coordinate transportation planning with Kane and Garfield counties. 

TRV-2 

The BLM would continue to repair, maintain, and rehabilitate routes to maintain existing route 

conditions. Route modifications (new facilities or expansion of existing facilities) would be 

determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with resource/use objectives and after 

appropriate NEPA review and analysis. 

TRV-3 

Pursue maintenance agreements with highway authorities in the decision area. 

TRV-4 

BLM, in preparing its RMP designations and its implementation-level travel management plans, 

is following policy and regulation authority found at 43 CFR 8340, 43 CFR 8364, and 43 CFR 

9268. 

TRV-5 

As per the State of Utah v. Andrus, October 1, 1979 (Cotter Decision), BLM would grant the 

State of Utah reasonable access to state lands for economic purposes on a case-by-case basis. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Lands and Realty

109 

Lands and Realty (LAR)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Make public lands available for community growth and expansion needs, recreation, 

and public purposes as well as other infrastructure needs. 

• Strive to increase and diversify our Nation’s sources of traditional and alternative 

energy resources, improve our energy transportation network, and ensure sound 

environmental management in support of minerals and energy development, as 

required by the President’s National Energy Policy and the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. 

• Retain in public ownership public lands that enhance multiple-use management, 

allow access to public lands, or contain sensitive or rare resources. 

• Acquire lands or interests in lands to complement existing resource values and uses. 

• Consider for disposal lands or interests in lands that are difficult and uneconomic to 

manage as part of the public lands, are no longer needed for a federal purpose, or 

where disposal would serve important public objectives. 

• Resolve any outstanding State Grant entitlements (quantity grants, in-lieu selections). 

• Make public lands available for ROWs, permits, and leases. The suitability for these 

land actions would be judged on a case-by-case basis. 

• Consider energy and utility corridors to focus placement of new major ROWs for 

energy and transportation systems. 

Management Actions: 

Communication Sites

LAR-1 

Prepare communication site plans for all existing communication sites before any new types of 

uses or new facilities would be authorized on the site. Site plans would be prepared for all new 

communication sites before any development of the site(s) would be authorized. 

LAR-2 

Evaluations for the siting and construction of communications towers will take into account 

potential impacts on migratory birds. Measures to avoid and minimize impacts would be 

considered during design, including avoiding known bird migration corridors, eliminating guy 

wires, restricting height of towers to less than 200 feet, and installing minimum lighting with use 

of white strobe lights rather than red (strobe or non-strobe) lights. The addition of new 

communications devices on existing towers will be considered where it is practical and does not 

present a safety or operational risk. 

LAR-3 

Require a feasibility study and site plan for new communications locations. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Lands and Realty

110 

Management of ROWs and ROW Corridors

LAR-4 

Exclude new ROWs (including communication sites) (75,700 acres) in the following areas (Map 

11): 

• WSAs 

• Wilderness areas 

• Suitable WSR corridors with a tentative classification of “wild” or “scenic.” 

LAR-5 

Avoid new ROWs (51,570 acres) in the following areas (Map 11): 

• The five non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect, 

preserve, and maintain those characteristics (27,700 acres) 

• Within 1⁄2 mile of active, suitable (currently inactive) Utah prairie dog habitats and 

within potential reintroduction sites. 

LAR-6 

Preference would be to locate ROW developments in common (within existing 

ROWs/disturbance areas). 

LAR-7 

Consider burying new and reconstructed utility lines (including powerlines up to 24 

kilovolts [kV]) unless: 

• Visual quality objectives can be met without burying 

• Geologic conditions make burying infeasible 

• Burying would produce greater long-term site disturbance. 

LAR-8 

New and reconstructed powerlines must meet non-electrocution standards for raptors. If 

electrocution or line strike issues develop with existing powerlines, corrective actions to meet 

these non-electrocution standards would be taken. 

LAR-9 

Construct powerlines greater than 230 kV using non-reflective wire. Towers would be 

constructed using non-reflective material. Powerlines would not be high-lined unless no other 

location exists. 

LAR-10 

Linear crossings, such as pipelines, utilities, or roads, across riparian areas and/or ephemeral 

channels would be considered on a case-by-case basis to protect the above areas. Surface 

disturbing activities would be avoided on unstable areas, such as landslides, and slumps. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Lands and Realty

111 

Areas Recommended for Withdrawal

LAR-11 

Request the cancellation of the Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964 classifications 

segregating the following lands from all forms of appropriation including mineral location: 

• Township 42 S, Range 7 W, Sec. 4, Lots 5, 6, 11, and 12 (140.05 acres) 

• Township 43 S, Range 7 W, Sec. 7, NE1/4 (160 acres) 

• Township 43 S, Range 7 W, Sec. 14, SE1/4 (160 acres) 

• Township 43 S, Range 7 W, Sec. 17, NW1/4, SE1/4SE1/4 (200 acres) 

• Township 43 S, Range 8 W, Sec. 13, NW1/4NW1/4 (40 acres) 

• Township 43 S, Range 8 W, Sec. 14, NE1/4NE1/4 (40 acres). 

The values for which these lands were classified would be reviewed and if they still warrant 

protection, specific protective withdrawals under FLPMA Section 204 would be obtained prior 

to the cancellation of the existing classifications. 

Existing Withdrawals

LAR-12 

Review existing withdrawals on a case-by-case basis. Determine whether the use is consistent 

with the intent of the withdrawal and whether the withdrawal should be continued, modified, 

revoked, or terminated. 

LAR-13 

Manage land becoming unencumbered by withdrawals in a manner consistent with adjacent or 

comparable public land within the planning area. 

New Withdrawals

LAR-14 

Limit the size of proposed withdrawals to the minimum acreage consistent with the demonstrated 

need. 

LAR-15 

In addition to the 24,591 acres withdrawn, recommend the following areas (9,500 acres) for 

withdrawal from mineral entry (Map 12): 

• Cottonwood Canyon ACEC 

• Developed recreation sites 

• Suitable “wild” river corridors 

• Suitable “scenic” river corridors 

• Relict vegetation areas (Diana’s Throne and Elephant Butte). 

Existing Classifications and Segregations

LAR-16 

Review existing classifications and segregations on a case-by-case basis to determine whether 

the classification or segregation is appropriate and should be continued, modified, or terminated. 

A notice of termination and opening order would be published to notify the public when and to 

what extent the land will be opened, consistent with planning decisions. Land on which a 
Kanab Approved RMP - Lands and Realty

112 

classification or segregation has been terminated would be managed in a manner consistent with 

adjacent or comparable public land within the planning area. 

Areas and Lands Available for Land Tenure Adjustment

LAR-17 

Public lands, in order to be considered for any form of land tenure adjustment (including 

exchanges, in-lieu selections, desert land entries, R&PP, easement acquisitions, etc.), except for 

FLPMA Section 203 sales, must meet one or more of the following criteria: 

• Is in the public interest; accommodates the needs of state, local, or private entities, 

including for the economy and community growth and expansion; and is in 

accordance with other land use goals, objectives, and planning decisions 

• Results in net gain of important and manageable resource values on public lands such 

as crucial wildlife habitat, significant cultural sites, high-value recreation areas, highquality riparian areas, live water, special status species habitat, or areas key to 

maintenance of productive ecosystems 

• Ensures the accessibility of public lands in areas where access is needed and cannot 

otherwise be obtained 

• Is essential to allow effective management of public lands in areas where 

consolidation of ownership is necessary to meet resource management objectives 

• Results in the acquisition of lands that serve a national priority as identified in 

national policy directives. 

LAR-18 

Habitat for listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species would be retained in federal 

ownership unless land tenure adjustments would result in a net increase of habitat. All actions 

involving listed species or their habitat would result in the proper consultation with USFWS. 

Land tenure adjustments may be considered with the State of Utah and others after consultation 

with and concurrence by USFWS. 

LAR-19 

Retain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in federal ownership where identified to 

protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness characteristics. 

LAR-20 

Lands with mining claims could be considered for disposal if the following apply: (1) the new 

surface owner is the mining claimant, or (2) the new surface owner agrees to accept the surface 

with the claim encumbrance. 

LAR-21 

Approximately 6,000 acres of public land would be available for FLPMA Section 203 sales with 

NEPA compliance and consistent with other decisions in this RMP (Map 13; Appendix 5). 

LAR-22 

Manage oil and gas with NSO stipulations on R&PP leases. If these sites are no longer required, 

they would be managed as are adjacent lands. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Lands and Realty

113 

LAR-23 

Give land exchanges with the State of Utah priority consideration to resolve inholdings issues. 

LAR-24 

As per the Cotter Decision, reasonable access to state lands would be authorized for economic 

purposes. 

Alternative Energy Resource Development (Wind Energy and Solar Energy Development)

LAR-25 

Adopt programmatic policies and BMPs in the Wind Energy Development Program identified in 

Record of Decision for Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated 

Land Use Plan Amendments (BLM 2005e). 

LAR-26 

Consider proposals for ROWs for wind and solar energy development throughout the decision 

area with the following exceptions: 

• Designated wilderness 

• WSAs 

• ACECs 

• Suitable WSR corridors. 

Management of Filming Permits

LAR-27 

Filming may be authorized throughout the decision area after site-specific NEPA analysis is 

completed. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Minerals and Energy

114 

Minerals and Energy (MIN)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Provide opportunities for mineral exploration, development, and reclamation under 

the mining and mineral leasing laws (e.g., coal mining, alabaster gypsum), subject to 

legal requirements to protect other resource values. 

• Provide salable and free-use mineral materials to meet local demand through the caseby-case issuance of permits and sale contracts. 

• Identify lands available for mineral leasing and development. 

Management Actions: 

Oil and Gas Leasing

MIN-1 

Close public lands or federal mineral estate within incorporated municipalities to mineral leasing 

in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act (30 United States Code [U.S.C.] 181 and 43 CFR 

3100.0-3(a)(2)(iii) and 3100.0-3(b)(2)(ii)). 

MIN-2 

Exceptions, waivers, or modifications to stipulations on oil and gas leases and other surface 

disturbing activities may be considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Appendix 3 

guidelines. 

MIN-3 

Manage the following sites as open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO): 

• Cemeteries 

• Landfills, existing and closed 

• Lands managed under R&PP Act leases 

• Developed recreation sites 

• Airports 

• Federal facilities. 

MIN-4 

Manage fluid mineral leases as shown on Map 14: 

• Open to leasing subject to standard terms and conditions: 95,400 acres 

• Open to leasing subject to moderate constraints (seasonal and CSU): 296,200 acres 

• Open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO): 83,400 acres 

• Closed to leasing: 79,000 acres. 

MIN-5 

In accordance with an UDEQ-DAQ letter dated June 6, 2008, (see Appendix 10) requesting 

implementation of interim nitrogen oxide control measures for compressor engines; BLM will 
Kanab Approved RMP - Minerals and Energy

115 

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. 

Geophysical Exploration

MIN-6 

Limit vehicular use for necessary tasks, such as geophysical exploration including project survey 

and layout, to OHV designations. Exceptions may be granted by permit on a case-by-case basis. 

MIN-7 

Allow geophysical operations consistent with existing regulations and policies and subject to 

constraints in areas with special designations (WSA, ACEC, WSR segments tentatively 

classified as “wild” or “scenic”) as determined through site-specific NEPA analysis. 

Other Leasable Minerals

MIN-8 

Lease geothermal resources consistent with oil and gas leasing stipulations and consistent with 

other resource objectives. 

Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining

MIN-9 

Approximately 35,538 acres (Map 15) are determined to be unsuitable for surface mining and 

surface operations incident to an underground mine as stated in 43 CFR 3400.0-5(mm) based on 

the 20 criteria identified in Appendix 6. 

MIN-10 

Additional areas could be found unsuitable based on site-specific analysis (Appendix 6). 

MIN-11 

Incorporate erosion control stipulations in mining plans for surface mining disturbance as per 

Surface Mining Control Reclamation Act regulations. 

Locatable Minerals

MIN-12 

Allow location, exploration, and development of locatable minerals on public lands except where 

withdrawn. Evaluate operations for exploration and development in the context of its 

requirement to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of other resources. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Minerals and Energy

116 

MIN-13 

In addition to the 24,591 acres withdrawn, recommend withdrawing the following areas (9,500 

acres) from mineral entry (Map 12): 

• Cottonwood Canyon ACEC 

• Developed recreation sites 

• Suitable “wild” river corridors 

• Suitable “scenic” river corridors 

• Relict vegetation areas (Diana’s Throne and Elephant Butte). 

Mineral Materials

MIN-14 

Allow mineral material disposals on a case-by-case basis subject to site-specific environmental 

analysis excluding the following areas (105,000 acres) (Map 16): 

• Cottonwood ACEC 

• Relict Vegetation (Diana’s Throne and Elephant Butte) 

• WSAs 

• Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

• Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness area (closed to mineral material disposals 

by congressional designation) 

• Suitable “wild” river corridors 

• Suitable “scenic” river corridors 

• Developed recreation sites. 

MIN-15 

Incorporate erosion control and rehabilitation stipulations into mining plans. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

117 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)

Goals and Objectives: 

Designate and manage as ACECs areas where special management attention is required to 

protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values; protect 

fish and wildlife resources or other natural system or processes; or protect life and safety from 

natural hazards. 

Management Actions: 

ACEC-1 

Include stipulations for permitted actions within the designated ACEC to ensure relevant and 

important values, resources, processes, systems, and hazards are protected or managed for. 

Cottonwood Canyon ACEC Outside of Moquith Mountain WSA

ACEC-2 

Designate and manage the 3,800 acres as the Cottonwood Canyon ACEC (Map 17). Manage the 

relevant and important values as follows: 

Scenic: 

• Designate as VRM Class II 

• Limit OHV use to designated routes 

• Open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (NSO) 

• Recommend withdrawing from mineral entry 

• Close to mineral material disposals. 

Cultural: 

• Monitor specific sites on a regular basis 

• Retain all lands and interests in land in federal ownership 

• Work with the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) to 

acquire state inholdings. 

Hazard/Safety/Public Welfare: 

• Close the Water Canyon Allotment (48 AUMs) to livestock grazing in order to 

protect the Fredonia City Culinary water supply for the life of the plan. 

Cottonwood Canyon ACEC Inside Moquith Mountain WSA

ACEC-3 

Approximately 2,400 acres (63 percent) of the Cottonwood Canyon ACEC are inside the 

Moquith Mountain WSA. The relevant and important values in this portion of the ACEC would 

be managed according to the IMP and the following management prescriptions: 
Kanab Approved RMP - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

118 

Scenic: 

• Designate as VRM Class I 

• Limit OHV use to designated routes 

• Recommend withdrawing from mineral entry 

Cultural: 

• For purposes of Cultural Resources: Monitor specific sites on a regular basis 

• Retain all lands and interests in land in federal ownership 

• Work with the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) to 

acquire state inholdings. 

Hazard/Safety/Public Welfare: 

• Close the Water Canyon Allotment (48 AUMs) to livestock grazing in order to 

protect the Fredonia City Culinary water supply for the life of the plan. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wild and Scenic Rivers

119 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR)

Goals and Objectives: 

Preserve suitable rivers, or segments of rivers, and their immediate environments in their freeflowing condition for the protection of their outstandingly remarkable values (ORV) and for the 

benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations, giving consideration to other resource 

values and uses. 

Management Actions: 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Recommendations

WSR-1 

Management to protect the river segments would be provided in the following ways: 

• Free-flowing values: The free-flowing characteristics of river segments would not be 

modified to allow stream impoundments, diversions, channelization, and/or riprapping to the extent the BLM is authorized under law. 

• Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Each river segment would be managed to protect 

identified ORVs and, to the extent practicable, such values would be enhanced. 

• Tentative Classification: Management and development of the river and its corridor 

would not be modified to the degree that its tentative classification would be affected. 

A river segment’s tentative classification would not be changed due to modification 

from “wild” to “scenic” or from “scenic” to “recreational.” 

WSR-2 

Protective management would apply to BLM lands within the river corridor, which does not 

exceed “more than 320 acres of land per mile measured from the ordinary high water mark on 

both sides of the river” (16 U.S.C. 1274(b)). The corridors may vary on either side of the river 

and be narrower or wider to protect ORVs, but the total corridor widths may not exceed 320 

acres (half of a mile or 2,640 feet wide) per river mile. 

WSR-3 

Protective interim management of suitable rivers would not involve assertion of federal reserved 

water rights. 

WSR-4 

Manage rivers determined suitable for congressional designation into the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) in a manner that would protect their ORVs, free-flowing nature, 

and tentative classification, in accordance with protective management for the river corridors. 

WSR-5 

Six eligible river segment corridors (Map 18) would be determined suitable for WSR designation 

(5,530 acres/30 miles), with the tentative classifications of “wild” (4,570 acres/25 miles) or 

“scenic” (960 acres/5 miles). 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wild and Scenic Rivers

120 

North Fork Virgin River—Segment 48-49

WSR-6 

Suitable—Wild 

Manage the portion of the North Fork Virgin River (segment 48-49) suitable “wild” river 

segment inside the North Fork WSA to protect the tentative classification and ORVs through the 

following specific management prescriptions (within 1⁄4 mile of each side of the river or the 

viewshed from the river, whichever is less): 

• According to the IMP 

• VRM: Class I 

• Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry 

• Motorized Travel: Closed to OHV use 

• ROW exclusion area. 

Manage the portion of the North Fork Virgin River (segment 48-49) suitable “wild” river 

segment outside the WSA to protect the tentative classification and ORVs through the following 

specific management prescriptions (within 1⁄4 mile of each side of the river or the viewshed from 

the river, whichever is less): 

• VRM: Class I 

• Minerals: Close to oil and gas leasing, recommend for withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry, and close to mineral material disposal 

• Motorized Travel: Close to OHV use 

• ROW exclusion area. 

East Fork Virgin River—Segment 37-40a

WSR-7 

Suitable—Scenic 

Manage the East Fork Virgin River (segment 37-40a) suitable “scenic” river segment inside the 

Parunuweap WSA to protect the tentative classification and ORVs through the following specific 

management prescriptions (within 1⁄4 mile of each side of the river or the viewshed from the 

river, whichever is less): 

• According to the IMP 

• VRM: Class I 

• Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry 

• Motorized Travel: Limit to designated routes 

• ROW exclusion area. 

East Fork Virgin River—Segment 40a-41

WSR-8 

Suitable—Wild 

Manage the East Fork Virgin River (segment 40a-41) suitable “wild” river segment inside the 

Parunuweap WSA to protect the tentative classification and ORVs through the following specific 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wild and Scenic Rivers

121 

management prescriptions (within 1⁄4 mile of each side of the river or the viewshed from the 

river, whichever is less): 

• According to the IMP 

• VRM: Class I 

• Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry 

• Motorized Travel: Close to OHV use 

• ROW exclusion area. 

Orderville Gulch (Esplin Gulch)—Segment 44-45

WSR-9 

Suitable—Wild 

Manage the portion of the Orderville Gulch (Esplin Gulch) (segment 44-45) suitable “wild” river 

segment inside the Orderville Canyon WSA to protect the tentative classification and ORVs 

through the following specific management prescriptions (within 1⁄4 mile of each side of the river 

or the viewshed from the river, whichever is less): 

• According to the IMP 

• VRM: Class I 

• Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry 

• Motorized Travel: Close to OHV use 

• ROW exclusion area. 

Manage the portion of the Orderville Gulch (Esplin Gulch) (segment 44-45) suitable “wild” river 

segment outside the Orderville Canyon WSA to protect the tentative classification and ORVs 

through the following specific management prescriptions (within 1⁄4 mile of each side of the river 

or the viewshed from the river, whichever is less): 

• VRM: Class I 

• Minerals: Close to oil and gas leasing, recommend for withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry, and close to mineral material disposal 

• Motorized Travel: Close to OHV use 

• ROW exclusion area. 

Meadow Creek/Mineral Gulch—Segment 33-35, 35-38

WSR-10 

Suitable—Wild 

Manage the portion of the Meadow Creek/Mineral Gulch (segment 33-35, 35-38) suitable “wild” 

river segment inside the Parunuweap WSA to protect the tentative classification and ORVs 

through the following specific management prescriptions (within 1⁄4 mile of each side of the river 

or the viewshed from the river, whichever is less): 

• According to the IMP 

• VRM: Class I 

• Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wild and Scenic Rivers

122 

• Motorized Travel: Close to OHV use 

• ROW exclusion area. 

Manage the portion of the Meadow Creek/Mineral Gulch (segment 33-35, 35-38) suitable “wild” 

river segment outside the Parunuweap WSA to protect the tentative classification and ORVs 

through the following specific management prescriptions (within 1⁄4 mile of each side of the river 

or the viewshed from the river, whichever is less): 

• VRM: Class I 

• Minerals: Close to oil and gas leasing, recommend for withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry, and close to mineral material disposal 

• Motorized Travel: Close to OHV use 

• ROW exclusion area. 

Paria River—Segment 68-69

WSR-11 

Suitable—Wild 

ORVs in the Paria River would be preserved through the following management approach (from 

the Final Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Report/Record of Decision [BLM 

1997b], which determined eligibility for the Paria River and is carried forward in this document): 

• Developed campgrounds, interpretive centers, or administrative headquarters within 

the river corridor would be prohibited. Simple comfort and convenience facilities 

would be permitted. 

• New electric transmission lines, natural gas lines, water lines, and other ROWs would 

be prohibited. 

• Woodcutting would not be permitted except where needed to clear trails, for visitor 

safety, or to control fire. 

• Livestock grazing would be managed to protect ORVs within the area. 

• No new flood control dams, levees, or other water works would be permitted. 

• Hydroelectric power facilities would be prohibited. 

• All water supply dams and major diversions would be prohibited. 

• Construction of new routes for motorized travel would be prohibited. 

Management of Suitable Rivers

WSR-12 

Allow other activities within the suitable river segment corridors on a case-by-case basis as long 

as their ORVs, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification would be protected. See BLM 

Manual-8351, Section 5, for implementation guidance. 

Coordination with State Agencies, Federal Agencies, and Tribal Governments

WSR-13 

BLM would work with the State of Utah, local and tribal governments, and other federal 

agencies, in a state-wide study, to reach consensus regarding recommendations to Congress for 

the inclusion of rivers in the NWSRS. Besides applying consistent criteria across agency 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wild and Scenic Rivers

123 

jurisdictions, the joint study would avoid piecemealing of river segments in logical watershed 

units in the state. The study would evaluate, in detail, the possible benefits and effects of 

designation on the local and state economies, agricultural and industrial operations and interests, 

outdoor recreation, natural resources (including the outstandingly remarkable values for which 

the river was deemed suitable), water rights, water quality, water resource planning, and access 

to and across river corridors within, and upstream and downstream from the proposed 

segments(s). Actual designation of river segments would only occur through congressional 

action or as a result of Secretarial decision at the request of the Governor in accordance with 

provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (the Act). BLM will work with the state, local and 

tribal governments, and the agencies involved to coordinate its decision-making on wild and 

scenic river issues and to achieve consistency wherever possible.

WSR-14 

BLM recognizes that water resources on most river and stream segments within the State of Utah 

are already fully allocated. Before stream segments that have been recommended as suitable 

under this Approved RMP are recommended to Congress for designation, BLM will continue to 

work with affected local, state, federal, and tribal partners to identify in-stream flows necessary 

to meet critical resource needs, including values related to the subject segments. Such 

quantifications would be included in any recommendation for designation. BLM would then seek 

to jointly promote innovative strategies, community-based planning, and voluntary agreements 

with water users, under State law, to address those needs. 

WSR-15 

Should designations occur on any river segment as a result of Secretarial or congressional action, 

existing rights, privileges, and contracts would 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 NWSRS does not create new water rights for the BLM. 

Federal reserved water rights for new components of the NWSRS are established at the 

discretion of Congress. If water is reserved by Congress when a river component is added to the 

NWSRS, it would come from water that is not appropriated at the time of designation, in the 

amount necessary to protect features which led to the river’s inclusion into the system. BLM's 

intent would be to leave existing water rights undisturbed and to recognize the lawful rights of 

private, municipal, and state entities to manage water resources under state law to meet the needs 

of the community. Federal law, including Section 13 of the Act and the McCarren Amendment 

(43 U.S.C. 666), recognizes state jurisdiction over water allocation in designated streams. Thus, 

it is 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 would not be affected by designation or the creation of the possible 

federal reserved water right. BLM would 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. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wilderness

124 

Wilderness (DW)

Goals and Objectives: 

• Manage for the long-term protection and preservation of the area’s wilderness 

character under a principle of non-degradation. The area’s natural condition; 

opportunities for solitude; opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of 

recreation; and any ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historical value present would be managed so that they remain unimpaired. 

• Manage designated wilderness for the use and enjoyment of visitors in a manner that 

leaves the area unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The 

wilderness resource would be a dominant factor in all management decisions where a 

choice must be made between preservation of wilderness character and visitor use. 

• Manage designated wilderness using the minimum tools, equipment, and/or structures 

necessary to accomplish the objective successfully, safely, and economically. The 

chosen tools, equipment, or structures would be the ones that least degrade wilderness 

values temporarily or permanently. Management would seek to preserve spontaneity 

of use and as much freedom from regulation as possible. 

• Manage non-conforming but accepted uses permitted by the Wilderness Act and 

subsequent laws in a manner that would prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of 

the area’s wilderness character. Non-conforming uses are the exception rather than 

the rule; therefore, emphasis would be placed on maintaining wilderness character. 

Management Actions: 

Management of the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness

DW-1 

Manage the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness cooperatively with Arizona BLM. 

DW-2 

Implement the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Management Plan. 

DW-3 

The wilderness character of the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness would be protected 

and enhanced. 

DW-4 

Maintain the current group size and visitor use limits required for use in Paria Canyon, subject to 

adaptive management decisions deemed necessary through monitoring and evaluation of 

resources and social conditions. 

DW-5 

Restore lands within the wilderness area where ecological integrity is outside the range of natural 

variability and where compatible with wilderness objectives. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wilderness

125 

DW-6 

Restore ecological functions and structure in wilderness using the minimum tool requirement 

standard for BLM wilderness areas and the best mix of chemical, biological, or mechanical 

means with fire and natural processes. 

DW-7 

For fire and fuels management, the use of earth-moving equipment must be authorized by the 

Field Office Manager. 

DW-8 

Fire management actions will rely on the most effective methods of suppression that are least 

damaging to wilderness values, other resources, and the environment while requiring the least 

expenditure of public funds. 

DW-9 

A resource advisor will be consulted when fire occurs in the wilderness. 

DW-10 

Use natural processes to restore areas of preexisting human imprints. Where proactive restoration 

of wilderness conditions is desirable, require the minimum requirement standards; plans to 

address restoration of preexisting human impacts may be required. 

DW-11 

Ensure that any change in the landscape is very low. 

DW-12 

Manage to protect or restore the natural quiet and natural soundscapes of the area. 

DW-13 

Prohibit all motorized vehicles, motorized equipment, aircraft landing, and other forms of 

mechanical transport (including mountain bikes and wheeled game carriers). Exceptions may be 

authorized per the Wilderness Act Section 4(d) when it is: 

• Necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area 

• Required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the areas 

• For the exercise of a private existing right or other special provision. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wilderness Study Areas

126 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSA)

Goals and Objectives: 

Manage WSAs in a manner that does not impair their suitability for designation as wilderness. 

Temporary uses that create no new surface disturbance nor involve permanent placement of 

structures may be allowed in WSAs on a case-by-case basis. 

Management Actions: 

WSA Management 

WSA-1 

Planning decisions in this RMP will not affect the existence of or recommendations on WSAs 

identified as a result of inventory conducted under Section 603 of FLPMA and awaiting action 

by Congress. Further, although the formal Section 603 wilderness review process was 

determined to have expired on October 21, 1993, BLM may and will continue to inventory 

public lands for resource values including wilderness characteristics on lands that have not been 

reviewed, or where new information is provided that shows additional inventory is necessary. 

However, additional Wilderness Study Areas will not be designated through this planning 

process. 

WSA-2 

Manage all WSAs according to the IMP (BLM Manual Handbook H-8550-1) until legislation is 

enacted to either designate the areas as wilderness or release them for uses other than wilderness. 

WSA-3 

Only Congress can release a WSA from wilderness consideration. Should any WSA, in whole or 

in part, be released from wilderness consideration, such released lands will be managed in 

accordance with the goals, objectives, and management prescriptions established in this RMP, 

unless otherwise specified by Congress in its releasing legislation. BLM will examine proposals 

in the released areas on a case-by-case basis but will defer all actions that are inconsistent with 

RMP goals, objectives, and prescriptions until it completes a land use plan amendment. Because 

any released lands will continue to be managed consistent with the prescriptions identified in this 

plan unless and until the plan is amended, no separate analysis is required to address impacts to 

released lands. 

WSA-4 

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) 

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 non-compliance are found through monitoring efforts to 

impair the area’s suitability for wilderness designation, BLM would 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. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Wilderness Study Areas

127 

WSA-5 

Designate WSAs as VRM Class I. 

OHV Use in WSAs

WSA-6 

Manage OHV area designation in WSAs as shown in Table 2 and on Map 9. 

Table 2. OHV Area Designations in WSAs 

WSA OHV Designation Acres 

Canaan Mountain Limited 4,300 

Acquired Land Managed as Part of 

the Canaan Mountain WSA Limited 600 

Moquith Mountain 

Closed 400 

Limited 13,800 

Open 1,000 

North Fork Virgin River 

Closed 200 

Limited 850 

Orderville Canyon 

Closed 500 

Limited 1,450 

Parunuweap Canyon 

Closed 6,200 

Limited 24,600 

WSA-7 

Designate 25.0 miles of inventoried ways in WSAs (Moquith Mountain–8.5 miles; Parunuweap Canyon–

15.9 miles; Orderville Canyon–0.6 miles) for OHV use (Map 10) . 
Kanab Approved RMP - Other Designations

128 

Other Designations

Goals and Objectives: 

• Coordinate management of National Scenic Byways, Utah Scenic Byways, and Utah 

Scenic Backways with other agencies and BLM offices, as appropriate. 

• Consider impacts on other designations when evaluating all proposed projects. 

• Promote the preservation and appreciation of the Old Spanish National Historical 

Trail for the enjoyment of the American people. 

Management Actions: 

National and State Scenic Byways and State Scenic Backways

OD-1 

Cooperate with state and local authorities to implement the purposes of designation. 

Old Spanish National Historic Trail

OD-2 

Work with the BLM and National Park Service (NPS) planning team in the development of a 

comprehensive management plan for the National Historic Trail. 

OD-3 

Prepare an Activity (Trail) Plan for the Old Spanish National Historic Trail to identify specific 

on-the-ground actions that would be taken to implement the goals and objectives of the Trail. 

Highway 89/20 Segment, Garfield County

OD-4 

Work in cooperation with Utah State Parks and Recreation, Garfield County, Old Spanish Trail 

Association, and the NPS on interpretive and recreation opportunities for this segment: 

• Provide interpretive information at appropriate locations (e.g., kiosks, road junctions, 

Garfield County line) 

• Retain public lands in federal ownership 

• Limit OHV use to designated routes 

• Manage for VRM objectives (VRM Class II in Circleville Canyon and VRM Class III 

and Class IV elsewhere). 

Highway 89 Segment, Kane County

OD-5 

Work in cooperation with Utah State Parks and Recreation, Kane County, Old Spanish Trail 

Association, and the NPS on interpretive and recreation opportunities for this segment: 

Provide interpretive information at appropriate locations (e.g., kiosks, road pullouts, Kane 

County line). 
Kanab Approved RMP - Public Safety

129 

Public Safety (HAZ)

Goals and Objectives: 

• The BLM would strive to ensure that human health and safety concerns on public 

lands remain a major priority. 

• Hazardous or potentially hazardous sites and situations, including hazardous 

materials, hazardous or solid wastes, abandoned mine sites, abandoned well sites, and 

other potential hazards on public lands would be mitigated or eliminated.

• The potential for intentional or accidental releases of hazardous materials or wastes 

and solid wastes onto public lands would be minimized or eliminated. 

Management Actions: 

Management of Abandoned Mine Lands

HAZ-1 

In conformance with the BLM’s long-term strategies and national policies regarding Abandoned 

Mine Lands (AML), this RMP recognizes the need to work with our partners toward identifying 

and addressing physical safety and environmental hazards at all AML sites on public lands. To 

accomplish this long-term goal, the criteria discussed in the following paragraphs would be 

established to assist in determining priorities for site and area mitigation and reclamation. 

HAZ-2 

The criteria that would be used to establish physical safety hazard program priorities are: 

• The AML physical safety program’s highest priority would be cleaning up those 

AML sites where (a) a death or injury has occurred; (b) the site is situated on or in 

immediate proximity to developed recreation sites and areas with high visitor use; and 

(c) upon formal risk assessment, a high or extremely high risk level is indicated. 

• AML would be factored into future recreation management area designations, land 

use planning assessments, and all applicable use authorizations. 

• The site is listed or is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mine Site Cleanup Module 

of the Protection and Response Information System. 

• AML hazards should be, to the extent practicable, mitigated or remediated on the 

ground during site development. 

HAZ-3 

The criteria that would be used to establish water quality-based AML program priorities are: 

• The site has identified the watershed as a priority based on (a) one or more water laws 

or regulations, (b) threat to public health or safety, and (c) threat to the environment. 

• The project reflects a collaborative effort with other land management agencies. 

• The site is listed or is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mine Site Cleanup Module 

of the Protection and Response Information System. 

• The project would be funded by contributions from collaborating agencies. 
Kanab Approved RMP - Public Safety

130 

HAZ-4 

Maintain the State Multi-Year Work Plan and update as needed to reflect current policies for 

identifying program physical safety and water quality AML site priorities for reclamation and 

remediation. 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - References 

131 

REFERENCES 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested practices for raptor protection on 

power lines: the state of the art in 2006. Washington (D.C.): Edison Electric 

Institute/Raptor Research Foundation. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). No date. Guidelines for Recreation Management for Public 

Lands in Utah. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1997a. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah. United States Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1997b. Final Arizona Statewide Wild & Scenic Rivers 

Study Report/Record of Decision. Arizona State Office: Phoenix, AZ. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2002b. Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision 

Record: Sandford Bench Limekiln Prairie Dog Habitat Improvement/Translocation. EA 

UT-046-01-010. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005c. Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels 

Management Environmental Assessment, EA UT-USO-04-01. Finding of No Significant 

Impact and Decision Record. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005e. Record of Decision for Implementation of a Wind 

Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to Manage SageGrouse Populations and Their Habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967–985. 

Hamilton, R.G. (compiler). 1993. Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain 

Region. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 

Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV). 2005. Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird 

Conservation in Utah. 

Romin, L.A. and J.A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection From 

Human and Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, UT. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 1992. Recommended OldGrowth Definitions and Descriptions and Old-Growth Allocation Procedure. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, CO. pp. 41. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Welsh’s Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Milkweed (Asclepias welshii). Denver, CO. pp. 19. 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - References 

132 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted 

Owl. December 1995. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2005a. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (CWCS). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication 

Number 05-19. Written by: Gorrell, J.V., M.E. Andersen, K.D. Bunnell, M.F. Canning, 

A.G. Clark, D.E. Dolsen, and F.P. Howe. pp. 80. 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

133 

GLOSSARY 

Acquisition. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acquires land, easements, and other real 

property rights when it is in the public interest and consistent with approved land use plans 

(LUP). The BLM’s land acquisition program is designed to (1) improve management of natural 

resources through consolidation of federal, state, and private lands; (2) increase recreational 

opportunities, preserve open space, and/or ensure accessibility of public lands; (3) secure key 

property necessary to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species, promote highquality riparian areas, and promote biological diversity; (4) preserve archaeological and 

historical resources; and (5) implement specific acquisitions authorized by Acts of Congress. 

Activity Plan. A type of implementation plan (see Implementation Plan); an activity plan usually 

describes multiple projects and applies best management practices to meet LUP objectives. 

Examples of activity plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat management 

plans, recreation area management plans, and allotment management plans (from H-1601-1, 

BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Active Use. Livestock grazing term meaning the current authorized use, including livestock 

grazing and conservation use. Active use may constitute a portion, or all, of permitted use. 

Active use does not include temporary non-use or suspended use of forage within all or a portion 

of an allotment (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 4100.0-5). 

Actual Use. Livestock grazing term meaning where, how many, what kind or class of livestock, 

and how long livestock graze on an allotment or on a portion or pasture of an allotment (43 CFR 

4100.0-5). 

Administrative Use. Official use related to management and resources of the public lands by 

federal, state, or local governments or non-official use sanctioned by an appropriate authorization 

instrument, such as right-of-way (ROW), permit, lease, or maintenance agreement. 

Administrative Route. Routes that are limited to administrative (official or authorized) users 

only. 

Administrative Purposes. Administrative use functions involving regular maintenance or 

operation of facilities or programs. 

Air Quality. A measure of the health-related and visual characteristics of the air, often derived 

from quantitative measurements of the concentrations of specific injurious or contaminating 

substances. Refers to standards for various classes of land as designated by the Air Pollution 

Control Act of 1955; Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended; and Air Quality Act of 1967. 

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 roads, trails, marshland, open country, or other unprepared surfaces 

(from BLM National Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands). 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

134 

Allotment. An area of land designated and managed for livestock grazing (43 CFR 4100.0-5) 

(from H-4180-1, BLM Standards for Rangeland Health). 

Allotment Management Plan (AMP). A document prepared in consultation with the grazing 

lessees or permittees involved that applies to livestock operations on the public lands and that (1) 

prescribes the manner in and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted to meet the 

multiple-use, sustained-yield, economic, and other needs and objectives as determined for the 

lands by the Secretary concerned; (2) describes the type, location, ownership, and general 

specifications for the range improvements to be installed and maintained on the lands to meet the 

livestock grazing and other objectives of land management; and (3) contains such other 

provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the Secretary concerned to 

be consistent with the provisions of this Act and other applicable law (from Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act [FLPMA], Title 43, Chapter 35, Subchapter I 1702(k)). 

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 (about 800 pounds of usable airdried forage). 

Appropriate Management Response (AMR). The response to a wildland fire based on an 

evaluation of risks to firefighter and public safety; the circumstances under which the fire occurs, 

including weather and fuel conditions; natural and cultural resource management objectives; 

protection priorities; and values to be protected. The evaluation also must include an analysis of 

the context of the specific fire within the overall local area, geographic area, or national wildland 

fire situation. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Areas within the public lands in which 

special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no 

development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 

cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources; or other natural systems or processes or to 

protect life and safety from natural hazards (from FLPMA, Title 43, Chapter 35, Subchapter I 

1702(a)). 

Assessment. The act of evaluating and interpreting data and information for a defined purpose 

(from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Authorized Officer. A federal employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific 

decision. 

Avoidance Area. Areas with sensitive resources and/or values where ROWs and Section 302 

permits, leases, and easements would be strongly discouraged. Authorizations made in avoidance 

areas would have to be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated and not 

be otherwise feasible on lands outside the avoidance area. 

Backcountry. A recreation setting classification characterized by a naturally appearing 

landscape with human modifications not readily noticeable, small areas with limited evidence of 

surface or vegetative disturbances, and little or no evidence of primitive roads or motorized use. 

Small, isolated structures may be present. Contains some primitive trails made of native 

materials (e.g., log bridges and carved wooden signs). 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

135 

Backcountry Byways. Vehicle routes that traverse scenic corridors using secondary or 

backcountry road systems. National backcountry byways are designated by the type of road and 

vehicle needed to travel the byway. 

Benefits-Based Recreation. A management framework, philosophy, or approach to providing 

recreation and trail resources, facilities, and programs that focuses on identifying the economic, 

environmental, and social benefits to target recreation users. This management approach builds 

on existing activity, facility, or demographic group orientations but focuses on the outcomes or 

changes in the target groups. 

Best Management Practices (BMP). A suite of techniques that guide or may be applied to 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in 

conjunction with LUPs, but they are not considered an LUP decision unless the LUP specifies 

that they are mandatory. The practices may be updated or modified without a plan amendment if 

they are not mandatory (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Big Game. Indigenous ungulate wildlife species that are hunted (e.g., elk, deer, bison, bighorn 

sheep, and pronghorn). 

Biological Assessment (BA). The document prepared by or under the direction of the BLM 

concerning listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may be 

present in the action area. The document contains the BLM’s determination of potential effects 

of the action on such species and habitat. BAs are required for formal consultations and 

conferences on “major construction projects.” They are recommended for all formal 

consultations and formal conferences and many informal consultations in which a written 

evaluation of the effects of an action on listed or proposed species and on designated or proposed 

critical habitat is needed (from M-6840, Special Status Species Manual). 

Biological Opinion (BO). The document that includes (1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

(USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) opinion as to whether or not a 

federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat; (2) a summary of information 

on which the opinion is based; and (3) a detailed discussion of the effects of the action on listed 

species or designated critical habitat. Depending on the determination of jeopardy or nonjeopardy, the BO may contain reasonable and prudent alternatives, a statement of anticipated 

take of listed animals, and conservation recommendations for listed plants (from M-6840, 

Special Status Species Manual).

Candidate Species. Taxa for which the USFWS has sufficient information on their status and 

threats to support proposing the species for listing as endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) but for which issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded 

by higher priority listing actions. Separate lists for plants, vertebrate animals, and invertebrate 

animals are published periodically in the Federal Register (from M-6840, Special Status Species 

Manual). 

Casual Use. Any short-term non-commercial activity ordinarily resulting in no or negligible 

disturbance of the public lands, resources, or improvements. Casual use generally includes 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

136 

surveying, marking routes, and data collection. It also includes collecting of geochemical, rock, 

soil, or mineral specimens using hand tools, hand panning, and non-motorized sluicing. It also 

generally includes use of metal detectors, gold spears, and other battery-operated devices for 

sensing the presence of minerals, and hand and battery-operated dry-washers. Casual use 

excludes the use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, 

suction dredges, and motorized vehicles in areas designated as closed to off-highway vehicles 

(OHV), chemicals, or explosives. It also excludes occupancy or operations in which the 

cumulative effects of the activities result in more than negligible disturbance. 

Cherry-Stemming. Drawing the boundaries of a special management area to exclude the 

acreage and disturbance of a road/way. 

Class of Livestock. Livestock grazing term meaning the ages and/or sex groups of a kind of 

livestock (43 CFR 4100.0-5). 

Closed. Generally denotes that an area is unavailable for a particular use or uses; refers to 

specific definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual 

programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 sets forth the specific meaning of “closed” as it relates 

to OHV use, and 43 CFR 8364 defines “closed” as it relates to closure and restriction orders 

(from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The official codification of the current, general, and 

permanent regulations of 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 

(from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Collaborative Partnerships or Collaborative Stewardship. Refers to people working together, 

sharing knowledge and resources, to achieve desired outcomes for public lands and communities 

within statutory and regulatory frameworks (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook). 

Conformance. Means that a proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the LUP or, if 

not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards of 

the approved LUP (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Conservation Agreement. A formal written document agreed to by USFWS and/or NMFS and 

another federal agency, state agency, local government, or the private sector to achieve the 

conservation of candidate species or other special status species through voluntary cooperation. 

It documents the specific actions and responsibilities for which each party agrees to be 

accountable. The objective of a conservation agreement is to reduce threats to a special status 

species or its habitat. An effective conservation agreement may lower species’ listing priority or 

eliminate the need for listing (from M6840, Special Status Species Manual). 

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 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

137 

animals that are designated as BLM-sensitive species or that USFWS or National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries have determined to be federal candidates under 

the ESA (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Consistency. Means that the proposed LUP does not conflict with officially approved plans, 

programs, and policies of tribes, other federal agencies, and state and local governments (to the 

extent practical within federal law, regulation, and policy) (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook). 

Cooperating Agency. Assists the lead federal agency in developing an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) define a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise for proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR 1501.6). Any federal, state, or local 

government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency by 

agreement with the lead agency (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Council on Environmental Quality. An advisory council to the President of the United States 

established by NEPA. It reviews federal programs to analyze and interpret environmental trends 

and information. 

Critical Habitat. (1) The specific areas within the geographical area currently occupied by a 

species, at the time it is listed in accordance with ESA, on which are found those physical or 

biological features (i) essential to the conservation of the species and (ii) that may require special 

management considerations or protection, and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon determination by the USFWS and/or NMFS 

that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Critical habitats are designated in 

50 CFR 17 and 226. The constituent elements of critical habitat are those physical and biological 

features of designated or proposed critical habitat essential to the conservation of the species 

(from M6840, Special Status Species Manual). 

Crucial Value Habitat. Any particular range or habitat component that directly limits a 

community, population, or subpopulation to reproduce and maintain itself at a certain level over 

the long term. Such habitat includes sensitive use areas that, because of limited abundance and/or 

unique qualities, constitute irreplaceable critical requirements for high-interest wildlife. It may 

also include highly sensitive habitats, including fragile soils that have little or no reclamation 

potential. Restoration or replacement of these habitats may not be possible. Examples include the 

most crucial (critical) summer and/or winter range or concentration areas; critical movement 

corridors; breeding and rearing complexes; spawning areas; developed wetlands; Class 1 and 2 

streams, lakes, ponds, or reservoirs; and riparian habitats critical to high-interest wildlife. 

Crucial Winter Range. The portion of the winter range to which a wildlife species is confined 

during periods of heaviest snow cover. 

Cryptobiotic Crust. 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, 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

138 

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. 

Cultural Resource or Cultural Property. A definite location of human activity, occupation, or 

use identifiable through field inventory (survey), historical documentation, or oral evidence. The 

term includes archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important 

public and scientific uses, and may include definite locations (sites or places) of traditional 

cultural or religious importance to specified social and/or cultural groups. Cultural resources are 

concrete, material places and things that are located, classified, ranked, and managed through the 

system of identifying, protecting, and using for public benefit described in this manual series 

(from M-8100-1, BLM Cultural Resources Management). 

Cultural Resource Inventory Classes. (See BLM Manual, Section 8110.21.) Class I: Existing 

Data Inventory. A study of published and unpublished documents, records, files, registers, and 

other sources, resulting in analysis and synthesis of all reasonably available data. Class I 

inventories encompass prehistoric, historic, and ethnological/sociological elements and are in 

large part chronicles of past land uses. They may have major relevance to current land use 

decisions. Class II: Sampling Field Inventory. A statistically based sample survey designed to 

help characterize the probable density, diversity, and distribution of archaeological properties in 

a large area by interpreting the results of surveying limited and discontinuous portions of the 

target area. Class III: Intensive Field Inventory. A continuous, intensive survey of an entire target 

area aimed at locating and recording all archaeological properties that have surface indications 

by walking close-interval parallel transects until the area has been thoroughly examined. Class 

III methods vary geographically, conforming to the prevailing standards for the region involved 

(from M-8100-1, BLM Cultural Resources Management). 

Cumulative Impact. The impact on the environment resulting from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time (from H-1790-1, BLM NEPA Handbook). 

Designated Roads and Trails. Specific roads and trails identified by the BLM (or other 

agencies) where some type of motorized vehicle use is appropriate and allowed either seasonally 

or yearlong (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Dispersed or Extensive Recreation. Recreation activities of an unstructured type that are not 

confined to specific locations or dependent on recreation sites. Example of these activities may 

be hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use, hiking, and sightseeing. 

Disposal. Transfer of public land out of federal ownership to another party through sale, 

exchange, Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, Desert Land Entry, or other land law 

statutes. 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

139 

Disruptive Activities. Activities that preclude basic life functions for a species. These activities 

could result in individuals leaving a currently used area; increased stress on the individual; 

and/or not breeding, young abandonment, or aberrant behavior. 

Easement. An interest in land entitling the owner or holder, as a matter or right, to enter upon 

land owned by another party for a particular purpose. 

Eligibility. Qualification of a river for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System through the determination (professional judgment) that it is free-flowing and, with its 

adjacent land area, possesses at least one river-related value considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable (from M-8351, BLM WSR Policy and Program). 

Endangered Species. Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (from M6840, Special Status Species Manual). 

Environmental Assessment (EA). (a) A concise public document for which a federal agency is 

responsible that serves to (1) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining 

whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of no significant impact, (2) aid an agency’s compliance 

with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, and (3) facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is 

necessary. (b) Shall include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, alternatives as 

required by Section 102(2)(E), environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, 

and a listing of agencies and persons consulted (from H-1790-1, BLM NEPA Handbook). 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A detailed statement prepared by the responsible 

official in which a major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human 

environment is described, alternatives to the proposed action provided, and effects analyzed 

(from BLM National Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands). 

Ephemeral Stream. A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation and whose 

channel is at all times above the water table. Ephemeral streams generally do not flow 

continuously for more than 30 days and generally have more robust upland vegetation than that 

found outside of the ephemeral riparian-wetland area (U.S. Department of the Interior [USDOI] 

1998). 

Exclusion Area. Areas with sensitive resources and/or values where ROWs and Section 302 

permits, leases, and easements would not be authorized. 

Executive Order (EO). An EO is a presidential directive with the force of law. It does not need 

congressional approval. The Supreme Court has upheld EOs as valid either under the general 

constitutional grant of executive powers to the President or if authority for it was expressly 

granted to the President by the Congress. Congress can repeal or modify an EO by passing a new 

law; however, it must be signed by the President or overridden by his veto. 

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). A public lands unit identified in LUPs 

containing all acreage not identified as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). 

Recreation management actions within an ERMA are limited to only those of a custodial nature. 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

140 

Facies. A lateral or vertical variation in the lithologic or paleontologic characteristics of a 

geologic formation that differs as a group from that elsewhere in the same formation. It is caused 

by or reflects a change in the depositional environments (Stokes 1986; Skinner & Porter 1992). 

Federal Lands. As used in this document, lands owned by the United States, without reference 

to how the lands were acquired or what federal agency administers the lands. The term includes 

mineral estates or coal estates underlying private surface, but excludes lands held by the United 

States in trust for Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos (see also Public Land). 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. Public Law 94-579, October 

21, 1976, often referred to as BLM’s “Organic Act,” which provides the majority of BLM’s 

legislated authority, policy direction, and basic management guidance (from BLM National 

Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands). 

Federal Register. A daily publication that reports Presidential and federal agency documents 

(from BLM National Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands). 

Fire Management Plan. A strategic implementation-level plan that defines a program to 

manage wildland fire, fuel reduction, and fire rehabilitation based on an area’s approved 

Resource Management Plan (RMP). Fire Management Plans must address a full range of fire 

management activities that support ecosystem sustainability, values to be protected, protection of 

firefighter and public safety, public health, and environmental issues. The plans must be 

consistent with resource management objectives and activities of the area. 

Fiscal Year. The Federal Government’s annual accounting period that begins on October 1 and 

ends on September 30 of the following calendar year. 

Fluid Minerals. Oil, gas, coalbed natural gas, and geothermal resources. 

Forage. Vegetation of all forms available and of a type used for animal consumption. 

Fragile Soils. Soils with intrinsic properties and in areas that make them especially susceptible 

to erosion. These properties include high salt concentrations, very fine textures, shallow depths, 

and steep slopes (more than 30%). 

Front Country. A recreation setting classification characterized by a setting on or near 

improved roads but away from highways that includes moderate evidence of human modification 

that generally harmonizes with the surrounding natural landscape. Surface and vegetative 

modifications are common. Structures, including small reservoirs, powerlines, and microwave 

installations, are generally scattered, remaining visually subordinate. Recreation facilities (e.g., 

campsites, restrooms, trails, and interpretive signs) are generally small and rustic. 

Functioning at Risk. (1) Condition in which vegetation and soil are susceptible to losing their 

ability to sustain naturally functioning biotic communities. Human activities, past or present, 

may increase the risks (Rangeland Reform Final Environmental Impact Statement at 26). (2) 

Uplands or riparian-wetland areas that are properly functioning, but in which a soil, water, or 

vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation and lessens their ability to sustain 

natural biotic communities. Uplands are particularly at risk if their soils are susceptible to 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

141 

degradation. Human activities, past or present, may increase the risks (Rangeland Reform Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement Glossary). See also Properly Functioning Condition and 

Nonfunctioning Condition (from H-4180-1, BLM Standards for Rangeland Health). 

Geographic Information System (GIS). A system of computer hardware, software, data, 

people, and applications that capture, store, edit, analyze, and graphically display a potentially 

wide array of geospatial information (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Goal. A broad statement of a desired outcome; usually not quantifiable and may not have 

established time frames for achievement (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Guideline. A practice, method, or technique determined to be appropriate to ensure that 

standards can be met or that significant progress can be made toward meeting the standard. 

Guidelines are tools such as grazing systems, vegetative treatments, or improvement projects that 

help managers and permittees to achieve standards. Guidelines may be adapted or modified when 

monitoring or other information indicates the guideline is not effective, or a better means of 

achieving the applicable standard becomes appropriate (from H-4180-1, BLM Standards for 

Rangeland Health). 

Habitat. The place where an organism (plant or animal) lives. There are four major divisions of 

habitat, namely, terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine, and marine (from M6840, Special Status 

Species Manual). 

Habitat Management Plan (HMP). An officially approved activity plan for a specific 

geographic area of public land. An HMP identifies wildlife habitat and related objectives, defines 

the sequence of actions to be implemented to achieve the objectives, and outlines procedures for 

evaluating accomplishments. 

Heritage Tourism. A form of recreation that involves experiencing the settings, activities, and 

people that represent the past and present experiences, stories, and peoples. It may include 

historic, cultural, and natural resources and may be dispersed, self-guided, or tour-guided in any 

recreational setting. 

High-Value Habitat. Any particular habitat that sustains a community, population, or 

subpopulation. It includes intensive use areas that because of relative wide distribution do not 

constitute crucial (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources [UDWR] critical) values but are highly 

important to high-interest wildlife. It may also include moderately sensitive habitats of highinterest species that have low reclamation potential. Class 3 streams, lakes, ponds, or reservoirs. 

Reconstruction or enhancement of these areas may be possible, but should be avoided if not 

possible. Examples include less crucial (critical) but more widely distributed summer and/or 

winter ranges, important feeding areas, areas of high wildlife diversity and/or density of highinterest species, natural wetlands, and all other riparian areas. 

Hydrology. The science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water. 

Impacts (or Effects). Environmental consequences (the scientific and analytical basis for 

comparison of alternatives) as a result of a proposed action. Effects may be either direct, which 

are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, or indirect, which are caused by 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

142 

the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably 

foreseeable, or cumulative (from BLM National Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public 

Lands). 

Implementation Decisions. Decisions that take action to implement LUP decisions; generally 

appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals under 43 CFR 4.410 (from H-1601-1, BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Implementation Plan. A sub-geographic or site-specific plan written to implement decisions 

made in an LUP. Implementation plans include activity plans and project plans (they are types of 

implementation plans) (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Indian Tribe (or tribe). Any Indian group in the conterminous United States that the Secretary 

of the Interior recognizes as possessing tribal status (listed periodically in the Federal Register) 

(from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Indicators. Components of a system whose characteristics (presence or absence, quantity, 

distribution) are used as an index of an attribute (e.g., rangeland health attribute) that are too 

difficult, inconvenient, or expensive to measure (Interagency Technical Reference 1734-8, 2000) 

(from H-4180-1, BLM Standards for Rangeland Health). 

Interdisciplinary Team. Staff specialists representing identified skill and knowledge needs 

working together to resolve issues and provide recommendations to an authorized officer (from 

H-4180-1, BLM Standards for Rangeland Health). 

Intermittent or Seasonal Stream. A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it 

receives water from springs or from some surface source such as melting snow in mountainous 

areas. Generally, intermittent streams flow continuously for periods of at least 30 days and 

usually have visible vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent water 

influences, such as the presence of cottonwoods (USDOI 1998). 

Land Tenure Adjustments. Ownership or jurisdictional changes are referred as “Land Tenure 

Adjustments.” To improve the manageability of BLM lands and improve their usefulness to the 

public, the BLM has numerous authorities for “repositioning” lands into a more consolidated 

pattern, disposing of lands, acquiring lands, and entering into cooperative management 

agreements. These land pattern improvements are completed primarily through the use of land 

exchanges, but also through land sales, land acquisitions, jurisdictional transfers to other 

agencies, and the use of cooperative management agreements and leases. 

Land Use Allocation. The identification in a LUP of the activities and foreseeable development 

that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the decision area, based on desired 

future conditions (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Land Use Plan (LUP). 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 

LUP-level decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR 1600, 

regardless of the scale at which the decisions were developed. The term includes RMPs and 

Management Framework Plans (MFP) (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

143 

Land Use Plan Amendment. The process for considering or making changes in the terms, 

conditions, and decisions of approved RMPs or MFPs. Usually only one or two issues are 

considered that involve only a portion of the decision area (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook). 

Land Use Plan Decision. Establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. 

Decisions are reached using the planning process in 43 CFR 1600. When they are presented to 

the public as proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not 

appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook). 

Lease. An authorization or contract by which one party conveys the use of property to another 

party in return for rental payments. FLPMA Section 302 provides BLM’s authority to issue 

leases for the use, occupancy, and development of the public lands. Leases are also authorized 

under the R&PP Act for an established or definitely proposed project for which there is a 

reasonable timetable of development and satisfactory development and management plans (43 

CFR 2741.5). Leases are issued for purposes such as communication sites, parks, and other 

recreational facilities. The regulations establishing procedures for the processing of these leases 

are found in 43 CFR 2920 and 2740. 

Lease Stipulation. A modification of the terms and conditions on a lease form at the time of the 

lease sale. 

Leaseable Minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920, as amended. They include coal, phosphate, asphalt, sulphur, potassium, 

sodium minerals, oil, and gas. 

Lek. An assembly area where birds, especially Greater sage-grouse, carry on display and 

courtship behavior. 

Limited. An area restricted at certain times, in certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. 

These restrictions may be of any type, but can generally be accommodated within the following 

type of categories: numbers of vehicles, types of vehicles, time or season of vehicle use, 

permitted use only, use on existing roads and trails, use on designated routes, and other 

restrictions (from BLM National Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands). 

Limited-Value Habitat. Habitat that is abundant and not essential to sustain a community, 

population, or subpopulation. Occasional use areas that are either sparsely populated or that 

show sporadic or unpredictable use by high-interest wildlife. These areas have limited 

reclamation potential. Wildlife may be displaced due to the common occurrence of these 

habitats. Examples include yearlong deer range of low habitat quality; Class 5 and 6 streams, 

lakes, ponds, or reservoirs; and low-quality habitat in juxtaposition to areas of higher wildlife 

values. 

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. 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

144 

Low-Value Habitat. Habitat that is abundant and not essential to sustain a community, 

population, or subpopulation. 

Management Decision. A decision made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management 

decisions include LUP decisions and implementation decisions (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook). 

Management Opportunities. A component of the analysis of the management situation and 

actions or management directions that could be taken to resolve issues or management concerns. 

Middle Country. A recreation setting classification characterized by a naturally setting 

landscape except for obvious primitive roads, with subtle human modifications, small areas with 

limited evidence of surface or vegetative disturbances, and evidence of primitive roads or 

motorized use. Small, isolated structures may be present. Contains maintained and marked trails, 

simple trailhead developments, improved signs, and very basic toilets. 

Mineral. A naturally formed chemical element or compound having a definite chemical 

composition and, usually, a characteristic crystal form. A mineral is generally considered to be 

inorganic, although organic compounds are classified as minerals by some (American Geological 

Institute 1974). The term is also sometimes informally used to refer to resources such as oil, gas, 

coal, and stone that are derived from the earth. 

Mineral Entry. The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any locatable minerals 

it may contain. 

Mineral Materials. Materials such as sand and gravel and common varieties of stone, pumice, 

pumicite, and clay that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws, but that can be 

acquired under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended. 

Mining Claim. A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, having 

acquired the right of possession by complying with the Mining Law and local laws and rules. A 

mining claim may contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. There 

are four categories of mining claims: lode, placer, millsite, and tunnel site. 

Mitigation. A method or process by which impacts from actions may be made less injurious to 

the environment through appropriate protective measures. 40 CFR 1508.20 further defines 

mitigation as (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an 

action; (2) minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance; 

and (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

Monitoring (Plan Monitoring). The process of tracking the implementation of LUP decisions 

and collecting and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use 

planning decisions (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

145 

Multiple Use. The management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they 

are used in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American 

people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related 

services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to 

changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a 

combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of 

future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including but not limited to 

recreation; range; timber; minerals; watershed; wildlife and fish; and natural scenic, scientific, 

and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources 

without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment 

with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the 

combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output (from 

FLPMA, Title 43 Chapter 35, Subchapter I 1702[c]). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. NEPA establishes policy, sets goals (Section 

101), and provides means (Section 102) for carrying out the policy. Section 102(2) contains 

“action-forcing” provisions to make sure that federal agencies act according to the letter and 

spirit of the Act. The President, federal agencies, and the courts share responsibility for enforcing 

the Act so as to achieve the substantive requirements of Section 101. 

National Register. The National Register of Historic Places, expanded and maintained by the 

Secretary of the Interior, as authorized by Section 2(b) of the Historic Sites Act and Section 

101(a)(1)(A) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The National Register lists 

cultural properties found to qualify for inclusion because of their local, state, or national 

significance. Eligibility criteria and nomination procedures are found in 36 CFR 60. The 

Secretary’s administrative responsibility for the National Register is delegated to the National 

Park Service (from M-8100-1, BLM Cultural Resources Management). 

National Wild and Scenic River System. A system of nationally designated rivers and their 

immediate environments that have outstandingly remarkable values such as; scenic, recreational, 

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similar values and are preserved in a freeflowing condition. The system consists of three river classifications: (1) “recreational”—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. All rivers or river segments 

in these classifications must possess at least one outstandingly remarkable value that is river 

related. 

Naturalness. Lands and resources exhibit a high degree of naturalness when affected primarily 

by the forces of nature and where the imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable. The 

BLM has authority to inventory, assess, and/or monitor the attributes of the lands and resources 

on public lands, which taken together are an indication of an area’s naturalness. These attributes 

may include the presence or absence of roads and trails, fences, and other improvements; the 

nature and extent of landscape modifications; the presence of native vegetation communities; the 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

146 

resemblance to pre-European settlement condition; and the connectivity of habitats (from IM2003-275, Change 1, Considerations of Wilderness Characteristics in LUP, Attachment 1). 

No Surface Occupancy. A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits occupancy or 

disturbance on all or part of the lease surface to protect special values or uses. Lessees may 

exploit the fluid mineral resources under the leases restricted by this constraint through use of 

directional drilling from sites outside the area. 

Noxious Weed. A plant species designated by federal or 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 non-native, 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 (from H-1601-1, 

BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

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 non-amphibious 

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 for national defense (from H-1601-1, BLM Land 

Use Planning Handbook). 

Official Use. Use by an employee, agent, or designated representative of the Federal 

Government or one of its contractors in the course of his or her employment, agency 

responsibilities, or representation (from BLM National Management Strategy for OHV Use on 

Public Lands). 

Old-Growth. Old-growth forests are ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural 

features. Old-growth encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ 

from earlier stages in several ways including tree size; accumulations of large dead, woody 

material; number of canopy layers; species composition; and ecosystem function (from BLM 

IM-2005-110). 

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 (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 

defines the specific meaning of “open” as it relates to OHV use as “an area where all types of 

vehicle use is permitted at all times, anywhere in the area subject to the operating regulations and 

vehicle standards set forth in” 43 CFR 8341 and 8342 (43 CFR 8340.0-5(f)). 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV). Values among those listed in Section 1(b) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: “scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, 

cultural, or other similar values.” Other similar values that may be considered include ecological, 

biological or botanical, paleontological, hydrological, scientific, or research values (from M8351, BLM WSR Policy and Program). 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

147 

Perennial Stream. A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated 

with a water table in the localities through which they flow. 

Permit. A short-term, revocable authorization to use public lands for specific purposes, FLPMA 

Section 302 provides the BLM’s authority to issue permits for the use, occupancy, and 

development of the public lands. Permits are issued for purposes such as commercial or noncommercial filming, advertising displays, commercial or non-commercial croplands, apiaries, 

harvesting of native or introduced species, temporary or permanent facilities for commercial 

purposes (does not include mining claims), residential occupancy, construction equipment 

storage sites, assembly yards, oil rig stacking sites, mining claim occupancy if the residential 

structures are not incidental to the mining operation, and water pipelines and well pumps related 

to irrigation and non-irrigation facilities. The regulations establishing procedures for the 

processing of these permits are found in 43 CFR 2920. 

Permitted Use. The forage allocated by or under the guidance of an applicable LUP for 

livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease, and that is expressed in AUMs (43 

CFR 4100.0-5) (from H-4180-1, BLM Standards for Rangeland Health). 

Plan of Operations. A plan for mining exploration and development that an operation must 

submit to the 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 be submitted for any new operation that began after January 20, 2001, and 

that has production, regardless of acreage disturbed. A Plan of Operations must document in 

detail all actions that the operator plans to take from exploration through reclamation. 

Planning Criteria. The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and 

interdisciplinary teams for their use in forming judgments about decision-making, analysis, and 

data collection during planning. Planning criteria streamline and simplify the resource 

management planning actions (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Potential Natural Community (PNC). The biotic community that would become established if 

all successional sequences were completed without interference by man under the present 

environmental conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in development. PNCs can include 

naturalized non-native species (BLM 2001a).

Prescribed Fire. Any fire ignited by management action to meet specific objectives. A written 

approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements must be met prior to ignition 

(from H-9214-1, BLM Prescribed Fire Management Handbook). 

Primitive. A recreation setting classification characterized by a setting that is essentially an 

unmodified natural environment with extremely rare evidence of surface or vegetative 

disturbances. Trails may be present and suited for wilderness use. Structures are small and 

extremely rare. Enforcement presence is very rare. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. Those activities that provide dispersed, undeveloped 

recreation which do not require facilities or motorized equipment (from BLM Manual 8560, 

Section 08, Subsection A). 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

148 

Project Plan. A type of implementation plan (see Implementation Plan). A project plan typically 

addresses individual projects or several related projects. Examples of project plans include 

prescribed burn plans, trail plans, and recreation site plans (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook). 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). (1) An element of the Fundamentals of Rangeland 

Health for watersheds, and therefore a required element of state or regional standard and 

guidelines under 43 CFR 4180.2(b). (2) A condition in which vegetation and ground cover 

maintain soil conditions that can sustain natural biotic communities. For riparian areas, the 

process of determining function is described in BLM Technical Reference (TR) 1737-9. (3) 

Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or large 

woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby 

reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment, capture bed load, and aid 

floodplain development; improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; develop root 

masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; develop diverse ponding and channel 

characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for 

fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity. The 

functioning condition of riparian-wetland areas is influenced by geomorphic features, soil, water, 

and vegetation. (4) Uplands function properly when the existing vegetation and ground cover 

maintain soil conditions capable of sustaining natural biotic communities. The functioning 

condition of uplands is influenced by geomorphic features, soil, water, and vegetation. See also, 

Nonfunctioning Condition and Functioning at Risk (from H-4180-1, BLM Standards for 

Rangeland Health). 

Proposed Species. Species that have been officially proposed for listing as threatened or 

endangered by the Secretary of the Interior. A proposed rule has been published in the Federal 

Register (from M6840, Special Status Species Manual). 

Public Land. Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the BLM without regard to how the United States acquired 

ownership, except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf and land held for the benefit of 

Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Range Improvement. An authorized physical modification or treatment designed to improve 

production of forage; change vegetation composition; control patterns of use; provide water; 

stabilize soil and water conditions; and restore, protect, and improve the condition of rangeland 

ecosystems to benefit livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. The term includes, 

but is not limited to structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical devices or 

modifications achieved through mechanical means (43 CFR 4100.0-5) (from H-4180-1, BLM 

Standards for Rangeland Health). 

Rangeland. A kind of land on which the native vegetation, climax, or natural potential consists 

predominantly of grasses, grasslike plants, forbs, or shrubs. Rangeland includes lands 

revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a non-crop plant cover that is managed like native 

vegetation. Rangeland may consist of natural grasslands, savannahs, shrublands, most deserts, 

tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes, and wet meadows (from H-4180-1, BLM Standards 

for Rangeland Health). 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

149 

Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The R&PP Act provides for the lease and sale of public 

lands determined valuable for public purposes. The objective of the R&PP Act is to meet the 

needs of state and local government agencies and non-profit organizations by leasing or 

conveying public land required for recreation and public purpose uses. Examples of uses made of 

R&PP lands are parks and greenbelts, sanitary landfills, schools, religious facilities, and camps 

for youth groups. The Act provides substantial cost-benefits for land acquisition and provides for 

recreation facilities or historical monuments at no cost. 

Recreation Management Zones (RMZ). Subunits within a SRMA managed for distinctly 

different recreation products. Recreation products are comprised of recreation opportunities, the 

natural resource and community settings within which they occur, and the administrative and 

service environment created by all affecting recreation-tourism providers, within which 

recreation participation occurs (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Recreation River. A Wild and Scenic River Tentative Classification that applies to those rivers 

or sections of rivers 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 

and possess at least one river-related outstandingly remarkable value. 

Relict Plant Community. A remnant or fragment of the vegetation of an area that remains from 

a former period when the vegetation was more widely distributed. 

Resource Management Plan (RMP). A BLM planning document, prepared in accordance with 

FLPMA Section 202, that presents systematic guidelines for making resource management 

decisions. An RMP is based on an analysis of an area’s resources, its existing management, and 

its capability for alternative uses. RMPs are issue oriented and developed by an interdisciplinary 

team with public participation. 

Resource Use Level. The level of use allowed within an area, based on the desired outcomes and 

land use allocations in the LUP. Targets or goals for resource use levels are established on an 

areawide or broad watershed level in the LUP. Site-specific resource use levels are normally 

determined at the implementation level, based on site-specific resource conditions and needs as 

determined through resource monitoring and assessments (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook). 

Right-of-Way (ROW). The public lands authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, 

operation, maintenance, and termination of a project, pursuant to a ROW authorization. 

Riparian Area. A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and 

upland areas. A riparian area is defined as an area of land directly influenced by permanent 

(surface or subsurface) water. 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, hanging gardens, and areas surrounding seeps and springs. Excluded are ephemeral 

streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil. 

Rural. A recreation setting classification characterized by a substantially modified natural 

setting with culturally modified landscapes constantly in view. The setting may include pastoral, 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

150 

agricultural landscapes. Surface and vegetative modifications are typical, and constructed roads 

and highways are present. Structures are readily apparent and may include small dominant 

clusters, including campgrounds, group shelters, boat launches, and exhibits. 

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. 

Scenic Backways. Paved or unpaved routes that have roadsides or corridors of special aesthetic, 

cultural, or historic value in more remote, less visited locations. The corridor may contain 

outstanding scenic vistas, unusual geologic features, or other intrinsic qualities such as cultural, 

historic, natural, recreational, and archaeological values. Scenic Backways can be designated at 

either the state level or by the BLM during the land use planning process. 

Scenic Byways. Highway routes that have roadsides or corridors of special aesthetic, cultural, or 

historic value. The corridor may contain outstanding scenic vistas, unusual geologic features, or 

other intrinsic qualities such as cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and archaeological values. 

Scenic Byways can be designated at either the state or the federal level. 

Scenic Quality. The relative worth of a landscape from a visual perception point of view. 

Scenic River. A Wild and Scenic River Tentative Classification that applies to those rivers or 

sections of rivers that is free of impoundments and whose shorelines are largely undeveloped but 

accessible in places by roads and possess at least one river-related outstandingly remarkable 

value. 

Scoping. An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for 

identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. This involves the participation of 

affected federal, state, and local agencies and any affected Indian tribe, proponent of the action, 

and other interested persons unless there is a limited exception under 40 CFR 1507.3I. 

Section 7 Consultation. The requirement of Section 7 of the ESA that all federal agencies 

consult with USFWS or NMFS if a proposed action may affect a federally listed species or its 

critical habitat. 

Section 106 Compliance. The requirement of NHPA Section 106 that any project funded, 

licensed, permitted, or assisted by the Federal Government be reviewed for impacts to significant 

historic properties and that the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation be allowed to comment on a project. 

Sensitive Soils. Soils that have a high wind or water erosion hazard, are difficult to reclaim or 

restore due to physical and chemical properties (e.g., high salt or gypsum concentrations, high 

rock content, or low available water), or that are more susceptible to impacts and damage due to 

high water tables (hydric or wetland/riparian soils) or very fine surface textures. Information 

used to identify sensitive soils includes soils surveys, ecological site descriptions, local 

monitoring records, and research studies. 

Sensitive Species. Those species designated by a State Director, usually in cooperation with the 

state agency responsible for managing the species and state natural heritage programs, as 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

151 

sensitive. They are those species that (1) could become endangered in or extirpated from a state 

or within a significant portion of its distribution; (2) are under status review by USFWS and/or 

NMFS; (3) are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability 

that would reduce a species’ existing distribution; (4) are undergoing significant current or 

predicted downward trends in population or density such that federal listed, proposed, or 

candidate or state listed status may become necessary; (5) typically have small and widely 

dispersed populations; (6) inhabit ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats; or 

(7) are state listed but which may be better conserved through application of BLM sensitive 

species status (from M6840, Special Status Species Manual). 

Significant. An effect that is analyzed in the context of the proposed action to determine the 

degree or magnitude of importance of the effect, whether beneficial or adverse. The degree of 

significance can be related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively 

significant impacts. 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). A public lands unit identified in LUPs to 

direct recreation funding and personnel to fulfill commitments made to provide specific, 

structured recreation opportunities (i.e., activity, experience, and benefit opportunities). The 

BLM recognizes three distinct types of SRMAs: destination, community, and undeveloped (from 

H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Special Status Species. Includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under 

the ESA; state-listed species; and BLM State Director-designated sensitive species (see BLM 

Manual 6840, Special Status Species Policy) (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook). 

Solitude. The state of being alone or remote from habitations; isolation; a lonely, unfrequented, 

or secluded place. The emphasis is on the opportunities a person has to avoid the sights, sounds, 

and evidence of other people within a particular area (from BLM Manual 8560, Section 08, 

Subsection A). 

Standard. A description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function required 

for healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., Land Health Standards). To be expressed as a desired 

outcome (goal) (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

State Listed Species. Species listed by a state in a category implying but not limited to potential 

endangerment or extinction. Listing is either by legislation or regulation (from M6840, Special 

Status Species Manual). 

Strutting Ground. An area used by Greater sage-grouse in early spring for elaborate, ritualized 

courtship displays (see also Lek). 

Substantial Value Habitats. Any particular habitat that is common or of intermediate 

importance. Existence areas are used regularly by high-interest wildlife, but are moderate levels 

with little or no concentrated use. These areas may also include moderately sensitive habitats of 

high-interest species with moderate reclamation potential. Wildlife uses may be displaced in 

response to development. Examples include extensive summer and/or winter ranges receiving 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

152 

regular use well below carrying capacity having little potential for increase due to other limiting 

factors; Class 4 streams, lakes, ponds, or reservoirs; and areas of moderate habitat quality. 

Suppression. All the work of extinguishing or containing a fire, beginning with its discovery. 

Surface Disturbance. Greater than casual use actions created through mechanized or 

mechanical means that would cause soil mixing and result in alteration or removal of soil and 

vegetation, exposing the mineral soil to erosive processes to the extent that reclamation may be 

required. These actions may include the use of mechanized earth-moving equipment; truckmounted drilling equipment; geophysical exploration; vehicle travel off routes in areas 

designated as limited or closed to OHV use; placement of surface facilities such as utilities, 

pipelines, structures, and oil and gas wells; new road construction; and use of pyrotechnics, 

explosives, and hazardous chemicals. Surface disturbing activities would not include livestock 

grazing, low-impact vegetation management tools (e.g., bullhog, hand thinning, or Dixie 

harrow), cross-country hiking, driving on designated routes, and scientific excavation and/or 

mitigation of limited scope approved by the Field Office Manager. 

Surface Occupancy. Placement or construction on the land surface (either temporary or 

permanent) for more than 14 days requiring continual service or maintenance. Casual use is not 

included. 

Suspended Use. Temporarily withheld use that is shown on a grazing permit, but is not available 

for active use because of a decision issued by the Authorized Officer or by agreement. 

Take. Harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. The term applies only to fish and wildlife (from M6840, Special 

Status Species Manual). 

Threatened Species. Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (from M6840, Special 

Status Species Manual). 

Timing Limitation (Seasonal Restriction). A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits 

surface use during specified time periods in order to protect identified resource values. The 

constraint does not apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities unless 

analysis demonstrates that such constraints are needed and that less stringent, project-specific 

constraints would be insufficient. 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). An estimate of the total quantity of pollutants (from all 

sources including point, non-point, and natural) that may be allowed into waters without 

exceeding applicable water quality criteria (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook). 

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. 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

153 

Unsuitability Criteria. Criteria of the federal coal management program by which lands may be 

assessed as unsuitable for all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining (43 CFR 3461.5). 

Utility. A service provided by a public utility, such as electricity, telephone, or water. 

Valid Existing Rights. Legal “rights” or interest that are associated with a land or mineral estate 

and that cannot be divested from the estate until that interest expires or is relinquished. Lands 

within the decision area are subject to various authorizations, some giving “rights” to the holders 

and some of which could be construed as providing valid but lesser interests. Valid existing 

rights are established by various laws, leases, and filings under federal law. 

Mineral: Authorizations for activities on existing mineral leases and mining claims are 

governed by valid existing rights. Valid existing rights vary from case to case with 

respect to oil and gas leases, mineral leases, and mining claims, but generally involve 

rights to explore, develop, and produce within the constraints of laws, regulations, and 

policies at the time the lease/claim was established or authorized. 

Non-Mineral: There are other situations, unrelated to minerals, in which the BLM has 

authorized some use of public land or has conveyed some limited interest in public land. 

The authorization may be valid and existing and may convey some “right” or interest. 

Many ROWs, easements, and leases granted on public land are in this category. These 

types vary from case to case, but the details of each one are specified in the authorizing 

document. Valid and existing authorizations of this type would continue to be allowed 

subject to the terms and conditions of the authorizing document. 

RS 2477: Some government entities may have a valid existing right to an access route 

under Revised Statute (RS) 2477, Act of June 26, 1866, ch. 262, §8, 14 Stat. 251 

(codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. 932 until repealed in 1976 by FLPMA, Public Law 94-

579, Section 706(a), Stat. 2744, 2793 [1976]), which granted “the ROW for the 

construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses.” 

Access: The presence of non-federal land and resources within the decision area has 

implications because owners of non-federal land or mineral rights surrounded by public 

land are entitled to reasonable access to their land or resources (State of Utah v Andrus, 

1979). Reasonable access is defined as access that the Secretary of the Interior deems 

adequate to secure the owner reasonable use and enjoyment of the non-federal land. Such 

access is subject to rules and regulations governing the administration of public land. In 

determining reasonable access, the BLM has discretion to evaluate and would consider 

such things as proposed construction methods and location, reasonable alternatives, and 

reasonable terms and conditions as are necessary to protect the public interest and 

resources of the decision area. 

Other: There are a variety of other land use authorizations that do not involve the 

granting of legal “rights” or interests. Outfitter and guide permits are an example. These 

permits authorize certain uses of public land for a specified time, under certain 

conditions, without conveying a right, title, or interest in the land or resources used. If at 

any time it is determined that an outfitter and guide permit, other such permit, or any 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

154 

activities under those permits are not consistent with the approved RMP, then the 

authorization would be adjusted, mitigated, or revoked where legally possible. Grazing 

permits are also in this category. Grazing permits or leases convey no right, title, or 

interest in the land or resources used. Other applicable laws and regulations govern 

changes to existing grazing permits and levels of livestock grazing. 

Visual Resources. The visible physical features of a landscape (topography, water, vegetation, 

animals, structures, and other features) that constitute the scenery of an area. 

Visual Resource Management (VRM). The inventory and planning actions taken to identify 

visual values and establish objectives for managing those values, and the management actions 

taken to achieve the visual management objectives. 

Visual Resource Management Classes. VRM classes define the degree of acceptable visual 

change within a characteristic landscape. A class is based on the physical and sociological 

characteristics of any given homogeneous area and serves as a management objective. There are 

four classes. Each class has an objective that prescribes the amount of change allowed in the 

characteristic landscape, as described below. 

Class I: The objective for VRM Class I is to preserve the existing character of the 

landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; it does not preclude very 

limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should 

be very low and must not attract attention. 

Class II: The objective for VRM Class II is to retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. 

Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture 

found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

Class III: The objective for VRM Class III is to partially retain the existing character of 

the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. 

Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the 

casual observer. Any changes should repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and 

texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

Class IV: The objective for VRM Class IV is to provide for management activities that 

require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change 

to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate 

the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be 

made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location; minimal 

disturbance; and repeating the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

Visual Sensitivity Levels. Measures of public concern (e.g., high, medium, or low) for the 

maintenance of scenic quality. 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

155 

Water Quality. The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect to its 

suitability for a particular use. 

Watershed. The fifth level of the hydrologic unit delineation system. A watershed is coded with 

10 numerical digits, and watersheds range in size from 40,000 to 250,000 acres (Subcommittee 

on Spatial Water Data 2000) (from H-4180-1, BLM Standards for Rangeland Health). 

Watershed Health. Watersheds are in or making significant progress toward properly 

functioning physical condition, including their upland, riparian-wetland, and aquatic 

components; soil and plant conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release 

of water that are in balance with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, 

water quantity, and timing and duration of flow (BLM 1997a). 

Way. 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 (from H-8550-

1, Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review). 

Wild River. A Wild and Scenic River Tentative Classification that applies to those rivers or 

sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with 

watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted and possess at least one 

river-related outstandingly remarkable value. These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

Wilderness. A congressionally designated area of undeveloped federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, that is 

protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have 

been affected mainly by the forces of nature, with human imprints substantially unnoticeable; (2) 

has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) 

has at least 5,000 acres or is large enough to make practical its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. 

Wilderness Characteristics. Features of the land associated with the concept of wilderness that 

specifically deal with naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive 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 practicable to manage (from IM-2003-275, 

Change 1, Considerations of Wilderness Characteristics in LUP, Attachment 1). 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA). Areas that have been inventoried and found to have wilderness 

characteristics as described in FLPMA Section 603 and Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 

1964. These areas are under study for possible inclusion as a Wilderness Area in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. 

Wildfire: An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire including unauthorized human-caused fires, 

escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires 

where the objective is to put the fire out. 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP - Glossary 

156 

Wilding. A plant growing uncultivated in the wild either as a native or an escape. Specifically, 

the collection of such whole live plants. 

Wildland Fire. Any fire, regardless of ignition source, that is burning outside of a prescribed fire 

and any fire burning on public lands or threatening public land resources, where no fire 

prescription standards have been prepared (from H-1742-1, BLM Emergency Fire Rehabilitation 

Handbook). 

Wildland Fire Use. The management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific 

pre-stated resource management objectives in pre-defined geographic areas outlined in Fire 

Management Plans. 

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). The line, area, or zone in which structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. 

Withdrawal. Removal or withholding an area of federal land from settlement, sale, location, or 

entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under 

those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a 

particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of federal land, 

other than “property” governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as 

amended (40 U.S.C. 472), from one department, bureau, or agency to another department, 

bureau, or agency (from FLPMA, Title 43, Chapter 35, Subchapter I 1702(j)). 

Woodland. A forest community occupied primarily by non-commercial species such as juniper, 

pinyon pine, mountain mahogany, or quaking aspen groves; all western juniper forestlands are 

considered woodlands because juniper is classified as a non-commercial species. 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP – List of Preparers 

157 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Name Project Role 

Daniel Alberts GIS Analyst 

Harry Barber Field Manager 

Randy Beckstrand Air Quality, Soil and Water Resources, Riparian, Watersheds, 

Forestry, Livestock Grazing 

Susan Caplan Air Quality 

Tom Christensen Visual Resources, Wilderness Characteristics, Recreation, 

Transportation, Wilderness, WSR, Special Management Areas 

Lisa Church Riparian, Watersheds, Special Status Species (wildlife), Fish and 

Wildlife, Special Management Areas, Biological Assessment (BA) 

Larry Crutchfield Public Affairs, Public Outreach 

Carson Gubler 

Air Quality, Soil and Water Resources, Watersheds, Vegetation, 

Special Status Species (plants), Fire and Fuels Management, 

Livestock Grazing 

Doug Powell Minerals and Energy, Hazardous Waste 

John Reese Fire and Fuels Management, Forestry, Livestock Grazing 

Keith Rigtrup Project Manager, Planning Coordination, Socioeconomics 

Alan Titus Paleontology 

Hugh Wolfe Lands and Realty 

Matthew Zweifel Cultural Resources 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP – List of Appendices 

158 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix 1. Best Management Practices for Land Uses 

Appendix 2. Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats 

Appendix 3. Surface Stipulations Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface 

Disturbing Activities 

Appendix 4. Recreation Management for Special Recreation Management Areas and the 

Kanab Extensive Recreation Management Area 

Appendix 5. Lands Designated for Potential Disposal Via Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act Section 203 Sale 

Appendix 6. Kanab Field Office: Coal Unsuitability Report 

Appendix 7. Travel Management/Route Designation Process 

Appendix 8. Wildland Fire Resource Protection Measures and Reasonable and Prudent 

Measures, Terms and Conditions, and Reporting Requirements Identified 

Through Section 7 Consultation 

Appendix 9. Conservation Measures, Oil and Gas Lease Notices, and Recovery Plans for 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Appendix 10. State of Utah Letter Addressing Air Quality 

Appendix 11. Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process 

Appendix 12. Letter from State Historic Preservation Officer Related to Section 106 

Consultation 

Appendix 13. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Related to the Biological Opinion 

Appendix 14. The Grazing Allotment Forage Allocation 

Appendix 15. RMP Monitoring Plan 

Appendix 16. Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management 

Appendix 17. Hydraulic Considerations for Pipelines Crossing Stream Channels 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved RMP – List of Maps 

159 

MAPS 

Map 1 Land Ownership 

Map 2 Mule Deer Habitat 

Map 3 Elk Habitat 

Map 4 Pronghorn Habitat 

Map 5 Priority Areas for Vegetation Treatment 

Map 6 Visual Resource Management 

Map 7 Non-WSA Lands Managed for Wilderness Characteristics 

Map 8 Special Recreation Management Areas 

Map 9 Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations 

Map 10 Route Designations 

Map 11 Right-of-Way Restrictions 

Map 12 Locatable Minerals – Recommended Withdrawals 

Map 13 Areas Available for FLPMA Section 203 Sales 

Map 14 Oil and Gas Leasing 

Map 15 Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining 

Map 16 Mineral Material (Salable) Disposal 

Map 17 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Map 18 Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Map 19 General Surface Disturbance Restrictions 

Map 20 Areas with Fragile Soils or Relict Vegetation 

Map 21 Mexican Spotted Owl Critical Habitat 

Map 22 Greater Sage-Grouse Brooding and Winter Habitat 

Map 23 Desert Big Horn Sheep Habitat 

Map 24 Paleontological Resource Potential 
Kanab Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

APPENDICES 1–17 

 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 1 

A1-1

APPENDIX 1—BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

FOR LAND USES 

Best management practices (BMP) are those land and resource management techniques 

determined to be the most effective and practical means of maximizing beneficial results and 

minimizing conflicts and negative environmental impacts from management actions. BMPs can 

include structural and nonstructural controls, specific operations, and maintenance procedures. 

BMPs can be applied before, during, and after activities to reduce or eliminate negative 

environmental impacts. BMPs are not one-size-fits-all solutions. BMPs should be selected and 

adapted through interdisciplinary analysis to determine which management practices are 

necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the Resource Management Plan (RMP). The best 

practices and mitigation measures for a particular site are evaluated through the site-specific 

National Environmental Policy Act process and vary to accommodate unique, site-specific 

conditions and local resource conditions. 

BMPs described in this appendix are designed to assist in achieving RMP goals and objectives. 

These BMPs could apply, where appropriate, to all use authorizations, including projects 

initiated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BMPs are dynamic and should not be 

interpreted as specific direction at the same level as RMP decisions. BMPs are selected and 

implemented as necessary, based on site-specific conditions, to meet resource objectives for 

specific management actions. 

This appendix does not provide an exhaustive list of BMPs. Additional BMPs may be identified 

during an interdisciplinary process when evaluating site-specific management actions. 

Implementation and effectiveness of BMPs need to be monitored to determine whether they are 

achieving RMP goals and objectives. Adjustments to BMPs can be made as necessary to ensure 

that RMP goals and objectives are being met as well as to conform to changes in BLM 

regulations, policy, and direction or new scientific information. In addition, project proponents 

can suggest alternate conditions that could accomplish the same result. 

Because the management of environmental impacts is an ongoing process, continual refinement 

of BMP design is necessary. This process can be described in these five steps: (1) selection of the 

design of a specific BMP, (2) application of the BMP, (3) monitoring, (4) evaluation, and (5) 

feedback. Data gathered through monitoring is evaluated and used to identify changes needed in 

BMP design and application or in the monitoring program. 

BMPs have been developed and used by numerous energy companies and state and federal 

agencies throughout the nation. Development and sharing of BMPs represents a commitment to 

the idea that smart planning and responsible follow-through manage and, in some cases, reduce 

impacts on resources, both now and in the future. BMPs developed by other agencies should be 

considered in addition to those identified in this document. Some of these other BMPs are 

contained in the following documents and websites: 

• Utah’s Forest Water Quality Guidelines: A Practical User’s Guide for Landowners, 

Loggers, and Resource Managers (State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 1 

A1-2

Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands). As of November 2006, an electronic version 

of this document was available at 

http://extension.usu.edu/forestry/Management/UtFWQGuide/Assets/PDFDocs/UFWQG

BOO.pdf. 

• Coalbed Methane Best Management Practices: A Handbook – 2006 Update (Western 

Governors’ Association). As of November 2006, an electronic version of this document 

was available at www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/coalbed. 

• Low-Volume Roads Engineering Best Management Practices Field Guide (U.S. Forest 

Service). As of November 2006, an electronic version of this document was available at 

www.blm.gov/bmp/field%20guide.htm. 

• Water-Road Interaction Technology Series Documents (U.S. Forest Service). As of 

November 2006, electronic versions of these documents were available at 

www.stream.fs.fed.us/water-road. 

• National Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency). As of November 2006, electronic versions of these documents were 

available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/con_site.cfm. 

• BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Final Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement Record of Decision, September 2007. As of April 2008, an electronic 

version of this document was available at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html. 

• Technical Information Sheets: Specific and Detailed BMP Guidance (Bureau of Land 

Management). As of November 2006, an electronic version of this document was 

available through hyperlinks located at www.blm.gov/bmp/Technical_Information.htm. 

• WO IM 2007-021 Integration of Best Management Practices into Applications for Permit 

to Drill Approvals and Associated Rights of Way. This document establishes formal 

BLM policy on the inclusion and use of BMPs with energy development. As of 

November 2006, an electronic version of this document was available at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/ 

best_management_practices.html. 

• Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development: The Gold Book (BLM). As of November 2006, an electronic version of 

this document was available through hyperlinks located at 

www.blm.gov/bmp/Technical_Information.htm. 

In addition, this appendix contains conservation measures identified jointly by the BLM and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as needed to protect specific threatened or endangered 

species. These conservation measures are targeted to specific species and must be considered and 

applied as appropriate. 

POTENTIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Surface Disturbing Activities 

• Areas subject to surface disturbance should be evaluated for the presence of cultural 

resources or values. This is usually accomplished through the completion of a cultural 

clearance. An on-the-ground inspection by a qualified archaeologist, historian, or 

paleontologist is required. In cases where cultural resources are found, the preferred 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 1 

A1-3

response would be to modify the proposed action to avoid the cultural resource 

(avoidance). If avoidance is not possible, actions would be taken to preserve the data or 

value represented by the cultural resource (mitigation). 

• Areas subject to surface disturbance would be evaluated for the presence of threatened, 

endangered, or candidate animal or plant species. This is usually accomplished through 

the completion of a biological clearance. An on-the-ground inspection by a qualified 

biologist is required. In cases where threatened, endangered, or candidate species are 

affected, the preferred response would be to modify the proposed action to avoid the 

species or its habitat (avoidance). If avoidance of a threatened, endangered, or candidate 

species or its habitat is not possible, a Section 7 consultation with USFWS would be 

required and a biological assessment would be prepared to recommend actions to protect 

the species or its habitat. 

• Special design and reclamation measures may be required to protect scenic and natural 

landscape values. These measures may include transplanting trees and shrubs, mulching 

and fertilizing disturbed areas, using low-profile permanent facilities, and painting to 

minimize visual contrasts. Surface disturbing activities may be moved to avoid sensitive 

areas or to reduce the visual effects of the activities. 

• Above-ground facilities requiring painting should be designed to blend in with the 

surrounding environment. 

• Reclamation should be implemented concurrently with construction and site operations to 

the extent possible. Final reclamation actions should be initiated within 6 months of the 

termination of operations unless otherwise approved in writing by the authorized officer. 

• Fill material should be pushed into cut areas and up over back slopes. Depressions should 

not be left that would trap water or form ponds. 

• Design pipeline crossings through riparian areas and across stream channels to minimize 

impacts to these resources. 

Mineral Exploration and Development 

• Reduce impacts on wildlife and visual resources by applying the following, as 

appropriate: 

Directional drilling of oil and gas wells 

Drilling of multiple wells from a single pad 

Closed drilling systems 

Cluster development 

Below-ground wellheads 

Remote well monitoring 

Piping of produced liquids to centralized tank batteries off site to reduce traffic to 

individual wells 

Transportation planning (e.g., to reduce road density and traffic volumes) 

Compensation mitigation 

Noise reduction techniques and designs 

Installation of raptor anti-perch devices in Greater sage-grouse habitat 

Monitoring of wildlife populations during drilling operations 

Avoidance of human activity between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 through May 15 

within 1⁄4 mile of the perimeter of occupied Greater sage-grouse leks 

Onsite bioremediation of oil field waste and spills 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 1 

A1-4

Removal of trash, junk, waste, and other materials not in current use. 

• Reclaim all disturbed surface areas promptly, performing concurrent reclamation as 

necessary, and minimize the total amount of surface disturbance. 

• Strip all surface soil prior to conducting operations, stockpiling, and reapplying during 

reclamation, regardless of soil quality. Minimize the length of time soil remains in 

stockpiles and the depth or thickness of stockpiles. 

• Strip and separate soil surface horizons where feasible and reapply in proper sequence 

during reclamation. 

• Establish vegetation cover on soil stockpiles that are to be in place longer than 1 year. 

• Construct and rehabilitate temporary roads, consistent with intended use, to minimize 

total surface disturbance. 

• Consider temporary measures such as silt fences, straw bales, and mulching to trap 

sediment in sensitive areas until reclaimed areas are stabilized with vegetation. 

• Bury distribution powerlines and/or flow lines in or adjacent to access roads. 

• Perform interim reclamation of well locations and access roads after wells are put into 

production. 

• Reshape all areas to be permanently reclaimed to the approximate original contour, 

providing for proper surface drainage. 

Road Design and Maintenance 

• Keep access roads to a minimum, using them only when necessary. 

• Design roads to minimize total disturbance, to conform to topography, and to minimize 

disruption of natural drainage patterns. 

• Design and maintenance of roads will conform to the BLM Manual and American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials standards where applicable. 

• Locate roads on stable terrain (such as ridgetops, natural benches, and flatter transitional 

slopes near ridges and valley bottoms and moderate sideslopes) and away from slumps, 

slide-prone areas, concave slopes, clay beds, and where rock layers are parallel to the 

slope. Locate roads on well-drained soil types; avoid wet areas. 

• Construct roads for surface drainage by using outslopes, crowns, grade changes, drain 

dips, waterbars, and/or insloping to ditches as appropriate. Maintain drain dips, 

waterbars, road crowns, insloping, and outsloping, as appropriate, during road 

maintenance. Grade roads only as necessary. 

• Slope the road base to the outside edge for surface drainage for local spurs or minor 

collector roads where low-volume traffic and lower traffic speeds are anticipated. This 

also is recommended in situations where long intervals between maintenance will occur 

and where minimum excavation is wanted. Outsloping is not recommended on steep 

slopes. Sloping the road base to the inside edge is an acceptable practice on roads with 

steep sideslopes and where the underlying soil formation is very rocky and not subject to 

appreciable erosion or failure. 

• Construct arterial and collector roads with crown and ditching where traffic volume, 

speed, and intensity and user comfort are considerations. Recommended gradients range 

from 0 percent to 15 percent where crown and ditching may be applied, as long as 

adequate drainage away from the road surface and ditch lines is maintained. 

• Construct roads when soils are dry and not frozen, if possible, in soil types with a low 

sand component. When these types of soils or road surfaces become saturated to a depth 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 1 

A1-5

of 3 inches, BLM-authorized activities should be limited or cease unless otherwise 

approved by the authorized officer. 

• Retain vegetation between roads and streams to filter runoff caused by roads. 

• Use culverts that pass, at a minimum, a 50-year storm event and/or have a minimum 

diameter of 24 inches for permanent stream crossings and a minimum diameter of 18 

inches for road crossdrains. 

• Strip and stockpile topsoil ahead of construction of new roads if feasible. Reapply soil to 

cuts and fillslopes prior to revegetation. 

• Use existing roads whenever possible instead of constructing new roads. 

Rights-of-Way and Utility Corridors 

• Rights-of-way (ROW) and utility corridors should use areas adjoining or adjacent to 

previously disturbed areas whenever possible. 

• Disturbed areas within road ROWs and utility corridors should be stabilized by 

vegetation practices designed to hold soil in place and minimize erosion. Vegetation 

cover should be reestablished to increase infiltration and provide additional protection 

from erosion. 

• Sediment barriers should be constructed when needed to slow runoff, allow deposition of 

sediment, and prevent transport from the site. Straining or filtration mechanisms also may 

be employed for the removal of sediment from runoff. 

Noxious Weed Management 

• To reduce the potential for the introduction of noxious weeds, all equipment should be 

cleaned off, by pressure washing, prior to operating on BLM lands. Removal of all dirt, 

grease, and plant parts that may carry noxious weed seeds or vegetative parts is required. 

• All seed, hay, straw, mulch, and other vegetation material transported and used on public 

land weed-free zones for site stability, rehabilitation, or project facilitation should be 

certified by a qualified federal, state, or county officer as free of noxious weeds and 

noxious weed seed. 

Reducing Impacts on Visual Resource Management Class II and Class III Areas

• Bury distribution powerlines and flow lines in or adjacent to access roads. 

• Repeat form, line, color, and texture elements to blend facilities with the surrounding 

landscape. 

• Paint all above-ground structures not requiring safety coloration an environmental color 

that is two shades darker than the surrounding environment. 

• Perform final reclamation recontouring of all disturbed areas, including access roads, to 

the original contour or a contour that blends with the surrounding topography. 

• Avoid facility placement on steep slopes, ridgetops, and hilltops. 

• Reclaim unused well pads within 1 year. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 1 

A1-6

Developed Recreation Sites 

• Construct recreation sites and provide appropriate sanitation facilities to minimize 

impacts on resource values and public health and safety and to minimize user conflicts of 

approved activities and access within an area as appropriate. 

• Use public education and/or physical barriers (such as rocks, posts, and vegetation) to 

direct or preclude uses and to minimize impacts on resource values. 

Riparian/Wetland Areas 

• Avoid locating roads, trails, and landings in wetlands. 

• Locate, identify, and mark riparian management areas during the design of projects that 

may cause adverse impacts on riparian management areas. 

• Keep open water free from slash. 

• Avoid equipment operation in areas of open water, seeps, and springs. 

• Use low-ground-pressure equipment (floatation tires or tracks) as necessary to minimize 

rutting and compaction. 

Water Developments 

• Work in springs and stream beds should be done by hand where possible. If machinery is 

needed in these areas, select equipment that minimizes disturbance. 

• After construction of spring head boxes, troughs, pipelines, and well sites, the areas 

should be cleaned up and refuse removed. 

• Cuts, fills, and excavations should be dressed and seeded to blend with surroundings. 

Pipelines should be buried where possible. 

• Original water sources should be protected, and fenced if required, and an offstream 

watering supply should be provided near the site. 

• The size of storage tanks and troughs should accommodate the expected needs of 

livestock and wildlife using them. 

• Water should be left at the site for wildlife. Wells should be cased to prevent cave-ins, 

and well sites should be fenced. 

• Storage structures should be designed to provide water for wildlife. Drinking ramps 

should be installed, and their heights should not prohibit young wildlife from obtaining 

water.
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-1

APPENDIX 2—BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

FOR RAPTORS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED HABITATS 

I. INTRODUCTION

Raptors, or Birds of Prey, are found on public lands throughout Utah. Approximately 31 species 

of raptors use public lands for at least a portion of their life cycle. These include 20 diurnal 

raptors, including the eagles, hawks, falcons, osprey, turkey vulture, and California condor, and 

11 mostly nocturnal owl species. At least 16 of the diurnal raptors are known to nest, roost, and 

forage on public lands; two others are probable nesters within the southern part of the state. The 

California condor is known to use public lands for roosting and foraging, but is not currently 

known to nest within the state. The rough-legged hawk is a winter resident that uses public lands 

for foraging. All of the owl species nest, roost, and forage on public lands in Utah. 

Eight of Utah’s raptors are considered to be special status species by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and currently receive enhanced protection from the BLM, in addition to the 

regulatory authority provided by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which covers all raptor 

species. The Mexican spotted owl is listed as a federally threatened species and is afforded the 

protection and the Section 7 consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

The bald eagle was removed from the list of threatened and endangered species by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in June 2007. The bald eagle and the golden eagle are protected 

by the provisions of the Eagle Protection Act. The California condor is a federally endangered 

species; however, the birds found in southern Utah are part of an Experimental Non-Essential 

Population reintroduced to northern Arizona under Section 10(j) of the ESA. The BLM is 

required to treat the condor as a species proposed for listing for ESA Section 7 purposes. The 

northern goshawk is managed by a multi-agency Conservation Agreement. The ferruginous 

hawk, short-eared owl, and burrowing owl are listed as Wildlife Species of Concern by the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR, May 12, 2006) and are therefore recognized as BLM 

state-sensitive species under the BLM 6840 Manual. BLM’s 6840 policy states, “BLM shall ... 

ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out ... do not contribute to the need for the 

species to become listed.”

Future raptor management on BLM lands in Utah will be guided by the use of these best 

management practices (BMP), which are BLM-specific recommendations for implementation of 

the USFWS Utah Field Office’s Guidelines for Raptor Protection From Human and Land Use 

Disturbances (Guidelines). The Guidelines were originally developed by USFWS in 1999 and 

were updated in 2002 to reflect changes brought about by court and policy decisions and to 

incorporate Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies To Protect Migratory 

Birds. The Guidelines were provided to BLM and other land management agencies in an attempt 

to provide raptor management consistency, while ensuring project compatibility with the 

biological requirements of raptors and encouraging an ecosystem approach to habitat 

management. 

These BMPs, or specific elements of the BMPs that pertain to a proposal, should be attached as 

Conditions of Approval (COA) to all BLM use authorizations that have the potential to adversely 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-2

affect nesting raptors or would cause occupied nest sites to become unsuitable for nesting in 

subsequent years. 

Raptor management is a dynamic and evolving science; consequently, as the science evolves, 

these BMPs will undergo subsequent revision. As more information becomes available through 

implementation of these raptor BMPs, and as our knowledge of raptor life-cycle requirements 

increases, findings will be incorporated into future revisions of the Guidelines. In addition, BLM 

and the U.S. Department of Energy are initiating a 3-year Raptor Radii study that will test 

traditional spatial and seasonal nest buffers during oil and gas development activities for a select 

suite of species. Study results will also be incorporated into new BMP revisions. 

To adequately manage raptors and their habitats, and to reduce the likelihood of a raptor species 

being listed under the ESA, BLM-authorized or BLM-proposed management activities and/or 

land disturbing actions would be subject to the criteria and processes specified within these 

BMPs. The implementation of raptor spatial and seasonal buffers under the BMPs would be 

consistent with Table 2 of the Guidelines, included here as Attachment 2. As specified in the 

Guidelines, modifications of spatial and seasonal buffers for BLM-authorized actions would be 

permitted as long as protection of nesting raptors is ensured. State and/or federally listed, 

proposed, and candidate raptor species, as well as BLM state-sensitive raptor species, should be 

afforded the highest level of protection through this BMP process; however, all raptor species 

would continue to receive protection under the MBTA. Modification of the buffers for threatened 

or endangered species would be considered pending results of Section 7 consultations with 

USFWS. 

As stated in the Guidelines, spatial and seasonal buffers should be considered as the best 

available recommendations for protecting nesting raptors under a wide range of activities 

statewide. However, they are not necessarily site-specific to proposed projects. Land managers 

should evaluate the type and duration of the proposed activity, the position of topographic and 

vegetative features, the sensitivity of the affected species, the habituation of breeding pairs to 

existing activities in the proposed project area, and the local raptor nesting density when 

determining site-specific buffers. BLM would be encouraged to informally coordinate with 

UDWR and USFWS any time a site-specific analysis shows that an action may have an adverse 

impact on nesting raptors. The coordination would determine if the impact could be avoided or 

must be mitigated and, if so, determine appropriate and effective mitigation strategies. 

Potential modifications of the spatial and seasonal buffers identified in the Guidelines may 

provide a viable management option. Modifications would ensure that nest protection would 

occur, while allowing various management options that may deviate from the suggested buffers 

within the Guidelines, which if adequately monitored could provide valuable information for 

incorporation into future management actions. 

Seasonal raptor buffers from Attachment 2 should be reviewed by local raptor nesting authorities 

who are knowledgeable of raptor nesting chronologies within their local areas. For those nesting 

raptors for which local nesting chronologies remain uncertain, the seasonal buffers provided in 

Attachment 2 should serve as the default. However, for those raptor species whose known 

nesting chronologies differ from the seasonal buffers provided in Attachment 2, the local 

seasonal buffers may be used as a modification of the Guidelines. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-3

Criteria that would need to be met, prior to implementing modifications to the spatial and 

seasonal buffers in the Guidelines, include the following: 

1. Completion of a site-specific analysis by a wildlife biologist or other qualified individual 

(Attachment 1). 

2. Written documentation by the BLM Field Office wildlife biologist, identifying the 

proposed modification and affirming that implementation of the proposed modification 

would not affect nest success or the suitability of the site for future nesting. Modification 

of the Guidelines would not be recommended if it is determined that adverse impacts on 

nesting raptors would occur or that the suitability of the site for future nesting would be 

compromised. 

3. Development of a monitoring and mitigation strategy by a BLM biologist or other raptor 

biologist. Impacts of authorized activities would be documented to determine if the 

modifications were implemented as described in the environmental documentation or 

COA and were adequate to protect the nest site. Should adverse impacts be identified 

during monitoring of an activity BLM would follow an appropriate course of action, 

which may include cessation or modification of activities that would avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate the impact, or, with the approval of UDWR and USFWS, BLM could allow the 

activity to continue while requiring monitoring to determine the full impact of the activity 

on the affected raptor nest. A monitoring report would be completed and forwarded to 

UDWR for incorporation into the Natural Heritage Program raptor database. 

In a further effort to provide additional support and expertise to local BLM field biologists, a 

network of biologists from various agencies with specific expertise in raptor management has 

been identified and included as Attachment 3. The personnel identified have extensive 

backgrounds in raptor management issues and are available, upon request, to assist BLM field 

biologists on a case-by-case basis. Field biologists are encouraged to use this network, via 

informal conferences, with one or more of the individuals identified. This coordination should be 

clearly distinguished from the consultation process required under ESA Section 7. Individuals on 

the expert panel should not be expected to provide formal advice, but should serve as a sounding 

board for discussing potential affects of a proposal as well as potential mitigation measures on 

specific projects that may be useful to BLM biologists. 

II. HABITAT ENHANCEMENT

As recommended in the Guidelines, raptor habitat management and enhancement, both within 

and outside of buffers, would be an integral part of these BMPs, with the understanding that in 

order for raptors to maintain high densities and maximum diversity, it is necessary that the 

habitat upon which they and their prey species depend be managed to promote healthy and 

productive ecosystems. Habitat loss or fragmentation would be minimized and/or mitigated to 

the extent practical and may include such measures as drilling multiple wellheads per pad, 

limiting access roads and avoiding loop roads to well pads, effectively rehabilitating or restoring 

plugged and abandoned well locations and access roads that are no longer required, rehabilitating 

or restoring areas affected by wildland fires to prevent domination by non-native invasive annual 

species, or implementing vegetation treatments and riparian restoration projects to achieve 

Standards for Rangeland Health. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-4

In some cases, artificial nesting structures located in areas where preferred nesting substrates are 

limited, but where prey base populations are adequate and human disturbances are limited, may 

enhance some raptor populations or may serve as mitigation for impacts occurring in other areas. 

III. PROTECTION OF NEST SITES AND BUFFER ZONES

As stated in the Guidelines, protection of occupied and unoccupied nests is important because 

not all raptor pairs breed every year, nor do they always use the same nest within a nesting 

territory. Individual raptor nests left unused for a number of years are frequently reoccupied if all 

the nesting attributes that originally attracted a nesting pair to a location are still present. Nest 

sites are selected by breeding pairs for the preferred habitat attributes provided by that location. 

Raptor nest buffer zones are established for planning purposes because the nest serves as the 

focal point for a nesting pair of raptors. The buffer should serve as a threshold for potential 

adverse impacts on nest initiation and productivity. Actions proposed within these buffer zones 

are considered potentially impacting, and therefore trigger the need for consideration of sitespecific recommendations. 

Seasonal (temporal) buffer zones are conservation measures intended to schedule potentially 

impacting activities to periods outside of the nesting season for a particular raptor species. These 

seasonal limitations are particularly applicable to actions proposed within the spatial buffer zone 

of a nest for short duration activities, such as pipeline or powerline construction, seismic 

exploration activity, vegetative treatments, fence or reservoir construction, or permitted 

recreational events, where subsequent human activity would not be expected to occur. 

Spatial buffer zones are those physical areas around raptor nest sites where seasonal conservation 

measures or surface occupancy restrictions may be applied, depending on the type and duration 

of activity, distance and visibility of the activity from the nest site, adaptability of the raptor 

species to disturbance, etc. Surface occupancy restrictions should be used for actions that would 

involve human activities within the buffer zone for a long duration (more than one nesting 

season) and that would cause an occupied nest site to become unsuitable for nesting in 

subsequent years. 

Unoccupied Nests 

All Activities, Including All Mineral Leases: Surface disturbing activities occurring outside of 

the breeding season (seasonal buffer), but within the spatial buffer, would be allowed during a 

minimum 3-year nest monitoring period, as long as the activity would not cause the nest site to 

become unsuitable for future nesting, as determined by a wildlife biologist. Facilities and other 

permanent structures would be allowed if they meet the above criteria. 

Examples of typical surface disturbing actions occurring outside of the seasonal buffer that may 

not be expected to affect nest production or future nesting suitability include pipelines, 

powerlines, seismographic exploration, communication sites, an oil or gas well with offsite 

facilities that does not require routine maintenance, recreation events, fence or reservoir 

construction, vegetative treatments, and other actions with discrete starting and ending times and 

for which subsequent human activity or heavy equipment operation within the spatial buffer 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-5

would not be expected to occur or could be scheduled outside of the seasonal buffer in 

subsequent years. 

Surface disturbing activities that would be expected to potentially affect nest production or nest 

site suitability include oil and gas facilities requiring regular maintenance, sand and gravel 

operations, road systems, wind energy projects, mining operations, and other actions requiring 

continual, random human activity or heavy equipment operation during subsequent nesting 

seasons. 

A nest site that does not exhibit evidence of use, such as greenery in the nest, fresh whitewash, 

obvious nest maintenance, and the observed presence of adults or young at the nest, for a period 

of 3 consecutive years (verified through monitoring) would be deemed abandoned and all 

seasonal and spatial restrictions would cease to apply to that nest. All subsequent authorizations 

for permanent activities within the spatial buffer of the nest could be permitted. If the nest 

becomes reoccupied after authorized activities are completed, conservation measures would be 

considered to reduce potential adverse affects and to comply with the MBTA and the Eagle 

Protection Act. 

The 3-year non-use standard varies from the Guidelines’ suggested 7-year non-use standard 

before declaring nest abandonment. This variation is based upon a similar standard that has been 

applied for more than 20 years in two administrative areas within Utah. Empirical evidence 

would suggest that the 3-year non-use standard has been effective in conserving raptor species. 

The 3-year standard has been applied without legal challenge or violation of “Take” under the 

MBTA or the Eagle Protection Act. 

Because prey base populations are known to be cyclic, and because raptor nest initiation or 

nesting success can be affected by drought and other random natural events, care should be taken 

when applying the 3-year non-activity standard. The 3-year nest occupancy monitoring 

requirement should be viewed as a minimum time period during those years of optimal raptor 

nesting conditions. During suboptimal raptor nesting years, when nesting habitat may be affected 

by drought, low prey base populations, fire, or other events, the monitoring standard should be 

increased to allow raptors the opportunity to reoccupy nesting sites when nesting conditions 

become more favorable. 

Occupied Nests 

All Activities: Land use activities that would have an adverse impact on an occupied raptor nest 

would not be allowed within the spatial or seasonal buffer. 

IV. CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES

Alternatives, including denial of the proposal, should be identified, considered, and analyzed in a 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document anytime an action is proposed within the 

spatial buffer zone of a raptor nest. Selection of a viable alternative that avoids an impact on 

nesting raptors should be selected over attempting to mitigate those impacts. If unavoidable 

impacts are identified, mitigation measures should be applied as necessary to mitigate adverse 

impacts of resource uses and development on nesting raptors. Monitoring of the effectiveness of 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-6

the mitigation measures should be mandatory and should be included as a Condition of 

Approval. 

V. SPECIFIC STRATEGIES TO BE IMPLEMENTED REGARDING OTHER RESOURCE 

USES

The following are management strategies designed to reduce or eliminate potential conflicts 

between raptors and other resource uses. This is a list of examples and is not intended to be an 

all-inclusive list. In all cases, when an activity on BLM lands is proposed and a NEPA document 

is developed, the Site-Specific Analysis (Attachment 1) may be implemented to identify and 

either avoid or mitigate impacts on raptors from the proposal. These strategies apply to both 

BLM and applicant-generated proposals. 

A. Cultural Resources 

Excavation and studies of cultural resources in caves and around cliff areas should be delayed 

until a qualified biologist surveys the area to be disturbed or impacted by the activity for the 

presence of raptors or nest sites. If nesting raptors are present, the project should be rescheduled 

to occur outside of the seasonal buffer recommended by the Guidelines. 

B. Forestry and Harvest of Woodland Products 

Timber harvest would be subject to NEPA analysis and would be conducted in a manner that 

would avoid impacts on raptor nests. This could also apply to areas identified for wood gathering 

and firewood sales. 

C. Hazardous Fuel Reduction/Habitat Restoration Projects 

Hazardous fuel reduction projects and shrubsteppe restoration projects should be reviewed for 

possible impacts on nesting raptors. Removal of trees containing either stick nests or nesting 

cavities, through prescribed fire or mechanical or manual treatments, should be avoided. 

It is important to note that certain raptor species are tied to specific habitat types, and that 

consideration must be made on a site-specific basis when vegetation manipulation projects are 

proposed in order to determine which raptor species may benefit and which may be negatively 

affected by the vegetation composition post-treatment. 

D. Livestock Grazing 

Rangelands and riparian areas should be managed in a manner that promotes healthy, productive 

rangelands and functional riparian systems. Rangeland Health Assessments should be conducted 

on each grazing allotment, and rangeland guidelines should be implemented where Standards for 

Rangeland Health are not being met, to promote healthy rangelands. 

Locations of sheep camps and other temporary intrusions would be located in areas away from 

raptor nest sites during the nesting season. Placement of salt and mineral blocks also would be 

located away from nesting areas. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-7

Season of use, type of livestock, and target utilization levels of key species affect vegetative 

community attributes (such as percent cover and composition) and influence small mammal and 

avian species diversity and density. While not all raptor species would be affected in the same 

way, livestock management practices that maintain or enhance vegetative attributes will preserve 

prey species density and diversity, which will benefit the raptor resource. 

E. Off-Highway Vehicle Use 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) that are developed for off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use would not be located in areas that have important nesting, roosting, or foraging 

habitats for raptors. 

OHV use would be limited to designated roads, trails, and managed open areas. Lands 

categorized as open for OHV use should not be in areas important to raptors for nesting, 

roosting, and foraging. 

When proposals for OHV events are received, the area to be impacted would be surveyed by a 

qualified wildlife biologist to determine if the area is used by raptors. Potential conflicts would 

be identified and either avoided or mitigated prior to the issuance of any permit. 

F. Oil and Gas Development 

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 43 CFR 3101.1-2, allows for well site location and 

timing to be modified from that requested by the lessee to mitigate conflicts at the proposed site. 

It states that the location can be moved up to 200 meters, and the timing of the actual drilling can 

be delayed for up to 60 days to mitigate environmental concerns. The regulation also allows 

BLM to move a location more than 200 meters, or delay operations more than 60 days, to protect 

sensitive resources if supporting rationale and lesser restrictions are ineffective. The SiteSpecific Analysis (Attachment 1) would provide the supporting rationale. Provisions also are 

present within Sections 3 and 6 of the Standard Lease Form, which require compliance with 

existing laws and would allow BLM to impose additional restrictions at the permitting phase if 

the restrictions will prevent violation of law, policy, or regulation or avoid undue and 

unnecessary degradation of lands or resources. (Additional stipulations and mitigations would be 

applied to coal developments and other energy-related developments as directed by the 

Guidelines and as directed in Chapter 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement.) 

G. Realty 

Lands proposed for disposal, which include raptor nesting, roosting, or foraging areas, would be 

analyzed and evaluated for the relative significance of these resources before a decision is made 

for disposal or retention. 

A priority list of important raptor habitat areas, especially for federally listed or state-sensitive 

raptor species, on state and private lands should be developed and used as lands to be acquired 

by BLM when opportunities arise to exchange or otherwise acquire lands. 

Lands and realty authorizations would include appropriate conservation measures to avoid and/or 

mitigate impacts on raptors. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-8

H. Recreation 

Development of biking trails near raptor nesting areas would be avoided. 

Rock climbing activities would be authorized only in areas where there are no conflicts with 

cliff-nesting raptors. 

In recreation high-use areas where raptor nest sites have been made unsuitable by existing 

disturbance or habitat alteration, mitigation to replace nest sites with artificial nest structures in 

nearby suitable habitat, if it exists, and seasonal protection of nest sites through fencing or other 

restrictions should be considered. 

Dispersed recreation would be monitored to identify where this use may be impacting the nesting 

success of raptors. 

I. Wild Horse Program 

In areas where wild horse numbers are determined to be in excess of the carrying capacity of the 

range, removal of horses, as described in the various herd management area plans, would 

continue in order to prevent further damage to rangelands. 

VI. INVENTORY AND MONITORING 

Each field office should cooperatively manage a raptor database, with UDWR and USFWS, as 

part of the BLM corporate database. Raptor data should be collected and compiled using the 

Utah Raptor Data Collection Standards developed by the Utah State Office so that personnel 

from other agencies can access the data. Appropriate protocols for survey and monitoring should 

be followed when available. This database should be updated as new inventory and monitoring 

data becomes available. The data also should be forwarded to UDWR and the Natural Heritage 

Program, which has been identified as the central repository for raptor data storage for the State 

of Utah. 

Use of seasonal employees and volunteers, as well as Challenge Cost Share projects, should be 

used to augment the inventory and monitoring of raptor nests within a planning area, with the 

data entered into the aforementioned databases at the close of each nesting season. Project 

proponents, such as energy development interests, would be encouraged to participate and help 

support an annual raptor nest monitoring effort within their areas of interest. 

Active nest sites should be monitored during all authorized activities that may have an impact on 

the behavior or survival of the raptors at the nest site. A qualified biologist would conduct the 

monitoring and document the impacts of the activity on the species. A final report of the impacts 

of the project should be placed in the Environmental Assessment file, with a copy submitted to 

the Natural Heritage Program. The report would be made available for review, should identify 

which activities may affect raptor-nesting success, and should be used to recommend appropriate 

buffer zones for various raptor species. 

As data is gathered and impact analyses are more accurately documented, adaptive management 

principles should be implemented. Authorization of future activities should take new information 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-9

into account, better protecting raptors, while potentially allowing more development and fewer 

restrictions if data indicates that current restrictions are beyond those necessary to protect nesting 

raptors or conversely indicates that current guidance is inadequate for protection of nesting 

raptors. If monitoring detects an impact on bird behavior, especially one that might result in 

"take" the activity could be suspended or modified so that the impacts are avoided or removed. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-10

 ATTACHMENT 1: SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

Observer(s) Date____________________________ 

1. Conduct a site visit to the area of the proposed action and complete the raptor nest site 

data sheet according to BLM data standards. 

2. Area of Interest Documentation (Bold items require completion, other information is optional) 

State Office Management Unit_________________

Project ID#

Location (Description)

Legal T , R , Sec. , 1/4, , 1/4, or UTM Coordinates 

Latitude Longitude 

Photos Taken Y ( ) N ( ) 

Description of photos: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Raptor Species Confirmed Unconfirmed 

Distance From Proposed Disturbance to: Nest _________________________________ 

 Perch

 Roost

Line of Site Evaluation From: Nest

 Perch

 Roost

Extent of Disturbance: Permanent Temporary 

Distance from Nest/Roost Acreage 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-11

Length of Time Timing Variations Disturbance Frequency 

Other Disturbance Factors: Yes (If yes, explain what and include distances from nest to 

disturbances) No 

Approximate Age of Nest: New Historical: (Number of Years) 

Evidence of Use (Describe): 

Habitat Values Impacted: 

Proportion of Habitat Impacted (Relate in terms of habitat available): 

Estimated Noise Levels of Project (dB):____________ 

Available Alternative(s) (e.g., location, season, technology): 

Associated Activities:
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-12

Cumulative Effects of Proposal and Other Actions in Habitat Not Associated With the 

Proposal: 

Potential for Site Rehabilitation: High Low

Notes/Comments: 

Summary of Proposed Modifications:

Possible modifications to the spatial and seasonal buffers within the USFWS Utah Field Office 

Guidelines include the following: 

Rationale: 

Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures:

Possible mitigation measures related to the proposal include the following: 

Rationale: 

Summary of Alternatives Considered:

Possible alternatives to the proposal include the following: 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-13

Rationale: 

Recommendation to FO Manager Based on Above Findings: 

 

Field Office Wildlife Biologist Date 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-14

ATTACHMENT 2: NESTING PERIODS AND RECOMMENDED BUFFERS FOR RAPTORS 

IN UTAH

The following table is adapted from Table 2 of the Guidelines. 

Species 

Spatial 

Buffer 

(miles) 

Seasonal 

Buffer 

Incubation 

# Days 

Brooding, 

# Days 

PostHatch 

Fledging, 

# Days 

PostHatch 

Post-Fledge 

Dependency 

to Nest, # 

Days1

Bald eagle 1.0 1/1–8/31 34–36 21–28 70–80 14–20 

Golden eagle 0.5 1/1–8/31 43–45 30–40 66–75 14–20 

Northern goshawk 0.5 3/1–8/15 36–38 20–22 34–41 20–22 

Northern harrier 0.5 4/1–8/15 32–38 21–28 42 7 

Cooper’s hawk 0.5 3/15–8/31 32–36 14 27–34 10 

Ferruginous hawk 0.5 3/1–8/1 32–33 21 38–48 7–10 

Red-tailed hawk 0.5 3/15–8/15 30–35 35 45–46 14–18 

Sharp-shinned hawk 0.5 3/15–8/31 32–35 15 24–27 12–16 

Swainson’s hawk 0.5 3/1–8/31 33–36 20 36–40 14 

Turkey vulture 0.5 5/1–8/15 38–41 14 63–88 10–12 

California condor 1.0 NN 56–58 5–8 weeks 5–6 months 2 months 

Peregrine falcon 1.0 2/1–8/31 33–35 14–21 35–49 21 

Prairie falcon 0.25 4/1–8/31 29–33 28 35–42 7–14 

Merlin 0.5 4/1–8/31 28–32 7 30–35 7–19 

American kestrel NN2 4/1–8/15 26–32 8–10 27–30 12 

Osprey 0.5 4/1–8/31 37–38 30–35 48–59 45–50 

Boreal owl 0.25 2/1–7/31 25–32 20–24 28–36 12–14 

Burrowing owl 0.25 3/1–8/31 27–30 20–22 40–45 21–28 

Flammulated owl 0.25 4/1–9/30 21–22 12 22–25 7–14 

Great horned owl 0.25 12/1–9/30 30–35 21–28 40–50 7–14 

Long-eared owl 0.25 2/1–8/15 26–28 20–26 30–40 7–14 

Northern saw-whet owl 0.25 3/1–8/31 26–28 20–22 27–34 7–14 

Short-eared owl 0.25 3/1–8/1 24–29 12–18 24–27 7–14 

Mexican spotted owl 0.5 3/1–8/31 28–32 14–21 34–36 10–12 

Northern pygmy owl 0.25 4/1–8/1 27–31 10–14 28–30 7–14 

Western screech owl 0.25 3/1–8/15 21–30 10–14 30–32 7–14 

Common barn owl NN2 2/1–9/15 30–34 20–22 56–62 7–14 

1

 Length of post-fledge dependency period to parents is longer than reported in this table. Reported dependency periods reflect 

the amount of time the young are still dependent on the nest site (e.g., they return to the nest for feeding). 

2

 As a result of apparent high population densities and ability to adapt to human activity, a spatial buffer is currently considered 

not necessary (NN) for maintenance of American kestrel or common barn owl populations. Actions resulting in direct mortality of

individual birds and “take” of known nest sites are unlawful. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-15

ATTACHMENT 3: UTAH RAPTOR MANAGEMENT EXPERTS FROM VARIOUS 

AGENCIES

The following list of personnel contains individuals from various Utah and federal agencies who 

are recognized experts in the field of raptor ecology or have extensive field experience in 

managing raptor resources with competing land uses. The list is provided to inform BLM field 

biologists and managers of this network of specialized experts who may be able to assist, as time 

permits, with specific raptor management issues. Individuals in the Utah raptor network also 

have well-established contacts with an informal extended network of highly qualified raptor 

ecologists outside the state (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, state wildlife agencies, and 

universities) who could provide an additional regional perspective. 

This list is not intended to replace or interfere with established lines of communication but rather 

supplement these lines of communication. 

Utah BLM David Mills david_mills@blm.gov 435-896-1571 

Utah BLM Steve Madsen steve_c_madsen@blm.gov 801-539-4058 

UDWR Dr. Jim Parrish jimparrish@utah.gov 801-538-4788 

UDWR Brian Maxfield brianmaxfield@utah.gov 435-790-5355 

USFWS Laura Romin laura_romin@usfws.gov 801-975-3330 

USFWS Diana Whittington diana_whittington@usfws.gov 801-975-3330 

U.S. Forest Service Chris Colt ccolt@fs.fed.us 801-896-1062 

HawkWatch 

International Jeff Smith jsmith@hawkwatch.org 801-484-6808 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 2 

A2-16

ATTACHMENT 4: REFERENCES CITED

Code of Federal Regulations, 43 CFR 3101.1-2, Leasing Regulations. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1513-1543. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703-712. 

Romin, Laura A., and James A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection 

From Human and Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management on BLM Lands in Utah. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 6840 Manual. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 3 

A3-1

APPENDIX 3—SURFACE STIPULATIONS 

APPLICABLE TO OIL AND GAS LEASING AND OTHER 

SURFACE DISTURBING ACTIVITIES 

This appendix lists surface stipulations for oil and gas leasing in the Approved Resource 

Management Plan (RMP). These surface stipulations will also apply, where appropriate and 

practical, to other surface disturbing activities (and occupancy) associated with land use 

authorizations, permits, and leases issued on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. The 

stipulations will not apply to other activities and uses where they are contrary to laws, 

regulations, or policy for specific land use authorizations. The intent is to manage other activities 

and uses as consistent as possible with oil and gas leasing. 

Surface disturbing activities are those that normally result in more than negligible disturbance to 

public lands. These activities normally involve disturbance to soils and vegetation to the extent 

that reclamation is required. They include, but are not limited to, the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment; truck- mounted drilling equipment; geophysical exploration; off-road vehicle 

travel in areas designated as limited or closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use; placement of 

surface facilities such as utilities, pipelines, structures, and oil and gas wells; new road 

construction; and use of pyrotechnics, explosives, and hazardous chemicals. Surface disturbing 

activities will not include livestock grazing, cross-country hiking, driving on designated routes, 

and minimum impact filming permits. 

DESCRIPTION OF SURFACE STIPULATIONS

Table A0-1 shows resources of concern and stipulations including exceptions, modifications, and 

waivers. Three surface stipulations could be applied to land use authorizations: (1) no surface 

occupancy (NSO), (2) timing limitations (TL), and (3) controlled surface use (CSU). 

Areas identified as NSO (major constraints) will be closed to surface disturbing activities. NSO 

areas would be avoidance areas for rights-of-way (ROW) and where necessary will be 

recommended for withdrawal from operations under the mining laws (locatable minerals) to 

prevent unacceptable resource impacts. An NSO stipulation cannot be applied to locatable 

minerals without a withdrawal. A withdrawal is not a land use planning decision because it must 

be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Areas identified as TL (moderate constraints) will be closed to surface disturbing activities 

during identified time frames. TL areas will be open to operational and maintenance activities, 

including associated vehicle travel, during the closed period unless otherwise specified in the 

stipulation. 

Areas identified as CSU (moderate constraints) will require proposals to be authorized only 

according to the controls or constraints specified. The controls will be applicable to all surface 

disturbing activities. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 3 

A3-2

EXCEPTIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AND WAIVERS

Surface stipulations could be excepted, modified, or waived by the authorized officer. An 

exception exempts the holder of the land use authorization document from the stipulation on a 

one-time basis. A modification changes the language or provisions of a surface stipulation, either 

temporarily or permanently. A waiver permanently exempts the surface stipulation. The 

environmental analysis document prepared for site-specific proposals such as oil and gas 

development (i.e., applications for permit to drill [APD] or sundry notices) also would need to 

address proposals to exempt, modify, or waive a surface stipulation. To exempt, modify, or 

waive a stipulation, the environmental analysis document would have to show that (1) the 

circumstances or relative resource values in the area had changed following issuance of the lease, 

(2) less restrictive requirements could be developed to protect the resource of concern, and (3) 

operations could be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts. 

STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS

All surface disturbing activities are subject to standard terms and conditions. These include the 

stipulations that are required for proposed actions in order to comply with the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Standard terms and conditions for oil and gas leasing provide for relocation 

of proposed operations up to 200 meters and for prohibiting surface disturbing operations for a 

period not to exceed 60 days. The stipulations addressed in Table A0-1 that are within the 

parameters of 200 meters and 60 days are considered open to oil and gas leasing subject to 

standard terms and conditions. 

CLOSED AREAS

Areas identified as closed are not available for oil and gas leasing. Areas where restrictions apply 

to all surface disturbing activities are noted with an asterisk. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-3

Table A0-1. Proposed RMP Surface Stipulations and Exception, Modification, and Waiver C

Stipulation 

Code 

Resource 

of Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Description 

Closed Recreation 

Paria Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) – Canyon Recreation Management Zone (RMZ) and Uplands RMZ 

The Paria SRMA (Canyon RMZ and Uplands RMZ) is in the Paria Canwhich is closed to oil and gas leasing. Purpose: To protect recreational values such as world-class wilderness viewing deeply entrenched slickrock canyon, and associated slot canyoException: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Closed Recreation Moquith Mountain SRMA – Dunes RMZ 

The Moquith Mountain SRMA – Dunes RMZ will be closed to oil and gaPurpose: To protect unique, scenic, and expansive sand dunes OHV oException: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Closed Recreation North Fork Virgin River SRMA 

The North Fork Virgin River SRMA will be closed to oil and gas leasingPurpose: To protect spectacular, primitive riparian canyon travel with a

formations and diverse flora and fauna. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Closed Recreation Orderville Canyon SRMA 

The Orderville Canyon SRMA is entirely within the WSA and will be clo

Purpose: To protect spectacular, primitive riparian canyon travel with aformations and diverse flora and fauna. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-4

Closed Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitable “wild” river corridors 

Manage river segments found suitable and classified as “wild” as closewithin 1⁄4 mile of each side of the river or the viewshed from the river, wPurpose: To protect the tentative classification and outstandingly rema

Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Closed Wilderness 

area 

Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness area 

The designated Paria Canyon Wilderness area is closed to oil and gas Purpose: To protect wilderness values. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Closed 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA) 

North Fork Virgin River Orderville Canyon Parunuweap Canyon Canaan Mountain Moquith Mountain 

Areas within WSAs are closed to oil and gas leasing. Purpose: To protect wilderness values. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) ACEC Cottonwood Canyon ACEC 

The Cottonwood Canyon ACEC, which includes the existing Water CanCanyon ACEC, will be open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSPurpose: To protect relevant and important (R&I) values, including sceand the Fredonia water supply. Exception: An exception could be authorized if the use is consistent an

protection or enhancement of the resource values or would provide suipublic enjoyment of these resources. Modification: None Waiver: None 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-5

Major (NSO) Cultural Resources Sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

Sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places will be open to leconstraints (NSO). Purpose: To protect sites listed on the National Register of Historic Pla

which they were listed. Exception: An exception could be authorized if the use is consistent anprotection or enhancement of the resource values or would provide suipublic enjoyment of these resources. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) Cultural Resources* 

Within 1⁄4 mile or within the visual horizon, whichever is closer, of cultural sites where the landscape features are important in understanding the property or sites where setting directly contributes to the significance of the property 

Cultural sites within 1⁄4 mile or within the visual horizon, whichever is cloleasing subject to major constraints (NSO). Purpose: To protect cultural sites where the landscape features are imp

the property or sites where the setting directly contributes to the significException: An exception could be authorized if the use is consistent anprotection or enhancement of the resource values or would provide suipublic enjoyment of these resources. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) Fish and Wildlife Within 1 mile of condor nest sites 

Preclude placement of permanent structures or roads within 1 mile of cPurpose: To protect condor nest sites. Exception: An exception could be granted if surveys determine that Caroosting or nesting areas are not occupied. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

the area do not include habitat or are outside the current defined area, BLM. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined the habitat no longe

destroyed. 

Major (NSO) Lands and Realty R&PP Leases 

The areas with Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) leases will be major constraints (NSO). Purpose: To protect the purposes for which the R&PP leases were estaException: An exception could be authorized if the use is consistent an

protection or enhancement of the resource values or would provide suipublic enjoyment of these resources. Modification: None Waiver: None 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-6

Major (NSO) Lands and Realty Cemeteries 

Cemeteries will be open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO). Purpose: To protect cemeteries for the purposes they were established potential safety issues and surface use conflicts. Exception: An exception could be authorized if the use is consistent an

protection or enhancement of the resource values or would provide suipublic enjoyment of these resources. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) Lands and Realty Landfills (existing and closed) 

Existing and closed landfills will be open to leasing subject to major con

Purpose: To eliminate potential safety issues and surface use conflictsException: An exception could be granted if it can be demonstrated tha

result in any surface use conflicts. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) Lands and Realty Incorporated Municipalities 

Incorporated municipalities will be open to leasing subject to major conPurpose: To eliminate potential safety issues and surface use conflictsException: An exception could be granted if it can be demonstrated tha

result in any surface use conflicts. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) Lands and Realty Airports 

Airports will be open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO). Purpose: To eliminate potential safety issues and surface use conflictsException: An exception could be granted if it can be demonstrated tha

result in any surface use conflicts. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) Minerals and Energy Federal facilities 

Federal facilities will be open to leasing subject to major constraints (NPurpose: To protect federal investment in facilities and to eliminate potsurface use conflicts. Exception: An exception could be granted if it can be demonstrated tharesult in any surface use conflicts. Modification: None Waiver: None 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-7

Major (NSO) Recreation Developed recreation sites 

Developed recreation sites will be open to leasing subject to major conPurpose: To protect federal investment in facilities, provide for recreatio

viewshed from the facility. Exception: An exception could be granted if a viewshed analysis indica

impairment of the visual resources from the recreation site. Also, an exauthorized if the use is consistent and compatible with protection or en

resource values or would provide suitable opportunities for public enjoyresources. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) Recreation Kanab Community SRMA – OHV RMZ 

The Kanab Community SRMA – OHV RMZ will be open to leasing subj(NSO). Purpose: To protect close-to-town OHV travel in an exceptionally scen

trails for different skill levels. Exception: An exception could be authorized if the use is consistent anprotection or enhancement of the resource values, would provide a pubprovide suitable opportunities for public enjoyment of the resources. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) Recreation Kanab Community SRMA – Non-Motorized RMZ 

The Kanab Community SRMA – Non-Motorized RMZ will be open to leconstraints (NSO). Purpose: To protect town-accessible hiking and an equestrian trail netwviews and varied terrain. Exception: An exception could be authorized if the use is consistent an

protection or enhancement of the resource values, would provide a pubprovide suitable opportunities for public enjoyment of the resources. Modification: None Waiver: None 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-8

Major (NSO) Recreation 

Moquith Mountain SRMA – Non-Dunes Wooded RMZ – OUTSIDE WSA 

The Moquith Mountain SRMA – Non-Dunes Wooded RMZ (outside the 

leasing subject to major constraints (NSO). Purpose: To protect a scenic and extensive OHV trail network accessinand fauna, and cultural sites. Exception: An exception could be authorized if the use is consistent anprotection or enhancement of the resource values, would provide a pubprovide suitable opportunities for public enjoyment of the resources. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) 

Special Status Species 

Within 1⁄2 mile radius of a Greater sage-grouse lek site 

Manage oil and gas leasing as open subject to major constraints (NSOGreater sage-grouse lek site. Purpose: To protect occupied lek sites within Greater sage-grouse habException: An exception may be granted by the Field Manager if the opdemonstrates that impacts from the proposed action can be adequately Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

of the area do not include lek sites, (2) the lek site(s) have been compledestroyed, or (3) occupied lek site(s) occur outside the current defined the BLM. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if there are no active lek site(s) in the determined the site(s) have been completely abandoned or destroyed o

defined area, as determined by the BLM. 

Major (NSO) 

Special Status Species* 

Within 1⁄2 mile of active bald eagle nest sites yearround 

Areas within 1⁄2 mile of active bald eagle nest sites will be managed as major constraints (NSO). Purpose: To protect active bald eagle nest sites. Exception: An exception may be granted by the Field Manager if autho

USFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA). The Field Manageexception if an environmental analysis indicates that the nature of the c

proposed or conditioned, would not impair the primary constituent elem

necessary for the survival and recovery of the bald eagles and USFWS determination. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

environmental analysis indicates and USFWS determines (through appESA) that a portion of the area is not being used as bald eagle nesting Waiver: May be granted if bald eagles are de-listed and if USFWS dete

to protect nesting territories according to the ESA and the Bald Eagle P

no reasonable likelihood of site occupancy over a minimum 10-year pe
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-9

Major (NSO) 

Special Status Species* 

Within 1⁄2 mile of active, suitable, or potential reintroduction Utah prairie dog habitats/sites 

Areas within 1⁄2 mile of active, suitable, or potential reintroduction Utah will be managed as open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO)Purpose: To protect active, suitable, or potential reintroduction Utah praException: An exception may be granted if the applicant submits a plan impacts of the proposed action can be adequately mitigated, or, if due 

there is no reasonable location to develop a lease and avoid colonies, allow for loss of prairie dog colonies and/or habitat to satisfy terms and Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stipthe area do not include prairie dog habitat or active colonies are found area, as determined by the BLM. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if in the leasehold it is determined thaor has been destroyed. 

Major (NSO) 

Special Status Species* 

Within 1⁄2 mile around Mexican spotted owl nests 

Areas within 1⁄2 mile around Mexican spotted owl (MSO) nests will be mleasing subject to major constraints (NSO). Purpose: To protect MSO nests. Exception: An exception may be granted by the Field Manager if concu

USFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA). The Field Manageexception if an environmental analysis indicates that the nature or cond

not impair the primary constituent element determined necessary for ththe MSO and USFWS concurs with this determination. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stipenvironmental analysis indicates and USFWS determines (through appESA) that a portion of the area is not being used as critical habitat. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the MSO is de-listed and the critica

USFWS as not necessary for the survival and recovery of the MSO. 

Major (NSO) Vegetation 

Relict Vegetation (Diana’s Throne and Elephant Butte) 

Restrict surface occupancy (NSO) for surface disturbing activities to prDiana’s Throne and Elephant Butte. Purpose: To protect relict vegetation at Diana’s Throne and Elephant BException: Exceptions could be allowed if the use is consistent and comenhancement of the resource values or would provide suitable opportuof these resources. Modification: None Waiver: None 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-10

Major (NSO) Water* Within 330 feet of riparian areas 

Do not allow new surface disturbing activities within 330 feet of riparianPurpose: To protect riparian areas. Exception: An exception could be authorized if (a) there are no practicaterm impacts could be fully mitigated, or (c) the activity would benefit anarea. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitable “scenic” river corridors 

Manage oil and gas leasing as open subject to major constraints (NSO

River segment 37-40a suitable “scenic” river segment (within 1⁄4 mile of the viewshed from river, whichever is less). Purpose: To protect the tentative classification and ORVs. Exception: An exception could be authorized if the activity would beneftentative classification and ORVs. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Major (NSO) Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Suitable wild and scenic river “recreational” segment East Fork Virgin River (segment 36-37) – OUTSIDE THE WSA 

Manage oil and gas leasing as open subject to major constraints (NSO

River segment 36-37 suitable “recreational” river segment (within 1⁄4 mi

or the viewshed from river, whichever is less). Purpose: To protect the tentative classification and ORVs. Exception: An exception could be authorized if the activity would beneftentative classification and ORVs. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Moderate (CSU) Soil Fragile soils areas 

Develop and implement site-specific restrictions and/or mitigations for afragile soil areas on a case-by-case basis. The BLM must approve surfbefore construction and maintenance would be authorized. Allow surface disturbance in fragile soil areas as long as impacts would disturbance would be beneficial to rangeland health. Purpose: To protect fragile soil resources. Exception: An exception could be authorized if the use is consistent anterm protection or enhancement of soil resource values. Modification: None Waiver: None 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-11

Moderate (CSU) 

Special Status Species 

Federally listed and candidate plant species occupied and suitable habitat 

Manage oil and gas leasing as open subject to moderate constraints (Cand candidate plant species-occupied and suitable habitat. In these arebe located to not adversely affect the species or its habitat. Purpose: To protect federally listed and candidate plant species-occupException: None Modification: If federally listed and candidate plant species are not idendevelopment could occur, but site-specific mitigation requirements couapplication for permit to drill. Waiver: None 

Moderate (CSU) 

Visual Resources VRM Class II areas 

Surface disturbing activities must meet the objectives of Visual ResourClass II. Purpose: To protect high-quality visual resources. Exception: The level of change to the landscape should be low; managseen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any ch

must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

features of the characteristic landscape. Surface disturbing activities th

compatible and consistent with the protection or enhancement of the re

exempted. Also, recognized utility corridors are exempted only for utility managed according to VRM Class III objectives. 

Modification: None Waiver: None 

Moderate (CSU) Water 

Culinary water supply in the following areas: T 42 S R 6 W Sections 19, 31 T 42 S R 7 W Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35 

Manage oil and gas leasing as open to leasing subject to moderate conculinary water supply as directed by the Land Use Agreement for Kanathe following sections: T 42 S R 6 W Sections 19, 31 T 42 S R 7 W Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35 In these areas (1) well placement would be located to eliminate potentior pollution sources and/or (2) design standards would be implemented discharges to ground water. Purpose: To protect culinary water supply as directed by the Land Use City Existing Wells. Exception: If federally listed and candidate plant species are not identifwould be no restrictions. Modification: None Waiver: None 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-12

Moderate (TL) Fish and Wildlife 

Identified big game migration and transitional ranges from October 1 to November 15 

Preclude oil and gas development and ROW construction/reconstructiomigration and transitional ranges from October 1 to November 15. Purpose: To minimize disturbance within identified big game migration Exception: The Field Manager may grant an exception if the operator sdemonstrates that impacts from the proposed action can be adequately Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stipthe area is (1) not being used as big game migration and transitional ra

being used outside of stipulation boundaries for big game migration anneeds to be protected. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the habitat is determined to be unsmigration and transitional ranges and there is no reasonable likelihood 

migration and transitional ranges. 

Moderate (TL) Fish and Wildlife* Crucial mule deer and elk winter range from November 15 to April 15 

Preclude surface disturbing activities in crucial mule deer and elk winte

15 to April 15 unless the activity would improve mule deer or elk habitaPurpose: To minimize stress and disturbance to deer and elk during cr

Exception: This stipulation does not apply to the maintenance and opeongoing facilities. An exception may be granted by the Field Manager i

plan that demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action can be a

is determined the habitat is not being used during the winter period for Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

portion of the area is not being used as crucial winter range by deer/elkstipulation boundaries is being used as crucial winter range and needs migration patterns have changed causing a difference in the season of Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the winter range habitat is unsuitabwinter months by deer/elk and there is no reasonable likelihood of futur
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-13

Moderate (TL) Fish and Wildlife* 

Crucial Desert bighorn sheep habitat from April 15 to June 15 during lambing season 

Preclude surface disturbing activities in crucial Desert bighorn sheep h

season (April 15 through June 15). Purpose: To minimize disturbance within crucial Desert bighorn sheep season. Exception: The Field Manager may grant an exception if the operator sdemonstrates that impacts from the proposed action can be adequately 

Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stipportion of the area is not being used as crucial Desert bighorn sheep h

season or (2) if habitat outside of stipulation boundaries is being used f

sheep habitat and needs to be protected. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the habitat is determined to be unsbighorn sheep habitat and there is no reasonable likelihood of future usbighorn sheep habitat. 

Moderate (TL) Fish and Wildlife* Crucial pronghorn habitat from May 15 to June 15 during fawning season 

Preclude surface disturbing activities in crucial pronghorn habitat from 

during fawning season. Purpose: To minimize disturbance within crucial pronghorn habitat duriException: The Field Manager may grant an exception if the operator sdemonstrates that impacts from the proposed action can be adequately 

Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stipportion of the area is not being used as crucial pronghorn habitat during 

habitat outside of stipulation boundaries is being used for crucial prong

be protected. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the habitat is determined as unsuitahabitat and there is no reasonable likelihood of future use as crucial pro
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-14

Moderate (TL) Fish and Wildlife* 

Prohibit disruptive activities within 1 mile of Peregrine falcon nest sites from February 1 to August 31 

Prohibit disruptive activities within 1 mile of Peregrine falcon nest sites August 31. Purpose: To protect Peregrine falcon nest sites. Exception: An exception could be granted if surveys determine that nes

occupied. During years when a nest site is unoccupied before May 30, may be suspended. It may also be suspended once young have fledgenest. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

the area do not include habitat or are outside the current defined area, BLM. Dates could be adjusted by local Utah Division of Wildlife Resourbiologists based on local knowledge of nesting chronology of raptors. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined that the habitat no 

destroyed, or there is no reasonable likelihood of future use. 

Moderate (TL) Fish and Wildlife* 

Prohibit disruptive activities to nesting raptors within 1⁄2 mile of a raptor nest for the protection of raptor nesting areas 

Prohibit disruptive activities to nesting raptors within 1⁄2 mile of a raptor time periods for the protection of raptor nesting areas: Jan 1–Aug 31: golden eagle Mar 15–Aug 15: red-tailed hawk Mar 15–Aug 31: Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk Mar 1–Aug 31: Swainson’s hawk Apr 1–Aug 15: Northern harrier Apr 1–Aug 31: merlin, osprey May 1–Aug 15: Turkey vulture Purpose: To protect raptor nesting areas. Exception: An exception could be granted if surveys determine that nesoccupied. During years when a nest site is unoccupied before May 30, may be suspended. It may also be suspended once young have fledgenest. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

the area do not include habitat or are outside the current defined area, BLM. Dates could be adjusted by local UDWR and BLM biologists basenesting chronology of raptors. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined that the habitat no destroyed, or there is no reasonable likelihood of future use. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-15

Moderate (TL) Fish and Wildlife* 

Prohibit disruptive activities to nesting raptors within 1⁄4 mile of a raptor nest for the protection of raptor nesting areas 

Prohibit disruptive activities to nesting raptors within 1⁄4 mile of a raptor time periods for the protection of raptor nesting areas: Dec 1–Sep 31: Great horned owl Feb 1–Jul 31: Boreal owl Feb 1–Aug 15: Long-eared owl Mar 1–Aug 15: W. Screech owl Mar 1–Aug 31: N. saw-whet owl Apr 1–Aug 1: N. Pygmy owl Apr 1–Aug 31: Prairie falcon Apr 1–Sep 30: Flammulated owl Purpose: To protect raptor nesting areas. Exception: An exception could be granted if surveys determine that nesoccupied. During years when a nest site is unoccupied before May 30, may be suspended. It may also be suspended once young have fledgenest. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

the area do not include habitat or are outside the current defined area, BLM. Dates could be adjusted by local UDWR and BLM biologists basenesting chronology of raptors. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined that the habitat no destroyed, or there is no reasonable likelihood of future use. 

Moderate (TL) Recreation 

Escalante SRMA – Close seasonally from May 1 to September 30 

Open to leasing subject to moderate constraints (timing limitation stipul

September 30). Purpose: To protect town-accessible hiking/equestrian trail network offe

and varied terrain. Exception: An exception could be authorized if the use is consistent anprotection or enhancement of the resource values or would provide a popportunities for public enjoyment of the resources. Modification: None Waiver: None 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-16

Moderate (TL) 

Special Status Species 

Preclude disruptive activities within 1 mile of a California condor nest site during breeding season 

Preclude disruptive activities within 1 mile of a California condor nest sseason. Preclude placement of permanent structures or roads within 1 

Purpose: To protect California condor communal roosting or nesting arException: An exception could be granted if surveys determine that Caroosting or nesting areas are not occupied. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

the area do not include habitat or are outside the current defined area, BLM. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined that the habitat no destroyed. 

Moderate (TL) 

Special Status Species* 

Restrict activities or habitat alterations that may disturb nesting bald eagles from January 1 to August 31 within 1 mile of bald eagle nest sites 

Restrict activities or habitat alterations that may disturb nesting bald eaAugust 31 within 1 mile of bald eagle nest sites. Purpose: To protect active bald eagle nest sites. Exception: An exception may be granted by the Field Manager if autho

USFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA). The Field Manageexception if an environmental analysis indicates that the nature of the c

proposed or conditioned, would not impair the primary constituent elem

necessary for the survival and recovery of the bald eagles and USFWS determination. An exception may be granted by the Field Manager whe

initiated prior to June 1. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stipenvironmental analysis indicates and USFWS determines (through appESA) that a portion of the area is not being used as bald eagle nesting 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if bald eagles are de-listed and if USnecessary to protect nesting territories according to the ESA and the Bor if there is no reasonable likelihood of site occupancy over a minimum 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-17

Moderate (TL) 

Special Status Species* 

Restrict activities or habitat alterations that may disturb bald eagles within 1⁄2 mile of known winter concentration areas from November 1 to March 31 

Restrict activities or habitat alterations that may disturb bald eagles witwinter concentration areas from November 1 to March 31. In addition, woccur within these spatial buffers, and are approved through subsequeUSFWS, activities should be scheduled to occur after 9 a.m. and terminofficial sunset to ensure that bald eagles using these roosts are allowed vacate their roost in the morning and return undisturbed in the eveningPurpose: To protect active bald eagle winter concentration areas. Exception: An exception may be granted by the Field Manager if authoUSFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA). The Field Manageexception if an environmental analysis indicates that the nature of the c

proposed or conditioned, would not impair the primary constituent elem

necessary for the survival and recovery of the bald eagles and USFWS determination. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

environmental analysis indicates and USFWS determines (through appESA) that a portion of the area is not being used as bald eagle winter c

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if bald eagles are de-listed and if US

necessary to protect nesting territories according to the ESA and the B

or if there is no reasonable likelihood of site occupancy over a minimum 

Moderate (TL) 

Special Status Species* 

Prohibit surface disturbing activities within 1⁄2 mile around special status raptor species nest sites Prohibit surface disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile around special status raptor species nest sites 

Prohibit surface disturbing activities within 1⁄2 mile around special status 

during the following time periods: Mar 1–Aug 1: Ferruginous hawk Mar 1–Aug 15: N. Goshawk Prohibit surface disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile around special status during the following time periods: Mar 1–Aug 1: Short-eared owl Mar 1–Aug 31: Burrowing owl Purpose: To protect raptor habitat. Exception: An exception could be granted if surveys determine that nesoccupied. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

the area do not include habitat or are outside the current defined area, BLM. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined the habitat no longe

destroyed. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-18

Moderate (TL) 

Special Status Species* 

Permit no surface disturbing activities from March 1 to August 31 in Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers (PAC), breeding habitats, or designated critical habitat 

Permit no surface disturbing activities or surface occupancy within 1⁄2 m

protect the species from disturbance. Permit no surface disturbing activAugust 31 in PACs, breeding habitats, or designated critical habitat to a

breeding MSOs. If the action occurs entirely outside of the MSO breediAugust 31) and leaves no permanent structure or permanent habitat di

proceed without an occupancy survey. If action would occur during the 1 to August 31), surveys according to USFWS protocol for MSO would commencement of activities, and if owls are detected, the BLM would rconsultation with USFWS. Purpose: To protect MSO nests. Exception: An exception could be granted if surveys determine that MSoccupied. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stipthe area do not include habitat or are outside the current defined area, BLM. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined the habitat no longedestroyed. 

Moderate (TL) 

Special Status Species* 

Prohibit surface disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of occupied Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding habitat from May 1 through August 15 

Prohibit surface disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of occupied Southwe

breeding habitat from May 1 to August 15. Purpose: To protect Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding habitat. Exception: An exception could be granted if surveys determine that the flycatcher breeding habitat is not occupied. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

the area do not include habitat or are outside the current defined area, BLM. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined the habitat no longe

destroyed. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A3-19

Moderate (TL) 

Special Status Species* 

Prohibit surface disturbing activities within 2 miles of a Greater sage-grouse lek in the nesting and broodrearing habitat from March 15 to July 15 

Allow no surface disturbing or otherwise disruptive activities (e.g., consmaintenance) within 2 miles of a Greater sage-grouse lek in nesting anfrom March 15 to July 15. Purpose: To protect Greater sage-grouse lek in nesting and brood-rear

Exception: An exception could be granted if surveys determine that the in nesting and brood-rearing habitat is not occupied. An exception may 

Field Manager if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates that im

action can be adequately mitigated or it is determined the lek sites are Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stipthe area do not include habitat or are outside the current defined area, BLM. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined the habitat no longe

destroyed. 

Moderate (TL) 

Special Status Species* 

Prohibit surface disturbing activities within Greater sage-grouse winter habitat from December 1 to March 14 

Allow no surface disturbing or otherwise disruptive activities in Greater habitat from December 1 to March 14. Purpose: To protect Greater sage-grouse wintering habitat. 

Exception: An exception could be granted if surveys determine that the 

in winter habitat is not occupied, and that snow depths in the area allow 

use. An exception may also be granted by the Field Manager if the ope

demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action can be avoided, s

adequately mitigated. Modification: The Field Manager may modify the boundaries of the stip

the area do not include habitat or are outside the current defined area, BLM. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined the habitat no longe

destroyed. 

Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 4 

A4-1

APPENDIX 4—RECREATION MANAGEMENT FOR 

SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS AND 

THE KANAB EXTENSIVE RECREATION 

MANAGEMENT AREA 

KANAB COMMUNITY SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA (SRMA)—OFFHIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV) RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) 

Recreation Niche: Close-to-town OHV travel in an exceptionally scenic setting with a variety of 

trails for different skill levels. 

Recreation Management Objectives: By the year 2012, manage this zone to provide 

opportunities for community residents and regional visitors to engage in sustainable, easy-toaccess, primarily day-use motorized recreation, providing no less than 75 percent of responding 

visitors and affected 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). 

Primary Activities: Driving OHVs, viewing scenery and wildlife, photography, spending time 

with friends and family, participating in and/or viewing organized events. 

Experiences: Savoring the sensory experience of an outdoor setting, relishing group 

togetherness, enjoying risk-taking adventures, appreciating nature, escaping everyday stress and 

boredom, enjoying easy and convenient access. 

Benefits: 

• Personal—Improved OHV skills, bonding with family and friends, stress relief, enhanced 

awareness and appreciation of natural resources, greater self-reliance, renewed human 

spirit. 

• Community—Stronger sense of community dependency on public lands, greater 

family/group bonding. 

• Economic—Enhanced local economy via purchases (gas, groceries, lodging, 

OHV/outdoor equipment, etc.). 

• Environmental—Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes. 

Setting Characteristics: 

• Physical—Mostly middle country, but back country and primitive away from designated 

routes, with regard to naturalness and facilities. 

• Social—Front country along trails with regard to group sizes and contacts, but back 

country away from trails. 

• Administrative—Front country along trails and staging areas at entry portals; back 

country away from trails. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 4 

A4-2

KANAB COMMUNITY SRMA—NON-MOTORIZED TRAILS RMZ 

Recreation Niche: Town-accessible hiking trail network offering outstanding views and varied 

terrain. 

Recreation Management Objectives: By the year 2012, manage this zone to provide 

opportunities for community residents and regional visitors to engage in sustainable, easy-toaccess, primarily day-use non-motorized recreation, providing no less than 75 percent of 

responding visitors and affected 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). 

Primary Activities: Hiking, rock scrambling and climbing, viewing scenery and wildlife, 

photography, equestrian, spending time with friends and family, participating in and/or viewing 

organized events. 

Experiences: Savoring the sensory experience of an outdoor setting, relishing group 

togetherness, enjoying risk-taking adventures, appreciating nature, escaping everyday stress and 

boredom, enjoying easy and convenient access. 

Benefits: 

• Personal—Bonding with family and friends, stress relief, enhanced awareness and 

appreciation of natural resources, greater self-reliance, renewed human spirit. 

• Community—Stronger sense of community dependency on public lands, greater 

family/group bonding. 

• Economic—Enhanced local economy via purchases (gas, groceries, lodging, outdoor 

equipment, etc.). 

• Environmental—Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes. 

Setting Characteristics: 

• Physical—Mostly back country along trails, with primitive away from trails, routes, and 

community. 

• Social—Middle country to back country along trails depending on trail traffic; primitive 

and back country off trail. 

• Administrative—Front country at trailheads; middle country along trails; back country 

and primitive away from trails. 

MOQUITH SRMA—DUNES RMZ 

Recreation Niche: OHV and non-motorized opportunities on unique, scenic, and expansive sand 

dunes. 

Recreation Management Objectives: By the year 2012, manage this zone to provide 

opportunities for community residents and regional visitors to engage in sustainable, easy-toaccess, day-use and multi-day motorized recreation, providing no less than 75 percent of 

responding visitors and affected community residents at least a “moderate” realization of these 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 4 

A4-3

benefits (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale, where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderate, 4 = 

total realization). 

Primary Activities: Driving among sand dunes, camping along dune fringes, photography, 

spending time with friends and family. 

Experiences: Savoring the sensory experience of an outdoor setting, relishing group 

togetherness, enjoying risk-taking adventures, appreciating nature, escaping everyday stress and 

boredom, enjoying easy and convenient access, learning about sand dune ecosystems. 

Benefits: 

• Personal—Improved OHV skills, bonding with family and friends, stress relief, enhanced 

awareness and appreciation of natural resources, greater self-reliance, renewed human 

spirit. 

• Community—Stronger sense of community dependency on public lands, greater 

family/group bonding. 

• Economic—Enhance local economy via purchases (gas, groceries, lodging, OHV/outdoor 

equipment, etc.). 

• Environmental—Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes. 

Setting Characteristics: 

• Physical—Mostly front country and middle country with regard to naturalness and 

facilities. 

• Social—Rural around campgrounds and staging areas; front country and middle country 

among dunes. 

• Administrative—Front country at campgrounds and staging areas; middle country and 

back country among dunes. 

MOQUITH SRMA—NON-DUNES WOODED RMZ 

Recreation Niche: Scenic and extensive OHV trail network accessing vistas, overlooks, flora 

and fauna, and cultural sites. 

Recreation Management Objectives: By the year 2012, manage this zone to provide 

opportunities for community residents and regional visitors to engage in sustainable, easy-toaccess, day-use and multi-day motorized and non-motorized recreation, providing no less than 75 

percent of responding visitors and affected 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). 

Primary Activities: Driving OHVs; viewing flora and fauna, geology, and cultural sites; hiking; 

equestrian; camping; hunting; photography; spending time with friends and family. 

Experiences: Savoring the sensory experience of an outdoor setting, relishing group 

togetherness, enjoying risk-taking adventures, appreciating nature, escaping everyday stress and 

boredom. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 4 

A4-4

Benefits: 

• Personal—Improved OHV skills, bonding with family and friends, stress relief, enhanced 

awareness and appreciation of natural resources, greater self-reliance, renewed human 

spirit. 

• Community—Stronger sense of community dependency on public lands, greater 

family/group bonding. 

• Economic—Enhanced local economy via purchases (gas, groceries, lodging, 

OHV/outdoor equipment, etc.). 

• Environmental—Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes. 

Setting Characteristics: 

• Physical—Mostly front country and middle country with regard to naturalness and 

facilities. 

• Social—Rural around campground and staging areas; front country and middle country 

along trails; back country and primitive off trails. 

• Administrative—Front country at campgrounds and staging areas; middle country and 

back country along trails; primitive off trails. 

PARIA SRMA—CANYON RMZ 

Recreation Niche: World-class wilderness trekking adventure offering deeply entrenched 

slickrock canyons and associated slot canyon features. 

Recreation Management Objectives: By the year 2012, manage this zone to provide 

opportunities for community residents and regional visitors to engage in world-class, longdistance wilderness trekking in a spectacular geologic showcase of colorful deep canyons, cliffs, 

and narrow slots while preserving its wilderness character, providing no less than 75 percent of 

responding visitors and affected 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). Other management objectives would continue to be established through the 

Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Management Plan. 

Primary Activities: Hiking, rock scrambling and climbing, backpacking, canyoneering, 

photography, camping, viewing scenic vistas, viewing cultural sites, wilderness exploration. 

Experiences: Exploring artistic expression, contemplating and shaping spiritual values, savoring 

the sensory experience of a natural landscape, testing endurance, developing outdoor skills and 

abilities, enjoying solo exploring and risk-taking adventures, savoring group/family affiliation 

and bonding, enjoying physical exercise, escaping everyday stress and boredom, feeling good 

about how natural resources are being managed. 

Benefits: 

• Personal—Improved physical fitness and health, improved outdoor knowledge and skills, 

stress relief, enhanced awareness and appreciation of nature, greater self-reliance, closer 

relationship with nature, renewed human spirit. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 4 

A4-5

• Community—Stronger sense of community dependency on public lands, greater 

family/group bonding. 

• Economic—Contributions to local/regional economy through equipment 

purchases/rentals and guiding operations. 

• Environmental—Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes; reduced 

human impacts such as litter, vegetation trampling, and unplanned trails. 

Setting Characteristics: 

• Physical—Mostly back country, but primitive away from trails, with regard to 

naturalness and facilities. 

• Social—Mostly back country and primitive with regard to group encounters and evidence 

of use. 

• Administrative—Mostly primitive with regard to mechanized/motorized use and visitor 

services, but back country with regard to management controls. 

PARIA SRMA—UPLANDS RMZ 

Recreation Niche: Unique, world-class primitive and back country adventure recreation offering 

unique upland geologic features. 

Recreation Management Objectives: By the year 2012, manage this zone to provide 

opportunities for visitors to engage in world-class wilderness hiking in a spectacular geologic 

showcase of colorful cliffs and eroded formations while preserving its wilderness character, 

providing no less than 75 percent of responding visitors and affected 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). Other management objectives would 

continue to be established through the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Management 

Plan. 

Primary Activities: Hiking, rock scrambling and climbing, photography, viewing wildlife and 

scenic vistas, wilderness exploration, equestrian. 

Experiences: Exploring artistic expression, contemplating and shaping spiritual values, savoring 

the sensory experience of a natural landscape, testing endurance, developing outdoor skills and 

abilities, enjoying solo exploring and risk-taking adventures, savoring group/family affiliation 

and bonding, enjoying physical exercise, escaping everyday stress and boredom, feeling good 

about how natural resources are being managed. 

Benefits: 

• Personal—Improved physical fitness and health, improved outdoor knowledge and skills, 

stress relief, enhanced awareness and appreciation of nature, greater self-reliance, closer 

relationship with nature, renewed human spirit. 

• Community—Stronger sense of community dependency on public lands, greater 

family/group bonding. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 4 

A4-6

• Economic—Contributions to local/regional economy through equipment 

purchases/rentals and guiding operations. 

• Environmental—Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes; reduced 

human impacts such as litter, vegetation trampling, and unplanned trails. 

Setting Characteristics: 

• Physical—Mostly back country, but primitive away from trails, with regard to 

naturalness and facilities. 

• Social—Mostly back country and primitive with regard to group encounters and evidence 

of use. 

• Administrative—Mostly primitive with regard to mechanized/motorized use and visitor 

services, but back country with regard to management controls. 

ORDERVILLE CANYON SRMA

Recreation Niche: Spectacular, primitive riparian canyon travel with abundant geologic 

formations and diverse flora and fauna. 

Recreation Management Objectives: By the year 2012, manage this area to provide 

opportunities for community residents and regional visitors to engage in sustainable, easy-toaccess, primarily multi-day non-motorized canyon-oriented recreation, providing no less than 75 

percent of responding visitors and affected 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). 

Primary Activities: Canyoneering, rock scrambling and climbing, hiking, backpacking, hunting, 

camping, photography, viewing nature and wildlife, equestrian, studying geology. 

Experiences: Contemplating and shaping spiritual values, savoring the total sensory experience 

of a natural landscape, testing endurance, developing outdoor skills and abilities, enjoying solo 

exploring and risk-taking adventures, savoring group/family affiliation and bonding, enjoying 

physical exercise, escaping everyday stress and boredom, feeling good about how natural 

resources are being managed. 

Benefits: 

• Personal—Improved physical fitness and health, improved outdoor knowledge and skills, 

stress relief, enhanced awareness and appreciation of nature, greater self-reliance, closer 

relationship with nature, renewed human spirit. 

• Community—Stronger sense of community dependency on public lands, greater 

family/group bonding. 

• Economic—Contributions to local/regional economy through equipment 

purchases/rentals and guiding operations. 

• Environmental—Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes; reduced 

human impacts such as litter, vegetation trampling, and unplanned trails. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 4 

A4-7

Setting Characteristics: 

• Physical—Mostly primitive away from trails with regard to naturalness and facilities. 

• Social—Mostly back country and primitive with regard to group encounters and evidence 

of use. 

• Administrative—Mostly primitive with regard to mechanized/motorized use and visitor 

services, but back country with regard to management controls. 

NORTH FORK VIRGIN RIVER SRMA 

Recreation Niche: Spectacular, primitive riparian canyon travel with abundant geologic 

formations and diverse flora and fauna. 

Recreation Management Objectives: By the year 2012, manage this area to provide 

opportunities for community residents and regional visitors to engage in sustainable, easy-toaccess, primarily multi-day non-motorized canyon-oriented recreation, providing no less than 75 

percent of responding visitors and affected 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). 

Primary Activities: Canyoneering, rock scrambling and climbing, hiking, backpacking, hunting, 

camping, photography, viewing nature and wildlife, equestrian, studying geology. 

Experiences: Contemplating and shaping spiritual values, savoring the sensory experience of a 

natural landscape, testing endurance, developing outdoor skills and abilities, enjoying solo 

exploring and risk-taking adventures, savoring group/family affiliation and bonding, enjoying 

physical exercise, escaping everyday stress and boredom, feeling good about how natural 

resources are being managed. 

Benefits: 

• Personal—Improved physical fitness and health, improved outdoor knowledge and skills, 

stress relief, enhanced awareness and appreciation of nature, greater self-reliance, closer 

relationship with nature, renewed human spirit. 

• Community—Stronger sense of community dependency on public lands, greater 

family/group bonding. 

• Economic—Contributions to local/regional economy through equipment 

purchases/rentals and guiding operations. 

• Environmental—Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes; reduced 

human impacts such as litter, vegetation trampling, and unplanned trails. 

Setting Characteristics: 

• Physical—Mostly primitive away from trails with regard to naturalness and facilities. 

• Social—Mostly back country and primitive with regard to group encounters and evidence 

of use. 

• Administrative—Mostly primitive with regard to mechanized/motorized use and visitor 

services, but back country with regard to management controls. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 4 

A4-8

ESCALANTE SRMA

Recreation Niche: Town-accessible hiking/equestrian trail network offering outstanding views 

and varied terrain. 

Recreation Management Objectives: By the year 2012, manage this area to provide 

opportunities for community residents and regional visitors to engage in sustainable, easy-toaccess, primarily day-use non-motorized recreation, providing no less than 75 percent of 

responding visitors and affected 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). 

Primary Activities: Hiking, rock scrambling and climbing, viewing scenery and wildlife, 

photography, equestrian, spending time with friends and family, participating in and/or viewing 

organized events. 

Experiences: Savoring the sensory experience of an outdoor setting; relishing group 

togetherness; enjoying risk-taking adventures; appreciating nature; escaping everyday stress and 

boredom; enjoying easy and convenient access; exercising in a healthy, aesthetically pleasing 

environment. 

Benefits: 

• Personal—Improved outdoor knowledge and skills; bonding with family and friends; 

stress relief; enhanced awareness and appreciation of natural resources; greater selfreliance; renewed human spirit; exercising in a healthy, aesthetically pleasing 

environment. 

• Community—Stronger sense of community dependency on public lands, greater 

family/group bonding, healthier lifestyles. 

• Economic—Decreased burden on community heath care system from healthier lifestyles. 

• Environmental—Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes. 

Setting Characteristics: 

• Physical—Mostly backcountry along trails, with primitive away from trails and 

community. 

• Social—Middle country to back country along trails depending on trail traffic; primitive 

and back country off trail. 

• Administrative—Front country at trailheads; middle country along trails; back country 

and primitive away from trails. 

KANAB FIELD OFFICE ERMA

Recreation Management Objectives: Manage this Extensive RMA (ERMA) to provide 

opportunities for a wide variety of motorized, mechanized, non-motorized, and non-mechanized 

recreational activities largely free from heavily restrictive regulations and management 

constraints in a variety of settings ranging from open, gently rolling sand dunes to precipitous 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 4 

A4-9

sandstone canyons and steep, rocky slopes. Route designations would allow visitors to access 

most terrain by motorized vehicle, while leaving large expanses of undeveloped back country in 

which to “lose oneself.” 

Primary Activities: OHV touring; hiking; picnicking; backpacking; hunting; fishing; camping; 

equestrian; photography; viewing geologic features, nature, and wildlife; participating in and/or 

viewing organized events. 

Experiences: Contemplating and shaping spiritual values, savoring the sensory experience of a 

natural landscape, testing endurance, developing outdoor skills and abilities, enjoying OHV and 

4x4 touring, enjoying solo exploring and risk-taking adventures, savoring group/family 

affiliation and bonding, enjoying physical exercise, escaping everyday stress and boredom, 

feeling good about how natural resources are being managed. 

Benefits: 

• Personal—Improved outdoor knowledge and skills, bonding with family and friends, 

stress relief, enhanced awareness and appreciation of natural resources, greater selfreliance, renewed human spirit. 

• Community—Stronger sense of community dependency on public lands, greater 

family/group bonding. 

• Economic—Enhanced local economy via purchases (gas, groceries, lodging, 

OHV/outdoor equipment, etc.). 

• Environmental—Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes. 

Setting Characteristics: 

• Physical—Broad range from primitive to rural. 

• Social—Entire spectrum from primitive to rural with regard to group encounters and 

evidence of use. 

• Administrative—Mostly primitive and back country with regard to visitor services and 

management controls. 

Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 5 

A5-1

APPENDIX 5—LANDS DESIGNATED FOR 

POTENTIAL DISPOSAL VIA FEDERAL LAND POLICY 

AND MANAGEMENT ACT SECTION 203 SALE 

Below is a list of the lands designated for potential disposal via Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act Section 203 sale. 

Legal Descriptions:

• T. 31 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 17, E1⁄2E1⁄2 

• T. 33 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 35, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 

• T. 33 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 36, W1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 

• T. 34 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 22 (all public lands within Widtsoe Township) 

• T. 34 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 34 

• T. 34 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 35 

• T. 34 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 22, W1⁄2NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4,S1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 34 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 23, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4E1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4 

• T. 34 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 27, E1⁄2NE1⁄4 

• T. 35 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 3 

• T. 35 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 11, a portion of NW1⁄4S1⁄2SE1⁄4 (all public land outside Grand Staircase–

Escalante National Monument [GSENM]) 

• T. 35 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 15, a portion of N1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 (all public land outside GSENM) 

• T. 35 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 17, a portion of NW1⁄4NW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 (all public land outside GSENM) 

• T. 35 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 20, a portion of W1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 (all public land outside GSENM) 

• T. 35 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 5 (beginning at a Utah State Park aluminum pipe and cap monument, said 

point being N89o49’37”W 450.67 feet along the Section Line [Basis of Bearing] from the South 

Quarter Corner of Section 5, Township 35 South, Range 3 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; 

thence N89o49’37”W 1086.66 feet along said Section Line to PK nail and washer in the top of a 

sandstone ridge; thence N0o00’22”E 205.28 feet to a metal fence post; thence S89o49’37”E 

1086.66 feet parallel with said Section Line to a Utah State Park aluminum pipe and cap 

monument; thence S0o00’22”W 205.28 feet to a Utah State Park monument and the point of 

beginning) 

• T. 35 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 18, W1⁄2W1⁄2 

• T. 35 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 19, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 35 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 19, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 9, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 10, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 10, S1⁄2SW1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 11, N1⁄2NW1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 11, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 14, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2, NW1⁄4 NW1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 15, E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 15, N1⁄2NW1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 15, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 

• T. 36 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 7, W1⁄2NW1⁄4 

• T. 37 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 21, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 5 

A5-2

• T. 37 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 22, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 37 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 27, E1⁄2NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 37 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 29, N1⁄2 NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 37 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 29, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 

• T. 37 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 30, S1⁄2NE1⁄4 

• T. 37 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 31, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 

• T. 37 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 31, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4

• T. 37 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 31, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 38 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 5, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 38 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 8, W1⁄2W1⁄2, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 

• T. 38 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 6, Lot 2 

• T. 38 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 11, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4 

• T. 38 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 12, W1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4 

• T. 38 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 13, N1⁄2 N1⁄2 

• T. 38 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 14, NE1⁄4, W1⁄2NW1⁄4, all public land outside GSENM in the NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4 

• T. 38 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 15, all public land outside GSENM in the SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 38 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 1, Lots 3 and 4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 41⁄2 W., Sec. 27, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 41⁄2 W., Sec. 34, Lot 4 

• T. 39 S., R. 41⁄2 W., Sec. 35, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 21, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 35, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 23, N1⁄2SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 24, N1⁄2SW1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 25, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 28, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 30, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 30, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 31, E1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 34, S1⁄2N1⁄2 

• T. 39 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 35, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 35, S1⁄2NE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 7, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2N1⁄2 

• T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 8, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 9, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 17, N1⁄2NE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 18, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 34, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 1, Lot 3, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 39 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 12, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

• T. 39 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 14, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

• T. 39 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 29, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 3, S1⁄2SW1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 9, E1⁄2NE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 10, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 15, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 29, SW1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 1, Lot 3, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 5 

A5-3

• T. 40 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 1, Lot 3 

• T. 40 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 5, Lots 1, 5, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 3, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 4, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 

• T. 40 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 5, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 8, N1⁄2NE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 11, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 20, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 30, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 31, W1⁄2NE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 5, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 22, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 23, E1⁄2NW1⁄4 

• T. 40 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 25, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 41 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 8, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 41 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 9, Lots 1 through 8, E1⁄2E1⁄2, S1⁄2SW1⁄4 

• T. 42 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 27, S1⁄2SE1⁄2 

• T. 42 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 34, NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4 

• T. 42 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 31, NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 42 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 23 (lands south of Hancock Road) 

• T. 42 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 24 (lands south of Hancock Road) 

• T. 42 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 25, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 42 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 26 (lands south and east of Hancock Road) 

• T. 43 S., R. 41⁄2 W., Sec. 30 (the southernmost portion of Sec. 30, which lies south of the old 

highway—too small to show up on maps) 

• T. 44 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 1, Lot 4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 44 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 

• T. 44 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 6, Lots 3, 4, 5, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 44 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 8, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 44 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 1, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, N1⁄2S1⁄2, SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

• T. 44 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 11, N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 44 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 12, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 44 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 3, S1⁄2 (areas outside the Moquith Mountain WSA) 

• T. 44 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4, S1⁄2 (areas outside the Moquith Mountain WSA) 

• T. 44 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 5 

• T. 44 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 6, Lots 1 through 4, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2 

• T. 44 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 7, Lots 1 through 5, N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 

• T. 44 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 8, Lots 1 through 4, N1⁄2N1⁄2 

• T. 44 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 9, Lots 1 through 4, N1⁄2N1⁄2 

• T. 44 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 10, Lots 1 through 4, N1⁄2N1⁄2 (areas outside the Moquith Mountain WSA) 

• T. 44 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 1 

• T. 44 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 3 

• T. 44 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 4 

• T. 44 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 9, Lots 1 through 4, N1⁄2,N1⁄2 

• T. 44 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 10, Lots 1 through 4, N1⁄2,N1⁄2 

• T. 44 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 11, Lots 1 through 4, N1⁄2,N1⁄2 

• T. 44 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 12, Lots 1 through 4, N1⁄2, N1⁄2 

Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-1

APPENDIX 6—KANAB FIELD OFFICE: COAL 

UNSUITABILITY REPORT 

INTRODUCTION 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations regarding coal management on public lands are 

found in Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 3400. During land use 

planning, BLM is required to review federal lands and assess whether there are areas unsuitable 

for all coal mining or for certain stipulated methods of coal mining. This report addresses the 20 

criteria of coal unsuitability as defined in 43 CFR 3461.5 and applies these criteria to the known 

recoverable coal resource areas (KRCRA) for the Alton, Kaiparowits, and Kolob coal fields. 

Unsuitability decisions were based on these criteria and applied to federally owned coal estates 

within the Kanab Field Office (KFO) Decision Area (KDA). Currently there are no active coal 

leases within the KDA, but one lease application is presently being processed/analyzed in the 

Alton Amphitheater. 

GEOLOGIC SETTING 

KPA coals are located within Late Cretaceous sedimentary strata of the Dakota and Straight 

Cliffs formations. The Alton and Kolob coal fields are in the Dakota Formation and the 

Kaiparowits coal field is in the John Henry Member of the Straight Cliffs Formation. The 

depositional environment for both the Dakota and Straight Cliffs coals was a coastal plain setting 

along the Western Interior Seaway. The Dakota coals were deposited approximately 95 million 

years ago during the onset (transgression) of the Western Interior Seaway. Kaiparowits coals 

were deposited approximately 85 million years ago as the Western Interior Seaway regressed 

from the area. Rivers originating along the Sevier Mountain belt and Mogollon highlands 

provided a steady supply of sediment for burial of the rich coastal mires. 

LANDS CONSIDERED 

The recoverable coal resources within the Kanab Planning Area (KPA) cross a number of surface 

ownership boundaries, including BLM, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service 

(NPS), State of Utah, and private lands, and are located within Kane and Garfield counties. This 

report considers approximately 149,168 acres of federally owned coal within the KRCRA (Map 

1) of the KDA. 

COAL RESOURCES 

The Kanab Field Office Mineral Potential Report (BLM/Utah Geological Survey 2006) 

identifies an in-ground coal resource for the KPA of approximately 10 billion tons. 

Approximately 200 million tons have been identified as surface minable in the Alton coal field. 

Generally, Dakota Formation coals range from a subbituminous B rank in the Alton coal field to 

subbituminous A rank in the Kolob coal field. The sulfur content varies, but averages about 1.2 

percent. The in-place ash content generally ranges between 10 percent and 15 percent. Heat 

content for Dakota Formation coals varies from about 7,500 to 9,500 BTU/lb. In the Kaiparowits 

field, the coal rank decreases from high-volatile C bituminous to subbituminous from south to 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-2

north in the KPA. The ash and sulfur levels of the Straight Cliffs coals average about 10 percent 

and 0.7 percent, respectively. The heat content of Kaiparowits coal ranges from about 7,420 to 

10,300 BTU/lb (BLM/UGS 2006).

Table A0-1 through Table A0-3 identify the coal resources based on the depth of cover and the 

mapped quadrangle. Shallower depths of cover, which have the potential for surface mining, are 

presented in Table A0-1. 

Table A0-1. Alton Coal Field 

Quadrangle Depth of Cover 

0–200 ft 200–1000 ft 1000–2000 ft 2000–3000 ft TOTAL 

Alton 95.3 212.1 114.3 98.9 520.6 

Bald Knoll 52.7 152.9 48.8 42.3 296.7 

Orderville NE-SE 38.3 96.9 0.0 0.0 135.2 

Skutumpah Creek 16.9 183.4 107.4 17.8 325.5 

TOTAL 203.2 645.3 270.5 159.0 1,278.0

PERCENT 15.9% 50.5% 21.2% 12.4% 100.0%

Identified coal resource for the Alton coal field within the KPA by depth of cover and quadrangle (in millions of tons; from 

BLM/UGS 2006)

Table A0-2. Kolob Coal Field 

Quadrangle Depth of Cover 

0–1000 ft 1000–2000 ft 2000–3000 ft TOTAL 

Orderville Canyon NE 62.4 305.6 193.2 561.2

Orderville Canyon SE 258.7 143.0 0.0 401.7

Orderville SW 132.2 257.0 8.4 397.6

TOTAL 453.3 705.6 201.6 1,360.5

PERCENT 33.3% 51.9% 14.8% 100.0%

Identified coal resource for the Kolob coal field within the KPA by depth of cover and quadrangle (in millions of tons; from 

BLM/UGS 2006) 

Table A0-3. Kaiparowits Coal Field 

Township/ 

Range 

Depth of Cover 

Minable Deep TOTAL 0–1000 ft 1000–2000 ft 2000–3000 ft 3000–6000 ft > 6000 ft 

33S, 2W 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

33S, 1W 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

33S, 1E 0.0 94.9 655.4 1,046.6 0.0 1,796.9 

33S, 2E 10.5 48.8 93.3 7.3 0.0 159.9 

34S, 2W 7.5 121.2 113.1 74.4 0.0 316.2 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-3

Township/ 

Range 

Depth of Cover 

Minable Deep TOTAL 0–1000 ft 1000–2000 ft 2000–3000 ft 3000–6000 ft > 6000 ft 

34S, 1W 0.0 0.0 45.3 49.9 0.0 95.2 

34S, 1E 33.2 589.7 284.5 278.9 0.0 1,186.3 

34S, 2E 1.4 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.4 

35S, 2W 111.3 150.2 165.6 249.0 0.0 676.1 

35S, 1W 0.0 0.0 0.0 405.7 54.4 460.1 

35S, 1E 20.0 190.5 188.9 356.4 6.9 762.7 

36S, 2W 

(N1⁄2) 65.5 42.6 7.9 0.1 0.0 116.1 

36S, 1W 

(N1⁄2) 9.7 22.5 101.8 151.8 7.4 293.2 

36S, 1E 104.2 217.8 189.5 948.8 0.0 1,460.3 

TOTAL 363.3 1,523.2 1,845.3 3,568.9 68.7 7,369.4

PERCENT 4.9% 20.7% 25.0% 48.4% 0.9% 100.0%

Identified coal resource for the Kaiparowits Plateau coal field within the KPA by depth of cover and township (in millions of tons; 

from BLM/UGS 2006) 

EVALUATION OF THE COAL UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

This report assesses KDA coal resources for unsuitability based on the 20 criteria outlined in 43 

CFR 3461.5. Underground mining of coal deposits is exempt from the criteria, where there 

would be no surface coal mining operations as stated at 3461.1.1(a). Surface mining operations 

include surface operations and surface impacts incident to an underground mine as stated in 43 

CFR 3400.0-5(mm). In addition, where underground mining would include surface operations 

and surface impacts on federal lands to which a criterion applies, the lands shall be assessed as 

unsuitable unless an exception or exemption applies (43 CFR 3461.1(b)). Each criterion is 

subject to exceptions and/or exemptions as prescribed in the regulations. 

Criterion Number 1 

All Federal lands included in the following land systems or categories shall be considered 

unsuitable: National Park System; National Wildlife Refuge System; National System of Trails; 

National Wilderness Preservation System; National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; National 

Recreation Areas; lands acquired with money derived from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund; National Forests; and Federal lands in incorporated cities, towns, and villages. 

• Exceptions. (i) A lease may be issued within the boundaries of any National Forest if the 

Secretary finds no significant recreational, timber, economic or other values which may 

be incompatible with the lease; and (A) surface operations and impacts are incident to an 

underground coal mine, or (B) where the Secretary of Agriculture determines, with 

respect to lands which do not have significant forest cover within those National Forests 

west of the 100th Meridian, that surface mining may be in compliance with the Multiple-
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-4

Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 and 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. (ii) A lease may be issued 

within the Custer National Forest with the consent of the Department of Agriculture as 

long as no surface coal mining operations are permitted. 

• Exemptions. The application of this criterion to lands within the listed land systems and 

categories is subject to valid existing rights, and does not apply to surface coal mining operations 

existing on August 3, 1977. 

A number of land systems specified in Criterion 1 are applicable under the unsuitability criteria. 

National Forests 

All National Forest lands are considered unsuitable for surface coal mining operations. An 

exception to this criterion would allow surface operations based on the specific criteria outlined 

above. The Dixie National Forest prepared a Coal Unsuitability Study in 1983, and found that 

only 10 acres met the conditions of the exception. The study was based on areas identified as 

high- and moderate-potential coal lands that did not have significant forest cover. However, 

National Forest lands are outside of the KDA and are not included in the BLM unsuitability 

decision. 

National Recreation Areas 

There are about 2,120 acres of federal coal in the Kaiparowits coal field that underlie the Glen 

Canyon National Recreation Area. Under Criterion 1, this federal coal is unsuitable for surface 

coal mining, however, it is not included in the BLM unsuitability decision because the lands are 

outside of the KDA. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

There are about 230 acres of lands that are considered suitable for inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System. 

Incorporated Cities, Towns, and Villages 

Approximately 3,000 acres of federal coal in the Alton and Kolob coal fields within the KRCRA 

underlie the towns of Alton, Orderville, and Glendale. Because of possible damage to private 

property caused by subsidence and surface mining, these areas are determined to be unsuitable 

and will not be further considered for future leasing. The breakdown of the number of acres 

within each town is as follows: 

Alton 101 acres 

Glendale 1,742 acres 

Orderville 1,162 acres 

Exemptions for valid existing rights do not apply. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-5

Summary: Criterion 1—Approximately 3,237 acres are determined to be unsuitable based on 

the conditions set forth in this criterion. 

Criterion Number 2 

Federal lands that are within rights-of-way or easements or within surface leases for residential, 

commercial, industrial, or other public purposes, on federally owned surface shall be considered 

unsuitable. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued, and mining operations approved, in such areas if the 

surface management agency determines that: (i) All or certain types of coal development 

(e.g., underground mining) will not interfere with the purpose of the right-of-way or 

easement; or (ii) The right-of-way or easement was granted for mining purposes; or (iii) 

The right-of-way or easement was issued for a purpose for which it is not being used; (iv) 

The parties involved in the right-of-way or easement agree, in writing, to leasing; or (v) 

It is impractical to exclude such areas due to the location of coal and method of mining 

and such areas or uses can be protected through appropriate stipulations. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: To which the operator made substantial legal 

and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface coal mining operations 

were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include operations on which a permit has 

been issued. 

There are only 17 recorded rights-of-way (ROW), totaling approximately 30 acres of land, 

within the KRCRA. The exception (parts (i), (iv), and (v)) of this criterion offers protection for 

the ROWs and their improvements from the potential adverse effects of mining or associated 

surface facilities and, therefore, will not be considered unsuitable. 

There are a large number of roads that will be evaluated in the future for Revised Statute (RS) 

2477 standing. This could greatly affect the number of ROWs within the KRCRA. It is likely 

that the criterion exception would also apply in these cases. 

Summary: Criterion 2—No acres are determined to be unsuitable based on the conditions set 

forth in this criterion. 

Criterion Number 3 

The terms used in this criterion have the meaning set out in the Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement regulations at Chapter VII of Title 30 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Federal lands affected by section 522(e) (4) and (5) of the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 shall be considered unsuitable. This includes lands within 100 feet 

of the outside line of the right-of-way of a public road or within 100 feet of a cemetery, or within 

300 feet of any public building, school, church, community or institutional building or public 

park or within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued for lands: (i) Used as mine access roads or haulage roads that 

join the right-of-way for a public road; (ii) For which the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement has issued a permit to have public roads relocated; (iii) If after public notice 

and opportunity for public hearing in the locality, a written finding is made by the authorized 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-6

officer that the interests of the public and the landowners affected by mining within 100 feet of a 

public road will be protected; (iv) For which owners of occupied dwellings have given written 

permission to mine within 300 feet of their buildings. 

• Exemptions. The application of this criterion is subject to valid existing rights, and does not apply 

to surface coal mining operations existing on August 3, 1977. 

Criterion 3 identifies approximately 3,200 acres of land within the KRCRA that have been found 

to be unsuitable. Data was not available to ascertain the location of all public buildings, 

community or institutional buildings, or occupied dwellings. Therefore, municipality boundaries 

were used to identify the areas of unsuitability. There are still a number of homes and summer 

cabins on private lands outside of these boundaries that are underlain by federal coal in the Alton 

and Kolob fields. A survey of the exact locations was not conducted. Because many of these 

structures are located in areas that would be mined primarily by underground methods, the 

underground exemption could possibly be applied. If the exemption could not be applied, mining 

would not be allowed within 300 feet of any such dwelling. A survey of existing dwellings 

would be made if leasing of federal coal is considered. The owners of the dwellings would be 

given the opportunity to give written permission for mining. If permission is not obtained, the 

area would then be designated unsuitable and the exact acreage calculated. Until that time, the 

area will be considered suitable. 

The Alton Cemetery is underlain by surface minable coal. This area is unsuitable because surface 

mining is prohibited within 100 feet of a cemetery. This involves only about 1 acre. 

As mentioned above in Criterion 2, the total acreage determined to be unsuitable could increase 

significantly in the future based on administrative determinations regarding RS 2477 road 

assertions.

The exemptions for valid existing rights do not apply because there are presently no authorized 

coal leases within the KRCRA. 

Summary: Criterion 3—Approximately 3,200 acres are determined to be unsuitable for surface 

coal mining and surface impacts incident to underground mining based on the conditions set 

forth in this criterion. 

Criterion Number 4 

Federal lands designated as wilderness study areas shall be considered unsuitable while under 

review by the Administration and the Congress for possible wilderness designation. For any 

Federal land which is to be leased or mined prior to completion of the wilderness inventory by 

the surface management agency, the environmental assessment or impact statement on the lease 

sale or mine plan shall consider whether the land possesses the characteristics of a wilderness 

study area. If the finding is affirmative, the land shall be considered unsuitable, unless issuance 

of noncompetitive coal leases and mining on leases is authorized under the Wilderness Act and 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

• Exemptions. The application of this criterion to lands for which the Bureau of Land Management 

is the surface management agency and lands in designated wilderness areas in National Forests 

is subject to valid existing rights. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-7

There is one Wilderness Study Area (WSA) that partially overlies the KRCRA. Therefore, 

approximately 45 acres within the Parunuweap Canyon WSA are considered unsuitable. 

The exemptions for valid existing rights do not apply because there are presently no authorized 

coal leases within the KRCRA. 

Summary: Criterion 4—Approximately 45 acres are determined to be unsuitable for surface 

coal mining and surface impacts incident to underground mining based on the conditions set 

forth in this criterion. 

Criterion Number 5 

Scenic Federal lands designated by visual resource management analysis as Class I (areas of 

outstanding scenic quality or high visual sensitivity) but not currently on the National Register of 

Natural Landmarks shall be considered unsuitable. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued if the surface management agency determines that surface coal 

mining operations will not significantly diminish or adversely affect the scenic quality of the 

designated area. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator has made substantial 

legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface coal mining 

operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977, or which include operations on which a 

permit has been issued. 

There are presently no Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I lands within the KRCRA. 

This will change in the future with the new KFO Resource Management Plan (RMP) based on 

BLM policy set forth in the Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2000-096, which 

directs BLM to assign VRM Class I designations to all WSA lands. Therefore, after 

authorization of the new RMP, 45 acres in the Parunuweap Canyon WSA that fall within the 

KRCRA (Criterion 4) will become unsuitable for surface mining. 

Summary: Criterion 5—No acres are determined to be unsuitable at this time. 

Criterion Number 6 

Federal lands under permit by the surface management agency, and being used for scientific 

studies involving food or fiber production, natural resources, or technology demonstrations and 

experiments shall be considered unsuitable for the duration of the study, demonstration or 

experiment, except where mining could be conducted in such a way as to enhance or not 

jeopardize the purposes of the study, as determined by the surface management agency, or where 

the principal scientific user or agency gives written concurrence to all or certain methods of 

mining. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: To which the operator made substantial legal 

and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface coal mining operations 

were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include operations on which a permit has 

been issued. 

Southern Utah University in conjunction with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 

and the KFO BLM are studying Greater sage-grouse in the Alton area. The study incorporates 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-8

approximately 5,800 acres within the Alton Amphitheater. The purpose of the study is to 

determine locations and suitability for sage-grouse brooding and winter habitats. This study is 

scheduled to be complete in 2008. The schedule would not conflict with future mining/leasing 

and, therefore, the project area is considered suitable under this criterion. 

Summary: Criterion 6—No acres are determined to be unsuitable. 

Criterion Number 7 

All publicly or privately owned places which are included in the National Register of Historic 

Places shall be considered unsuitable. This shall include any areas that the surface management 

agency determines, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the 

State Historic Preservation Officer, are necessary to protect the inherent values of the property 

that made it eligible for listing in the National Register. 

• Exceptions. All or certain stipulated methods of coal mining may be allowed if, after consultation 

with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer, 

they are approved by the surface management agency, and, where appropriate, the State or local 

agency with jurisdiction over the historic site. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made substantial legal 

and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface coal mining operations 

were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include operations on which a permit has 

been issued. 

This criterion applies to districts, sites, objects, and other items of historical, architectural, 

archaeological, or cultural significance in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places. Although no sites within the KRCRA have been included in the National 

Register, there are a large number of known and documented archaeological sites that have been 

determined eligible. The exception for stipulated coal mining methods that will not result in 

adverse impacts is applicable; however, mitigation may be required for eligible sites where 

adverse impacts cannot be avoided. The State Historic Preservation Officer has identified 

possible subsidence problems associated with underground mining. Stipulations would be 

necessary in any future leases to mitigate the adverse effects of subsidence. 

Summary: Criterion 7—No acres are determined to be unsuitable at this time. 

Criterion Number 8 

Federal lands designated as natural areas or as National Natural Landmarks shall be considered 

unsuitable. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued and mining operation approved in an area or site if the surface 

management agency determines that: (i) The use of appropriate stipulated mining technology will 

result in no significant adverse impact to the area or site; or (ii) The mining of the coal resource 

under appropriate stipulations will enhance information recovery (e.g., paleontological sites). 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: To which the operator made substantial legal 

and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface coal mining operations 

were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which includes operations on which a permit has 

been issued. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-9

There are no designated natural areas or National Natural Landmarks designated under 43 CFR 

2070 within the KRCRA. 

Summary: Criterion 8—No acres are determined to be unsuitable. 

Criterion Number 9 

Federally designated critical habitat for listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species, 

and habitat proposed to be designated as critical for listed threatened or endangered plant and 

animal species or species proposed for listing, and habitat for Federal threatened or endangered 

species which is determined by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the surface management 

agency to be of essential value and where the presence of threatened or endangered species has 

been scientifically documented, shall be considered unsuitable. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued and mining operations approved if, after consultation with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the Service determines that the proposed activity is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species and/or its critical habitat. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made substantial legal 

and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface coal mining operations 

were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include operations on which a permit has 

been issued. 

There are approximately 33,972 acres of federally designated critical habitat for the Mexican 

spotted owl (MSO) within the boundaries of the KRCRA. In informal consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), BLM mapped areas that contain only the primary 

constituent elements for MSO habitat, as defined by the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 2001, FR 8530, vol. 66 no. 22). These areas were identified using professional 

judgment and by buffering the 2000 Willey MSO habitat model by 1⁄2 mile. The areas identified 

include approximately 4,380 acres of habitat that would be considered unsuitable for surface coal 

mining or surface facilities. In the event of future leasing, BLM would inventory coal areas for 

threatened and endangered (T&E) plant and animal species in conjunction with a site-specific 

environmental impact statement (EIS) analysis. Critical habitat designations for T&E plant or 

animal species will likely change in the future, at which time the determination of suitability 

would be revised. 

Past surveys include a general reconnaissance for T&E plants in the entire southern Utah coal 

area by Dr. Stanley Welch in 1977. Moderately intensive surveys were conducted by Dr. Kent 

Ostler in 1979 on about 56,500 acres on the Utah Power and Light Company preference right 

lease application area, the El Paso Coal Company leases, and the Resources Company leases. A 

moderately intensive survey on about 26,800 acres in the Alton coal field was conducted by Dr. 

Robert Foster in 1979. UDWR inventoried the coal areas of southern Utah for T&E animals in 

1977 and 1978. The process included a literature search and field inventories. In 1979 and 1980, 

BLM conducted an essential habitat inventory for the Utah prairie dog, peregrine falcon, and 

bald eagle in southern Utah. Several bald eagle sightings were made on the Alton and Kolob coal 

fields, and one concentration area was located (Criterion 12). No peregrine falcons or Utah 

prairie dogs were identified closer than 10 miles from the KRCRA (Escalante and Zion Unit 

Resource Analyses; Johnson 1979; UDWR 1977; USFWS 1978, 44 FR 7096, December 10, 

1979). 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-10

The exception in this criterion could allow for surface mining and surface facilities within these 

areas only after the USFWS determined that the proposed activity is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the MSO or other listed species in the future and/or their critical habitats. 

The exemption for substantial legal and financial commitments and ongoing mining operations 

does not apply because there are no active leases or operations within the planning area. 

Summary: Criterion 9—Approximately 4,380 acres are determined to be unsuitable for surface 

coal mining and surface impacts incident to underground mining in the KDA. Exception(s) to 

this criterion may be applicable subject to site-specific analysis and consultation with USFWS. 

Criterion Number 10 

Federal lands containing habitat determined to be critical or essential for plant or animal species 

listed by a state pursuant to state law as endangered or threatened shall be considered unsuitable. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued and mining operations approved if, after consultation 

with the state, the surface management agency determines that the species will not be 

adversely affected by all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: To which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued.

The State of Utah does not maintain an official state T&E species list; therefore, no state-listed 

T&E plant or animal species or critical habitat exists for this criterion. 

Summary: Criterion 10—No acres are determined to be unsuitable. 

Criterion Number 11 

A bald or golden eagle nest or site on Federal lands that is determined to be active and an 

appropriate buffer zone of land around the nest site shall be considered unsuitable. Consideration 

of availability of habitat for prey species and of terrain shall be included in the determination of 

buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be determined in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued if: (i) It can be conditioned in such a way, either in 

manner or period of operation, that eagles will not be disturbed during breeding season; 

or (ii) The surface management agency, with the concurrence of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, determines that the golden eagle nest(s) will be moved. (iii) Buffer zones may be 

decreased if the surface management agency determines that the active eagle nests will 

not be adversely affected. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-11

In 2003, UDWR identified an active bald eagle nest within the KPA adjacent to the KRCRA. 

When including a 1-mile buffer zone, a portion of the KRCRA is intersected. Nests are 

considered active for a period of 7 years after discovery of a nest in use. Exercising (iii) of the 

exception above, the buffer has been modified because the natural topography provides adequate 

protection for the nest site. Approximately 20 acres of land remain unsuitable after the 

readjustment. Leasing may be feasible within the area determined to be unsuitable if the 

condition of exceptions (i and ii) are met. The underground exemption could also be applied on 

possible future leasing. Future leases would stipulate that no surface facilities could be built 

within a 1-mile radius of an active nest site and that surface operations could be conducted only 

between September 1 and December 31 of each year (Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor 

Protection From Human and Land Use Disturbances [USFWS 1999]). Future inventories by 

UDWR and BLM may identify additional eagle nests within the coal areas that would render the 

nest and buffer areas unsuitable. 

The exemption for substantial legal and financial commitments and ongoing mining operations 

does not apply because there are no active leases or operations within the planning area. 

Summary: Criterion 11—Approximately 20 acres are determined to be unsuitable for surface 

coal mining and surface impacts incident to underground mining. The exception in this criterion 

may be applicable subject to site-specific analysis and consultation with USFWS. 

Criterion Number 12 

Bald and golden eagle roost and concentration areas on Federal lands used during migration and 

wintering shall be considered unsuitable. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued if the surface management agency determines that all 

or certain stipulated methods of coal mining can be conducted in such a way, and during 

such periods of time, to ensure that eagles shall not be adversely disturbed. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

BLM and UDWR inventories have identified a bald eagle winter concentration area of 

approximately 1,160 acres on Table Bench along the North Fork of the Virgin River. The 

wintering area is used from about November 1 to March 15 each year. The rough surface 

topography and the deep coals have led to the determination that only underground methods 

would be used to mine this area. The exception and underground exemption could be applied to 

possible future leases and surface facilities to restrict activities that could adversely disturb the 

eagles during the winter concentration period. Future inventories by BLM and UDWR may 

identify other bald eagle concentration areas within the coal areas, which could affect suitability 

(BLM 1978 and 1979, Zion Unit Analysis; UDWR 1977; Johnson 1979). 

The exemption for substantial legal and financial commitments and ongoing mining operations 

does not apply because there are no active leases or operations within the planning area. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-12

Summary: Criterion 12—Approximately 1,160 acres are determined to be unsuitable for 

surface coal mining and surface impacts incident to underground mining. The exception in this 

criterion may be applicable subject to site-specific analysis. 

Criterion Number 13 

Federal lands containing a falcon (excluding kestrel) cliff nesting site with an active nest and a 

buffer zone of Federal land around the nest site shall be considered unsuitable. Consideration of 

availability of habitat for prey species and of terrain shall be included in the determination of 

buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be determined in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued where the surface management agency, after 

consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, determines that all or certain stipulated 

methods of coal mining will not adversely affect the falcon habitat during the periods 

when such habitat is used by the falcons. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

BLM and UDWR inventories conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s identified several 

prairie falcon nesting sites within the KPA, two of which were located within the KRCRA (BLM 

1978, 1979 Zion and Escalante Unit Resource Analyses; UDWR 1977, 1978; Hoffman 1978; 

Johnson 1979; BLM field inventories 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1980). No recent surveys have been 

conducted to verify this data. Because of the amount of time that has passed since the data was 

collected and the likelihood of a change of status, no lands are designated as unsuitable under 

this criterion. A more thorough analysis would be required at the time of coal leasing to 

adequately address this criterion. Future inventories by UDWR and BLM or site-specific lease 

analysis may identify new falcon nests within coal areas. At that time the lands would be 

designated unsuitable unless the exception could be applied. 

Summary: Criterion 13—No acres are determined to be unsuitable. 

Criterion Number 14 

Federal lands which are high priority habitat for migratory bird species of high Federal interest 

on a regional or national basis, as determined jointly by the surface management agency and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be considered unsuitable. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued where the surface management agency, after 

consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, determines that all or certain stipulated 

methods of coal mining will not adversely affect the migratory bird habitat during the 

periods when such habitat is used by the species. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-13

Several Bird Habitat Conservation Areas have been identified by the Intermountain West Joint 

Venture (IWJV) along the East Fork of the Virgin River, East Fork of the Sevier River (Parker 

Mountain), and Escalante River in and adjacent to the KRCRA. In consultation with USFWS, 

BLM determined that high-priority habitats for migratory birds exist along these corridors, 

defined as a 1⁄2-mile buffer zone from the outer edge of the bank. Approximately 8,376 acres of 

the KRCRA would be affected and considered unsuitable. Future leasing within these areas 

could occur if site-specific consultation with USFWS determined that such operations would not 

adversely affect the migratory bird habitat during the periods of use. 

The underground exemption does not apply in this criterion because of the potential to affect 

hydrologic systems and riparian habitat. 

The exemption for substantial legal and financial commitments and ongoing mining operations 

does not apply because there are no active leases or operations within the planning area. 

Summary: Criterion 14—Approximately 8,120 acres are determined to be unsuitable for 

surface coal mining and surface impacts incident to underground mining. The exception in this 

criterion may be applicable subject to site-specific analysis and consultation with USFWS. 

Criterion Number 15 

Federal lands which the surface management agency and the state jointly agree are habitat for 

resident species of fish, wildlife and plants of high interest to the state and which are essential for 

maintaining these priority wildlife and plant species shall be considered unsuitable. Examples of 

such lands which serve a critical function for the species involved include: (i) Active dancing 

and strutting grounds for Greater sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and prairie chicken; (ii) 

Winter ranges crucial for deer, antelope, and elk; (iii) Migration corridor for elk; and (iv) 

Extremes of range for plant species. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued if, after consultation with the state, the surface 

management agency determines that all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining will 

not have a significant long-term impact on the species being protected. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: To which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

There are approximately 18,330 acres of crucial elk winter range; 12,780 acres of crucial mule 

deer winter range; 8,735 acres of Greater sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing 

habitat; and 12 acres classified as leks on federal coal lands within the KRCRA. The State of 

Utah and BLM agree that elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse habitats should remain suitable 

because site-specific analyses would occur before coal field leasing. Presently there is an EIS 

underway as part of a coal leasing application in the Alton Amphitheater. High-interest habitat 

issues will be addressed in this EIS. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-14

Table A0-4. State Sensitive Species Habitat 

State Sensitive Species Habitat 

(acres of habitat by ownership) USFS BLM State Surface 

Private 

Surface 

Elk 17,015 1,235 80 

Mule Deer 8,445 2,530 680 1,125 

Sage-Grouse Breeding, Nesting, and 

Brood-Rearing 5,735 1,940 1,060 

Sage-Grouse Lek 12 

Neither the BLM nor the State of Utah has high-interest plant species of concern within the 

KRCRA. 

The first exception and underground exemption in this criterion would apply. 

The exemption for substantial legal and financial commitments and ongoing mining operations 

does not apply because there are no active leases or operations within the planning area. 

Summary: Criterion 15—No acres are determined to be unsuitable. 

Criterion Number 16 

Federal lands in riverine, coastal and special floodplains (100-year recurrence interval) on which 

the surface management agency determines that mining could not be undertaken without 

substantial threat of loss of life or property shall be considered unsuitable for all or certain 

stipulated methods of coal mining. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: To which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Data for this criterion is not presently available to adequately delineate riverine and special 

floodplains. Limited 100-year flood hazard maps are available from the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, but the data is not adequate to determine the threat 

assessment. A more thorough analysis will be required at the time of coal leasing to adequately 

address this criterion. 

Summary: Criterion 16—No acres are determined to be unsuitable. 

Criterion Number 17 

Federal lands which have been committed by the surface management agency to use as 

municipal watersheds shall be considered unsuitable. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued where the surface management agency in consultation 

with the municipality (incorporated entity) or the responsible governmental unit 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-15

determines, as a result of studies, that all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining 

will not adversely affect the watershed to any significant degree. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: To which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

No lands within the KRCRA have been committed for use as municipal watersheds. 

Summary: Criterion 17—No acres are determined to be unsuitable. 

Criterion Number 18 

Federal lands with National Resource Waters, as identified by states in their water quality 

management plans, and a buffer zone of Federal lands 1⁄4 mile from the outer edge of the far 

banks of the water, shall be unsuitable. 

• Exceptions. The buffer zone may be eliminated or reduced in size where the surface 

management agency determines that it is not necessary to protect the National Resource 

Waters. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: To which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

In the State of Utah, the designation “High Quality Waters” is the equivalent of National 

Resource Waters, and therefore waters with this designation receive additional regulatory 

protection. 

Within the KPA, the State of Utah has designated Category 1 High Quality Waters in the 

following drainages: 

1. North Fork of the Virgin River and tributaries, from the confluence with the East Fork of 

the Virgin River to its headwaters 

2. East Fork of the Virgin River and tributaries, from the confluence with the North Fork of 

the Virgin River to its headwaters 

3. East Fork of the Sevier River and tributaries, from the Kingston diversion to its 

headwaters 

4. Kanab Creek and tributaries, from the irrigation diversion at the confluence with 

Reservoir Canyon to its headwaters (Utah Administrative Code R317-2-12). 

Consistent with Criterion 18 and state rules, BLM has determined that protection of High Quality 

Waters can be achieved through the use of the unsuitability designation, best management 

practices (BMP), and the state permitting process. Buffers were established for springs and 

perennial and intermittent streams, as follows: 

• Perennial streams: 1⁄4 mile (1,320 feet; 402 meters) slope distance from the outer edge of 

the bank 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-16

• Intermittent streams: 330 feet (100 meters) slope distance from the outer edge of the bank 

• Springs: 330 feet (100 meters) slope distance from the edge of the saturated area. 

The locations of springs and perennial and intermittent stream reaches were determined based on 

interviews with employees of the BLM KFO and NPS (Sharrow, personal communication) as 

well as with a local landowner who has extensive knowledge of the area (Esplin, personal 

communication). Their input was used to edit the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) digital line 

graphs dataset that covers the KPA. Stream segments that would be perennial or intermittent if it 

were not for irrigation diversions were classified according to their potential condition rather 

than their altered condition. 

Approximately 13,760 acres are determined to be unsuitable because of proximity to National 

Resource Waters. It is likely that additional perennial/intermittent streams and springs are 

present that were not mapped. If such waterways are determined to exist after the publication of 

this report, they would be buffered and protected as described above. 

The exemption for substantial legal and financial commitments and ongoing mining operations 

does not apply because there are no active leases or operations within the planning area. 

Summary: Criterion 18—Approximately 12,988 acres are determined to be unsuitable for 

surface coal mining and surface impacts incident to underground mining. 

Criterion Number 19 

Federal lands identified by the surface management agency, in consultation with the state in 

which they are located, as alluvial valley floors according to the definition in §3400.0—5(a) of 

this title, the standards in 30 CFR Part 822, the final alluvial valley floor guidelines of the Office 

of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement when published, and approved state programs 

under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, where mining would interrupt, 

discontinue, or preclude farming, shall be considered unsuitable. Additionally, when mining 

Federal land outside an alluvial valley floor would materially damage the quantity or quality of 

water in surface or underground water systems that would supply alluvial valley floors, the land 

shall be considered unsuitable. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to surface coal mining operations which 

produced coal in commercial quantities in the year preceding August 3, 1977, or which 

had obtained a permit to conduct surface coal mining operations. 

There is insufficient data at this time to determine either suitability or unsuitability of any area 

for coal development under this criterion. Identification of alluvial valley floors (AVF) is 

accomplished by the surface management agency in consultation with the state according to the 

definition in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) (PL 95-87), 

the standards in 30 CFR 822, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) AVF guidelines, and 

approved state programs under SMCRA. 

The AVF guidelines provide a sequential procedure for identifying AVFs. The first phase is a 

reconnaissance investigation that identifies probable AVFs using available regional or 

generalized data. The second phase is more detailed, and involves test drilling and mapping of 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-17

geologic, vegetation, and soils data, leading to a determination that an area meets the criteria 

outlined in the regulations (30 CFR 78 19(c)(2)). The third phase requires more detailed 

descriptions of the AVFs identified in phase two, and involves water monitoring for a sufficient 

period of time to be able to describe seasonal fluctuations. 

In response to a petition to designate certain lands in the study area as unsuitable for surface coal 

mining, OSM completed the first phase of an AVF investigation in the Alton coal field area 

(OSM 1983). The following list represents areas identified as possible AVFs within the KRCRA, 

but additional analysis would be required before leasing: 

1. Kanab Creek, upper and lower 

2. Sink Valley Wash 

3. Unnamed tributary north of Alton and west of Kanab Creek 

4. Thompson Creek 

5. Mill, Tenny, and Skutumpah Creeks 

6. Lower Johnson Wash 

7. Yellow Creek 

8. Upper Paria drainage 

9. East Fork of the Sevier River. 

AVFs may exist within the decision area, but initial mapping of AVFs has occurred only within 

the Alton area and at a reconnaissance level. Approximately 3,850 acres were identified as 

possible AVFs using data obtained from an investigation conducted by Jack Schmidt (1980) and 

BLM geographic information system (GIS) data layers. No lands within the planning area are 

designated as unsuitable under this criterion. A more detailed investigation would be required at 

the time of lease analysis. 

The exemption for ongoing mining operations does not apply because there are no active leases 

or operations within the planning area. 

Summary: Criterion 19—No acres are determined to be unsuitable. 

Criterion Number 20 

Federal lands in a state to which is applicable a criterion (i) proposed by the state or Indian tribe 

located in the planning area, and (ii) adopted by rulemaking by the Secretary, shall be considered 

unsuitable. 

• Exceptions. A lease may be issued when: (i) Such criterion is adopted by the Secretary 

less than 6 months prior to the publication of the draft comprehensive land use plan or 

land use analysis, plan, or supplement to a comprehensive land use plan, for the area in 

which such land is included, or (ii) After consultation with the state or affected Indian 

tribe, the surface management agency determines that all or certain stipulated methods 

of coal mining will not adversely affect the value which the criterion would protect. 

• Exemptions. This criterion does not apply to lands: To which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-18

Neither the State of Utah nor Indian tribes have proposed any criteria that would affect the coal 

lands under review, although in 1980 Secretary of Interior Andrus signed a decision designating 

certain areas in the viewshed of Bryce Canyon National Park unsuitable for surface coal mining 

and surface impacts incident to underground mining. Approximately 31,620 acres fall within the 

KRCRA, and these are determined to be unsuitable. 

The exemption for substantial legal and financial commitments and ongoing mining operations 

does not apply because there are no active leases or operations within the planning area. 

Summary: Criterion 20—Approximately 10,614 acres are determined to be unsuitable for 

surface coal mining and surface impacts incident to underground mining. 

SUMMARY OF THE UNSUITABILITY EVALUATION

The coal resources with development potential within the KPA have been evaluated based on the 

20 criteria of unsuitability. Based on the criteria, the coal resources that are considered unsuitable 

for surface coal mining or surface operations and impacts incident to underground mining are 

shown on Map 2. These resources have been determined to be unsuitable based on Criteria 1, 3, 

4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20. As a result of this analysis, there are approximately 35,538 acres 

within the KDA that are determined to be unsuitable for surface coal mining or operations and 

surface impacts incident to underground mining. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-19

REFERENCES 

Bureau of Land Management. 1978 and 1979. Escalante, Paria, and Zion Unit Resource Analysis 

(URA) and Management Framework Plans (MFP), Kanab, Utah. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1979 and 1980. Essential Habitat Inventory for the Utah Prairie 

Dog, Peregrine Falcon, and the Bald Eagle, Southern Utah. 

Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, 1979. Wilderness Inventory—State of Utah 

(Map), Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Kanab Field Office Mineral Potential Report. Prepared by 

Utah Geological Survey. 

Doelling, H.H., and Graham, R.L. 1972. Southwestern Utah Coal Fields: Alton, Kaiparowits 

Plateau, and Kolb-Harmony, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Monograph Series No. 

1. 

Intermountain West Joint Venture, Utah Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated Implementation 

Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah. 

Hoffman, S. 1978. Inventory of Nesting Raptors in the Escalante Resource Area. Unpublished 

final report. 

Ostler, K. 1980. A Survey of Proposed Endangered and Threatened Plants of the Kaiparowits 

Plateau Area, Kane and Garfield Counties, Utah. Unpublished report. BLM Cedar City 

District Office, Cedar City, Utah. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM). 1983. Alluvial Valley Floors 

Identification and Study Guidelines. 

Schmidt, J.C. 1980. Reconnaissance Determination of Alluvial Valley Floor Status and 

Assessment of Selected Geomorphic Parameters in Selected Stream Valleys of the Alton 

Petition Area and Adjoining Lands, Garfield and Kane counties, Utah. Report prepared 

for Office of Surface Mining. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Dixie National Forest. 1983. Coal Unsuitability 

Study. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. FEMA 100 Year Flood Maps. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1978. Ranking of Wildlife on Federal Lands, vol. 4, 

Utah. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Johnson, C., Coal Coordinator. 1979. Personal 

communication with Steve Hedges, wildlife biologist, BLM Cedar City District Office, 

Cedar City, Utah. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 6 

A6-20

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor 

Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. FR 8530, vol. 66, no. 22. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 1977. Endangered and Unique Terrestrial 

Wildlife Species within the Coal Study Area. Final Report to Bureau of Land 

Management. BLM Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Utah Steering Committee Intermountain West Joint Venture. Coordinated Implementation Plan 

for Bird Conservation in Utah, 2005. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A6-21 

MAP 1.

FEDERAL 

COAL 

OWNERSHIP 

WITHIN KRCRA 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Append

A6-22 

MAP 2. COAL RESOURCES CONSIDERED UNSUITABLE FOR SURFACE MINING 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 7 

A7-1 

APPENDIX 7—TRAVEL MANAGEMENT/ROUTE 

DESIGNATION PROCESS 

The Kanab Field Office (KFO) used the following process for route designation alternatives 

during development of the Kanab Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). This process included route inventory, interdisciplinary team (ID team) 

assessment, and cooperating agency coordination. 

ROUTE INVENTORY

The KFO conducted a complete route inventory in 2005 and 2006 to develop a route baseline for 

use in the planning process. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees with global 

positioning system (GPS) equipment digitized the routes while traveling on off-highway vehicles 

(OHV) and by foot. The digitized route data was verified and prepared for interdisciplinary 

review. In addition, Garfield County provided route data in a geographic information system 

(GIS) data layer. Data from the BLM inventory was overlaid with the Garfield County route 

data, and discrepancies were identified, reviewed, and resolved through ground-truthing and 

resource specialist review. Kane County provided paper maps with route data. These maps were 

reviewed, and any additional routes were ground-truthed with GPS and BLM employees. Where 

GPS data was incomplete, recent aerial photography was inspected to complete GIS datagaps. 

While inventorying the routes, staff collected surface type and primary and secondary usage 

associated with each route. 

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ASSESSMENT

Team members reviewed the route inventory during a series of ID team meetings. The team 

made the following assumptions: 

• Prohibit motorized vehicle cross-country travel, except in designated open areas 

• Close routes (permanently, seasonally, or temporarily) or relocate as appropriate to 

address resource concerns 

• Evaluate parallel, duplicative, or redundant routes for potential closure 

• Where routes, trails, or other facilities have been abandoned, provide for restoration and 

revegetation of the site

• Prohibit motorized use of designated closed routes, except for BLM administrative and 

emergency use 

• Sign and map designated routes as motorized or non-motorized; travel maps should be 

user friendly and easily accessible 

• Existing route designations may be changed pursuant to land management objectives 

• The travel management plan should be flexible about the location of new routes needed 

to provide access for new activities or to new areas or to reduce resource and/or user 

conflicts 

• Where and when appropriate, plan, develop, and designate (in cooperation with user 

groups and cooperating agencies) new routes and trails that enhance and expand 

recreational opportunities and encourage responsible use. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 7 

A7-2 

The ID team applied the following factors to the route inventory and used other BLM inventories 

and natural and cultural resource information to identify routes for designation. The team 

considered the following: 

• Environmental sensitivity of the areas surrounding the route, including soil 

type/condition, riparian areas and their condition, wilderness study areas (WSA), and 

weeds 

• Wildlife habitat sensitivity of the areas surrounding the route, including designated 

critical habitat, sensitive status species habitat, or crucial habitat 

• Current and anticipated visitor use levels and travel and transportation needs and desires 

• Management objectives for the area and the potential for user and resource conflicts 

• Access needs for BLM-permitted or authorized activities (e.g., range permittees, 

recreation permittees, and mineral developments) 

• Access needs for non-BLM-administered lands 

• Cultural resources and specific sites that require protection 

• How route designation could be used to reduce existing or anticipated conflict between 

users 

• How route designation would affect setting, recreation activity, and experience 

opportunities in the area. 

PLAN MAINTENANCE AND CHANGES TO ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

The RMP includes indicators that guide future plan maintenance, amendments, or revisions 

related to OHV area designations or the approved road and trail system within “Limited” areas. 

Future conditions may require the designation or construction of new routes or closure of routes 

to better address resources and resource use conflicts. Actual route designations within the 

“Limited” category can be modified without completing a plan amendment, although compliance 

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

As Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2004-061 notes, plan maintenance can be accomplished 

through additional analysis and land use planning (e.g., activity level planning). The BLM will 

collaborate with affected and interested parties in evaluating the designated road and trail 

network for suitability for active OHV management and envisioning potential changes in the 

existing system or adding new trails that would help meet current and future demands. In 

conducting such evaluations, the following factors would be considered: 

• Routes suitable for various categories of OHVs (e.g., motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles 

[ATVs], dune buggies, and 4-wheel-drive touring vehicles) and opportunities for joint 

trail use 

• Needs for parking, trailheads, informational and directional signs, mapping and profiling, 

and development of brochures or other materials for public dissemination 

• Opportunities to tie into existing or planned route networks 

• Measures needed to meet the objectives stated in the RMP (e.g., cultural resources, soil 

resources, special status species, and recreation) 

• Public land roads or trails determined to cause considerable adverse effects or to 

constitute a nuisance or threat to public safety would be considered for relocation or 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 7 

A7-3 

closure and rehabilitation after appropriate coordination with applicable agencies and 

partners 

• Those areas managed as closed will not be available for new motorized designation or 

construction. 

Regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 8342.2 require the BLM to monitor the 

effects of OHV use. Changes should be made to the Travel Plan based on the information 

obtained through monitoring. Site-specific NEPA documentation is required for changing the 

route designations in this Travel Plan. 

COOPERATING AGENCY COORDINATION

BLM managers and planners met with cooperating agency representatives to review the 

inventory and discuss concerns. Maps provided at each meeting were used throughout the 

discussions. Specifically, Kane County and Garfield County representatives raised concerns 

regarding routes they claimed under Revised Statute (RS) 2477. In addition, duplicative routes, 

routes with maintenance concerns, maintenance standards, and access to the counties’ resources 

were discussed in relation to the route inventory. 

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

Implementation decisions are actions that the BLM takes to implement land use plans (LUP) and 

generally constitute the BLM’s final approval for allowing on-the-ground actions to proceed. 

These types of decisions, which are based on site-specific planning and NEPA analyses, are 

subject to the administrative remedies set forth in the regulations that apply to each BLM 

resource management program. Implementation decisions are not subject to protest under the 

planning regulations; rather, they are subject to various administrative remedies. Where 

implementation decisions are made as part of the land use planning process, they are still subject 

to the appeals process or other administrative review as prescribed by specific resource program 

regulations after the BLM resolves the protests to LUP decisions and makes a decision to adopt 

or amend the Approved RMP. 

The travel planning and implementation process includes the following: 

• Monitoring the transportation system and modifying as appropriate 

• A map of roads and trails for all travel modes 

• Notations of any limitation for specific roads and trails 

• Criteria to select or reject roads and trails in the final travel management network, add 

new roads or trails, and specify limitations 

• Guidelines for management, monitoring, and maintenance of the transportation system 

• Needed easements and rights-of-ways (to be issued to the BLM or others) to maintain the 

existing road and trail network providing public land access. 

The Approved RMP completes the initial route designation component of the Travel 

Management Plan and implementation process. These routes would be the initial basis for 

signing and enforcement. The Field Office will prioritize additional implementation actions, 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 7 

A7-4 

resources, and geographic areas based on the Approved RMP goals and objectives and in 

accordance with the guidelines noted above.
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-1 

APPENDIX 8—WILDLAND FIRE RESOURCE 

PROTECTION MEASURES AND REASONABLE AND 

PRUDENT MEASURES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, 

AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED 

THROUGH SECTION 7 CONSULTATION 

The existing land use plans (LUP) that constitute Alternative A (No Action Alternative) were 

amended September 26, 2005, with the Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record 

(UT-USO-04-01) Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management. The 

decisions from that document have been brought forward in their entirety. A majority of the 

decisions are located in the Management Common to All Alternatives section of the Proposed 

Resource Management Plan (RMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Chapter 2 

under the Wildland Fire Ecology heading. This appendix contains the remainder of the decisions, 

in the form of resource protection measures and terms and conditions identified through Section 

7 consultation, that were too long to be easily integrated into Chapter 2 of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE UTAH LAND USE PLAN 

AMENDMENT FOR FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT

Applicable Fire Management Practices: 

SUP: Wildfire Suppression 

WFU: Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit 

RX: Prescribed Fire 

NF: Non-Fire Fuel Treatments 

ESR: Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation

Air 

A-1 Evaluate weather conditions, including wind speed and atmospheric stability, to predict impacts from smoke from 

prescribed fires and wildland fire use. Coordinate with Utah Department of Environmental Quality for prescribed fires 

and wildland fire use. (RX, WFU) 

A-2 When using chemical fuels reduction methods, follow all label requirements for herbicide application. (NF) 

Soil and Water 

SW-1 Avoid heavy equipment use on highly erosive soils (soils with low soil loss tolerance), wet or boggy soils, and 

slopes greater than 30 percent, unless otherwise analyzed and allowed under appropriate National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation with implementation of additional erosion control and other soil protection mitigation 

measures. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

SW-2 There may be situations where high-intensity fire will occur on sensitive and erosive soil types during wildland 

fire, wildland fire use, or prescribed fire. If significant areas of soil show evidence of high-severity fire, evaluate the area 

for soil erosion potential and downstream values at risk and implement appropriate or necessary soil stabilization 

actions such as mulching or seeding to avoid excessive wind and water erosion. (SUP, WFU, RX) 

SW-3 Complete necessary rehabilitation on firelines or other areas of direct soil disturbance, including but not limited to 

waterbarring firelines, covering and mulching firelines with slash, tilling and/or subsoiling compacted areas, scarification 

of vehicle tracks, off-highway vehicles (OHV) closures, and seeding and/or mulching for erosion protection. (SUP, 

WFU, RX) 

SW-4 When using mechanical fuels reduction treatments, limit tractor and heavy equipment use to periods of low soil 

moisture to reduce the risk of soil compaction. If this is not practical, evaluate sites post-treatment and, if necessary, 

implement appropriate remediation, such as subsoiling, as part of the operation. (NF) 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-2 

Applicable Fire Management Practices: 

SUP: Wildfire Suppression 

WFU: Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit 

RX: Prescribed Fire 

NF: Non-Fire Fuel Treatments 

ESR: Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation

SW-5 Treatments such as chaining, plowing, and roller chopping shall be conducted as much as practical on the 

contour to reduce soil erosion (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] Record of Decision [ROD] 13 Western States 

Vegetation Treatment EIS 1991). (NF, ESR) 

SW-6 When using chemical fuel reduction treatments follow all label directions, additional mitigations identified in 

project NEPA evaluation, and the Approved Pesticide Use Proposal. At a minimum, provide a 100-foot-wide riparian 

buffer strip for aerial application, 25 feet for vehicle application, and 10 feet for hand application. Any deviations must 

be in accordance with the label. Herbicides would be applied to individual plants within 10 feet of water where 

application is critical (BLM ROD 13 Western States Vegetation Treatment EIS 1991). (NF) 

SW-7 Avoid heavy equipment in riparian or wetland areas. During fire suppression or wildland fire use, consult a 

resource advisor before using heavy equipment in riparian or wetland areas. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

SW-8 Limit ignition within native riparian or wetland areas. Allow low-intensity fire to burn into riparian areas. (RX) 

SW-9 Suppress wildfires consistently with compliance strategies for restoring or maintaining the restoration of water 

quality impaired (303(d) listed) water bodies. Do not use retardant within 300 feet of water bodies. (SUP, WFU) 

SW-10 Plan and implement projects consistent with compliance strategies for restoring or maintaining the restoration of 

water quality impaired (303(d) listed) water bodies. Planned activities shall take into account the potential impacts on 

water quality, including increased water yields that can threaten fisheries and aquatic habitat; improvements at channel 

crossings; channel stability; and downstream values. Of special concern are small headwaters of moderate to steep 

watersheds, erosive or saline soils, multiple channel crossings, at-risk fisheries, and downstream residents. (RX, NF, 

ESR) 

Vegetation 

V-1 When restoring or rehabilitating disturbed rangelands, non-intrusive, non-native plant species are appropriate for 

use when native species: (1) are not available; (2) are not economically feasible; (3) cannot achieve ecological 

objectives as well as non-native species; and/or (4) cannot compete with already established native species (Noxious 

Weeds Executive Order 13112 2/3/1999; BLM Manual 9015; BLM ROD 13 Western States Vegetation Treatment EIS 

1991). (RX, NF, ESR) 

V-2 In areas known to have weed infestations, aggressive action will be taken in rehabilitating firelines, seeding and 

follow-up monitoring, and treatment to reduce the spread of noxious weeds. Monitor burned areas and treat as 

necessary. All seed used will be tested for purity and for noxious weeds. Seed with noxious weeds will be rejected 

(ROD 13 Western States Vegetation Treatment EIS 1991). (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

Special Status Species 

SSS-1 Initiate emergency Section 7 consultation with United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) upon the 

determination that wildfire suppression may pose a potential threat to any listed threatened or endangered species or 

adverse modification of designated critical habitat. (SUP) 

SSS-3 Prior to planned fire management actions, survey for listed threatened and endangered and non-listed sensitive 

species. Initiate Section 7 consultation with USFWS as necessary if proposed project may affect any listed species. 

Review appropriate management, conservation, and recovery plans and include recovery plan direction into project 

proposals. For non-listed special status plant and animal species, follow the direction contained in the BLM 6840 

Manual. Ensure that any proposed project conserves non-listed sensitive species and their habitats and ensure that 

any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM does not contribute to the need for any species to become 

listed. (RX, NF, ESR) 

SSS-4 Follow terms and conditions identified in the Biological Opinion (see section below). (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

Fish and Wildlife 

FW-1 Avoid treatments during nesting, fawning, spawning, or other critical periods for wildlife or fish. (RX, NF, ESR) 

FW-2 Avoid if possible or limit the size of wildland fires in important wildlife habitats such as mule deer winter range 

and riparian and occupied Greater sage-grouse habitat. Use resource advisors to help prioritize resources and develop 

Wildland Fire Situation Analyses and Wildland Fire Implementation Plans when important habitats may be impacted. 

(SUP, WFU) 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-3 

Applicable Fire Management Practices: 

SUP: Wildfire Suppression 

WFU: Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit 

RX: Prescribed Fire 

NF: Non-Fire Fuel Treatments 

ESR: Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation

FW-3 Minimize wildfire size and frequency in sagebrush communities where sage-grouse habitat objectives will not be 

met if a fire occurs. Prioritize wildfire suppression in sagebrush habitat with an understory of invasive, annual species. 

Retain unburned islands and patches of sagebrush unless there are compelling safety, private property, and resource 

protection or control objectives at risk. Minimize burnout operations (to minimize burned acres) in occupied sagegrouse habitats when there are no threats to human life and/or important resources. (SUP) 

FW-4 Establish fuel treatment projects at strategic locations to minimize size of wildfires and to limit further loss of 

sagebrush. Fuel treatments may include greenstripping to help reduce the spread of wildfires into sagebrush 

communities. (RX, NF) 

FW-5 Use wildland fire to meet wildlife objectives. Evaluate impacts on sage-grouse habitat in areas where wildland fire 

use for resource benefit may be implemented. (WFU, RX) 

FW-6 Create small openings in continuous or dense sagebrush (more than 30 percent canopy cover) to create a 

mosaic of multiple-age classes and associated understory diversity across the landscape to benefit sagebrushdependent species. (WFU, RX, NF) 

FW-7 On sites that are currently occupied by forests or woodlands, but historically supported sagebrush communities, 

implement treatments (fire, cutting, chaining, seeding, etc.) to reestablish sagebrush communities. (RX, NF) 

FW-8 Evaluate and monitor burned areas and continue management restrictions until the recovering and/or seeded 

plant community reflect the desired condition. (SUP, WFU, RX, ESR) 

FW-9 Use the ESR program to apply appropriate post-fire treatments within crucial wildlife habitats, including sagegrouse habitats. Minimize seeding with non-native species that may create a continuous perennial grass cover and 

restrict establishment of native vegetation. Seed mixtures shall be designed to reestablish important seasonal habitat 

components for sage-grouse. Leks shall not be reseeded with plants that change the vegetation height previously 

found on the lek. Forbs shall be stressed in early and late brood-rearing habitats. In situations of limited funds for ESR 

actions, prioritize rehabilitation of sage-grouse habitats. (ESR) 

Cultural Resources 

CR-1 Cultural resource advisors shall be contacted when fires occur in areas containing sensitive cultural resources. 

(SUP) 

CR-2 Wildland fire use is discouraged in areas containing sensitive cultural resources. A programmatic agreement is 

being prepared to cover the finding of adverse effects on cultural resources associated with wildland fire use. (WFU) 

CR-3 Potential impacts of proposed treatment shall be evaluated for compliance with the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) and the Utah Statewide Protocol. This shall be conducted prior to the proposed treatment. (RX, NF, ESR) 

Paleontology 

P-1 Planned projects shall be consistent with BLM Manual and Handbook H-8270-1, Chapter III (A) and III (B), to avoid 

areas where significant fossils are known or predicted to occur or to provide for other mitigation of possible adverse 

effects. (RX, NF, ESR) 

P-2 In the event that paleontological resources are discovered in the course of surface fire management activities, 

including fires suppression, efforts shall be made to protect these resources. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

Forestry 

F-1 Planned projects shall be consistent with Healthy Forest Restoration Act Section 102(e)(2) to maintain or contribute 

to the restoration of old-growth stands to a pre-fire-suppression condition and to retain large trees contributing to oldgrowth structure. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF) 

F-2 During planning, evaluate opportunities to use forest and woodland products prior to implementing prescribed fire 

activities. Include opportunities to use forest and woodland product sales to accomplish non-fire fuel treatments. In 

forest and woodland stands, consider developing silvicultural prescriptions concurrently with fuel treatment 

prescriptions. (RX, NF) 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-4 

Applicable Fire Management Practices: 

SUP: Wildfire Suppression 

WFU: Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit 

RX: Prescribed Fire 

NF: Non-Fire Fuel Treatments 

ESR: Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation

Livestock Grazing 

LG-1 Coordinate with permittees regarding the requirements for non-use or rest of treated areas. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, 

ESR) 

LG-2 Rangelands that have been burned by wildfire, prescribed fire, or wildland fire use will be ungrazed for a minimum 

of one complete growing season following the burn. (SUP, WFU, RX) 

LG-3 Rangelands that have been reseeded or otherwise treated to alter vegetative composition, chemically or 

mechanically, will be ungrazed for a minimum of two complete growing seasons. (RX, NF, ESR) 

Recreation and Visitor Services 

Rec-1 Wildland fire suppression efforts will preferentially protect Special Recreation Management Areas and recreation 

site infrastructure in line with fire management goals and objectives. (SUP) 

Rec-2 Vehicle tracks created off established routes will be obliterated after fire management actions in order to reduce 

unauthorized OHV travel. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

Lands and Realty 

LR-1 Fire management practices will be designed to avoid or otherwise ensure the protection of authorized rights-ofway (ROW) and other facilities located on the public lands, including coordination with holders of major ROW systems 

within ROW corridors and communication sites. (WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

LR-2 Fire management actions must not destroy, deface, change, or remove to another place any monument or 

witness tree of the Public Land Survey System. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

Hazardous Waste 

HW-1 Recognize hazardous wastes and move fire personnel to a safe distance from dumped chemicals, unexploded 

ordnance, drug labs, wire burn sites, or any other hazardous wastes. Immediately notify the BLM Field Office HAZMAT 

coordinator or state HAZMAT coordinator upon discovery of any hazardous materials, following the BLM hazardous 

materials contingency plan. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

Mineral Resources 

M-1 A safety buffer shall be maintained between fire management activities and at-risk facilities. (SUP, WFU, RX) 

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas 

Wild-1 The use of earth-moving equipment must be authorized by the Field Office manager. (SUP, WFU, RX, ESR) 

Wild-2 Fire management actions will rely on the most effective methods of suppression that are least damaging to 

wilderness values, other resources, and the environment, while requiring the least expenditure of public funds. (SUP, 

WFU) 

Wild-3 A resource advisor shall be consulted when fire occurs in Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas 

(WSA). (SUP, WFU) 

U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT, INCLUDING 

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ESA SPECIES OF THE BIOLOGICAL OPINION

The USFWS has completed a biological opinion on the Proposed Action alternative and terms 

and conditions have been identified as part of that opinion. Together, the resource protection 

measures and the terms and conditions were incorporated into the Proposed Action to reduce 

resource conflicts. Species that were addressed in the complete statement contained in the 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-5 

Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record (UT-USO-04-01) Utah Land Use Plan 

Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management that do not occur within the decision area or are not 

affected by management in the EIS alternatives are not include in the Incidental Take Statement 

below. 

Incidental Take Statement 

Section 9 of the ESA, as amended, prohibits take (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species of fish or 

wildlife without a special exemption. “Harm” is further defined to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly 

impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 173). “Harass” is 

defined as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to 

significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, which include but are not limited to breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).

No exemption from Section 9 of the Act is granted in this biological opinion. The Bureau of 

Land Management’s (BLM) implementation of the Land Use Plan Amendment and Five Fire 

Management Plans is likely to adversely affect listed species. The likelihood of incidental take, 

and the identification of reasonable and prudent measures (RPM) and terms and conditions to 

minimize such take, will be addressed in project-level and possibly programmatic-level 

consultations. Any incidental take and measures to reduce such take cannot be effectively 

identified at the level of proposed action because of the uncertainty of wildland fire, broad 

geographic scope, and the lack of site-specific information. Rather, incidental take and RPMs 

may be identified adequately through subsequent actions subject to Section 7 consultations at the 

project and/or programmatic scale. 

Even though actual take levels are unquantifiable, take will occur through harm and harassment. 

Therefore, we are providing the following RPMs and terms and conditions to minimize overall 

take. Implementation of these RPMs and terms and conditions during project planning will also 

expedite site-specific Section 7 consultation. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

The USFWS believes that the following RPMs are necessary and appropriate to minimize 

impacts of incidental take on Utah prairie dog, Southwestern willow flycatcher, California 

condor, bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl (MSO), and Siler pincushion cactus: 

1. The BLM shall implement measures to minimize mortality or injury of federally 

listed species due to proposed project activities without placing firefighter personnel 

at risk. The species that were determined likely to be adversely affected by project 

activities included Utah prairie dog, Southwestern willow flycatcher, California 

condor, bald eagle, MSO, and Siler pincushion cactus. 

2. The BLM shall implement measures to minimize harm to federally listed species 

through destruction of their suitable or designated critical habitats without placing 

firefighter personnel at risk. The species’ habitats that were determined likely to be 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-6 

adversely affected by project activities included Utah prairie dog, Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, California condor, bald eagle, MSO, and Siler pincushion cactus. 

Terms and Conditions 

To be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the Act, the BLM must comply with the 

following terms and conditions, which implement the RPMs described above and outline 

reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. The 

following terms and conditions apply to all species covered under this biological opinion and are 

to be implemented in addition to the Applicant Committed Measures described in the Proposed 

Action. 

General Terms and Conditions 

1. To implement RPM 1: 

a. Before the beginning of each fire season, a threatened and endangered species 

education program will be presented to all personnel anticipated to be within 

federally listed species habitats during suppression activities. This program will 

contain information concerning the biology and distribution of listed species 

throughout the Fire Management Plan Planning Area, their legal status, fire 

suppression goals, and restrictions within suitable and critical habitat. Following 

training, each individual will sign a completion sheet to be placed on file at the 

local BLM office. 

b. All project employees (including fire fighting personnel) shall be informed as to 

the definition of “take,” the potential penalties (up to $200,000 in fines and 1 year 

in prison) for taking a species listed under the ESA, and the terms and conditions 

provided in this biological opinion. 

c. A qualified resource advisor will be assigned to each wildfire that occurs in or 

threatens listed species habitat. The resource advisor’s role is to help define goals 

and objectives for fire suppression efforts and to inform the Incident Commander 

(IC) of any restrictions, but he or she does not get involved in specific suppression 

tactics. Resource advisors shall oversee fire suppression and suppression 

rehabilitation activities in order to ensure that protective measures endorsed by 

the IC are implemented. 

d. For pre-planned projects, the authorized officer shall designate an individual as a 

contact representative who will be responsible for overseeing compliance with the 

Applicant Committed Measures and terms and conditions contained in this 

biological opinion, and providing coordination with USFWS. The representative 

will have the authority to halt activities that may be in violation of these 

conditions, unless human health and safety or structures are at risk. 

e. Project-related personnel shall not be permitted to have pets accompany them to 

the project site. 

f. If available, maps shall be provided to local dispatch centers showing general 

locations of listed species. Local BLM or Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR) biologists shall be consulted for specific locations if fires occur within 

or near the general locations delineated on the map. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-7 

g. In occupied habitat, pre- and post-monitoring of federally listed species’ 

responses to the pre-planned treatments will be conducted. 

2. To implement RPM 2: 

a. Fingers or patches of unburned vegetation within burned areas shall not be burned 

out as a fire suppression measure unless required for safety concerns or due to 

high reburn potential. 

b. Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation efforts must focus on areas where there 

is a potential of non-native species to spread, particularly within suitable habitat 

for federally listed species. 

c. The specific seed mix and areas to be seeded within suitable habitat for federally 

listed and sensitive species will be determined through coordination and Section 7 

consultation with the USFWS. 

d. In occupied habitat burned by wildland fire, the recovery of vegetation shall be 

monitored, including establishment and monitoring of paired plots, inside and 

outside of the burned area unless the BLM and the USFWS concur that 

monitoring is not required. 

e. Site-specific projects under the Land Use Plan Amendment and Fire Management 

Plans will maintain, protect, or enhance the primary constituent elements of 

designated critical habitat in all implementation activities. 

f. The effectiveness of suppression activities and threatened and endangered species 

conservation measures shall be evaluated after a fire in coordination with the 

USFWS. Procedures shall be revised as needed. 

g. In occupied habitat, pre- and post-monitoring of federally listed species’ habitat 

responses to the pre-planned treatments will be conducted. 

h. Temporarily close burned areas to off-highway vehicles (OHV) within occupied 

habitat after a wildland fire event until vegetation and soils recover. Consultation 

with the USFWS may determine that an area may remain open if there is no threat 

to the species or habitat. 

i. Consult with the USFWS to determine the need to obscure decommissioned trails 

and roads and illegal OHV trails within occupied habitat after a wildland fire 

event to prevent the trails and roads from re-opening. 

Utah Prairie Dog 

The following terms and conditions are in addition to the general terms and conditions listed 

above and apply to the Utah prairie dog: 

1. To implement RPMs 1 and 2: 

a. Wildfires will be suppressed before they reach a prairie dog colony (“prairie dog 

colony” refers to any occupied Utah prairie dog colony) or after they exit a 

colony. Active suppression efforts will not occur within a colony unless human 

health and safety or structures are at risk. 

b. Only hand lines will be authorized within colonies. 

c. Normally, only water shall be used on fires that occur within prairie dog colonies. 

If the fire IC decides that the situation requires use of chemical retardants to 

protect life and property, they may be used. The chemical composition will be 

supplied to the USFWS during emergency consultation. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-8 

d. All vehicles shall stay on existing roads within colonies except as stated in (e). 

Storage of equipment and materials shall not occur within 1⁄4 mile of colonies. 

Vehicle maintenance shall not occur within these areas. 

e. The resource advisor, biologist, or biological monitor (someone who is either 

qualified with a biological background or has been trained by the resource 

advisor) ensures that prairie dogs and their burrows are protected or avoided by 

walking in front of engines, tracked vehicles, or other firefighting-related vehicles 

within occupied prairie dog colonies. 

f. Vehicles shall not exceed a speed of 10 miles per hour (cross-country) in occupied 

Utah prairie dog colonies unless a higher speed is determined to be prudent for 

safety reasons. 

g. Within colonies, precautions shall be taken to ensure that contamination of the 

site by fuels, motor oils, grease, etc. does not occur and that such materials are 

contained and properly disposed of off site. Inadvertent spills of petroleum-based 

or other toxic materials shall be cleaned up and removed immediately unless they 

occur during an emergency event (wildfire suppression). In which case the spill 

shall be cleaned up as soon as practical after the emergency situation is controlled. 

h. Camps associated with fire suppression activities shall be situated outside 

occupied habitat. 

i. If a dead or injured Utah prairie dog is located, initial notification must be made 

to the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement, Cedar City, Utah at telephone 435-

865-0861 or to the Cedar City office of the UDWR at telephone number 435-865-

6100. Instruction for proper handling and disposition of such specimens will be 

issued by the Division of Law Enforcement. Care must be taken in handling sick 

or injured animals to ensure effective treatment and care and in handling dead 

specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

The following terms and conditions are in addition to the general terms and conditions listed 

above and apply to the Southwestern willow flycatcher: 

1. To implement the RPM 1: 

a. Prior to planned project activities, potentially affected habitat will be surveyed 

according to USFWS protocol (A Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Natural 

History Summary and Survey Protocol; Technical Report 

NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-97/12). 

b. Except where fires are active in occupied habitat, minimize unnecessary lowlevel helicopter flights during the breeding season (April 1 to September 30). If 

safety allows, approach bucket dip sites at a 90-degree direction to rivers to 

minimize flight time over the river corridor and occupied riparian habitats. Locate 

landing sites for helicopters at least 1⁄4 mile from occupied flycatcher habitat 

unless human safety or property dictates otherwise. 

c. Minimize use of chainsaws or bulldozers to construct firelines through occupied 

or suitable habitat except where necessary to reduce the overall acreage of 

occupied habitat or other important habitat areas that would otherwise be burned. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-9 

d. Implement activities to reduce hazardous fuels or improve riparian habitats 

(prescribed burning or vegetation treatments) within occupied or unsurveyed 

suitable habitat for Southwestern willow flycatchers only during the non-breeding 

season (October 1 to March 31). 

2. To implement RPM 2: 

a. Riparian fuel reduction actions shall be considered as experimental and initially 

conducted only in unoccupied habitats until the success and ramifications are 

better understood. Efficacy of these actions as a fire management tool, and effects 

on bird habitat quality, shall be tested in a scientifically explicit, controlled 

fashion (Appendix L in USFWS 2002). 

b. In occupied or suitable flycatcher habitat, creation of firebreaks might render the 

habitat unsuitable (Appendix L in USFWS 2002). As long as human safety and 

property allows, firebreaks shall be conducted in unoccupied sites, outside of 

proposed critical habitat, or within proposed critical habitat under the following 

situations: 

c. The habitat does not meet the Primary Constituent Elements of the proposed 

critical habitat as listed in 69 FR 60706-60786, October 12, 2004. 

d. The firebreak is a minimal fireline necessary to prevent unacceptable losses of 

occupied habitat. 

e. The firebreak is between fuel concentrations and flycatcher breeding sites to 

prevent fires from spreading into breeding sites (Appendix L in USFWS 2002). 

f. Prescribed fire shall be avoided in occupied habitat and considered only as 

experimental management techniques if dealing with suitable unoccupied habitat 

(Appendix L in USFWS 2002). 

g. Fires in occupied habitat and adjacent buffer zones shall be rapidly suppressed if 

safety allows. 

California Condor and Bald Eagle 

The following terms and conditions are in addition to the general terms and conditions listed 

above and apply to the California condor and bald eagle: 

1. To implement RPM 1: 

a. If California condors or bald eagles are found inhabiting (nesting) within the action area 

of a pre-planned project, a buffer of 1 mile surrounding the nesting area will be 

designated as non-treatment zones (Romin and Muck 2002). 

b. If California condors are observed within 1⁄4 mile of an open water source, such as an 

inflatable storage tank or “pumpkin,” the water storage tank will be covered when not in 

use. 

Mexican Spotted Owl 

The following terms and conditions are in addition to the general terms and conditions listed 

above and apply to the MSO: 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-10 

1. To implement RPM 1: 

a. Pre-planned fuels reduction projects within MSO designated critical habitat shall be 

designed to enhance habitat requirements for the MSO as well as for the valuable prey 

species they rely upon. 

2. To implement RPM 2: 

a. Fire suppression shall be considered for wildfires in designated critical habitat. 

Threatened or Endangered Plants 

The following terms and conditions are in addition to the general terms and conditions listed 

above and apply to the federally listed plants: 

1. To implement RPM 1: 

a. Do not allow wildland fire use within occupied habitat unless agreed to by the BLM and 

the USFWS. 

b. When feasible (and human life or property are not put at risk) firebreaks shall be 

constructed down-slope of plants and populations; if firebreaks must be sited up-slope, 

buffers of 100 feet minimum between surface disturbances and plants and populations will 

be incorporated. 

2. To implement RPM 2: 

a. Do not allow wildland fire use within occupied habitat unless agreed to by the BLM and 

the USFWS. 

b. For pre-planned projects within known or potential habitat, site inventories shall be 

conducted to determine habitat suitability prior to initiation of project activities at a time 

when the plant can be detected. 

c. For riparian/wetland-associated species, avoid loss or disturbance of riparian habitats. 

d. Limit disturbances to and within suitable habitat by staying on designated routes where 

feasible. 

e. Limit new access routes created by the project. 

f. Following a wildland fire event, place signing to limit all-terrain vehicle (ATV) travel in 

sensitive burned areas. 

Siler Pincushion Cactus 

The following terms and conditions are in addition to the general terms and conditions listed 

above as well as the terms and conditions for threatened and endangered plant species. These 

terms and conditions apply specifically to the Siler pincushion cactus: 

1. To implement RPMs 1 and 2: 

a. Follow and implement the restrictions on pesticide use within suitable Siler pincushion 

cactus habitat developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These 

limitations were excerpted from the EPA’s Pesticides: Endangered Species Protection 

Program (http://www.epa.gov/oppfead l/endanger/arizona/cocon.htm#brady): 

i. If the active ingredient is 2,4-D (all forms), ATRAZINE, CLOPYRALID, 

DICAMBA (all forms), DICHLORPROP (2,4-DP), HEXAZINONE, MCPA (all 

forms), PARAQUAT, PICLORAM (all forms), or TEBUTHIURON, do not apply 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-11 

this pesticide in the species habitat. For ground applications do not apply within 

20 yards of the habitat, or within 100 yards for aerial applications. 

ii. If the active ingredient is OXYFLUORFEN (granular or non-granular), do not 

apply this pesticide in the species habitat. For ground applications do not apply 

within 100 yards of the habitat, or within 1⁄4 mile for aerial applications. 

iii. If the active ingredient is either METRIBUZIN or SULFOMETURON 

METHYL, do not apply this pesticide on rights-of-way in the species habitat. 

Closing 

The USFWS believes that an unquantifiable amount of incidental take will occur in the form of 

harm and harassment as a result of the proposed actions. The RPMs, with their implementing 

terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might 

otherwise result from the proposed actions. The BLM must immediately provide an explanation 

of the causes of the taking and review with the USFWS the need for possible modification of the 

RPMs. 

Reporting Requirements 

Upon locating dead, injured, or sick listed species, immediate notification must be made to the 

USFWS Salt Lake City Field Office at 801-975-3330 and the USFWS Division of Law 

Enforcement, Ogden, Utah, at 801-625-5570. Pertinent information including the date, time, 

location, and possible cause of injury or mortality of each species shall be recorded and provided to 

the USFWS. Instructions for proper care, handling, transport, and disposition of such specimens 

will be issued by the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement. Care must be taken in handling sick 

or injured animals to ensure effective treatment and care and in handling dead specimens to 

preserve biological material in the best possible state. 

The BLM shall submit a report to the USFWS on or before December 1 of each year in which 

fire management activities occurred within occupied habitat. For the listed and candidate species 

covered under this consultation, the report shall include (1) the amount of potential and/or 

occupied habitat affected by wildfire (i.e., stream miles burned, percentage of drainage burned, 

and fire severity map); (2) to the extent possible, the number of individuals killed from direct and 

indirect effects of wildfire; (3) any habitat and/or population monitoring efforts from past wildfire 

events; (4) a copy of the burned area emergency stabilization and rehabilitation plan; (5) 

implementation and effectiveness monitoring of burned area emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation treatments; (6) implementation and effectiveness monitoring of the standard 

operating procedures (SOP); (7) recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of the SOPs; 

and (8) any recommendations for additional SOPs. The first report shall be due to the USFWS on 

December 1, 2005. The address for the Utah Fish and Wildlife Office is: 

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50 

West Valley City, Utah 84119 

Telephone: 801-975-3330 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 8 

A8-12 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES DEVELOPED BY THE BLM AND 

THE USFWS 

In addition to the resource protection measures listed in the LUP amendment, the following 

conservation measures were developed through the Section 7 consultation process. These 

resource protection measures were identified in the USFWS Biological Opinion (page 42). That 

document states that “the BLM has incorporated these measures ... by reference to their 

[Biological Assessment].” Species that were addressed in these measures that do not occur 

within the decision area or are not affected by management in the EIS alternatives are not 

included. Additional resource protection measures are as follows: 

• Manage natural and prescribed fire regimes to protect or improve Utah prairie dog 

habitat. 

• Within Utah prairie dog habitat, reseeding would be implemented according to the Utah 

Prairie Dog Recovery Plan. 

• Manage prescribed fire and wildland fire use within MSO protected activity centers 

(PAC) to ensure protection of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats. 

• Wildland fire suppression would be prioritized for use in MSO PACs. When feasible, fire 

camps associated with suppression efforts would be built outside of the PACs and nest 

protection areas. 

• For treatments within suitable habitat for listed species, pre- and post-monitoring would 

take place as determined on a case-by-case basis. 

• Incorporate the standards and guidelines recommended by the Inland Native Fish 

Strategy (USFS 1995). 

• As per the decision of the resource advisor, avoid construction of firelines using 

mechanized equipment across the stream channel. If used, the mechanized equipment 

would terminate at and not cross the stream channel. 

• Avoid transferring water from one watershed into another for the purpose of water drops 

because this could aid in the spread of waterborne diseases such as whirling disease. 

• Avoid retardant use in any riparian wetland communities. 

• Restricted use of mechanical treatments and hand tools. 

• Per-burn acreage limitations of 5 to 100 acres, as long as human life or property are not 

threatened. 

• Prior to planned fire management actions, survey for listed threatened and endangered 

and non-listed sensitive species. Review appropriate management, conservation, and 

recovery plans and include recovery plan direction into project proposals, if listed. Ensure 

that any proposed project conserves non-listed sensitive species and their habitats and 

ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM does not contribute 

to the need for any species to become listed.
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-1 

APPENDIX 9—CONSERVATION MEASURES, OIL 

AND GAS LEASE NOTICES, AND RECOVERY PLANS 

FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

SPECIFIC THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION MEASURES

The Utah Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is committed to the conservation of federally 

listed species. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), this means that that the BLM will 

use methods and procedures necessary for improving the status of federally listed species and 

their habitats to a point at which the provisions of the ESA are no longer necessary. This effort 

includes ensuring that BLM actions requiring permit or approval are consistent with the 

objectives of approved recovery plans for listed species. 

This list of conservation measures is part of the programmatic Section 7 consultation effort 

concerning existing land use plans (LUP) (Alternative A) in the decision area. To address the 

potential impacts of common land uses and to minimize the potential for their occurrence, the 

BLM, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), has developed the 

following list of species-specific conservation measures for all future proposed actions involving 

BLM Utah. 

Future implementation proposals that are determined to have potential for impacts on these listed 

species should incorporate these conservation measures where applicable and appropriate. Where 

these measures are incorporated into future proposals, there is a greater likelihood that the BLM 

will meet the standard of “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” species listed under the 

ESA. Where the BLM determines that deviation, modification, or waiver of these conservation 

measures would be prudent or necessary, early coordination and Section 7 consultation with 

USFWS would be necessary. The BLM will reinitiate Section 7 consultation at the project level 

as necessary to ensure proper management of listed species. 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

The following list of measures provides species-specific guidance, intended to avoid, minimize, 

or reduce potential adverse impacts from implementation of BLM actions under the authority of 

current Utah BLM LUPs on the bald eagle. This list is not comprehensive. Additional 

conservation measures or other modified versions of these measures may be applied for any 

given BLM-authorized activity upon further analysis, review, coordination efforts, and/or 

appropriate levels of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS: 

1. The BLM will place restrictions on all authorized (i.e., permitted) activities that may 

adversely impact bald eagles, their breeding habitat, roosting sites, and known winter 

concentration areas in order to avoid or minimize potential impacts: 

 Measures have been adapted from guidance published in the Utah Field Office 

Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances 

(Romin & Muck 2002), as well as coordination between the BLM and USFWS. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-2 

Measures include, but may not be limited to seasonal/daily timing limitations 

and/or spatial buffers as follows: 

 Temporary activities1 or habitat alterations that may disturb nesting bald eagles 

will be restricted from January 1 to August 31 within 1 mile of bald eagle nest 

sites. Exceptions may be granted where no nesting behavior is initiated prior to 

June 1. 

 Temporary activities or habitat alterations that may disturb bald eagles will be 

restricted within 1⁄2 mile of known winter concentration areas from November 1 to 

March 31. Where daily activities must occur within these spatial buffers and are 

approved through subsequent consultation, activities should also be properly 

scheduled to occur after 9 a.m. and terminate at least 1 hour before official sunset 

to ensure that bald eagles using these roosts are allowed the opportunity to vacate 

their roost in the morning and return undisturbed in the evening. 

 No permanent2

 infrastructure will be placed within 1 mile of bald eagle nest sites 

or within 1⁄2 mile of bald eagle winter concentration areas. 

 Where activities are authorized within breeding habitats or known winter 

concentration areas, monitoring efforts would document what, if any, impacts 

occur during project implementation, and to what extent the species was affected. 

The results of these monitoring efforts would be carried forward in the design and 

implementation of future projects as part of the adaptive management process. 

2. For all project-related survey and monitoring actions: 

 Reports must be provided to affected field offices within 15 days of completion of 

survey or monitoring efforts. Reports must follow field office guidance for BLMspecified formats for written and automated databases. 

 Any detection of bald eagle presence during survey or monitoring efforts must be 

reported to the authorized officer within 48 hours of detection. 

3. Appropriately timed surveys in suitable bald eagle nesting habitat or identified concentration 

areas shall be conducted in accordance with approved protocols prior to any activities that 

may disturb bald eagles. Surveys would be conducted only by BLM-approved individuals or 

personnel. 

4. BLM shall, in coordination with cooperating agencies and/or partners (e.g., Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources [UDWR] and USFWS), verify annual status (active versus inactive) of all 

known bald eagle nests and other identified concentration areas on BLM-administered lands. 

5. When project proposals that may affect threatened and endangered species are received, the 

BLM will coordinate with the USFWS at the earliest possible date so that the USFWS can 

provide necessary information to minimize or avoid the need to redesign projects at a later 

date to include conservation measures that may be determined as appropriate by the USFWS. 

6. BLM-administered lands within 1 mile of bald eagle nests, or identified communal winter 

roosts, should not be exchanged or sold. If it is imperative that these lands be transferred out 

of BLM ownership, then every effort should be made to include conservation easements or 

voluntary conservation restrictions to protect the bald eagles and support their conservation. 

 

1 Temporary activities are defined as those that are completed prior to the start of the following raptor breeding season, leaving 

no permanent structures, and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. 

2 Permanent activities continue for more than one breeding season and/or cause a loss of habitat or displace individuals through

disturbances (e.g., creation of a permanent structure including, but not limited to, well pads, roads, pipelines, and electrical 

power lines). 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-3 

7. Proponents of BLM-authorized actions will be advised that roadside carrion can attract 

foraging bald eagles and potentially increase the risk of vehicle collisions with individual 

bald eagles feeding on carrion. When carrion occurs on the road, appropriate officials will 

be notified for necessary removal. 

8. Power lines will be built to standards and guidelines identified in the Avian Protection Plan

(APP). 

9. The BLM will make educational information available to project proponents and the general 

public pertaining to the following topics: 

 Appropriate vehicle speeds and the associated benefit of reduced vehicle collisions with 

wildlife 

 Use of lead shot (particularly over water bodies) 

 Use of lead fishing weights 

 General ecological awareness of habitat disturbance 

10. Because bald eagles are often dependent on aquatic species as prey items, the BLM will 

periodically review existing water quality records (e.g., Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality [UDEQ], UDWR, and U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]) from monitoring stations 

on or near important bald eagle habitats (i.e., nests, roosts, and concentration areas) on BLM 

lands for any conditions that could adversely affect bald eagles or their prey. If water quality 

problems are identified, the BLM will contact the appropriate jurisdictional entity to 

cooperatively monitor the condition and/or take corrective action. 

Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) 

The following list of measures provides species-specific guidance intended to avoid, minimize, 

or reduce potential adverse impacts from implementation of BLM actions under the authority of 

current Utah BLM LUPs on the Mexican spotted owl (MSO). This list is not comprehensive. 

Additional conservation measures or other modified versions of these measures may be applied 

for any given BLM-authorized activity upon further analysis, review, coordination efforts, and/or 

appropriate levels of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS: 

1. The BLM will place restrictions on all authorized (permitted) activities that may 

adversely affect the MSO in identified protected activity centers (PAC), breeding habitat, 

or designated critical habitat in order to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to the 

species: 

 Restrictions and procedures have been adapted from guidance published in the Utah 

Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use 

Disturbances (Romin & Muck 2002), as well as coordination between the BLM and 

USFWS. Measures include: 

 Surveys, according to USFWS protocol, will be required prior to any disturbancerelated activities that have been identified to have the potential to impact MSO, 

unless current species occupancy and distribution information is complete and 

available. All surveys must be conducted by USFWS-certified individuals and 

approved by the BLM authorized officer: 

◊ Assess habitat suitability for nesting and foraging using accepted habitat 

models in conjunction with field reviews. Apply the appropriate conservation 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-4 

measures below if project activities occur within 1⁄2 mile of suitable owl 

habitat, dependent in part on whether the action is temporary3 or permanent4: 

 For all temporary actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: 

o If action occurs entirely outside of the owl breeding season and leaves 

no permanent structure or permanent habitat disturbance, action can 

proceed without an occupancy survey. 

o If action will occur during a breeding season, survey for owls prior to 

commencing activity. If owls are found, activity should be delayed 

until outside of the breeding season. 

o Eliminate access routes created by a project through such means as 

raking out scars, revegetation, and gating access points. 

 For all permanent actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: 

o Survey two consecutive years for owls according to established 

protocol prior to commencing activity. 

a. If owls are found, no actions will occur within 1⁄2 mile of identified 

nest site. If nest site is unknown, no activity will occur within the 

designated PACs. 

b. Avoid placing permanent structures within 1⁄2 mile of suitable 

habitat unless surveyed and not occupied. 

c. Reduce noise emissions (e.g., use hospital-grade mufflers) to 45 

dBA at 1⁄2 mile from suitable habitat, including canyon rims 

(Delaney et al. 1997). Placement of permanent noise-generating 

facilities should be determined by a noise analysis to ensure noise 

does not encroach upon a 1⁄2-mile buffer for suitable habitat, 

including canyon rims. 

d. Limit disturbances to and within suitable owl habitat by staying on 

designated routes. 

e. Limit new access routes created by the project. 

2. The BLM will, as a condition of approval (COA) on any project proposed within 

identified PACs and designated critical habitat or within spatial buffers for MSO nests (1⁄2 

mile), ensure that project proponents are notified as to their responsibilities for 

rehabilitation of temporary access routes and other temporary surface disturbances 

created by their project according to individual BLM field office standards and 

procedures or those determined in the project-specific Section 7 consultation. 

3. The BLM will require monitoring of activities in designated critical habitat, identified 

PACs, or breeding habitats wherein it has been determined that there is a potential for 

take. If any adverse impacts are observed to occur in a manner or to an extent that was 

not considered in the project-specific Section 7 consultation, then consultation must be 

reinitiated: 

 Monitoring results should document what, if any, impacts on individuals or habitat 

occur during project construction/implementation. In addition, monitoring should 

 

3 Temporary activities are defined as those that are completed prior to the start of the following raptor breeding season, leaving 

no permanent structures, and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. 

4 Permanent activities continue for more than one breeding season and/or cause a loss of owl habitat or displace owls through 

disturbances (e.g., creation of a permanent structure including but not limited to well pads, roads, pipelines, and electrical 

powerlines). 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-5 

document successes or failures of any impact minimization or mitigation measures. 

Monitoring results would be considered an opportunity for adaptive management, 

and as such would be carried forward in the design and implementation of future 

projects. 

4. For all survey and monitoring actions: 

 Provide reports to the affected field offices within 15 days of completion of survey 

or monitoring efforts. 

 Report any detection of MSO during survey or monitoring activities to the 

authorized officer within 48 hours. 

5. The BLM will, in areas of designated critical habitat, ensure that any physical or 

biological factors (i.e., the primary constituent elements), as identified in determining and 

designating such habitat, remain intact during implementation of any BLM-authorized 

activity. 

6. For all BLM actions that “may adversely affect” the primary constituent elements in any 

suitable MSO habitat, the BLM will implement measures as appropriate to minimize 

habitat loss or fragmentation, including rehabilitation of access routes created by the 

project through such means as raking out scars, revegetation, and gating access points. 

7. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling from single drilling 

pads to reduce surface disturbance, and minimize or eliminate need to drill in canyon 

habitats suitable for MSO nesting. 

8. Prior to surface disturbing activities in MSO PACs, breeding habitats, or designated 

critical habitat, specific principles should be considered to control erosion. These 

principles include: 

 Conduct long-range transportation planning for large areas to ensure that roads will 

serve future needs. This will result in less total surface disturbance. 

 Avoid surface disturbance in areas with high erosion hazards to the extent possible. 

Avoid mid-slope locations, headwalls at the source of tributary drainages, inner 

valley gorges, and excessively wet slopes such as those near springs. In addition, 

areas where large cuts and fills would be required should be avoided. 

 Locate roads to minimize roadway drainage areas and to avoid modifying the natural 

drainage areas of small streams. 

9. Project developments should be designed and located to avoid direct or indirect loss or 

modification of MSO nesting and/or identified roosting habitats. 

10. Water production associated with BLM-authorized actions should be managed to ensure 

maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitats. 

Utah Prairie Dog (Cynomys parvidens) 

The following list of measures provides species-specific guidance intended to avoid, minimize, 

or reduce potential adverse impacts from implementation of BLM actions under the authority of 

current Utah BLM LUPs on the Utah prairie dog. This list is not comprehensive. Additional 

conservation measures or other modified versions of these measures may be applied for any 

given BLM-authorized activity upon further analysis, review, coordination efforts, and/or 

appropriate levels of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS: 

1. Surveys according to approved protocols and procedures will be required prior to surface 

disturbance unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete, current, 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-6 

and available. Surveys would be conducted by BLM-approved biologists. In the event 

species occurrence is verified, the project proponent may be required to modify 

operational plans, at the discretion of the authorized officer, to include additional, 

appropriate protection measures or practices for the minimization of impacts on the Utah 

prairie dog and its habitat. 

2. The BLM will restrict surface disturbing activities within 1⁄2 mile of active Utah prairie 

dog colonies when and where necessary, upon the recommendation of BLM Field Office 

(FO) staff biologists to BLM management and as necessary in coordination or 

consultation with USFWS. 

3. No permanent surface disturbance or facility will be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of potentially 

suitable Utah prairie dog habitat, as identified and mapped by the BLM or UDWR since 

1976. 

4. Unavoidable surface disturbing activities in Utah prairie dog habitat should be conducted 

between April 1 and September 30 (the period when prairie dogs are most likely to be 

found above ground). BLM projects will be designed to avoid direct disturbance to Utah 

prairie dog populations and habitat wherever possible. Designs should consider flow of 

water, slope, buffers, possible fencing, and pre-activity flagging of critical areas for 

avoidance. 

5. Reclamation and restoration efforts in Utah prairie dog habitat will be conducted using 

native seed unless otherwise specified in coordination with USFWS. 

6. As funding allows, the BLM should complete a comprehensive assessment locating and 

mapping off-highway vehicle (OHV) use areas that interface with Utah prairie dog 

populations. Comparison of geographic information system (GIS) layers for Utah prairie 

dog populations and OHV use should give BLM personnel another tool to manage and/or 

minimize impacts from OHV use near known Utah prairie dog populations and habitat. 

Based on the information that is developed via GIS applications, appropriate actions 

should be taken to prevent OHV use in occupied territories. 

7. The BLM will consider emergency OHV closure or additional restrictions to protect, 

conserve, and recover the species. 

8. Where technically and economically feasible, the use of directional drilling or drilling of 

multiple wells from a single pad will be required to reduce surface disturbance in Utah 

prairie dog habitat.

9. For existing facilities, BLM and facility operators will consider if fencing infrastructure 

on well pads (e.g., drill pads, tank batteries, and compressors) would be needed to protect 

equipment from burrowing activities. In addition, BLM and project proponents should 

consider if future surface disturbing activities would be required at the site. 

10. The BLM will provide educational information for project proponents and the general 

public pertaining to appropriate vehicle speeds and the associated benefit of reduced 

vehicle collisions with wildlife, and to improve general ecological awareness of habitat 

disturbance. 

11. Project-related vehicle maintenance activities will be conducted in maintenance facilities. 

Should it become necessary to perform vehicle or equipment maintenance on site, these 

activities will not be conducted on identified Utah prairie dog colonies or within a 350-

foot distance from colonies. Precautions shall be taken to ensure that contamination of 

maintenance sites by fuels, motor oils, grease, etc. does not occur and such materials are 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-7 

contained and properly disposed of off site. Inadvertent spills of petroleum-based or other 

toxic materials shall be cleaned up and removed immediately. 

12. The BLM will coordinate with interested private and governmental agencies and 

landowners to identify voluntary opportunities to modify current land stewardship 

practices that may have detrimental impacts on the Utah prairie dog and its habitat. 

13. BLM-authorized equipment and vehicles planned for use within Utah prairie dog habitat 

will be cleaned to minimize the spread of noxious weeds or other undesirable vegetation 

types. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus) 

The following list of measures provides species-specific guidance intended to avoid, minimize, 

or reduce potential adverse impacts from implementation of BLM actions under the authority of 

current Utah BLM LUPs on the Southwestern willow flycatcher. This list is not comprehensive. 

Additional conservation measures or other modified versions of these measures may be applied 

for any given BLM-authorized activity upon further analysis, review, coordination efforts, and/or 

appropriate levels of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS: 

1. Surveys will be required prior to operations that “may adversely affect” Southwestern 

willow flycatcher unless species occupancy data and distribution information is complete 

and available. Surveys will be conducted only by BLM-approved personnel. In the event 

species occurrence is verified, project proponents may be required to modify operational 

plans at the discretion of the authorized officer. Modifications may include appropriate 

measures for minimization of adverse effects on Southwestern willow flycatcher and 

habitat. 

2. The BLM will monitor and restrict, when and where necessary, authorized or casual use 

activities that “may adversely affect” Southwestern willow flycatcher, including but not 

limited to recreation, mining, and oil and gas activities. Monitoring results should be 

considered in the design and implementation of future projects. 

3. To monitor the impacts of BLM-authorized projects determined “likely to adversely 

affect” Southwestern willow flycatcher, the BLM should prepare a short report describing 

progress, including success of implementation of all associated mitigation. Reports shall 

be submitted annually to the USFWS Utah Field Office by March 1 beginning 1 full year 

from date of implementation of the proposed action. The report shall list and describe the 

following items: 

 Any unforeseen adverse effects resulting from activities of each site-specific project 

(may also require reinitiation of formal consultation) 

 If and when any level of anticipated incidental take is approached (as allowed by 

separate Incidental Take Statements of site-specific Formal Section 7 consultation 

efforts) 

 If and when the level of anticipated take (as allowed by separate Incidental Take 

Statements from site-specific formal consultations) is exceeded 

 Results of annual, periodic monitoring that evaluates the effectiveness of the 

reasonable and prudent measures or terms and conditions of the site-specific 

consultation. 

4. The BLM should avoid granting activity permits or authorizing development actions in 

Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. Unoccupied potential habitat should be protected 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-8 

in order to preserve them for future management actions associated with the recovery of 

the Southwestern willow flycatcher. 

5. The BLM will ensure that the project design incorporates measures to avoid direct 

disturbance to populations and suitable habitats where possible. At a minimum, project 

designs should include consideration of water flows, slope, seasonal and spatial buffers, 

possible fencing, and pre-activity flagging of critical areas for avoidance. 

6. The BLM will continue to address illegal and unauthorized OHV use and activity upon 

BLM-administered lands. To protect, conserve, and recover the Southwestern willow 

flycatcher in areas of heavy unauthorized use, temporary closures or use restrictions 

beyond those which are already in place may be imposed. As funding allows, the BLM 

should complete a comprehensive assessment of all OHV use areas that interface with 

Southwestern willow flycatcher populations. Comparison of Southwestern willow 

flycatcher populations and OHV use areas using GIS would give BLM personnel another 

tool to manage and/or minimize impacts. 

7. All surface disturbing activities should be restricted within a 1⁄4 mile buffer from suitable 

riparian habitats, and permanent surface disturbances should be avoided within 1⁄2 mile of 

suitable Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat: 

 Unavoidable ground disturbing activities in occupied Southwestern willow 

flycatcher habitat should be conducted only when preceded by current year survey, 

should only occur between August 16 and April 30 (the period when Southwestern 

willow flycatchers are not likely to be breeding), and should be monitored to ensure 

that adverse impacts on Southwestern willow flycatcher are minimized or avoided 

and to document the success of project-specific mitigation/protection measures. As 

monitoring is relatively undefined, project-specific requirements must be identified. 

8. The BLM will properly consider nesting periods for Southwestern willow flycatcher 

when conducting horse-gathering operations in the vicinity of habitat. 

9. The BLM will ensure that plans for water extraction and disposal are designed to avoid 

changes in the hydrologic regime that would be likely to result in loss or undue 

degradation of riparian habitat. 

10. Native species will be preferred over non-native for revegetation of habitat in disturbed 

areas. 

11. The BLM will coordinate with other agencies and private landowners to identify 

voluntary opportunities to modify current land stewardship practices that may impact the 

Southwestern willow flycatcher and its habitats. 

12. Limit disturbances to within suitable habitat by staying on designated routes. 

13. Ground disturbing activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the 

project to ensure that adverse impacts on Southwestern willow flycatcher are avoided. 

Monitoring results should document what if any impacts on individuals or habitat occur 

during project construction/implementation. In addition, monitoring should document the 

successes or failures of any impact minimization or mitigation measures. Monitoring 

results would be considered an opportunity for adaptive management and as such would 

be carried forward in the design and implementation of future projects. 

14. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells 

from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in Southwestern 

willow flycatcher habitat. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-9 

15. Habitat disturbances (e.g., organized recreational activities requiring special use permits 

or drilling activities) will be avoided within 1⁄4 mile of suitable Southwestern willow 

flycatcher habitat from May 1 to August 15. 

16. Grazing allotments that contain habitat for the species will be managed with 

consideration for recommendations provided by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Recovery Plan and other applicable research. 

OIL AND GAS LEASE NOTICES FOR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES HABITAT

The BLM recognizes that nondiscretionary statutes such as the ESA may require conditions of 

approval that affect lease economics or even require disapproval of certain operations. 

Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2002-174 directs all BLM State Offices to “include the 

[following] lease stipulation on oil and gas leases where threatened, endangered, or other special 

status species or critical habitat is known or strongly suspected.” Management actions in Chapter 

2 include actions that would implement the following language: 

The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats 

determined to be threatened, endangered, or other special status species. BLM may 

recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to further its 

conservation and management objective to avoid BLM-approved activity that will 

contribute to a need to list such a species or their habitat. BLM may require 

modifications to or disapprove proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the 

continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. BLM 

will not approve any ground disturbing activity that may affect any such species or 

critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., including completion of any 

required procedure for conference or consultation. 

IM 2002-174 also directs State Offices to “provide a separate notification to prospective lessees 

identifying the particular special status species that are present on the lease parcel offered. This 

information is to be provided through a lease notice and not by lease stipulation (unless 

otherwise provided in current LUPs). This stipulation would now be attached to most oil and gas 

leases issued by the Bureau, including areas identified in LUPs as open to standard lease terms 

and conditions.” 

Utah IM-UT-2005-089 identifies interim policy for ESA Section 7 consultation procedures for 

the issuance of oil and gas lease parcels that will help ensure that Utah BLM is in compliance 

with ESA consultation requirements for this program. In December 2004, the BLM and USFWS 

personnel completed work on a set of lease notices for specific listed species that are to be 

attached to oil and gas leases offered in the state. On December 13, 2004, Section 7 consultation 

was initiated with the submission of a memorandum to the USFWS containing the lease notices. 

USFWS responded with a memorandum dated December 16, 2004, concurring with the BLM 

determination that use of the species-specific lease notices on appropriate lease parcels “may 

affect,” but would be “not likely to adversely affect” listed species in the state. The following 

species-specific lease notice or notices should be attached, as appropriate, to any oil or gas lease 

that may contain a listed species or its habitat prior to the lease being offered for sale. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-10 

Lease Notice—Bald Eagle 

The lessee/operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain nesting/winter roost 

habitat for the bald eagle, a federally listed species. Avoidance or use restrictions may be placed 

on portions of the lease. Application of appropriate measures will depend on whether the action 

is temporary or permanent and whether it occurs within or outside the bald eagle breeding or 

roosting season. A temporary action is completed prior to the following breeding or roosting 

season, leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. A permanent

action continues for more than one breeding or roosting season and/or causes a loss of eagle 

habitat or displaces eagles through disturbances (i.e., creation of a permanent structure). The 

following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried 

out on the lease are in compliance with the ESA. Integration of and adherence to these measures 

will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. 

Adhering to these measures could reduce the scope of Section 7 consultation at the permit stage.

Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 

1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution 

information is complete and available. All surveys must be conducted by qualified 

individuals and according to protocol. 

2. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure 

desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and, if 

necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 

3. Water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian 

habitat. 

4. Temporary activities within 1 mile of nest sites will not occur during the breeding season 

of January 1 to August 31 unless the area has been surveyed according to protocol and 

determined to be unoccupied. 

5. Temporary activities within 1⁄2 mile of winter roost areas (e.g., cottonwood galleries) will 

not occur during the winter roost season of November 1 to March 31 unless the area has 

been surveyed according to protocol and determined to be unoccupied. 

6. No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 1 mile of nest sites. 

7. No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 1⁄2 mile of winter roost areas. 

8. Remove big game carrion to 100 feet from lease roadways occurring within bald eagle 

foraging range. 

9. Avoid loss of or disturbance to large cottonwood gallery riparian habitats. 

10. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells 

from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable habitat. 

Use directional drilling to avoid direct impacts on large cottonwood gallery riparian 

habitats. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial 

aquifers. 

11. All areas of surface disturbance within riparian areas and/or adjacent uplands should be 

revegetated with native species. 

Additional measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects on the species between 

the lease sale stage and lease development stage. These additional measures will be developed 

and implemented in consultation with the USFWS to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-11 

Lease Notice—Mexican Spotted Owl 

The lessee/operator is given notice that the lands in this lease contain suitable habitat for MSO, a 

federally listed species. Insert the following if the lease contains Designated Critical Habitat:

[The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this lease contain Designated Critical 

Habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, a federally listed species. Critical habitat was designated 

for the Mexican spotted owl on August 31, 2004 (69 FR 53181-53298).] Avoidance or use 

restrictions may be placed on portions of the lease. Application of appropriate measures will 

depend on whether the action is temporary or permanent and whether it occurs within or outside 

the owl nesting season. A temporary action is completed prior to the following breeding season, 

leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. A permanent action 

continues for more than one breeding season and/or causes a loss of owl habitat or displaces owls 

through disturbances (i.e., creation of a permanent structure). The following avoidance and 

minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out on the lease are in 

compliance with the ESA. Integration of and adherence to these measures will facilitate review 

and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. Adhering to these 

measures could reduce the scope of Section 7 consultation at the permit stage.

Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 

1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution 

information is complete and available. All surveys must be conducted by qualified 

individuals. 

2. Assess habitat suitability for nesting and foraging using accepted habitat models in 

conjunction with field reviews. Apply the conservation measures below if project 

activities occur within 1⁄2 mile of suitable owl habitat. Determine potential effects of 

actions on owls and their habitat: 

a. Document type of activity, acreage and location of direct habitat impacts, and 

type and extent of indirect impacts relative to location of suitable owl habitat. 

b. Document if action is temporary or permanent. 

3. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure 

desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and, if 

necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 

4. Water production will be managed to ensure riparian habitat is maintained or enhanced. 

5. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells 

from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in canyon habitat 

suitable for MSO nesting. 

6. For all temporary actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: 

a. If the action occurs entirely outside the owl breeding season (March 1 to August 

31) and leaves no permanent structure or permanent habitat disturbance, action 

can proceed without an occupancy survey. 

b. If action will occur during a breeding season, survey for owls prior to 

commencing activity. If owls are found, activity must be delayed until outside of 

the breeding season. 

c. Rehabilitate access routes created by the project through such means as raking out 

scars, revegetation, and gating access points. 

7. For all permanent actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-12 

a. Survey two consecutive years for owls according to accepted protocol prior to 

commencing activities. 

b. If owls are found, no actions will occur within 1⁄2 mile of identified nest site. If 

nest site is unknown, no activity will occur within the designated PAC. 

c. Avoid drilling and permanent structures within 1⁄2 mile of suitable habitat unless 

surveyed and not occupied. 

d. Reduce noise emissions (e.g., use hospital-grade mufflers) to 45 dBA at 1⁄2 mile 

from suitable habitat, including canyon rims. Placement of permanent noisegenerating facilities should be determined by a noise analysis to ensure noise does 

not encroach upon a 1⁄2-mile buffer for suitable habitat, including canyon rims. 

e. Limit disturbances to and within suitable habitat by staying on approved routes. 

f. Limit new access routes created by the project. 

Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects on the species may be developed and 

implemented in consultation with the USFWS between the lease sale stage and lease 

development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

Lease Notice—California Condor 

The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands located in this parcel contain potential habitat 

for the California Condor, a federally listed species. Avoidance or use restrictions may be placed 

on portions of the lease if the area is known or suspected to be used by condors. Application of 

appropriate measures will depend on whether the action is temporary or permanent, and whether 

it occurs within or outside potential habitat. A temporary action is completed prior to the 

following important season of use, leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no 

permanent habitat loss. This would include consideration for habitat functionality. A permanent

action continues for more than one season of habitat use, and/or causes a loss of condor habitat 

function or displaces condors through continued disturbance (i.e. creation of a permanent 

structure requiring repetitious maintenance, or emits disruptive levels of noise). 

The following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities 

carried out on the lease are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Integration of, and 

adherence to these measures will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under 

the authority of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the scope of Endangered 

Species Act, Section 7 consultation at the permit stage.

Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 

1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution 

information is complete and available. All Surveys must be conducted by qualified 

individual(s) approved by the BLM, and must be conducted according to approved 

protocol. 

2. If surveys result in positive identification of condor use, all lease activities will 

require monitoring throughout the duration of the project to ensure desired results of 

applied mitigation and protection. Minimization measures will be evaluated during 

development and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation may be reinitiated. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-13 

3. Temporary activities within 1.0 mile of nest sites will not occur during the breeding 

season. 

4. Temporary activities within 0.5 miles of established roosting sites or areas will not 

occur during the season of use, August 1 to November 31, unless the area has been 

surveyed according to protocol and determined to be unoccupied. 

5. No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 1.0 mile of nest sites. 

6. No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 0.5 miles of established roosting 

sites or areas. 

7. Remove big game carrion to 100 feet from on lease roadways occurring within 

foraging range. 

8. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple 

wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in 

suitable habitat Utilize directional drilling to avoid direct impacts to large cottonwood 

gallery riparian habitats. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or 

degrade alluvial aquifers. 

9. Reinitiation of Section 7 consultation with the Service will be sought immediately if 

mortality or disturbance to California condors is anticipated as a result of project 

activities. Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or 

minimize effects to the species. These additional measures will be developed and 

implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure 

continued compliance with the ESA. 

Additional measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to the species between 

the lease sale and lease development stages. These additional measures will be developed and 

implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure continued 

compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 

Lease Notice—Utah Prairie Dog 

The lessee/operator is given notice that lands in this lease may contain historic and/or occupied 

Utah prairie dog habitat, a threatened species under the ESA. Avoidance or use restrictions may 

be placed on portions of the lease. Application of appropriate measures will depend on whether 

the action is temporary or permanent and whether it occurs when prairie dogs are active or 

hibernating. A temporary action is completed prior to the following active season, leaving no 

permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. A permanent action continues 

for more than one activity/hibernation season and/or causes a loss of Utah prairie dog habitat or 

displaces prairie dogs through disturbances (i.e., creation of a permanent structure). The 

following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried 

out on the lease are in compliance with the ESA. Integration of and adherence to these measures 

will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. 

Adhering to these measures could reduce the scope of Section 7 consultation at the permit stage.

Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 

1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution 

information is complete and available. All surveys must be conducted by qualified 

individuals. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-14 

2. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure 

desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and, if 

necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 

3. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells 

from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in prairie dog 

habitat. 

4. Surface occupancy or other surface disturbing activity will be avoided within 1⁄2 mile of 

active prairie dog colonies. 

5. Permanent surface disturbance or facilities will be avoided within 1⁄2 mile of potentially 

suitable, unoccupied prairie dog habitat, identified and mapped by UDWR since 1976. 

6. The lessee/operator should consider if fencing infrastructure on the well pad (e.g., drill 

pads, tank batteries, and compressors) would be needed to protect equipment from 

burrowing activities. The operator should also consider if future surface disturbing 

activities would be required at the site. 

7. Within occupied habitat, set a 25-mph speed limit on operator-created and -maintained 

roads. 

8. Limit disturbances to and within suitable habitat by staying on designated routes. 

9. Limit new access routes created by the project. 

Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects on the species may be developed and 

implemented in consultation with the USFWS between the lease sale stage and lease 

development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA.

Lease Notice—Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

The lessee/operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain riparian habitat that falls 

within the range for Southwestern willow flycatcher, a federally listed species. Avoidance or use 

restrictions may be placed on portions of the lease. Application of appropriate measures will 

depend on whether the action is temporary or permanent, and whether it occurs within or outside 

the nesting season. A temporary action is completed prior to the following breeding season, 

leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. A permanent action 

continues for more than one breeding season and/or causes a loss of habitat or displaces 

flycatchers through disturbances (e.g., creation of a permanent structure). The following 

avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out on the 

lease are in compliance with the ESA. Integration of and adherence to these measures will 

facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. 

Adhering to these measures could reduce the scope of Section 7 consultation at the permit stage. 

Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 

1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution 

information is complete and available. All surveys must be conducted by qualified 

individuals and according to protocol. 

2. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure 

desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and, if 

necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-15 

3. Water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian 

habitat. 

4. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells 

from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable riparian 

habitat. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial 

aquifers. 

5. Drilling activities will maintain a 300-foot buffer from suitable riparian habitat year long. 

6. Drilling activities within 1⁄4 mile of occupied breeding habitat will not occur during the 

breeding season of May 1 to August 15. 

7. Ensure that water extraction or disposal practices do not result in change of hydrologic 

regime that would result in loss or degradation of riparian habitat. 

8. Revegetate with native species all areas of surface disturbance within riparian areas 

and/or adjacent uplands. 

Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects on the species may be developed and 

implemented in consultation with the USFWS between the lease sale stage and lease 

development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

Lease Notice—Listed Plant Species 

The lessee/operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain suitable habitat for 

federally listed plant species under the ESA. The following avoidance and minimization 

measures have been developed to facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under 

the authority of this lease: 

1. Site inventories: 

a. Must be conducted to determine habitat suitability. 

b. Are required in known or potential habitat for all areas proposed for surface 

disturbance prior to initiation of project activities, at a time when the plant can be 

detected, and during appropriate flowering periods. 

c. Documentation should include but not be limited to individual plant locations and 

suitable habitat distributions. 

d. All surveys must be conducted by qualified individuals. 

2. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure 

desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and, if 

necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 

3. Project activities must be designed to avoid direct disturbance to populations and to 

individual plants: 

a. Designs will avoid concentrating water flows or sediments into plant occupied 

habitat. 

b. Construction will occur down-slope of plants and populations where feasible; if 

well pads and roads must be sited up-slope, buffers of 100 feet minimum between 

surface disturbances and plants and populations will be incorporated. 

c. Where populations occur within 200 feet of well pads, establish a buffer or fence 

the individuals or groups of individuals during and post-construction. 

d. Areas for avoidance will be visually identifiable in the field (e.g., flagging, 

temporary fencing, or rebar). 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-16 

e. For surface pipelines, use a 10-foot buffer from any plant locations: 

i. If on a slope, use stabilizing construction techniques to ensure the 

pipelines do not move toward the population. 

4. For riparian/wetland-associated species (e.g., Ute ladies-tresses), avoid loss or disturbance of 

riparian habitats: 

a. Ensure that water extraction or disposal practices do not result in change of 

hydrologic regime. 

5. Limit disturbances to and within suitable habitat by staying on designated routes. 

6. Limit new access routes created by the project. 

7. Place signing to limit all-terrain vehicle (ATV) travel in sensitive areas. 

8. Implement dust abatement practices near occupied plant habitat. 

9. All disturbed areas will be revegetated with native species composed of species 

indigenous to the area. 

10. Post-construction monitoring for invasive species will be required. 

11. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells 

from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in plant habitat. 

Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. 

12. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure 

desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and, if 

necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 

Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects on the species may be developed and 

implemented in consultation with the USFWS between the lease sale stage and lease 

development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

Lease Notice—Welsh’s Milkweed 

In order to minimize effects to the federally threatened Welsh’s milkweed, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), has 

developed the following avoidance and minimization measures. Implementation of these 

measures will help ensure the activities carried out during oil and gas development (including but 

not limited to drilling, production, and maintenance operations) are in compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). For the purposes of this document, the follow terms are so 

defined: 

• Potential habitat is defined as areas which satisfy the broad criteria of the species habitat 

description; usually determined by preliminary, in-house assessment. 

• Suitable habitat is defined as areas which contain or exhibit the specific components or 

constituents necessary for plant persistence; determined by field inspection and/or 

surveys; may or may not contain clay reed-mustard; habitat descriptions can be found in 

Federal Register Notice and species recovery plan links at 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html. 

• Occupied habitat is defined as areas currently or historically known to support clay reedmustard; synonymous with “known habitat.” 

The following avoidance and minimization measures should be included in the Plan of 

Development: 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-17 

1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100% of the project 

disturbance area within potential habitat prior to any ground disturbing activities to 

determine if suitable Welsh’s milkweed habitat is present. 

2. Within suitable habitat, site inventories will be conducted to determine occupancy. 

Where standard surveys are technically infeasible and otherwise hazardous due to 

topography, slope, etc., suitable habitat will be assessed and mapped for avoidance 

(hereafter, “avoidance areas”); in such cases, in general, 300’ buffers will be 

maintained between surface disturbance and avoidance areas. However, site specific 

distances will need to be approved by FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur 

upslope of habitat. Inventories: 

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) approved by BLM using accepted 

survey protocols, 

b. Will be conducted in suitable and occupied habitat for all areas proposed for 

surface disturbance prior to initiation of project activities and within the same 

growing season, at a time when the plant can be detected and during appropriate 

flowering periods. Inventories should be conducted between June 1st and August 

15th, however, surveyors should verify that the plant is flowering by contacting a 

BLM or FWS botanist or demonstrating that the nearest known population is in 

flower ), 

c. Will occur within 300’ from the centerline of the proposed right-of-way for 

surface pipelines or roads; and within 300’ from the perimeter of disturbance for 

the proposed well pad including the well pad, 

d. Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat characteristics, 

and is there more? 

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize impacts within suitable habitat: 

a. Where standard surveys are technically infeasible, infrastructure and activities 

will avoid all suitable habitat (avoidance areas) and incorporate 300’ buffers, in 

general; however, site specific distances will need to be approved by FWS and 

BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat, 

b. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising safety, 

c. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple 

wells from the same pad, 

d. Limit new access routes created by the project, 

e. Roads and utilities should share common right-of-ways where possible, 

f. Reduce the width of right-of-ways and minimize the depth of excavation needed 

for the road bed; where feasible, use the natural ground surface for the road within 

habitat, 

g. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas, and 

h. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas. 

i. All disturbed areas will be revegetated with native species comprised of species 

indigenous to the area and non-native species that are not likely to invade other 

areas. 

4. Within occupied habitat, project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct 

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

a. Follow the above recommendations (#3) for project design within suitable 

habitats, 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-18 

b. To avoid water flow and/or sedimentation into occupied habitat and avoidance 

areas, silt fences, hay bales, and similar structures or practices will be 

incorporated into the project design; appropriate placement of fill is encouraged, 

c. Construction of roads will occur such that the edge of the right of way is at least 

300’ from any plant and 300’ from avoidance areas, 

d. Roads will be graveled within occupied habitat; the operator is encouraged to 

apply water for dust abatement to such areas from June 1st to August 15th 

(flowering period); dust abatement applications will be comprised of water only, 

e. The edge of the well pad should be located at least 300’ away from plants and 

avoidance areas, in general; however, site specific distances will need to be 

approved by FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat, 

f. Surface pipelines will be laid such that a 300’ buffer exists between the edge of 

the right of way and plants and 300’ between the edge of right of way and 

avoidance areas; use stabilizing and anchoring techniques when the pipeline 

crosses suitable habitat to ensure pipelines don’t move towards the population; 

site specific distances will need to be approved by FWS and BLM when 

disturbance will occur upslope of habitat, 

g. Construction activities will not occur from June 1st through August 15th within 

occupied habitat, 

h. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually 

identifiable in the field, e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc., 

i. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, away from 

occupied habitat, and 

j. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim and final 

reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the smallest area possible. 

5. Occupied Welsh’s milkweed habitats within 300’ of the edge of the surface pipelines’ 

right-of-ways, 300’ of the edge of the roads’ right-of-ways, and 300’ from the edge of 

the well pad shall be monitored for a period of three years after ground disturbing 

activities. Monitoring will include annual plant surveys to determine plant and habitat 

impacts relative to project facilities. Annual reports shall be provided to the BLM and 

the Service. To ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will 

be evaluated and may be changed after a thorough review of the monitoring results 

and annual reports during annual meetings between the BLM and the Service. 

6. Reinitiation of section 7 consultation with the Service will be sought immediately if 

any loss of plants or occupied habitat for the Welsh’s milkweed is anticipated as a 

result of project activities. Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to 

avoid or minimize effects to the species. These additional measures will be developed 

and implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure 

continued compliance with the ESA. 

Siler Pincushion Cactus 

In order to minimize effects to the federally threatened Siler pincushion cactus, the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), has 

developed the following avoidance and minimization measures. Implementation of these 

measures will help ensure the activities carried out during oil and gas development (including but 

not limited to drilling, production, and maintenance operations) are in compliance with the 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-19 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). For the purposes of this document, the follow terms are so 

defined: 

• Potential habitat is defined as areas which satisfy the broad criteria of the species habitat 

description; usually determined by preliminary, in-house assessment. 

• Suitable habitat is defined as areas which contain or exhibit the specific components or 

constituents necessary for plant persistence; determined by field inspection and/or 

surveys; may or may not contain clay reed-mustard; habitat descriptions can be found in 

Federal Register Notice and species recovery plan links at 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html. 

• Occupied habitat is defined as areas currently or historically known to support the Siler 

pincushion cactus; synonymous with “known habitat.” 

The following avoidance and minimization measures should be included in the Plan of 

Development: 

1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100% of the project 

disturbance area within potential habitat prior to any ground disturbing activities to 

determine if suitable Siler pincushion cactus habitat is present. 

2. Within suitable habitat, site inventories will be conducted to determine occupancy. 

Where standard surveys are technically infeasible and otherwise hazardous due to 

topography, slope, etc., suitable habitat will be assessed and mapped for avoidance 

(hereafter, “avoidance areas”); in such cases, in general, 300’ buffers will be maintained 

between surface disturbance and avoidance areas. However, site specific distances will 

need to be approved by FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat. 

Inventories: 

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) approved by BLM using accepted 

survey protocols, 

i. Will be conducted in suitable and occupied habitat for all areas proposed 

for surface disturbance prior to initiation of project activities and within 

the same growing season, at a time when the plant can be detected and 

during appropriate flowering periods. Inventories should be conducted 

between Mrch 1st to May 15th, however, surveyors should verify that the 

plant is flowering by contacting a BLM or FWS botanist or demonstrating 

that the nearest known population is in flower, 

b. Will occur within 300’ from the centerline of the proposed right-of-way for 

surface pipelines or roads; and within 300’ from the perimeter of disturbance for 

the proposed well pad including the well pad, 

c. Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat characteristics, 

and 

d. Will be valid until April 1st the following year. 

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize impacts within suitable habitat: 

a. Where standard surveys are technically infeasible, infrastructure and activities 

will avoid all suitable habitat (avoidance areas) and incorporate 300’ buffers, in 

general; however, site specific distances will need to be approved by FWS and 

BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat, 

b. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising safety, 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-20 

c. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple 

wells from the same pad, 

d. Limit new access routes created by the project, 

e. Roads and utilities should share common right-of-ways where possible, 

f. Reduce the width of right-of-ways and minimize the depth of excavation needed 

for the road bed; where feasible, use the natural ground surface for the road 

within habitat, 

g. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas, and 

h. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas. 

i. All disturbed areas will be revegetated with native species comprised of species

indigenous to the area and non-native species that are not likely to invade other areas. 

4. Within occupied habitat, project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct 

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

a. Follow the above recommendations (#3) for project design within suitable 

habitats, 

b. To avoid water flow and/or sedimentation into occupied habitat and avoidance 

areas, silt fences, hay bales, and similar structures or practices will be 

incorporated into the project design; appropriate placement of fill is encouraged, 

c. Construction of roads will occur such that the edge of the right of way is at least 

300’ from any plant and 300’ from avoidance areas, 

d. Roads will be graveled within occupied habitat; the operator is encouraged to 

apply water for dust abatement to such areas from April 1st to June 15th 

(flowering period); dust abatement applications will be comprised of water only, 

e. The edge of the well pad should be located at least 300’ away from plants and 

avoidance areas, in general; however, site specific distances will need to be 

approved by FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat, 

f. Surface pipelines will be laid such that a 300’ buffer exists between the edge of 

the right of way and plants and 300’ between the edge of right of way and 

avoidance areas; use stabilizing and anchoring techniques when the pipeline 

crosses suitable habitat to ensure pipelines don’t move towards the population; 

site specific distances will need to be approved by FWS and BLM when 

disturbance will occur upslope of habitat, 

g. Construction activities will not occur from April 1st through June 15th within 

occupied habitat, 

h. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually 

identifiable in the field, e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc., 

i. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, away 

from occupied habitat, and 

j. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim and 

final reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the smallest area 

possible. 

5. Occupied Siler pincushion cactus habitats within 300’ of the edge of the surface 

pipelines’ right-of-ways, 300’ of the edge of the roads’ right-of-ways, and 300’ from 

the edge of the well pad shall be monitored for a period of three years after ground 

disturbing activities. Monitoring will include annual plant surveys to determine plant 

and habitat impacts relative to project facilities. Annual reports shall be provided to the 

BLM and the Service. To ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 9 

A9-21 

measures will be evaluated and may be changed after a thorough review of the 

monitoring results and annual reports during annual meetings between the BLM and the 

Service. 

6. Reinitiation of section 7 consultation with the Service will be sought immediately if any 

loss of plants or occupied habitat for the Siler pincushion cactus is anticipated as a 

result of project activities. Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to 

avoid or minimize effects to the species. These additional measures will be developed 

and implemented in consultation. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PLANS AND CONSERVATION AGREEMENTS

In addition to the conservation measures and lease notices discussed above, documents such as 

species-specific recovery plans and conservation strategies, agreements, and plans contain 

management plans and strategies to protect special status species. These documents are 

developed using the most current science, but as monitoring and current scientific findings 

provide further information, they are subject to revision, amendment, or update. As such, the list 

of documents applicable for the decision area could be increased or decreased based on species 

listing, condition, distribution, and so forth. Documents for species within the decision area 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, 1995 

• Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, 1983 

• American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, 1984 

• Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan, 1991 

• Utah Prairie Dog Interim Conservation Strategy, 1997 

• Welsh’s Milkweed Recovery Plan, 1992 

• Siler Pincushion Cactus Recovery Plan, 1986 

• Autumn Buttercup Recovery Plan, 1991 

• Northern Goshawk Conservation Agreement, 1998 

• Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle, 1997 

• Range-Wide Conservation Agreement for Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker, and 

Flannelmouth Sucker, 2004 

• Recovery Plan for the California Condor, 1996 

• Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, 2002 

• Interim Conservation Plan for Ambersnails of the Southwestern United States (DRAFT), 

Year Unknown. 

Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 10 

A10-1

APPENDIX 10—STATE OF UTAH LETTER 

ADDRESSING AIR QUALITY 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 10 

A10-2
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-1

APPENDIX 11—WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

STUDY PROCESS 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (October 2, 1968, Public Law 90-542) establishes the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS), which is intended to preserve free-flowing rivers 

with outstandingly remarkable values (ORV) in their natural condition for the benefit of present 

and future generations, balancing the nation’s water resource development policies with river 

conservation and recreation goals. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act states, “In all planning for the use and development of water 

and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all federal agencies involved to 

potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas...” [Section 5(d) (1)]. Federal agencies 

consider potential rivers by evaluating a river’s eligibility, tentative classification, and suitability 

for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This study process is part of the resource 

management planning effort for the Kanab Field Office. 

Eligibility and tentative classification are determined by an inventory of existing conditions. 

Eligibility involves an evaluation of whether a river or river segment is free-flowing and 

possesses one or more ORVs. If found eligible, a river is analyzed as to its current level of 

development (e.g., water resources projects, shoreline development, and accessibility) and 

segmented accordingly. Each river segment is given one of three tentative classifications—

“wild,” “scenic,” or “recreational”—based on the degree of development. The final procedural 

step, suitability, provides the basis for determining whether to recommend a river as part of the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). 

On December 13, 1994, an interagency agreement was signed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) (Utah State Office), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest 

Service (Intermountain Region), and the National Park Service (Rocky Mountain Region). The 

agreement calls for the three agencies to “work cooperatively to define common criteria and 

processes for use in determining the eligibility and suitability of Utah rivers for potential 

inclusion by Congress in the [national system of Wild and Scenic Rivers].” The product of this 

agreement is the Wild and Scenic River Review in the State of Utah: Process and Criteria for 

Interagency Use, also known as the Utah Wild and Scenic River “Blue Book,” published in June 

1996. This publication supplements the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by providing clear, specific 

criteria for identifying eligible rivers, including identification and evaluation of ORVs. 

Guidance used for this study is also contained in the Wild and Scenic Rivers–Policy and 

Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and Management, Bureau of Land 

Management Manual–8351. In June 2004, the BLM issued IM-2004-196, which clarified policy 

in BLM Manual–8351 with respect to eligibility criteria and protective management. In addition, 

various technical papers published by the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordination 

Council related to the evaluation of rivers were used. These publications may be found at 

www.nps.gov/rivers/publications.html. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-2

II. ELIGIBILITY AND TENTATIVE CLASSIFICATION

Eligibility Determination Considerations 

For a river to be eligible for inclusion in the national system of rivers, the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act specifies that certain criteria (discussed below) must be met. These criteria apply not 

only to each potentially eligible river but also to their immediate environment, which is defined 

as a river corridor extending, on average, 1⁄4 mile from both sides of the high water mark. For 

purposes of the eligibility inventory, attention was not given to land ownership other than to 

ensure that at least some portion of a river segment crosses federal lands administered by the 

Kanab Field Office. The status of land ownership, however, is evaluated as a consideration in the 

suitability step of the study process, and is presented in detail in Section III of this appendix. 

Free-Flowing Character 

To be considered a free-flowing river, it must be a flowing body of water, or estuary, or section, 

portion, or tributary thereof, including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, kills, rills, and small lakes 

[Section 16 (a)]. A river can be any size or length, and does not have to be floatable or boatable. 

For purposes of eligibility determination, a river’s flow is sufficient as long as it sustains or 

complements the ORV for which the river is found to be eligible. The body of water must be 

existing or flowing in a natural condition without major modification of the waterway, such as 

channelization, impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification. 

However, some minor modifications can be allowed, such as low dams, diversion works, and 

minor structures [Section 16 (b)]. The river can lie between impoundments or major dams. 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifies that rivers “with their immediate environment, must 

possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, 

cultural, or other similar value” [Section 1 (b)]. 

The “Blue Book” further describes values and characteristics of each that are used to determine 

which values are outstandingly remarkable and at least regionally significant. The following 

summarizes the characteristics of each value that would render it rare, unique, or exemplary: 

• Scenic: Diversity of view, special features, seasonal variations, and cultural features 

• Recreational: Diversity of use, experience quality, length of season, access, level of use, 

attraction, sites and facilities, and associated opportunities 

• Geologic: Feature abundance, diversity of features, and educational /scientific importance 

• Fish: Habitat quality, diversity of species, values of species, abundance of fish, natural 

reproduction, size and vigor of fish, quality of experience, cultural/historic importance, 

recreational importance, and access 

• Wildlife: Habitat quality, diversity of species, abundance of species, natural reproduction, size 

and vigor of fish, quality of experience, cultural/historic importance, recreational importance, and 

access 

• Historic: Significance, site integrity, education/interpretation, and listing in or eligibility for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

• Cultural: Significance, current uses, number of cultures, site integrity, education/interpretation, 

and listing in or eligibility for listing in NRHP 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-3

• Ecologic: Species diversity, ecological function, rare communities, and educational/scientific 

features. 

Because these values must be at least regionally significant to be considered outstandingly 

remarkable, a region of comparison is necessary to guide the evaluation of a value’s significance. 

On May 8, 2002, an interagency team consisting of representatives of various National Forests, 

National Parks, and BLM offices within Utah concluded that using applicable ecological 

sections, or combinations of these sections, would be the most appropriate way to delineate 

regions of comparison. Ecological sections are basically subunits of physiographic provinces 

such as the Colorado Plateau. 

Ecological sections provide clear parameters of major ecological systems as defined by geology, 

topography, climate, and so on, and are typically the most distinct, visible features of the 

landscape. They offer an excellent context with relative consistency of scenic, wildlife, and other 

values for comparison, and are large enough to encompass areas with similar values without 

forcing comparison of disparate values. 

Team members relied on professional expertise, personal knowledge of the river segments, and 

field visits to determine if values were outstandingly remarkable. The interdisciplinary team 

generally defined the region of comparison as the Colorado Plateau. The region of comparison is 

intended to guide the evaluation, but it can vary for different resource considerations. The 

interdisciplinary team included an archeologist, hydrologist, geologist, rangeland specialists, 

wildlife biologist, recreation planner, realty specialist, landscape architect, land use planner, and 

geographic information system (GIS) specialist. If a segment was free-flowing and had at least 

one ORV, it was considered eligible. The team determined that 15 river segments were 

preliminarily eligible for congressional designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Tentative Classification 

Eligible rivers are given a tentative classification. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides for 

three possible classifications: “wild,” “scenic,” or “recreational.” These classifications, when 

applied to eligible rivers, are based on the type and degree of human development associated 

with the river and adjacent lands present at the time of inventory. They also prescribe what 

management activities would be allowed to occur along a river, as long as no ORV is 

compromised. The tentative classifications are based on the following: 

• Wild: Rivers classified as “wild”, which is the most restrictive Wild and Scenic River 

classification, are rivers that are free of impoundments and those that are generally inaccessible 

except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

• Scenic: Rivers classified as “scenic” are rivers that are generally free of impoundments, with 

shorelines or watersheds that are still largely primitive and shorelines that are largely 

undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

• Recreational: Rivers classified as “recreational” classification, which is the least restrictive Wild 

and Scenic River classification, are rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may 

have some development along their shorelines, and that may have substantial evidence of human 

activity. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-4

The BLM may consider alternative tentative classifications at the time of evaluating suitability, 

as per BLM Manual 8351.33C, to resolve potential conflicts with other management objectives 

(whether BLM’s or those of another official entity), provide continuity of management 

prescriptions, or on the basis of other management considerations within the river area. Final 

classification of a river segment is determined if and when a river is designated for entry into the 

national system. 

Eligibility Determinations Process 

The eligibility of the Paria River segment located within the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs 

Wilderness was determined in a previous study. The segment of the Paria River in Utah was 

found to be eligible in the Final Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative 

Environmental Impact Statement, December 1994. 

Coordination 

In November 1997, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the State of 

Utah and the BLM by former governor, Mike Leavitt, and former BLM state director, William 

Lamb, to establish a cooperative effort for Wild and Scenic River study processes for BLM field 

offices in Utah. In addition, Kane County previously established a cooperative agreement with 

the BLM for land use planning in a MOU signed February 2004. Likewise, Garfield County 

agreed to cooperate in a similar MOU signed July 2004. These agreements enabled the BLM to 

expand the interdisciplinary team of specialists formed for this study process to include 

representatives from these governments. 

Identification of Rivers for Review 

The role of federal land management agencies is to review rivers under their jurisdictions to 

determine their eligibility, tentative classification, and suitability for congressional designation. 

A river means a flowing body of water or estuary or a section, portion, or tributary thereof, 

including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, kills, rills, and small lakes. The evaluation process began 

with the solicitation of public nominations for eligible rivers. During that process, no 

nominations were received from the public. The interdisciplinary team then considered all 

drainages crossing public lands within the Kanab Field Office decision area, as depicted on BLM 

1:100,000 scale topographic maps. These drainages were reviewed to determine if they were (1) 

free-flowing and (2) contained any potential ORVs as defined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

In addition, the BLM used information from the Utah Rivers Council and the National Rivers 

Inventory. In all, 50 drainages were reviewed. 

Rivers Studied—Not Considered Further 

The following rivers were considered potentially eligible in the initial review of the decision 

area. However, they were found to be ephemeral, not free-flowing, or void of any ORVs. As 

directed by IM-2004-196 (Clarification of Policy in the BLM Manual Section 8351, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, with Respect to Eligibility Criteria and Protective Management), segments 

“should not be ephemeral (flow lasting only few days out of a year).” 

• Johnson Wash—Ephemeral, not free-flowing. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-5

• Fisher Canyon—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Robinson Creek—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Sink Valley Wash—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Trail Canyon—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Pugh Canyon—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Toms Canyon—Not free-flowing due to diversions. 

• Maranger Canyon—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Willis Canyon (Complex)—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Oak Canyon—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Dairy Canyon—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Steep Trail Spring Canyon—No ORVs. 

• Red Hollow—Not free-flowing, no ORVs. 

• Dry Wash—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Lydia’s Canyon—Not free-flowing, no ORVs. 

• Smith Creek—Not free-flowing, no ORVs. 

• Limekiln Creek—No ORVs. 

• Peterson Wash—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Sanford Creek—No ORVs. 

• Butler Wash—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Bunting Canyon—Ephemeral, no ORVs. 

• Panguitch Creek—Mostly private, only 660 feet on BLM lands. 

• Escalante Creek—Only 2,300 feet on land outside the Grand Staircase–Escalante National 

Monument (GSENM), character not the same as what was found suitable in GSENM plan. Was 

found not eligible in GSENM planning process. 

• Buckskin Gulch—Ephemeral. 

• Wire Pass—Ephemeral. 

• Varney Griffin—No ORVs. 

Potentially Eligible Rivers Considered 

From among all of the streams identified, focus was narrowed by the interdisciplinary team to 

those identified as potentially eligible. Following the review of 50 drainages, 34 river segments 

were identified as potentially eligible or requiring further review. Table A13-5 is a list of these 

segments and the evaluation of findings. 

Table A13-5. Summary of All Potentially Eligible River Segments Considered, and 

Identification of Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

Segment Description County Drainage 

Typei 

FreeFlowingii 

Potential 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value(s) 

North Fork Virgin River—Segment 48-49 

Section 31-33 (northeast of Zion National Park 

[NP]). 

Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Geologic 

Wildlife 

Recreational 

North Fork Virgin River—Segment 46-47 

Section 34 up to private land boundary in 

northwest quarter of Section 24.

Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Wildlife 

Recreational 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-6

Segment Description County Drainage 

Typei 

FreeFlowingii 

Potential 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value(s) 

East Fork Virgin River—Segment 36-41 

private property to Zion NP boundary. Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Geologic 

Wildlife 

Fish 

Historic 

Ecologic 

Recreational 

Cultural 

Orderville Gulch (Esplin Gulch)—Segment 44-

45 Zion NP boundary to the falls; Esplin Gulch 

Segment 45-45A.

Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Recreational 

Geologic 

Wildlife 

Ecologic 

Bob Creek (tributary of Orderville Gulch)—

Segment 42-43 from diversion to Bob Creek in 

Section 6.

Kane Perennial Yes Scenic 

Meadow Creek / Mineral Gulch—Segments 

33-35 and 35-38 south of Highway 9 to 

confluence with Mineral Gulch, then to 

confluence with East Fork Virgin River. 

Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Recreational 

Geologic 

Deep Creek—Segment 50-51 from 

Washington County line to BLM boundary in 

Section 30. 

Kane Perennial Yes Scenic 

Kanab Creek—Segment 7-8 south of Alton at 

Alton Sink Valley Road to the falls. Kane Perennial No None 

Kanab Creek—Segment 8-9 from falls to BLM 

boundary in northeast corner in Section 32. Kane Intermittent Yes 

Scenic 

Recreational 

Wildlife 

Kanab Creek—Segment 9-10 from Point 9 to 

dam north of Kanab. Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Wildlife 

Cottonwood Creek—Segment 28-29 

beginning in Section 10 at BLM boundary, 

ending at confluence with Indian Canyon.

Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Recreational 

Wildlife 

Cultural 

Cottonwood Creek—Segment 31-32 

beginning at confluence with Indian Canyon to 

BLM boundary in Section 3.

Kane Perennial No None 

Indian Canyon—Segment 26-27 from head of 

canyon to confluence with Cottonwood Creek. Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Recreational 

Geologic 

Ecologic 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-7

Segment Description County Drainage 

Typei 

FreeFlowingii 

Potential 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value(s) 

South Fork Indian Canyon—Segment 22-23 

from head of South Fork Indian Canyon to 

BLM boundary in northeast corner of Section 

20.

Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Recreational 

Wildlife 

Cultural 

Ecologic 

North Branch of South Fork Indian Canyon—

Segment 23-24 from point where canyon 

deepens to BLM boundary in southeast corner 

of Section 17. 

Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Recreational 

Geologic 

Cultural 

Ecologic 

Water Canyon—Segment 20-21 beginning at 

head of canyon to BLM boundary in Section 

21. 

Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Recreational 

Geologic 

Ecologic 

Hell Dive Canyon—Segment 30-31 from point 

where canyon deepens to confluence with 

Cottonwood Creek. 

Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Recreational 

Geologic 

Cultural 

Ecologic 

Thompson Creek—Segment 5-6 beginning at 

BLM boundary just south of confluence with 

Birch Creek to BLM boundary at south end of 

Section 19. 

Kane Perennial Yes None 

Mill Creek (tributaries)—Segment 2-4 

beginning at BLM boundary in southeast 

corner of Section 34 to BLM boundary in 

eastern part of Section 20.

Kane Perennial Yes None 

Mill Creek (tributaries)—Segment 1-3 Mineral 

Creek from BLM property line in Section 4 to 

confluence with Mill Creek.

Kane Perennial Yes None 

Hog Canyon (tributaries)—Segment 16-19 

beginning at headwaters to TV Hill Road in 

Section 10.

Kane Intermittent Yes None 

Hog Canyon (tributaries)—Segment 17-18 

South Fork Hog Canyon, beginning at 

headwaters in Section 12 to confluence with 

main stem Hog Canyon in Section 11. 

Kane Intermittent Yes None 

Hog Canyon (tributaries)—Segment 14-15 

North Fork Hog Canyon beginning at 

Crocodile Road in Section 34 to confluence 

with main stem. 

Kane Intermittent Yes None 

Tiny Canyon—Section 10-11 beginning at 

BLM boundary in Section 6 to confluence with 

Kanab Creek. 

Kane Perennial Yes Wildlife 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-8

Segment Description County Drainage 

Typei 

FreeFlowingii 

Potential 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value(s) 

Paria River—Segment 68-69 beginning at 

Wilderness/GSENM boundary to Arizona 

border; entire segment is within Paria 

Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness. 

Kane Perennial Yes 

Scenic 

Recreational 

Geologic 

Wildlife 

Sevier River—Segment 53-55 beginning at 

BLM boundary in Section 6 north to BLM 

boundary in Section 8. 

Garfield Perennial No None 

Sevier River—Segment 52-53 from BLM 

boundary in Section 8 to BLM boundary in 

northeast part of Section 15 north of Hatch. 

Garfield Perennial No None 

Three Mile Creek—Segment 56-57 beginning 

at the Dixie National Forest boundary in 

Section 11 to BLM boundary in Section 7.

Garfield Perennial Yes Fish 

Sandy Creek—Segment 58-59 beginning at 

BLM boundary in Section 35 to State 

boundary in Section 35. 

Garfield Perennial Yes None 

Bear Creek—Segment 60-61 from BLM 

boundary in Section 6 to BLM boundary in 

Section 9.

Garfield Perennial No None 

Choke Cherry Creek—Segment 54-55 from 

BLM boundary in Section 11 to confluence 

with Sevier River. 

Garfield Perennial Yes None 

Birch Creek—Segment 64-65 from BLM 

boundary in Section 11 to BLM boundary in 

Section 17. 

Garfield Perennial Yes None 

North Creek (tributaries)—Segment 66-67 

from BLM boundary to BLM boundary in 

Section 9-16. 

Garfield Perennial Yes None 

Upper Valley Creek—Segment 58-59 from 

BLM boundary in Section 4 to BLM boundary 

in Section 17 just upstream of confluence with 

Birch Creek. 

Garfield Perennial No None 

Notes: 

i - Drainages were identified as one of three types: 

• Perennial—Stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated with a water table in the localities 

through which they flow. 

• Intermittent—Stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs or from some surface 

source such as melting snow in mountainous areas. 

• Ephemeral—Stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and whose channel is above the water table at all 

times. 

ii "Free-flowing"—Means existing or flowing in a natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or 

other modifications of the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, or other minor structures at the time 

any river is proposed for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System shall not bar its consideration for such inclusion.
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-9

Identification of Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

Following interdisciplinary team review of the 34 segments, 18 segments were identified as 

being free-flowing, being either perennial or intermittent, and potentially possessing one or more 

ORVs. Table A13-6 identifies and describes the ORV analysis of these 18 segments. 

Table A13-6. Evaluation of Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

North Fork Virgin River

Segment 48-49 Section 31-33 (northeast of Zion 

NP). 

Eligible in Section 31-32 

Tentative Classification: Wild 

Values evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Scenic—Entire segment is rated as Class A scenery. 

• Recreational—Used for hiking (which requires a permit to 

enter Zion NP, the Narrows). Segment is highly valued for 

hiking, backpacking, nature study, and photography in an 

exceptionally scenic, wilderness-quality setting. 

• Wildlife—Possible neotropical migratory bird habitat 

(Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Executive Order 13186). Spotted 

owl (threatened species) designated critical habitat 

cooperatively managed with Zion NP. 

Value evaluated, not determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Geologic—All exposed formations can be seen in several 

other canyons in the area, and are not rare or unique. 

North Fork Virgin River

Segment 46-47 Section 34 up to private land 

boundary in northwest quarter of Section 24. 

Not Eligible 

Values evaluated, none determined outstandingly 

remarkable: 

• Scenic—Entire segment is rated as Class A scenery, but 

the scenery is not notable, scarce, or exemplary when 

compared with other scenery in the region. 

• Wildlife— Spotted owl designated critical habitat is present; 

however, per BLM-M-8351 Section .3(c) (‘Contiguous 

habitat conditions are such that the biological needs of the 

species are met’) the habitat in this corridor is not 

contiguous and does not meet the needs of the species in 

this area. 

• Recreational—Not much recreational use due to large 

amounts of private property. 

East Fork Virgin River

Segment 36-41 private land to Zion NP boundary. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Wild, Scenic, and 

Recreational 

Values evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Scenic—Entire segment is rated as Class A scenery. 

• Cultural—Numerous cultural resource sites considered 

eligible for listing in NRHP within the river canyon, plus 

dense concentrations of Virgin Anasazi sites situated on 

benches above the canyon.

• Recreational—Segment is highly valued for hiking, 

backpacking, nature study, and photography in an 

exceptionally scenic, wilderness-quality setting. 

• Fish—Habitat and populations of sensitive fish.

• Wildlife—Possible neotropical migratory bird habitat 

(Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Executive Order 13186), 

sensitive amphibian habitat. Spotted owl designated critical 

habitat. 

• Historic—John Wesley Powell exploration in the river 

canyon in 1872. 

• Ecologic—Unique plant community (hanging gardens). 

Value evaluated, not determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Geologic—All exposed formations can be seen in several 

other canyons in the area, and are not rare or unique. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-10

Orderville Gulch (Esplin Gulch) 

Segment 44-45 Zion NP boundary to the falls; 

Esplin Gulch Segment 45-45A. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Wild 

Values evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable:

• Scenic—Entire segment is rated as Class A scenery. 

• Recreational—Segment is heavily used and highly valued 

for hiking, photography, and canyoneering. Opportunities in 

a canyon setting very similar to those in adjacent Zion NP. 

• Wildlife—Possible neotropical migratory bird habitat 

(Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Executive Order 13186). Spotted 

owl nesting habitat. 

• Ecologic—Unique plant community (hanging gardens). 

Value evaluated, not determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Geologic—All exposed formations can be seen in several 

other canyons in the area, and are not rare or unique. 

Bob Creek (tributary of Orderville Gulch) 

Segment 42-43 from diversion to Bob Creek in 

Section 6. 

Not Eligible 

Values evaluated, none determined outstandingly 

remarkable: 

• Scenic—Entire segment is rated as Class A scenery, but 

the scenery is not notable, scarce, or exemplary when 

compared with other scenery in the region. 

Meadow Creek / Mineral Gulch 

Segments 33-35 and 35-38 south of Highway 9 to 

confluence with Mineral Gulch, then to 

confluence with East Fork Virgin River. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Wild 

Values evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Scenic—Majority of segment is Class A scenery. Scenic 

values of sculptured slickrock and ledges untouched by 

human influence. 

• Recreational—Segment is popular with visitors seeking 

exceptionally scenic hiking, backpacking, photography, and 

nature study opportunities in a dramatic, deep canyon 

setting where solitude abounds.

Value evaluated, not determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Geologic—All exposed formations can be seen in several 

other canyons in the area, and are not rare or unique. 

Deep Creek

Segment 50-51 from Washington County line to 

BLM boundary in Section 30. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Wild 

Value evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Scenic—Entire segment is rated as Class A scenery; 

access is limited due to surrounding private property.

Kanab Creek 

Segment 8-9 from the falls to BLM boundary in 

northeast corner in Section 32. 

Not Eligible 

Values evaluated, none determined outstandingly 

remarkable: 

• Scenic—Deep gorge carved in Navajo Sandstone with 

mature ponderosa pine; approximately 50% of segment is in 

Class A scenery, but the scenery is not especially 

outstanding when compared with other scenery in the 

region. 

• Recreational—Most recreation use is by local residents

and is similar in nature to that occurring in several other 

similar settings near Kanab.

• Wildlife—Little riparian vegetation. No Southwestern willow 

flycatcher habitat. Within Paunsaguant deer herd 

management area. 

Kanab Creek 

Segment 9-10 from Point 9 to dam north of 

Values evaluated, none determined outstandingly 

remarkable: 

• Scenic—Scenery is not notable, scarce, or exemplary when 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-11

Kanab. 

Not Eligible 

compared with other scenery in the region.

• Wildlife—Neotropical migratory bird habitat; however, it is 

not exemplary when compared with other habitat in the 

region.

• Recreational—Most recreation use is by local residents. 

Cottonwood Creek 

Segment 28-29 beginning in Section 10 at BLM 

boundary ending at confluence with Indian 

Canyon. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Wild 

Values evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Recreational—Canyon offers exceptional non-motorized/ 

non-mechanized recreation opportunities in an enticing 

canyon setting. 

• Cultural—Two eligible sites within segment, but NRHPlisted site 42Ka1581 Cottonwood Canyon Cliff Dwellings 

and four nearby rock art sites, are found in a tributary 

canyon to the east. 

• Wildlife—Neotropical migratory bird habitat (Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, Executive Order 13186). 

Value evaluated, not determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Scenic—Class A scenery; scenery is not especially 

notable, scarce, or exemplary when compared with other 

scenery in the vicinity of Kanab. 

Indian Canyon 

Segment 26-27 from head of canyon to 

confluence with Cottonwood Creek. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Wild 

Values evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable:

• Scenic—Deep, narrow canyon, Class A scenery. 

• Recreational—Canyon offers non-motorized/nonmechanized recreation opportunities (e.g., hiking, 

canyoneering, photography, and nature study) in a highly 

scenic and diverse canyon setting. 

• Ecologic—Unique plant community (hanging gardens). 

Value evaluated, not determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Geologic—All exposed formations can be seen in several 

other canyons in the area, and are not rare or unique.

South Fork Indian Canyon

Segment 22-23 from head of South Fork Indian 

Canyon to BLM boundary in northeast corner of 

Section 20. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Wild 

Values evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable:

• Scenic—Deep, narrow canyon, Class A scenery.

• Recreational—Canyon offers exceptional non-motorized/ 

non-mechanized recreation opportunities (e.g., hiking, 

canyoneering, photography, and nature study) in a highly 

scenic and diverse canyon setting. 

• Ecologic—Unique plant community (hanging gardens). 

Value evaluated, not determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Geologic—All exposed formations can be seen in several 

other canyons in the area, and are not rare or unique. 

North Branch of South Fork Indian Canyon 

Segment 24-25 from point where canyon 

deepens to BLM boundary in southeast corner of 

Section 17. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Wild 

Values evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable:

• Scenic—Deep, narrow canyon, Class A scenery.

• Recreational—Canyon offers exceptional non-motorized/ 

non-mechanized recreation opportunities (e.g., hiking, 

canyoneering, photography, and nature study) in a highly 

scenic and diverse canyon setting. 

• Cultural—One recorded site, 42Ka1576 South Fork Indian 

Canyon Pictographs, eligible for listing in NRHP. 

• Ecologic—Unique plant community (hanging gardens); 

Zion jamesia (sensitive plant) is present. 

Value evaluated, not determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Geologic—All exposed formations can be seen in several 

other canyons in the area, and are not rare or unique. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-12

Water Canyon 

Segment 20-21 from point where canyon 

deepens to BLM boundary in Section 21. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Wild 

Values evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable:

• Scenic—Deep, narrow canyon, Class A scenery. 

• Recreational—Canyon offers non-motorized/mechanized 

recreation opportunities (e.g., hiking, canyoneering, 

photography, and nature study) in a highly scenic and 

diverse canyon setting. 

• Ecologic—Unique plant community (hanging gardens); 

Zion jamesia (sensitive plant) is present. 

Value evaluated, not determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Geologic—All exposed formations can be seen in several 

other canyons in the area, and are not rare or unique. 

Hell Dive Canyon 

Segment 30-31 from point where canyon 

deepens to confluence with Cottonwood Creek. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Wild 

Values evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable:

• Scenic—Deep, narrow canyon, Class A scenery. 

• Recreational—Canyon offers exceptional non-motorized/ 

non-mechanized recreation opportunities (e.g., hiking, 

canyoneering, photography, and nature study) in a highly 

scenic and diverse canyon setting. 

• Cultural—One recorded rockshelter/rock art/structural site, 

eligible for listing in NRHP. 

• Ecology—Unique plant community (hanging gardens); Zion 

jamesia (sensitive plant) is present.

Value evaluated, not determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Geologic—All exposed formations can be seen in several 

other canyons in the area, and are not rare or unique.

Paria River

Segment 68-69 beginning at Wilderness/GSENM 

boundary to Arizona border; entire segment is 

within Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Wild 

Value determined outstandingly remarkable: 

• Scenic—Class A scenery. 

• Wildlife—Neotropical migratory bird habitat (Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, Executive Order 13186).

• Recreational—Wilderness hiking and backpacking; 

opportunities for primitive experience and solitude in a 

dramatic, narrow desert canyon setting. 

Three Mile Creek 

Segment 56-57 beginning at the Dixie National 

Forest boundary in Section 11 to BLM boundary 

in Section 7. 

Eligible 

Tentative Classification: Recreation 

Value evaluated and determined outstandingly remarkable:

• Fish—Bonneville cutthroat trout (sensitive species) present. 

Summary of Rivers Determined Eligible 

Following analysis of the ORVs, 15 segments (identified in Table A13-7) were determined to be 

either perennial or intermittent, free-flowing, and possessing ORVs, judged regionally or 

nationally significant, and, therefore, declared eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS. These 

eligible segments are analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS for their potential suitability for inclusion 

in the NWSRS. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-13

Table A13-7. Rivers Determined Eligible for Designation into the NWSRS 

Segment 

Name 

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Value(s) 

Miles in 

Decision 

Area 

River 

Corridor 

(acres) 

River 

Corridor in 

Decision 

Area (acres) 

% of River 

Corridor in 

Decision 

Area 

North Fork Virgin 

River scenic, recreational, wildlife 2.2 500 430 86 

East Fork Virgin 

River (three 

segments) 

scenic, cultural, recreational, 

fish, wildlife, historical, ecologic 13.5 2,510 2,510 100 

Orderville Gulch 

(Esplin Gulch) 

scenic, recreational, wildlife, 

ecologic 3.2 640 590 92 

Meadow 

Creek/Mineral 

Gulch 

scenic, recreational 9.2 1,780 1,760 99 

Deep Creek scenic 0.7 210 130 62 

Cottonwood 

Creek recreational, cultural, wildlife 1.1 320 280 87 

Indian Canyon scenic, recreational, ecologic 0.7 160 140 88 

South Fork 

Indian Canyon scenic, recreational, ecologic 1.8 490 450 92 

North Branch of 

South Fork 

Indian Canyon 

scenic, recreational, cultural, 

ecologic 0.4 110 90 82 

Water Canyon scenic, recreational, ecologic 3.2 710 710 100 

Hell Dive Canyon scenic, recreational, cultural, 

ecologic 1.4 350 350 100 

Paria River scenic, wildlife, recreational 4.8 1,090 1,020 100 

Three Mile Creek fish 3.7 850 770 91 

Totals 45.9 9,720 9,200 95

III. SUITABILITY

Determination of Suitability 

Rivers determined to be eligible for inclusion into the NWSRS are further evaluated to determine 

their suitability for inclusion into the national system. 

The purpose of the suitability step of the study process is to determine whether eligible rivers 

would be appropriate additions to the national system by considering tradeoffs between corridor 

development and river protection. Suitability considerations include the environmental and 

economic consequences of designation and the manageability of a river if it were designated by 

Congress. 

The EIS evaluates impacts that would result if the eligible rivers were determined suitable and 

managed to protect their free-flowing nature, tentative classification, and ORVs. It also addresses 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-14

impacts that would result if the eligible rivers are determined not suitable and their values are not 

provided protective management. The range of alternatives include the no action alternative 

(Alternative A), which does not address or provide for decisions on suitability, but leaves rivers 

eligible, and Alternative C, which finds all eligible rivers suitable. Alternative D finds none of 

the eligible rivers suitable; Alternative B finds some eligible rivers suitable. Alternative tentative 

classifications are also evaluated. 

In addition to the impact analysis addressed by alternative, the following suitability 

considerations are applied to each eligible river: 

• Characteristics that do or do not make the area a worthy addition to the national system 

• Status of land ownership and use in the area 

• Uses, including reasonably foreseeable potential uses, of the area and related waters that 

would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the national 

system of rivers; and the values that could be foreclosed or diminished if the area is not 

protected as part of the national system 

• Interest by federal, tribal, state, local, and other public entities in designation or nondesignation of a river, including the extent to which the administration of the river, 

including the costs thereof, can be shared by the above mentioned entities 

• Ability of the agency to manage and protect the values of a river area if it were 

designated, and other mechanisms to protect identified values other than Wild and Scenic 

Rivers designation 

• The estimated cost, if necessary, of acquiring lands, interests in lands, and administering 

the area if it were included in the national system 

• The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and state governments. 

Coordination 

A series of interdisciplinary meetings was held from October 2005 through September 2006 

during the suitability step of the study process. Cooperating agencies also participated in the 

process and attended the meetings. In addition to numerous internal meetings, a series of 

meetings and field trips were held in summer 2006 to review potentially eligible/suitable 

segments with cooperating agencies. 

Suitability Study 

Public comments received on the Draft Evaluation Report: Wild and Scenic River Eligibility 

Kanab Resource Management Plan have been used to improve the documentation of the 

suitability considerations presented below, and to document the impacts that would result from 

the various alternatives. The actual determination of whether or not each eligible river segment is 

suitable is a decision that will be made in the Record of Decision for the Kanab Resource 

Management Plan (RMP). 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-15

North Fork Virgin River—Segment 48-49 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

This segment possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, and wildlife values. These 

values are described in detail below. 

Scenic 

This entire segment is rated Class A scenery. The lack of man-made structures; variety of natural 

shapes, textures, and colors; and the gradual transition from a relatively open valley stream 

setting to a deeply entrenched, prominent slot canyon make the North Fork Virgin River 

exceptionally scenic and photogenic. 

Recreational 

Because the North Fork serves as the main entrance to the Zion Narrows trek within Zion 

National Park (NP), the main recreation activity involves trekkers accessing the park. The 

outstanding scenery and wilderness-like setting make the trek along the river unique and 

exceptionally satisfying. Day use activities include hiking into portions of the canyon, nature 

photography, wildlife viewing, and occasional hunting. Private land upstream of the BLM 

segment limits off-highway-vehicle (OHV) use to only an occasional authorized vehicle. There 

is no motorized travel allowed beyond the east boundary of the North Fork Virgin River 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA). 

Wildlife 

This segment includes possible neotropical migratory bird habitat. It is also Mexican spotted owl 

designated critical habitat. 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 86 percent federally managed public lands. 

This segment is used by recreationists to access the narrows within Zion NP. The upper reach of 

this segment, above the canyon narrows, is used for livestock grazing and dispersed recreation. 

Private land ownership upstream of the WSA limits motorized access to the river segment. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

Current recreational uses would be preserved by congressional designation, protecting the values 

associated with the non-motorized uses and perceived natural condition and scenic values. 

Recreational enhancements would be limited to increased signage and management if 

designated. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-16

The North Fork Virgin River WSA includes 46 percent of the public lands along this segment. 

These lands have been recommended by the BLM to Congress for wilderness designation. 

Designation of this stream into the NWSRS would be compatible with and would enhance 

wilderness use and management of the area. 

Congressional designation would provide permanent protection specifically for the free-flowing 

condition of the river, its water quality, and its ORVs. This would be in addition to protection 

already afforded by the WSA status. Failure to include the river segment in the NWSRS, on the 

other hand, would not necessarily diminish the values on the basis of which the river was 

determined eligible inasmuch as the area’s WSA status would continue. Furthermore, many of 

the other land use prescriptions (e.g., Special Recreation Management Area [SRMA] 

designation) being considered in the EIS would also preserve and enhance such values if 

implemented. Such prescriptions would be temporary, however, and could be changed through 

plan amendment or plan revision. 

Inclusion of a river into the NWSRS could preclude the construction of dams or other waterrelated projects if they would occur within the designated segment and have direct and/or 

adverse effects on the ORVs (e.g., scenic, recreational, and wildlife) or free-flowing condition. 

None are currently proposed. Other projects on federal lands within the designated river area, 

such as construction of roads, pipelines, or other structures, would not be allowed, and the lands 

would be closed to mineral location if Congress were to classify this segment as “wild.” 

However, considering the area’s WSA status, no such development is currently proposed or 

foreseeable within the federal portion of this segment. Water-related projects proposed outside 

the segment would be precluded only if they would invade or unreasonably diminish scenic, 

recreational, or wildlife values within the designated segment. None are currently proposed. 

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

The National Park Service (NPS) has recommended the river portion that extends within Zion 

NP for Wild and Scenic River designation. Administration of recreation resources and activities 

within the segment could be shared with Zion NP. 

Local and state agencies and water users oppose designation primarily over their concerns that 

current and potential water use of this or any eligible stream could be affected. However, there 

are no current or foreseen uses that would be affected. Some private citizens and regional and 

national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of this stream for congressional 

designation. The Kaibab band of the Southern Paiute Tribe supports any potential Wild and 

Scenic River designation. Kane County comments state, “If determined suitable the County 

suggests the segment begin at the WSA boundary where it incises into the canyon rather than at 

the proposed location in the valley.” 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

Land status and classification level would not create problems for manageability. The BLM 

would be capable of managing this segment if it were designated, particularly with adequate 

funding. Wild and Scenic River designation would increase the Utah BLM’s ability to compete 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-17

for agency dollars, and with increased funding and focused management, the agency’s ability to 

deal with recreational management of the area would improve. Designation would promote 

national and public recognition of the values associated with this segment and further the goals 

and policy established by Congress in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The free-flowing nature of this stream is not currently at risk, and the identified ORVs on public 

lands could be effectively managed under land use prescriptions being considered in the EIS, if 

designation does not occur and if the management prescriptions are implemented. These 

prescriptions would be associated with the North Fork Virgin River WSA. The river corridor 

within the WSA is managed according to the Interim Management Policy (IMP). Protection 

would also be afforded by designation of the North Fork Virgin River SRMA. The status of the 

WSA, SRMA, and other management prescriptions is subject to change due to congressional 

action or revised land use plans. Therefore, the protection these designations afford the river 

values is subject to change. However, the isolation of the stream due to the very limited public 

access and the extreme topography inevitably provides additional protection. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

Costs could be reduced due to shared management with the NPS. Possible costs could be 

incurred due to acquisition of a small portion of the segment currently in private ownership. 

However, Kane County has a “no net loss” policy regarding private property, and would be 

unsupportive of BLM attempts to acquire private land. There is a concern about private riparian 

lands in the corridor. Other costs could be related to a management plan, if shared management 

with the NPS is not feasible. 

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

State and local governments have made it clear that they would not share management costs of 

designated streams. 

East Fork Virgin River—Segment 37-41 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

This segment possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, cultural, historic, fish, 

wildlife, and ecologic values. These values are described in detail below. 

Scenic 

This entire segment is rated as Class A scenery, and is characterized by colorful sandstone 

canyon rims rising several hundred feet above the river valley floor. The river meanders 

frequently along a ribbon of riparian vegetation. Streamside cliffs and distant slopes and 

precipices range from light buff shades to dark reds and browns, all sprinkled with various 

greens and yellows of the many trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses of Parunuweap Canyon. Spring 

and early summer blossoms add touches of red, orange, yellow, and pale blue wildflowers. Signs 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-18

of human occupation or disturbance along the river segment are rare, so the scenery is 

thoroughly primitive, spectacularly wild, and wholly natural in appearance. 

Recreational 

The East Fork Virgin River flows directly into the southeastern portion of Zion NP, and the 

scenery is very similar to that portion of the park. Typical recreation use consists of backpackers 

conducting multi-day trips from the upper reach of the river within the Parunuweap WSA to the 

exit route near Checkerboard Mesa in the park. Day hikes to various portions of the river 

segment are also common. All-terrain vehicle (ATV) riders occasionally reach the river shores, 

although motorized travel is restricted by WSA interim management to only one or two sites 

along the entire river segment. Canyoneering, wildlife viewing, and nature study are frequent 

attractions to visitors. Hunting is allowed, but is not often encountered along the river segment 

because of the lack of easy motorized access and the steep slopes and cliffs along the river bank 

the farther downstream one travels. 

Cultural 

There are numerous cultural resource sites considered eligible for listing in the NRHP within the 

river canyon, and there are dense concentrations of Virgin Anasazi sites situated on the benches 

above the canyon. Older and younger sites are present as well. These sites, especially those 

within the narrow confines of the canyon, are an important scientific resource that contributes to 

the ORVs of this river segment. 

Historic 

John Wesley Powell explored this river canyon in 1872. 

Fish 

This segment includes habitat and populations of native fish. It is also the upland watershed for 

sensitive fisheries downstream of the Zion NP boundary.

Wildlife 

This segment includes possible neotropical migratory bird habitat and sensitive amphibian 

habitat. It is also Mexican spotted owl designated critical habitat. 

Ecologic 

This segment contains unique plant communities (hanging gardens). 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 100 percent federally managed public lands. 

This segment has been used for accessing the Fat Man’s Misery portion of Zion NP; however, 

Zion NP does not permit use through its portion of Parunuweap Canyon. There are high levels of 

non-motorized recreation use on the public lands portions of the canyon. Lands associated with 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-19

this segment are also used for livestock grazing. There are two routes (ways) within proximity to 

the river. Although one route is not currently used for crossing the river, the historic route of the 

other road crosses the river several times in the space of about 3 miles, just upstream from this 

river segment. 

This entire segment is within the Parunuweap WSA and is managed according to the (IMP). The 

IMP does not allow for new developments or surface-disturbing activity. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

Designation of this segment as a “wild” river segment could create conflict with use along 

identified routes (ways). 

Uses and values that would be affected by congressional designation are also addressed in the 

cumulative impacts section of the EIS. 

All of the public lands within this segment of the East Fork Virgin River are within the 

Parunuweap Canyon WSA. This portion of the WSA has been recommended by BLM to 

Congress for wilderness designation. Designation of this stream into the NWSRS would be 

compatible with and enhance wilderness use and management of the area. 

Congressional designation would provide permanent protection specifically of the free-flowing 

condition of the river, its water quality, and its ORVs. This would be in addition to the protection 

already afforded by the WSA status. Failure to include this segment of the East Fork Virgin 

River in the NWSRS, on the other hand, would not necessarily diminish the values on the basis 

of which the river was determined eligible, inasmuch as the area’s WSA status would continue 

and other land use prescriptions (e.g., Parunuweap SRMA) being considered in the Draft 

RMP/EIS would also preserve and enhance such values if implemented. Such prescriptions 

would be temporary, however, and could be changed. 

Inclusion of a river into the NWSRS could preclude construction of dams or other water-related 

projects if they would occur within the designated segment and would have direct and/or adverse 

effects on the ORVs or free-flowing condition. None are currently proposed. Other projects on 

federal lands within the designated river area, such as construction of roads, pipelines, or other 

structures, would not be allowed, and the lands would be closed to mineral location if Congress 

were to classify this segment as “wild.” However, considering the area’s WSA status, no such 

development is currently proposed or foreseeable. Water-related projects proposed outside the 

segment would be precluded only if they would invade or unreasonably diminish scenic, 

recreational, cultural, historic, fish, wildlife, or ecologic values within the designated segment. 

None are currently proposed. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-20

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

The NPS has recommended the river portion that extends within Zion NP for WSR designation. 

Administration of recreational resources and activities within the segment could be shared with 

Zion NP. 

State and local governments might support congressional designation of this segment, but not 

upstream of the identified routes (ways). Kane County representatives have noted that the county 

would be more comfortable supporting designation of the lower portion of the segment where the 

canyon is void of roads or development. 

Local and state agencies and water users oppose designation primarily over their concerns that 

current and potential water use of this or any eligible segments could be affected. However, there 

are no current or foreseen uses of the river segment that would be affected. Some private citizens 

and regional and national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of this segment for 

congressional designation. The Kaibab band of the Southern Paiute Tribe supports any potential 

Wild and Scenic River designation. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

See initial paragraph under suitability consideration #5 for North Fork Virgin River Segment 48-

49 above. The river segment would be manageable due to public land ownership, but identified 

routes (ways) could create conflicts in management. 

The free-flowing nature of this stream is not currently at risk, and the identified ORVs on public 

lands could be effectively managed under land use prescriptions being considered in the EIS, if 

designation does not occur and if the management prescriptions are implemented. These 

prescriptions would be associated with the Parunuweap Canyon WSA. The river corridor within 

the WSA is managed according to the IMP. Protection would also be afforded river values by the 

proposed Parunuweap SRMA. The status of the WSA, SRMA, and other management 

prescriptions is subject to change due to congressional action or revised land use plans. 

Therefore, the protection these designations afford the river values is subject to change. 

However, the isolation of the stream due to the very limited public access and the extreme 

topography inevitably provides additional protection. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

The initial costs of administration for the first 3 years would involve preparing a management 

plan. Yearly administration costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may include 

additional studies and monitoring as well as additional BLM presence in the area. Long-term 

costs would be related primarily to enforcement. Costs could be reduced by sharing management 

with the NPS. Other costs could be related to a management plan, if shared management with the 

NPS is not feasible. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-21

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

State and local governments have made it clear that they would not share management costs of 

designated streams. 

East Fork Virgin River—Segment 36-37 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

This segment possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, cultural, historic, fish, 

wildlife, and ecologic values. These values are described in detail below. 

Scenic 

This entire segment is rated as Class A scenery, and is characterized by colorful sandstone 

canyon rims rising several hundred feet above the river valley floor. The river meanders 

frequently along a ribbon of riparian vegetation. Streamside cliffs and distant slopes and 

precipices range from light buff shades to dark reds and browns, all sprinkled with various 

greens and yellows of the many trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses of Parunuweap Canyon. Spring 

and early summer blossoms add touches of red, orange, yellow, and pale blue wildflowers. Signs 

of human occupation or disturbance along the river segment are limited to vehicle tracks crossing 

the river at several locations, so the scenery is heavily primitive, wild, and natural in appearance. 

Recreational 

The East Fork Virgin River flows directly into the southeastern portion of Zion NP, and the 

scenery is similar to that portion of the park. Typical recreation use consists of backpackers 

conducting multi-day trips from the upper reach of the river within the Parunuweap WSA to the 

exit route near Checkerboard Mesa in the park. Day hikes to various portions of the river 

segment are also common. ATV riders traverse the stream channel along the entire river 

segment. Wildlife viewing and nature study are frequent attractions to visitors. Hunting and 

OHV touring are other popular activities along this segment. 

Cultural 

There are numerous cultural resource sites considered eligible for listing in the NRHP within the 

river canyon, and there are dense concentrations of Virgin Anasazi sites situated on the benches 

above the canyon. Older and younger sites are present as well. These sites, especially those 

within the narrow confines of the canyon, are an important scientific resource that contributes to 

the ORVs of this river segment. 

Historic 

John Wesley Powell explored the river canyon in 1872. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-22

Fish 

This segment includes habitat for and populations of sensitive fish. 

Wildlife 

This segment has possible neotropical migratory bird habitat and sensitive amphibian habitat. It 

is also Mexican spotted owl designated critical habitat. 

Ecologic 

This segment contains unique plant communities (hanging gardens). 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 100 percent federally managed public lands. 

The road within the corridor is adjacent to the river, crosses it several times, and is currently 

open to motorized recreation. The area is also popular for hunting, nature study, and horseback 

riding. Livestock grazing occurs along this segment and on adjacent lands; there are also range 

improvements to support livestock grazing. The segment is completely within the Parunuweap 

Canyon WSA and is managed according to the IMP. 

Present within or along the majority of this segment of the East Fork Virgin River is a historical 

OHV route. Thus, vehicle-based recreation occurs often on the route, except for during periods 

of high runoff during spring snowmelt or flash flood events. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

Designation as “recreational” would not diminish motorized use on the route or hunting. Uses 

and values that would be affected by congressional designation are also addressed in the 

cumulative impacts section of the EIS. 

The entire reach of this segment of the East Fork Virgin River is within the Parunuweap Canyon 

WSA. This portion of the WSA has been recommended by BLM to Congress for wilderness 

designation. Designation of this segment into the NWSRS would be compatible with and would 

enhance wilderness use and management of the area. Congressional designation would provide 

permanent protection specifically of the free-flowing condition of the river, its water quality, and 

its ORVs. This would be in addition to protection already afforded to the river corridor by the 

WSA status. Within the WSA, failure to include this segment in the NWSRS, on the other hand, 

would not necessarily diminish the values for which the segment was determined eligible, 

inasmuch as the area’s WSA status would continue, and other land use prescriptions (e.g., 

SRMA designation) being considered in the EIS would also preserve and enhance such values if 

implemented. Such prescriptions would be temporary, however, and could be changed through 

plan amendment or plan revision. 

Inclusion of a river into the NWSRS could preclude construction of dams or other water-related 

projects if they would occur within the designated segment and would have direct and/or adverse 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-23

effects on the ORVs (scenic, recreational, cultural, historic, fish, wildlife, and ecologic) or freeflowing condition. Water-related projects proposed outside the segment would be precluded only 

if they would invade or unreasonably diminish those ORVs within the designated segment. No 

such projects inside or immediately outside of the river area are currently proposed. 

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

The NPS has recommended the river portion that extends within Zion NP for WSR designation. 

Local and state agencies and water users oppose designation primarily over their concerns that 

current and potential water use of this or any eligible stream could be affected. However, there 

are no current or foreseen uses of the East Fork Virgin River that would be affected. Some 

private citizens and regional and national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of 

this stream for congressional designation. The Kaibab band of the Southern Paiute Tribe supports 

any potential Wild and Scenic River designation. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

See initial paragraph under suitability consideration #5 for North Fork Virgin River Segment 48-

49 above. The free-flowing nature of this segment is not currently at risk, and the identified 

ORVs could, for the most part, be effectively managed under land use prescriptions being 

considered in the EIS, if designation does not occur and if the management prescriptions are 

implemented. These prescriptions would be associated with visual and cultural resource 

management and the Parunuweap SRMA. Protection is also currently afforded this portion of the 

segment corridor by Parunuweap Canyon WSA. The river corridor within the WSA is managed 

according to the IMP. The status of the WSA, SRMA, and other management prescriptions is 

subject to change due to congressional action or revised land use plans. Therefore, the protection 

they afford the river values is subject to change. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

Costs would be the same as those for the lower East Fork of Virgin River Segment 48-49. 

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

State and local governments have made it clear that they would not share management costs of 

designated streams. 

Orderville Gulch (Esplin Gulch)—Segment 44-45 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

This segment possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, wildlife, and 

ecologic values. These values are described in detail below. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-24

Scenic 

This entire segment is rated Class A scenery. This segment is similar in scenic qualities to those 

of adjacent Zion NP. The proposed segment has a slot waterfall just less than 100 feet in height. 

Recreational 

The outstanding scenery and wilderness-like setting make the trek along the river unique and 

exceptionally satisfying. Day use activities include hiking into portions of the canyon, nature 

photography, wildlife viewing, and occasional hunting. Private land upstream of the BLM 

segment limits OHV use to only an occasional authorized vehicle. There is no motorized travel 

allowed beyond the east boundary of the Orderville Canyon WSA. The trailhead parking area is 

located on private property that will probably be developed in the future. The trail below the 

waterfall is very primitive and steep. The segment enters Zion NP at the Kanab Field Office 

decision area boundary. 

Wildlife 

This segment contains designated critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl and is adjacent to 

the protected activity center (PAC) for the Mexican spotted owl. 

Ecologic 

This segment contains unique plant communities (hanging gardens). 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 92 percent federally managed public land. This 

segment is used by recreationists to access the Orderville Canyon Narrows hike in Zion NP. The 

upper reach of this segment, above the canyon narrows, is used for livestock grazing and 

dispersed recreation. Private land ownership upstream of the WSA could limit motorized access 

to the river segment. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

Current recreational uses would be preserved by congressional designation, protecting the values 

associated with the non-motorized uses and the perceived natural condition and scenic values. 

Recreational enhancements would be limited to increased signage and management if 

designated. 

The Orderville Canyon WSA includes 84 percent of the public lands along this segment. These 

lands have been recommended by BLM to Congress for wilderness designation. Designation of 

this stream into the NWSRS would be compatible with and would enhance wilderness use and 

management of the area. 

Congressional designation would provide permanent protection specifically of the free-flowing 

condition of the river, its water quality, and its ORVs. This would be in addition to protection 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-25

already afforded to the lower portions of the corridor by the WSA status. Failure to include this 

segment of Esplin Gulch in the NWSRS, on the other hand, would not necessarily diminish the 

values for which the river was determined eligible, inasmuch as the area’s WSA status would 

continue. Furthermore, many of the other land use prescriptions (e.g., SRMA designation) being 

considered in the EIS would also preserve and enhance such values if implemented. Such 

prescriptions would be temporary, however, and could be changed through plan amendment or 

plan revision. 

See last paragraph under suitability consideration #3 for the North Fork Virgin River Segment 

48-49 above. 

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

The lower reaches of the Orderville Canyon drainage, of which Esplin Gulch is a tributary, 

extend within Zion NP, and the NPS has recommended for designation. Administration of 

recreation within the segment could be shared with Zion NP. 

Local and state agencies and water users oppose designation primarily over their concerns that 

current and potential water use of this or any eligible stream could be affected. However, there 

are no current or foreseen uses that would be affected. Some private citizens and regional and 

national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of this stream for congressional 

designation. The Kaibab band of the Southern Paiute Tribe supports any potential Wild and 

Scenic River designation. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

See initial paragraph under suitability consideration #5 for North Fork Virgin River Segment 48-

49 above. 

The free-flowing nature of this stream is not currently at risk, and the identified ORVs on public 

lands could be effectively managed under land use prescriptions being considered in the EIS, if 

designation does not occur and if the management prescriptions are implemented. These 

prescriptions would be associated with the Orderville Canyon WSA. The river corridor within 

the WSA is managed according to the IMP. Protection would also be afforded by designation of 

the Orderville Canyon SRMA. The status of the WSA, SRMA, and other management 

prescriptions is subject to change due to congressional action or revised land use plans. 

Therefore, the protection these designations afford the river values is subject to change. 

However, the isolation of the stream due to the very limited public access and the extreme 

topography inevitably provides additional protection. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

See suitability consideration #6 for North Fork Virgin River Segment 48-49 above. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-26

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

State and local governments have made it clear that they would not share management costs of 

designated streams. 

Meadow Creek / Mineral Gulch—Segments 33-35 and 35-38 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

This segment possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values. These values 

are described in detail below. 

Scenic 

The majority of this segment is class A scenery; with sculpted slickrock and canyon ledges 

untouched by human influence. Scenic values closely resemble those of side canyons of the East 

Fork Virgin River, of which Meadow Creek / Mineral Gulch is a tributary. Steep, towering 

canyon walls frame the winding creek bottom, with no road access and no human structures 

anywhere along the segment. Approximately 1 1⁄2 miles upgradient from the East Fork Virgin 

River is a series of slot canyons. 

Recreational 

Recreation use tends to be light because physical access is difficult. Activities and uses probably 

consist mainly of occasional hikers and backpackers and a few adventurous hunters. The wild, 

pristine nature of the canyon offers exceptional solitude and superb opportunities for 

photography and wildlife and nature study. 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 99 percent federally managed public lands. 

Current uses include primitive types of recreation. The area is located within a livestock 

allotment, but difficult accessibility results in low use levels. This river segment is within the 

Parunuweap Canyon WSA and is managed according to the IMP. The IMP does not allow for 

new developments or surface-disturbing activity. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

Uses and values that would be affected by congressional designation are also addressed in the 

cumulative impacts section of the EIS. 

The area is popular for hunting. Livestock grazing occurs along this segment and on adjacent 

lands. There are range improvements to support livestock grazing. Designation could result in 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-27

increased use that could change some recreation experiences and detract from solitude 

opportunities. 

The Meadow Creek / Mineral Gulch segment corridor is 89 percent within the Parunuweap 

Canyon WSA. The portion of the WSA that includes this segment has been recommended by 

BLM to Congress for wilderness designation. Designation of this stream into the NWSRS would 

be compatible with and enhance wilderness use and management of the area. 

See last two paragraphs under suitability consideration #3 for North Fork Virgin River Segment 

48-49 above. 

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

Zion NP has not expressed any interest in designation. The current level of use is lower than that 

in the lower East Fork Virgin River. 

State and local governments are unsupportive of congressional designation of this stream. Local 

and state agencies and water users oppose designation primarily over concerns that potential 

water use of this or any eligible stream could be affected. However, there are no current or 

foreseen water uses of Meadow Creek / Mineral Gulch that would be affected. Some private 

citizens and regional and national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of this 

stream for congressional designation. The Kaibab band of the Southern Paiute Tribe supports any 

potential Wild and Scenic River designation. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

See initial paragraph under suitability consideration #5 for North Fork Virgin River Segment 48-

49 above. 

The BLM would be capable of managing this stream if it were designated, particularly with 

adequate funding. The BLM currently has little to no on-the-ground presence; however, the 

remoteness and difficult access have kept visitation light. Resources are fragile and could suffer 

degradation if visitation were to increase significantly with designation. Wild and Scenic River 

designation would increase the Utah BLM’s ability to compete for agency dollars. With 

increased funding and focused management, the agency’s ability to deal with recreational 

management of the area would improve. Designation would promote national and public 

recognition of the values associated with this stream and further the goals and policy established 

by Congress in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The free-flowing nature of this stream is not currently at risk, and the identified ORVs could be 

effectively managed under land use prescriptions being considered in the EIS, if designation does 

not occur and if the management prescriptions are implemented. These prescriptions would be 

associated with the Parunuweap SRMA. Protection is also currently afforded river values by the 

Parunuweap Canyon WSA. The river corridor within the WSA is managed according to the IMP. 

The status of the WSA, SRMA, and other management prescriptions is subject to change due to 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-28

congressional action or revised land use plans. Therefore, the protection they afford the river 

values is subject to change. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

The initial costs of administration for the first 3 years would involve preparing a management 

plan. Yearly administration costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may include 

additional studies and monitoring as well as additional BLM presence in the area. 

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

State and local governments have made it clear that they would not share management costs of 

designated streams. 

Deep Creek—Segment 50-51 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

This segment possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic values. The entire segment is rated as 

Class A scenery. This segment has scenery reminiscent of the North Fork of the Virgin River, 

just outside of the Zion NP boundary. 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 62 percent federally managed public lands. 

Uses include recreation (particularly horseback riding, hunting, and hiking), livestock grazing, 

and wildlife habitat. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

Uses and values that would be affected by congressional designation are also addressed in the 

cumulative impacts section of the EIS. 

Inclusion of a river into the NWSRS could preclude construction of dams or other water-related 

projects if they would occur within the designated segment and would have direct and/or adverse 

effects on the outstandingly remarkable scenic values or free-flowing condition. Water-related 

projects proposed outside the segment would be precluded only if they would invade or 

unreasonably diminish scenic values within the designated segment. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-29

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

State and local governments are unsupportive of congressional determination of this stream. 

Local and state agencies, water users, and municipalities oppose designation primarily over their 

concerns that current and potential water use of this or any eligible stream could be affected. 

Some private citizens and regional and national conservation groups, however, have promoted 

the suitability of this stream for congressional designation. The Kaibab band of the Southern 

Paiute Tribe supports any potential Wild and Scenic River designation. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

Land status and classification level would create problems for manageability because the 

segment is isolated and surrounded by private land. Although there are portions of this river 

upstream and downstream that are recommended for designation in the NWSRS, none of those 

are directly contiguous. The physical isolation and lack of legal public access would provide the 

greatest degree of protection to this area. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

The initial costs of administration for the first 3 years would involve preparing a management 

plan. Yearly administration costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may include 

additional studies and monitoring as well as a BLM presence in the area. If other portions of the 

river were designated, cost-sharing with the other agencies could reduce administrative costs. 

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

State and local governments have made it clear that they would not share management costs of 

designated streams. 

Cottonwood Creek—Segment 28-29 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

Cottonwood Creek possesses outstandingly remarkable recreational, cultural, and wildlife values. 

These values are described in detail below. 

Recreational 

Cottonwood Creek offers exceptional non-motorized/non-mechanized recreation opportunities in 

a scenic, enticing canyon setting. The variety of topography, vegetation, geology, and wildlife 

create a setting that is highly attractive to both day use hikers and overnight campers. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-30

Cultural 

There are two sites eligible for listing in the NRHP within the segment. NRHP -listed site 

42Ka1581 Cottonwood Canyon Cliff Dwellings is within the segment corridor. 

Wildlife 

This segment includes neotropical migratory bird habitat; it is also a limited deer use area. 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 87 percent federally managed public lands. 

This segment is adjacent to the Moquith Mountain WSA, and 9 percent of the corridor is within 

the WSA, providing for primitive recreation. While the segment is not totally within the WSA, 

the corridor offers a scenic, solitary backcountry experience. The river segment is used for 

occasional recreational activities, including hunting, hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, and 

nature photography. There are no motorized routes along the segment. Although the area is open 

to livestock grazing, no use has occurred in the Water Canyon Allotment for several years. 

Fredonia has permitted water and public lands development rights dating to at least the 1940s. 

This segment corridor is used as a surface-water collection area for the Fredonia water source. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

Congressional designation would provide permanent protection specifically of the free-flowing 

condition of the river, its water quality, and its ORVs. Designation of this river into the NWSRS 

would be compatible with and would enhance wilderness use and management of the Moquith 

Mountain WSA. 

Inclusion of a river into the NWSRS could preclude construction of dams or other water-related 

projects if they would occur within the designated segment and would have direct and/or adverse 

effects on the ORVs or free-flowing condition. This could conflict with current water use of the 

surface water collection system and would prevent or restrict future water development. Other 

projects on federal lands within the designated river area, such as construction of roads, 

pipelines, or other structures, would not be allowed, and the lands would be closed to mineral 

location if Congress were to classify this segment as “wild.” Water-related projects proposed 

outside the segment would be precluded only if they would invade or unreasonably diminish 

recreational, cultural, or wildlife values within the designated segment. In addition to limiting 

future water developments for the town of Fredonia, congressional designation of this segment 

would advertise the canyons to the public, creating additional visitation, which would potentially 

impact the town’s water quality. 

On the other hand, failure of Congress to include this segment in the NWSRS would not 

necessarily diminish the values on the basis of which the river was determined eligible because 

of the SRMA and Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designations proposed for 

the canyon and the overlap and/or presence of the Moquith Mountain WSA. Likewise, the 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-31

Cottonwood Canyon ACEC provides for the protection of certain values within the river 

corridor. Furthermore, the proposed Moquith Mountain SRMA would protect certain resources 

that contribute to the recreational values within the river segment. However, the status of the 

WSA, proposed SRMA, ACEC, and other management prescriptions are subject to change due 

to congressional action or future revisions to land use plans. Such prescriptions would be 

temporary, however, and could be changed through plan amendment or plan revision. 

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

Local and state agencies, municipalities, and water users oppose designation primarily over their 

concerns that current and potential water use of this or any eligible segment in this area could be 

affected. These organizations have expressed concerns that existing water rights and 

developments could be affected and that opportunities for future water development could be 

foreclosed, not only within the designated river segments but also upstream or downstream of 

these segments. Some private citizens and regional and national conservation groups have 

encouraged or promoted the suitability of this segment for congressional designation. The 

Kaibab band of the Southern Paiute Tribe supports any potential Wild and Scenic River 

designation. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

The BLM would be capable of managing this segment if it were designated, particularly with 

adequate funding. Congressional designation of this segment into the NWSRS would increase 

the BLM’s ability to compete for agency dollars, and with increased funding and focused 

management, the agency’s ability to deal with recreational and other management of the area 

would improve. Designation would promote national and public recognition of the values 

associated with this segment and further the goals and policy established by Congress in the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Designation of this segment would not result in a substantial change in management of the river 

corridor from current management. Other protective management prescriptions currently in place 

that would complement NWSR management if the segment were designated are those for OHV 

use, fluid minerals leasing, SRMAs, ACECs, WSAs, riparian habitat, and visual resources. The 

current management would provide a large degree of continuity and make the adjustment into 

management of a “wild” and “scenic” area easy because current objectives are similar to those 

that would result from congressional designation. 

The free-flowing nature of this segment is not currently at risk, and the identified ORVs could be 

effectively managed with existing and other land use prescriptions being considered in the EIS, if 

designation does not occur and if the management prescriptions are implemented. However, the 

status of the WSA, SRMA, ACEC, and other management prescriptions are subject to change 

due to congressional action or revised land use plans. Therefore, the protection they afford the 

river values is subject to change. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-32

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

The initial costs of administration for the first 3 years would involve preparing a management 

plan. Yearly administration costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may include 

additional studies and monitoring as well as additional BLM presence in the area. Funding is not 

expected to be sought for acquisition of adjacent private land (given willing sellers) because it 

would not be necessary to acquire these lands to adequately manage the designated segments. 

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

Local governments have made it clear that they would not share management costs if this 

segment were designated. 

Indian Canyon—Segment 26-27 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

This segment possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, and ecologic values. 

These values are described in detail below. 

Scenic 

This canyon has Class A scenery, is picturesque, and is tightly confined in slickrock walls that 

are punctuated with enticing alcoves and dramatic amphitheaters. The lively small stream adds a 

water feature, and brilliant green vegetation winds through a landscape of colorful rimrock. 

Recreational 

Indian Canyon offers non-motorized, non-mechanized recreational opportunities in an 

exceptionally scenic canyon characterized by slickrock cliffs, ledges and pour-overs, scattered 

ponderosa pines, and many alcoves and recesses fringed with pockets of scrub oak and riparian 

vegetation. 

Ecologic 

This segment contains unique plant communities (hanging gardens). 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 88 percent federally managed public lands. 

This segment is adjacent to the Moquith Mountain WSA, with 17 percent of the corridor within 

the WSA, providing for primitive recreation. Although the segment is not totally within the 

WSA, the corridor offers a scenic, solitary backcountry experience. Although the area is open to 

livestock grazing, no use has occurred in the Water Canyon Allotment for several years. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-33

Fredonia has permitted water and public lands development rights dating to at least the 1940s. 

This segment corridor is used as a surface-water collection area for the Fredonia water source. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

See information under suitability consideration #3 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

See information under suitability consideration #4 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

See information under suitability consideration #5 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

See information under suitability consideration #6 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

See information under suitability consideration #7 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

South Fork Indian Canyon—Segment 22-23 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

This segment possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, and ecologic values. 

These values are described in detail below. 

Scenic 

This canyon has Class A scenery, is picturesque, and is tightly confined in slickrock walls that 

are punctuated with enticing alcoves and dramatic amphitheaters. The lively small stream adds a 

water feature, and brilliant green vegetation winds through a landscape of colorful rimrock. 

Recreational 

The South Fork Indian Canyon offers non-motorized, non-mechanized recreational opportunities 

in an exceptionally scenic canyon characterized by slickrock cliffs, ledges and pour-overs, 

scattered ponderosa pines, and many alcoves and recesses fringed with pockets of scrub oak and 

riparian vegetation. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-34

Ecologic 

This segment contains unique plant communities (hanging gardens). 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 92 percent federally managed public lands. 

This segment corridor is 100 percent contained within the Moquith Mountain WSA and is 

managed according to the IMP, which provides for primitive recreation. Uses also include 

livestock grazing, recreation, and wildlife habitat. The existing Water Canyon/South Fork Indian 

Canyon ACEC also overlaps 9 percent of the segment corridor. Although the area is open to 

livestock grazing, no use has occurred in the Water Canyon Allotment for several years. 

Fredonia has permitted water and public lands development rights dating to at least the 1940s. 

This segment corridor is used as a surface-water collection area for the Fredonia water source. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

See information under suitability consideration #3 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

See information under suitability consideration #4 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

See information under suitability consideration #5 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

See information under suitability consideration #6 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

See information under suitability consideration #7 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

North Branch of South Fork Indian Canyon—Segment 24-25 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

This segment possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, cultural, and ecologic 

values. These values are described in detail below. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-35

Scenic 

This canyon has Class A scenery, is picturesque, and is tightly confined in slickrock walls that 

are punctuated with enticing alcoves and dramatic amphitheaters. The lively small stream adds a 

water feature, and brilliant green vegetation winds through a landscape of colorful rimrock. 

Recreational 

The North Branch of South Fork Indian Canyon offers non-motorized, non-mechanized 

recreational opportunities in an exceptionally scenic canyon characterized by slickrock cliffs, 

ledges and pour-overs, scattered ponderosa pines, and many alcoves and recesses fringed with 

pockets of scrub oak and riparian vegetation. 

Cultural 

This segment corridor contains one recorded cultural site, 42Ka1576 South Fork Indian Canyon 

Pictographs, that is eligible for listing in the NRHP. This is a significant rock art panel and is a 

popular local attraction and cultural interpretive site. 

Ecologic 

This segment contains unique plant communities (hanging gardens). The sensitive plant species 

Zion jamesia is also present. 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 82 percent federally managed public lands. 

This segment corridor is 100 percent contained within the Moquith Mountain WSA and is 

managed according to the IMP, which provides for primitive recreation. Uses also include 

livestock grazing, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Primary recreational uses include rock art 

viewing, nature study, photography, and hiking. Local tourism boards promote this area for its 

prehistoric rock art and other cultural and historical values. 

The existing Water Canyon/South Fork Indian Canyon ACEC also overlaps 6 percent of the 

segment corridor. Although the area is open to livestock grazing, no use has occurred in the 

Water Canyon Allotment for several years. Fredonia has permitted water and public lands 

development rights dating to at least the 1940s. This segment corridor is used as a surface-water 

collection area for the Fredonia water source. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

See information under suitability consideration #3 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-36

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing. 

See information under suitability consideration #4 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

See information under suitability consideration #5 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

See information under suitability consideration #6 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

See information under suitability consideration #7 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

Water Canyon—Segment 20-21 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

This segment possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, and ecologic values. 

These values are described in detail below. 

Scenic 

This canyon has Class A scenery, is picturesque, and is tightly confined in slickrock walls that 

are punctuated with enticing alcoves and dramatic amphitheaters. The lively small stream adds a 

water feature, and brilliant green vegetation winds through a landscape of colorful rimrock. 

Recreational 

The South Fork Indian Canyon offers non-motorized, non-mechanized recreational opportunities 

in an exceptionally scenic canyon characterized by slickrock cliffs, ledges and pour-overs, 

scattered ponderosa pines, and many alcoves and recesses fringed with pockets of scrub oak and 

riparian vegetation. 

Ecologic 

This segment contains unique plant communities (hanging gardens). The sensitive plant species 

Zion jamesia is also present. 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 100 percent federally managed public lands. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-37

This segment corridor is 100 percent within the Moquith Mountain WSA and is managed 

according to the IMP, which provides for primitive recreation. The IMP does not allow for new 

developments or surface-disturbing activity. Uses also include livestock grazing, recreation, and 

wildlife habitat. Other uses include more primitive types of recreation, such as hiking and 

camping by scout groups. 

The existing Water Canyon/South Fork Indian Canyon ACEC also overlaps 17 percent of the 

segment corridor. Although the area is open to livestock grazing, no use has occurred in the 

Water Canyon Allotment for several years. Fredonia has permitted water and public lands 

development rights dating to at least the 1940s. This segment corridor is used as a surface-water 

collection area for the Fredonia water-source. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

See information under suitability consideration #3 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

See information under suitability consideration #4 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

See information under suitability consideration #5 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

See information under suitability consideration #6 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

See information under suitability consideration #7 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

Hell Dive Canyon—Segment 30-31 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

This segment possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, cultural, and ecologic 

values. These values are described in detail below. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-38

Scenic 

This canyon has Class A scenery, is picturesque, and is tightly confined in slickrock walls that 

are punctuated with enticing alcoves and dramatic amphitheaters. The lively small stream adds a 

water feature, and brilliant green vegetation winds through a landscape of colorful rimrock. 

Recreational 

The South Fork Indian Canyon offers non-motorized, non-mechanized recreational opportunities 

in an exceptionally scenic canyon characterized by slickrock cliffs, ledges and pour-overs, 

scattered ponderosa pines, and many alcoves and recesses fringed with pockets of scrub oak and 

riparian vegetation. 

Cultural 

One recorded rockshelter/rock art/structural site, 42Ka1695, in this segment is considered 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. No other sites have been documented in this canyon, but there is 

potential for finding additional sites in the cliffs and overhangs in the vicinity. 

Ecologic 

This segment contains unique plant communities (hanging gardens). The sensitive plant species 

Zion jamesia is also present. 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 100 percent federally managed public lands. 

This segment corridor is 88 percent within the Moquith Mountain WSA and is managed 

according to the IMP, which provides for primitive recreation. The IMP does not allow for new 

developments or surface-disturbing activity. Uses include recreation, particularly horseback 

riding and hiking, livestock grazing, and wildlife habitat. Although the area is open to livestock 

grazing, no use has occurred in the Water Canyon Allotment for several years. Fredonia has 

permitted water and public lands development rights dating to at least the 1940s. This segment 

corridor is used as a surface-water collection area for the Fredonia water-source. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

See information under suitability consideration #3 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

See information under suitability consideration #4 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-39

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

See information under suitability consideration #5 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

See information under suitability consideration #6 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

See information under suitability consideration #7 for the Cottonwood Canyon segment above. 

Paria River—Segment 68-69 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

The Paria River possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, and wildlife values. 

These values are described in detail below. 

Scenic 

Scenery within the Paria River canyon includes sheer, towering walls of colorful sandstone that 

frame overhead skies and a ribbon of water accented by wildflowers, intermittent scatterings of 

shrubs and grasses, and occasional cottonwood trees. Late summer thunderstorms provide 

contrasts in lighting, color, and texture. The deeply entrenched canyon wilderness also provides 

spectacular nighttime views through canyon walls reaching several hundred feet above the river 

bottom. 

Recreational 

The Paria River canyon offers the opportunity for spectacular hiking and backpacking in a 

unique, deeply entrenched, desert canyon far from the sights and sounds of civilization. Permits 

for overnight trips through the Paria are sought by visitors throughout the United States and 

overseas. The colorful, sheer sandstone cliffs bordering lush riparian vegetation provide 

exceptional photo opportunities. Wildlife viewing leads to frequent sightings of Desert bighorn 

sheep and a variety of raptors for visitors to this site. Day hikers can access portions of the 

canyon a few miles downstream from the White House campground and trailhead. Overnight 

visitors typically start their trek at White House and continue for 3 to 5 days, hiking the 38-mile 

stretch that terminates at Lee’s Ferry on the Colorado River. Because the number of permits is 

regulated on a daily basis, backpackers have excellent opportunities to experience solitude and 

primitive, unconfined recreation in a unique setting. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-40

Wildlife 

The Paria River is important to numerous avian wildlife species, notably the peregrine falcon. 

The area also contains suitable habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, the Southwestern willow 

flycatcher, and the California condor. This river segment provides excellent nesting and roosting 

habitat for the Mexican spotted owl and the peregrine falcon, although their presence has not 

been confirmed to date. The river segment corridor is also important lambing habitat for Desert 

bighorn sheep. 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 100 percent federally managed public lands. 

This segment corridor is 100 percent within the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area 

and is managed according to the Wilderness Act and the Wilderness Management Plan, which 

specify managing the area for naturalness and providing opportunities for primitive recreation 

and solitude. 

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

Designation of this segment into the NWSRS would be compatible with and would enhance 

wilderness use and management of the area. Congressional designation would provide permanent 

protection specifically of the free-flowing condition of the river, its water quality, and its ORVs. 

This would be in addition to protection already afforded to the segment corridor by the 

wilderness area. A river management plan would be prepared on designation. As part of that 

effort, current activities may be monitored to ensure that activities are consistent with the goals 

of the designation. 

Failure to include this segment in the NWSRS, on the other hand, would not necessarily diminish 

the values on the basis of which the segment was determined eligible, inasmuch as the area’s 

wilderness area status would continue, and other land use prescriptions (e.g., SRMA designation) 

being considered in the EIS would also preserve and enhance such values if implemented. Such 

prescriptions would be temporary, however, and could be changed through plan amendment or 

plan revision. 

Inclusion of a river in the NWSRS could preclude construction of dams or other water-related 

projects if they would occur within the designated segment and would have direct and/or adverse 

effects on the ORVs or free-flowing condition. Water-related projects proposed outside the 

segment would be precluded only if they would invade or unreasonably diminish those ORVs 

within the designated segment. No such projects inside or immediately outside of the river area 

are currently proposed. 

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

State and local governments are unsupportive of congressional designation of this stream. Some 

private citizens and regional and national conservation groups have promoted congressional 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-41

designation of this river. The Kaibab band of the Southern Paiute Tribe supports any potential 

Wild and Scenic River designation. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

See initial paragraph under suitability consideration #5 for the North Fork Virgin River Segment 

48-49 above. 

If the eligible segment of Paria Canyon was found to be not suitable and subsequently not 

designated by Congress, the ORVs (scenic, recreational, and wildlife) for which the segment is 

found to be eligible would not necessarily diminish. The proposed Paria Canyon SRMA would 

be managed to offer a certain degree of protection to recreational values. Protection is also 

currently afforded ORVs by the existing wilderness designation. The wilderness, including this 

entire river segment, is managed according to the Wilderness Management Plan for Paria 

Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness, which allows for no new permanent developments or 

surface-disturbing activities. The status of the SRMA and other management prescriptions are 

subject to change due to congressional action or revised land use plans. Therefore, the protection 

they afford the river values is subject to change. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

The initial costs of administration for the first 3 years would involve preparing a management 

plan. Yearly administration costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may include 

additional studies and monitoring as well as additional BLM presence in the area. Costs could be 

reduced if management were shared with the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and 

the Arizona Strip Field Office, both of which manage segments upstream and downstream. 

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

State and local governments have made it clear that they would not share management costs if 

the Paria River were designated. 

Three Mile Creek—Segment 56-57 

1. Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

Three Mile Creek possesses an outstandingly remarkable fish value. Bonneville cutthroat trout 

(sensitive species) are present. 

2. Land ownership and current use 

Ownership within the eligible segment corridor is 91 percent federally managed public lands. 

Uses include ranching, livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and occasional recreational fishing. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-42

3. Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced 

or curtailed if designated; and values that would be diminished if not 

designated 

A primary objective for the management of species managed by the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (UDWR) is to enhance streams’ coldwater fisheries habitat and populations. 

Designation would directly contribute to these objectives and also provide for protection of the 

other values within the stream corridor. 

Inclusion of this segment in the NWSRS could preclude construction of dams or other waterrelated projects within the designated segment. This would enhance the viability of the 

Bonneville cutthroat trout population and protect the free-flowing condition. Other projects on 

federal lands within the designated river area, such as construction of roads, recreational 

facilities, or other structures, may be allowed along the segment classified by Congress as 

“recreational.” 

Failure to include Three Mile Creek in the NWSRS, on the other hand, would not necessarily 

diminish the values for which the river was determined eligible, inasmuch as management 

implemented in coordination with the UDWR would also preserve and enhance such values. 

4. Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in 

designation or non-designation, including administration sharing 

State and local governments are unsupportive of congressional designation of this stream. These 

governments oppose designation primarily over their perceptions that existing water rights could 

be affected and that opportunities for future water development could be foreclosed. The Kaibab 

band of the Southern Paiute Tribe supports any potential Wild and Scenic River designation. 

5. Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting 

values 

See initial paragraph under suitability consideration #5 for the North Fork Virgin River Segment 

48-49 above. 

Cooperative management of Three Mile Creek by the BLM and the UDWR would be necessary 

if the stream were to be congressionally designated. This would be expected to be productive 

because current federal and state objectives for the area are consistent. The free-flowing nature 

of this stream is not currently at risk, and the identified ORVs on public lands could be 

effectively managed under land use prescriptions being considered in the EIS, if designation does 

not occur and if the management prescriptions are implemented. 

6. The estimated costs of administering the river, including costs for 

acquiring lands 

Initial costs of administration for the first 3 years would involve preparing a management plan. 

Yearly administration cost thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may include 

additional studies, monitoring, and additional BLM presence in the area. The BLM would make 

efforts to work cooperatively with the State of Utah to manage Three Mile Creek on designation. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 11 

A11-43

7. The extent to which administration costs will be shared by local and 

state governments 

Local governments have made it clear that they would not share management costs if Three Mile 

Creek were designated. Any cooperative management of Three Mile Creek between the BLM 

and the UDWR would potentially require commitments from both entities for adequate funding.

Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 12 

A12-1

APPENDIX 12—LETTER FROM STATE HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION OFFICER RELEATED TO SECTION 

106 CONSULTAION 

Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 13 

A13-1

APPENDIX 13—LETTER FROM U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE RELATED TO THE BIOLOGICAL 

OPINION 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 13 

A13-2
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 13 

A13-3

Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 14 

A14-1

APPENDIX 14—GRAZING ALLOTMENT FORAGE 

ALLOCATION 

Allotments Number Federal 

Acres 

Livestock 

Kind1

Active 

Livestock 

Permitted Use 

(AUMs) 

Suspended 

Livestock 

Permitted Use 

(AUMs) 

Wildlife 

Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Total 

AUMs 

Allocated 2

Alton 24002 392 C 5 15 5 10 

Art Canyon 24003 8,927 C 352 198 344 696 

Bald Knoll 24004 6,741 C 215 197 148 363 

Barracks Point 24005 8,140 C 170 249 262 432 

Big Flat 15031 6,464 C 529 0 * 529 

Black Mountain 24007 1,255 C 42 92 78 120 

Brown Canyon 24011 1,591 C 20 0 46 168 

Buck Knoll 24012 4,134 C 153 116 300 453 

Buck Pasture 24013 2,708 C 100 70 64 164 

Bunting Canyon 14014 339 C 4 19 6 10 

Burnt Cedar Point 24015 3,054 C 105 223 180 285 

Burnt Flat 24016 897 C 20 46 48 68 

Carmel Junction 24021 3,356 C 14 198 21 35 

Cave Creek 24092 645 C 16 0 61 77 

Chris Spring 34022 7,265 C 216 473 160 376 

Circleville Canyon 00809 4,280 C 88 0 * 88 

Clay Flat 24023 5,286 C 210 120 119 329 

Coal Hollow 04165 536 C 22 17 ** 22 

Coal Mine 24024 250 C 4 36 6 10 

Cogswell Point 04156 10 C 0 0 ** 0 

Coop Creek 24025 477 C 20 59 15 35 

Cottonwood Spring 24027 7,888 C 555 119 183 738 

Cougar Canyon 24028 1,468 C 55 0 36 91 

Cove (Alton) 24029 158 C 10 0 21 31 

Cove (Circleville) 00810 12,662 C 231 0 9 240 

Dog Valley 00812 9,704 C 336 280 * 336 

Driveway 00011 860 C 20 0 18 38 

Dry Lake 24033 1,796 C 74 46 94 168 

Dry Wash 24034 1,977 C, H 206 0 80 286 

Dump 24032 215 C 8 72 12 20 

Eight Mile Gap 24035 571 C 15 10 27 42 

Eight Mile Pass 05304 440 C 17 19 ** 17 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 14 

A14-2

Allotments Number Federal 

Acres 

Livestock 

Kind1

Active 

Livestock 

Permitted Use 

(AUMs) 

Suspended 

Livestock 

Permitted Use 

(AUMs) 

Wildlife 

Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Total 

AUMs 

Allocated 2

Elbow Springs 24037 2,352 C 50 134 77 127 

Elephant Cove 24038 7,604 C 432 194 304 736 

F.A.R. 24046 4,492 C 100 422 115 215 

Farm Canyon 24040 3,262 C 243 0 122 365 

Fish Tail 24042 3,039 C 230 58 87 317 

Flume Hollow 24045 806 C 7 42 37 44 

Gardner Hollow 24049 2,192 C 30 18 87 117 

Glendale Bench 24051 1,735 C 130 0 170 300 

Gordon Point 14098 329 C 40 30 47 87 

Graveyard Hollow 25048 1,206 S 75 0 * 75 

Harris Flat 24058 4,292 C 268 45 181 449 

Hawkins Wash 15005 7,878 C 515 165 * 552 

Hay Canyon 04155 709 C 50 50 60 110 

Hillsdale 25035 1,483 C 140 0 * 140 

Hogs Heaven 04154 1,404 C 50 490 136 186 

Isolated Tracts 14062 1,028 C 65 16 89 154 

John. R. Flat 24063 9,862 C 258 75 291 549 

Johnson Spring 00012 618 C 96 0 ** 15 

Johnson Ranch 24066 5,118 C 265 335 110 375 

Kanab Creek 24067 4,023 C 85 266 138 223 

Kanab Creek 

Custodial 00005 65 C 9 39 *** 9 

Kane Springs 24068 15,271 C 253 651 457 710 

Kinnikkinnic Spring 14069 5,031 C 90 410 167 257 

Levanger Lakes 14070 872 C 33 0 43 76 

Limekiln Creek 15029 3,773 C 70 0 * 70 

Limestone Canyon 25047 1,535 C 67 0 * 67 

Lost Spring 24074 1,028 C 4 0 15 19 

Lower Herd 04101 820 C 25 140 61 86 

Lower Hog Canyon 14075 2,486 C 52 116 33 85 

Lower North Fork 04157 813 C 10 19 36 46 

Lower Sink Valley 04112 2,441 C 35 238 *** 35 

Lydia 24077 2,083 C 58 158 171 229 

Lydia's Canyon 24010 466 C 0 0 41 41 

Marshall Canyon 25027 909 C 30 0 * 150 

Meadow Canyon 24080 6,061 C 25 74 132 157 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 14 

A14-3

Allotments Number Federal 

Acres 

Livestock 

Kind1

Active 

Livestock 

Permitted Use 

(AUMs) 

Suspended 

Livestock 

Permitted Use 

(AUMs) 

Wildlife 

Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Total 

AUMs 

Allocated 2

Mill Creek 00010 12,209 C 301 0 429 730 

Muggins Flat 04162 638 C 12 56 13 25 

Neuts Canyon 24087 2,419 C 112 62 237 349 

North Fork 04160 366 C 15 1 14 29 

Oak Springs 14088 2,797 C 87 231 121 208 

Old Fort 14089 2,202 C 7 27 20 27 

Orderville Gulch 24090 4,824 C 200 50 366 566 

Pine Spring 24093 8,498 C 473 202 30 478 

Poverty Flat 24094 9,603 C 416 0 400 816 

Red Butte 24095 5,046 C 196 232 226 422 

Red Canyon 14096 11,910 C 448 52 417 865 

Red Hollow 14097 1,156 C 40 62 76 116 

Red Knoll 04140 5,879 C 175 550 243 418 

Robinson Creek 14099 524 C 24 61 37 61 

Rock Canyon 25046 8,281 C 233 0 * 484 

Rocking Chair 14100 1,572 C 91 138 175 236 

Roller Mill 15030 1,883 C 184 0 * 184 

Sagehen Hollow 25045 5,812 C 444 147 * 444 

Sandy Creek 25052 8,461 C 688 0 * 688 

Sanford Bench 25028 9,570 C 1,081 0 * 1,081 

Sawmill 25049 539 C 30 0 * 30 

Seeps 14107 2,199 C 30 422 281 311 

Sethy's Canyon 04108 7,295 C 262 373 224 486 

Sevier 15006 652 C 34 40 * 34 

Sevier River 25036 2,308 C 340 0 * 340 

Shearing Corral 00007 4,023 C 100 0 * 100 

Sheep Spring 04142 3,474 C 223 279 111 334 

South Canyon 25044 18,355 C 900 0 * 900 

Spencer Bench 04113 7,023 C 97 129 160 257 

Spring Hollow 04151 573 S 9 0 0 9 

Spry 05007 8,528 C 449 302 * 449 

Sugar Knoll 04117 2,686 C 112 0 48 160 

Sunnyside 04118 410 C 14 0 14 28 

Sunset Cliffs 04103 2,014 C 188 0 * 188 

Syler Knoll 04122 442 C 6 104 16 22 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 14 

A14-4

Allotments Number Federal 

Acres 

Livestock 

Kind1

Active 

Livestock 

Permitted Use 

(AUMs) 

Suspended 

Livestock 

Permitted Use 

(AUMs) 

Wildlife 

Allocation 

(AUMs) 

Total 

AUMs 

Allocated 2

Table Mountain 04104 2,296 S 89 247 181 270 

Tebbs Hollow 25053 3,961 C 319 0 * 319 

Thompson Point 04123 1,549 C 64 0 39 103 

Three Mile Creek 25051 2,666 C 200 0 * 200 

Toms Canyon 04164 240 C 5 0 *** 5 

Trail Canyon 04125 6,924 C 110 100 158 268 

Trail Well 14126 1,329 C, H 88 0 16 104 

Upper Hog 04128 4,183 C 100 183 98 198 

Upper North Fork 04158 714 C 10 80 73 83 

Upper Place 04129 1,581 C 23 29 69 92 

Upper Sink Valley 04163 4,806 C 311 134 141 452 

Virgin River 04131 3,922 C, H 230 0 122 352 

Water Canyon 04132 3,398 C 48 0 51 99 

Willis Canyon 04143 1,675 C 16 0 13 29 

Yellowjacket 04137 7,378 C 241 998 315 556 

Zion 04138 11,085 C 270 1167 519 789 

Zion Park 04159 1,263 C 0 162 42 42 

TOTAL 434,713 - 17,987 13,479 11,045 29,424

Notes: 

1

 Livestock Kind Key: C = cattle; H = horse; S = sheep 

2

 Total = Sum of “Active Livestock Permitted Use” and “Wildlife Allocation” 

* For allotments within the CBGA RMP, big game will be provided 1,220 AUMs of forage in the short term and up to 2,042 AUMs of 

forage in the long term. However, these AUMs are not allotment specific; they are allotted decision area wide. 

** Wildlife AUMs not allotted in these allotments. 

*** Wildlife AUMs included only in the portion of the decision area administered by KFO. 

Source: Kanab Field Office Grazing Files 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 15 

A15-1

APPENDIX 15—RMP MONITORING PLAN 

Resource Suggested Monitoring Methodology 

Air Quality Monitoring of air resource conditions for the purposes of evaluating 

BLM activities is done in accordance with the BLM Air Resource 

Management Monitoring Strategy (BLM, January 3, 2006). Air 

Quality Monitoring for regulatory compliance purposes is primarily 

conducted by Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of 

Air Quality (UDAQ) with oversight by the Environmental Protection 

Agency. The BLM Air Monitoring Strategy relies heavily on existing 

monitoring networks such as the Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), and Clean Air Status and 

Trends Network (CASTNET) and the UDAQ Air Monitoring Network. 

Smoke emissions related to wildland fire and prescribed fire are 

tracked and monitored according to the Utah Smoke Management 

Plan as revised: 

http://gacc.nifc.gov/egbc/predictive/weather/smoke.htm

Soil Resources A sample of ground-disturbing projects with the potential to affect soil 

resources will be evaluated on a periodic basis to determine if best 

management practices or identified mitigation measures were 

followed and if they were effective. The number of allotments/acres 

that met the Upland and Riparian standards in the Utah Standards 

for Rangeland Health and the total number of allotments/acres 

assessed will also be reported in Rangeland, Inventory, Monitoring, 

and Evaluation report (RIME). 

Water Resources As noted in WAT-1 and WAT-2, the BLM will work with the State 

Division of Water Quality to monitor water quality. Review the water 

quality data from instream monitoring stations annually. 

In addition, use the rangeland health assessment process, 

particularly Standard 4 according to Interpreting Indicators of 

Rangeland Health, Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines, and 

BLM Manual 4180 and Handbook H-4180-1. Water quality monitoring 

would be conducted at the established water quality sampling 

stations on a priority basis using indicators that are chosen in 

coordination with the State Division of Water Quality, Upper Sevier 

Watershed Committee, and Virgin River Management Plan 

Watershed Advisory Committee. Implement and monitor 

effectiveness of BMPs to protect the quality and beneficial uses of 

water at the project level. BMPs will be monitored and evaluated on 

implementation and effectiveness as part of the project or activity 

plan. 

Completion of the Water Source Inventory and maintenance of water 

rights data base would provide needed information to assert federal 

water rights, especially Public Water Reserves to protect federal 

investments and to ensure a reliable water supply for beneficial uses 

of public lands. 

Vegetation Measure trends in vegetative production, structure, and composition, 

soil/site stability, watershed function, and integrity of biotic 

community. Use the rangeland health assessment process 

prescribed in the most current versions of Interpreting Indicators of 

Rangeland Health, Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines, and 

BLM Manual 4180 and Handbook H-4180-1 guiding implementation 

of the rangeland health standards. Determine level of PNC using the 

Rangeland Health Assessments (VEG-3). 

Conduct periodic measurements of plant composition, vigor, and 

productivity, as well as the amount and distribution of plant cover and 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 15 

A15-2

Resource Suggested Monitoring Methodology 

litter. Monitoring of existing condition of vegetation would consist of 

identifying ecological sites, determining ecological status, 

determining soil types, vegetation mapping, baseline inventory, and 

assembling existing basic information. 

Monitor for seedling establishment, seedling and sapling survival, 

and understory herbaceous plant diversity. Monitor for effectiveness 

of treatments in rare plant communities that receive restoration 

treatments. 

As noted under VEG-8 and VEG-10, monitor riparian condition and 

functional status. Conduct Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) 

Assessment per TR 1737-9 and TR 1737-15 (assessment for 

streams) and TR 1737-11 and TR 1737-16 (assessments for 

lakes/wetlands) to assess the functionality of riparian and wetland 

areas. 

Conduct annual monitoring for new noxious weeds, concentrating in 

areas where ground disturbing activities have occurred, and where 

the public or agency personnel have reported sightings. Visit known 

noxious weed sites that are identified for treatment, and evaluate for 

effectiveness of control (annually). Monitor for both invasiveness and 

impacts. Monitor for new satellite populations of noxious weeds 

beyond existing noxious weed infestations/populations. For all 

known sites and any newly discovered sites, locate with a global 

positioning system (GPS) unit, photograph, measure, and determine 

the need for future treatment. Survey all burned areas (natural and 

prescribed) over 20 acres for noxious weeds. 

Special Status Species 

(Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive) 

As noted in SSS-3, monitoring for listed and non-listed special status 

species and their habitats would be developed where land use and 

human disturbances have been identified as having potential for 

adverse impacts. 

According with conservation measures, agreements, and 

consultation efforts with the USFWS, monitoring listed species 

regularly. 

Long-term monitoring would be conducted using methods chosen in 

coordination with the USFWS and Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources. 

Visual reconnaissance would be used to obtain general information 

on the habitats of special status plants. Individual federally listed 

species populations and habitats. 

Conduct monitoring jointly with Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park for 

the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle and the Welsh’s milkweed. 

As noted in SSS-36, monitor stream habitat to detect changes every 

5 to 10 years in streams with historic or currently occupied Bonneville 

cutthroat trout, roundtail chub, bluehead sucker, and flannelmouth 

sucker habitat, in cooperation with UDWR. 

Fish and Wildlife In conjunction with other federal and state agencies, continue to 

monitor wildlife populations in the planning area. Do this for 

individual species such as mule deer, elk, and pronghorn; and 

groups of species associated with source habitats such as 

sagebrush-steppe, pinyon-juniper, and mixed conifer forest. 

Periodically determine the adequacy of existing data (i.e. species, 

habitats, etc.) for supporting management decisions. 

Wildland Fire Ecology Monitoring will determine whether fire management strategies, 

practices, and activities are meeting resource management 

objectives and concerns. Fire management plans and policies will be 

updated as needed to keep current with national and state fire 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 15 

A15-3

Resource Suggested Monitoring Methodology 

management direction. Scheduled program reviews (post-season fire 

review) will be conducted to evaluate fire management effectiveness 

in meeting goals and to re-assess program direction. 

Pre-fire condition and post-fire effects will be determined by 

monitoring vegetative response to treatments and progress towards 

meeting objectives. Monitoring methods may include fuels and 

vegetation transects, photo points, density, cover and frequency 

plots, and ocular estimates. As avail-able, applicable remote sensing 

data will also be incorporated into ecological condition monitoring. 

The number of acres in Condition Class 1, 2, and 3 will be reevaluated during the watershed assessment process, and tracked 

and reported in the Annual Program Summary and Planning Update. 

Wildfire rehabilitation effectiveness monitoring studies will be 

encouraged to determine whether emergency rehabilitation 

objectives are met. Monitoring requirements and methods will be 

project specific. 

Cultural Resources As noted in CUL-11, Establish a comprehensive monitoring program 

emphasizing: 

• Cultural sites that have been previously identified as being 

impacted (e.g., from vandalism, erosion, grazing, or other) 

• Cultural sites identified on maps, brochures, or other media that 

bring the site into public awareness 

• Sites that are known to be popular for public visitation (e.g., 

public use site) 

• A representative sample of sites known to be prone to impacts 

from predictable sources (e.g., vandalism, recreation, grazing, or 

development). 

As noted in CUL-6, update the Class I cultural resources inventory 

every 10 years. 

As noted in CUL-15, prioritize new field inventories (Class II or III) 

directed by NHPA Section 110 as follows: 

• Recreation areas identified for public use (i.e., OHV open areas) 

• 100 feet (30 meters) (depending on topography) on either side 

from the centerline of designated OHV routes 

• Areas of special cultural designation (ACECs, National Register 

sites, etc.) that have not been fully inventoried 

• Resources eligible for the NRHP at a national level of 

significance that have not been fully inventoried 

• Road systems—100 feet (30 meters) (depending on topography) 

on either side from the centerline of road 

• Areas lacking existing inventories (large areas with no inventory 

data) 

• 5-mile vulnerability zones surrounding cities and towns 

• Hiking/equestrian trails. 

A representative sample of significant cultural sites will be monitored 

at least annually, and a mitigation plan based on the results of the 

monitoring will be developed if necessary. Periodic ground patrols 

will be used year-round to reduce or prevent looting of cultural 

resource sites. Major sites will be periodically inspected to document 

any damage and identify future stabilization needs. Management 

plans will be developed for significant properties requiring protection 

or stabilization when identified. Assistance to institutions doing 

research or collection of specimens will be encouraged. 

Cultural resources will continue to be inventoried and evaluated as 

part of project level planning to achieve the objective of protecting 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 15 

A15-4

Resource Suggested Monitoring Methodology 

significant properties from impact by proposed federally funded or 

authorized actions. This inventory and evaluation includes application 

of the National Register criteria to cultural properties and consultation 

with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal 

Governments, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, as 

appropriate per current regulations, policy, and the UT-BLM-SHPO 

Protocol Agreement. 

Paleontological Resources As noted in PAL-1, monitor the highest priority scientifically 

significant paleontological sites for trend and condition. 

As noted in PAL-5 and PAL-6, conduct non-Section 106 proactive 

inventories intermittently as resources allow. Prioritize 

paleontological resource inventories in the following areas (Map 31): 

• High resource potential 

• Medium resource potential 

• Low resource potential. 

As noted in PAL-9, monitor high-significance (scientific or 

interpretive) sites with fossil resources that are not feasible or 

desirable to excavate or collect when possible to document their 

condition. Frequency of monitoring action for identified sites would be 

determined by the physical nature of the resource and potential 

threats. 

The number of localities visited on an annual basis and their 

condition will be reported in the Annual Program Summary and 

Planning Update. 

Visual Resources Any project design features or mitigation measures identified to 

address visual resource management concerns will be monitored to 

ensure compliance with established VRM classes. Where 

appropriate, monitoring will include the use of the visual contrast 

rating system, described in BLM Manual 8400 during project review 

and upon project completion to assess the effectiveness of project 

design features and any mitigating measures. 

The number of areas/projects monitored for compliance with VRM 

objectives will be reported in the Annual Program Summary. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Monitor impacts to the wilderness characteristics, focusing on areas 

with a higher potential for impacts, based on known visitor use 

patterns and area accessibility. Monitor impacts from OHV use 

annually. On a project-by-project basis, monitor potential and 

observed impacts to wilderness characteristics. Assess impacts to 

naturalness (e.g., rapid site inventory, review of naturalness based 

on inventory methods) and solitude (e.g., actual counts of visitors). 

Where funding and staffing allow, install and maintain traffic counters 

and/or motion-sensitive cameras at key sites to enhance data 

accuracy and assist in determining visitor use patterns. 

Drought and Natural Disasters During periods of prolonged drought or in areas that have 

experienced natural disasters, increase monitoring noted under the 

other resources, uses, and special designations to ensure that RMP 

goals and objectives are met during these periods of increased 

vulnerability. 

Forestry and Woodland Products Record accomplishments for providing wood products in the Timber 

Sale Information System (TSIS) database and MIS reporting. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 15 

A15-5

Resource Suggested Monitoring Methodology 

Livestock Grazing Use the rangeland health assessment process prescribed in the most 

current versions of Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, 

Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines, and BLM Manual 4180 

and Handbook H-4180-1 guiding implementation of the rangeland 

health standards. 

The number of allotments/acres that meet the Standards for 

Rangeland Health and the total number of allotments/acres assessed 

will be reported in the Rangeland, Inventory, Monitoring, and 

Evaluation report (RIME). 

Assess Rangeland Health (qualitative) with an interdisciplinary team 

every 10 years or at the time of permit renewal. Report acres moving 

toward or away from meeting standards as part of meeting RMP 

objectives. 

Actual Use: Animal Unit Month (AUM) numbers reported 15 days 

after completing authorized grazing use on those allotments that 

qualify for actual use reporting. Forage consumed by livestock would 

be reported based on number of livestock and length of grazing use. 

Numbers could potentially be reduced when allotments are not 

meeting or progressing towards meeting standards due to livestock 

grazing. 

Recreation Monitoring of recreation resources will continue to occur throughout 

the planning area with emphasis placed on developed recreation 

sites and Special Recreation Management Areas. Monitoring will 

include regular patrols of these areas to check on signing, visitor use, 

recreation use-related impacts, and user conflicts. Additionally, 

monitoring will include identification and inspection of undeveloped 

areas where there may be problems with compliance with rules and 

regulations resulting in user conflicts and/or resource damage. 

Actual visitor and/or vehicle counts will be documented at all 

developed recreation sites and SRMAs as those sites and areas are 

visited. Monitoring will also use visitor surveys, traffic counters, and 

surveillance at developed recreation sites, documentation of user 

conflicts, and photo documentation of the changes in resource 

conditions over time. Monitoring may also include collection of data 

from visitor comments and complaints, or information request calls or 

emails. Monitoring data will be used to manage visitor use, develop 

plans and projects to reduce visitor impacts, and to provide 

appropriate facility or transportation system design. 

 Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) issued to commercial operators 

or for competitive events will be monitored for compliance with permit 

terms, conditions and special stipulations, as well as administrative 

and post-use requirements. Field monitoring will focus on visitation 

levels and compliance with rules, regulations, and permit stipulations 

for specific sites, dispersed uses, and prescribed standards and 

guidelines. 

Average visitor use numbers for developed recreation sites and 

SRMAs will be reported in the BLM’s Recreation Management 

Information System (RMIS) to track visitor use and recreation use 

trends over time. The number of recreation area management plans 

prepared and special recreation permits (SRPs) issued will also be 

reported annually in RMIS. 

Transportation Travel management and OHV use monitoring within the planning 

area will focus on compliance with specific route and area 

designations and restrictions, with primary emphasis on those routes 

or areas causing the highest levels of user conflicts or adverse 

impacts to resources. Various methods of monitoring may be 

employed including; aerial monitoring, ground patrol, "citizen watch," 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 15 

A15-6

Resource Suggested Monitoring Methodology 

and appropriate methods of remote surveillance such as traffic 

counters, etc. 

Evaluate trail impacts on natural resources through visual 

inspections, photo at problem areas (erosion, users short cutting, 

etc). Use trail traffic counters where appropriate to determine visitor 

use levels. Involve volunteers to assist in trail monitoring where 

appropriate and feasible. 

Periodically check that routes meet the objectives set forth in the 

RMP to ensure resource conditions such as water quality, wildlife/fish 

habitat, or recreational values are maintained and available to 

communities and users, and ensure resource values are not 

compromised. 

Route or area closures will be regularly monitored for compliance. 

Cooperation with other agencies in travel management and OHV use 

monitoring will continue to be emphasized, and improved wherever 

possible. 

Lands and Realty Land use authorizations will be monitored through periodic field 

examinations to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of 

the authorizing document. On-the-ground monitoring will occur 

immediately upon issuance of the authorization and periodically 

throughout the life of the authorization. Records as to the status of 

the authorization are tracked through the BLM accomplishment 

tracking process (Legacy Rehost 2000 (LR-2000)). Management, 

realty personnel, and other key staff will periodically review status of 

authorizations and compliance. 

The number of use authorizations monitored annually and the 

number of those in compliance with terms and conditions of the 

authorization in any given fiscal year will be recorded in the Annual 

Program Summary and reported in LR-2000. 

Land ownership adjustment actions will be monitored through the 

BLM accomplishment tracking process. Management, realty 

personnel, and other key staff members in the Kanab Field Office will 

meet periodically to review program status and compliance with 

goals and objectives. Changes in land ownership affecting BLM 

lands or interests in lands will be recorded on the Utah State Office 

Geographic Information System Data Base, on Master Title Plats and 

on Surface and Minerals Status Maps in a timely manner. . 

The number of acres acquired and/or disposed of through land 

exchanges, acquisitions, sales, and Recreation and Public Purpose 

Act patents will be reported in LR-2000. . 

The effectiveness of existing right-of-way corridors and right-of-way 

use areas will be discussed during the periodic meetings of 

management, realty personnel and key KFO staff. The need for 

additional corridors and use areas will also be discussed during 

these meetings. Periodic on-the-ground inspections of the corridors 

and use areas will be conducted to ensure they are being managed 

correctly and that conflicting uses are not occurring which could 

preclude the use of these locations for their intended purpose. 

Minerals and Energy Any new mineral withdrawals from operation of the public land laws 

and/or mineral laws will be reported in the LR-2000 as will any 

withdrawal revocations. Withdrawals and revocation of withdrawals 

will be reported in LR-2000. 

Monitoring of mineral operations will be done to ensure compliance 

with applicable laws, regulations, conditions of leases/permits, and 

the requirements of approved exploration/development 

plans/applications. Monitoring activities will include: 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 15 

A15-7

Resource Suggested Monitoring Methodology 

1. Periodic field inspections of leasable mineral activities. Inspections 

will be conducted to determine compliance with applicable laws, 

regulations, lease stipulations, and the requirements of approved 

exploration /development plans, applications for permit to drill, and 

sundry notices. 

2. Monitoring of oil and gas drilling/production activities in the 

decision area. Total gross surface disturbance and net surface 

disturbance from all drilling will be tracked. 

An accurate accounting of production will also be tracked on 

producing leases. Acres of new disturbance, acres re-claimed, and 

production numbers from producing leases will be reported in the 

Annual Program Summary. 

Monitoring of mining operations will be done to ensure compliance 

with 43 CFR 3809, 3802 and 3715 and other regulations and 

conditions of approval, specifically preventing "unnecessary or undue 

degradation". When applicable and practical, Plan and Notice review, 

inspections and associated compliance work will be coordinated with 

the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM). 

Field inspections will look for compliance with the Plans of Operation 

and Notices of Intent and include monitoring of weed control, 

reclamation of disturbed areas, revegetation and protection of the 

environment and public health and safety. Findings for each 

inspection will be documented. Any non-compliance items will be 

noted and the appropriate regulatory procedures followed. 

The number of explorations/operations monitored and the number in 

compliance will be reported in LR-2000 and CBS (Collection and 

Billing System). 

Monitoring of salable minerals will be done on a periodic basis to 

ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations, BLM policy 

contained in BLM Manual Section 3600, Handbook H-3600- 1, and 

the requirements of the approved mining plan. 

Inspections will specifically note production verification compliance 

with reclamation, weed control and the protection of the environment 

and public health and safety. Operations in sensitive environmental 

areas or operations with a high potential for greater than usual 

impacts will be inspected more often. Identification and resolution of 

salable mineral trespasses will also be performed. 

The number of mineral material sites monitored will be reported in 

LR-2000 and CBS. 

Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern 

The Cottonwood Canyon ACEC will have a management plan 

prepared that will include a monitoring component. Specific 

monitoring methods will be identified in the ACEC plan, but 

techniques could include photo points, line intercept transects, ocular 

surveillance, study plots, or value points. A mitigation plan will be 

developed based on the results of the monitoring, if necessary. 

The long term monitoring program will include the visitation of a 

representative sample of various relevant and important values within 

the designated ACEC, as well to establish baseline information on 

the current condition of these values. Once the baseline condition 

assessment information has been compiled, the ACEC will be 

monitored at least once every four years to identify any potential 

adverse impacts that might occur and identify trends in resource 

condition and/or deterioration, and to determine whether any actions 

taking place in the area are causing detrimental changes to the 

values deemed relevant and important. Any changes will be noted 

and recorded in the cultural resource data base and reported to the 

Field Manager. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 15 

A15-8

Resource Suggested Monitoring Methodology 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Conduct monitoring, including periodic patrols to check boundaries, 

signing, and visitor use to ensure that outstandingly remarkable 

values are not compromised on the suitable WSR segments. Inspect 

planned projects as well as on-the-ground projects for compliance to 

maintain WSR integrity. Monitor the upper and lower boundaries of 

each WSR at a minimum of once per year, document with photos at 

permanent locations at the on-stream boundaries. Every other year 

inspect random segments of the interior of each WSR for compliance 

to maintain WSR integrity. 

Wilderness The Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area will be monitored 

in accordance with the direction provided in the Wilderness 

Management Plan, 1986, unless direction is updated. Any new areas 

that may be designated wilderness by Congress over the life of the 

plan would be monitored in accordance with guidance developed in 

their respective wilderness management plans. 

Wilderness Study Areas Wilderness Study Areas will be monitored in accordance with 

direction provided in the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review (BLM Handbook H-8550-1), Chapter 2 section D. 

The policy requires monitoring of all WSAs at least once per month 

during the months the area is accessible by the public. Suitable 

monitoring methods will include both aerial and ground surveillance. 

As allowed by the IMP, alternative monitoring schedules may be 

prepared and implemented if approved by the State Director. 

Other Designations Following development of the comprehensive management plan for 

the National Historic Trail (OD-2), the prepared Activity Trail Plan 

(OD-3) will include monitoring for the segments within the Kanab 

Field Office. Monitoring should include inspection of planned 

projects as well as on-the-ground projects for compliance to maintain 

remaining trail integrity. Assure that the VRM objectives for public 

lands seen along the trail are met. 

Monitor any interpretive signs installed along the Old Spanish 

National Historic Trail for wear or vandalism. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 16 

A16-1

APPENDIX 16. 

STANDARDS AND GUIDES FOR GRAZING 

MANAGEMENT

The BLM has developed the following Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and their companion 

rules-Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM in Utah 

([BLM-UT-GI-97-001-4000] U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Utah 

State Office 1997). 

D.1. FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

As provided by regulations, developed by the Secretary of the Interior on February 22, 1995, the 

following conditions must exist on BLM lands: 

1. Watersheds are in, or making significant progress toward, properly functioning physical 

condition, including their upland, riparian –wetland, and aquatic components; soil and plant 

conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release of water that are in 

balance with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, and timing and 

duration of flow. 

2. Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle nutrient cycle, and energy flow, are 

maintained, or there is significant progress toward their attainment, in order to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities. 

3. Water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves, or is making 

significant progress towards achieving established BLM management objectives such as 

meeting wildlife needs. 

4. Habitats; are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored or maintained for 

Federal threatened and endangered Species, Federal proposed, Category 1 and 2 Federal 

candidate and other special status Species. 

In 1997, the BLM in Utah developed rules to carry out the Fundamentals of Rangeland health. 

These are called Standards for Rangeland health and Guidelines for grazing management. 

Standards spell out conditions to be achieved on BLM Lands in Utah, and Guidelines describe 

practices that will be applied in order to achieve the Standards.d.2. Standards for Rangeland 

Health 

STANDARD 1. UPLAND SOILS EXHIBIT PERMEABILITY AND INFILTRATION RATES THAT SUSTAIN 

OR IMPROVE SITE PRODUCTIVITY, CONSIDERING THE SOIL TYPE, CLIMATE, AND 

LANDFORM. 

As indicated by: 

1. Sufficient cover and litter to protect the soil surface from excessive water and 

2. wind erosion, promote infiltration, detain surface flow, and retard soil moisture loss by 

evaporation. 

3. The absence of indicators of excessive erosion such as rills, soil pedestals. and actively 

eroding gullies. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 16 

A16-2

4. The appropriate amount, type, and distribution Of vegetation reflecting the presence of (1) 

the Desired Plant Community IDPCI, where identified in a land use plan, or (2) where the 

PVC is not identified, a community that equally sustains the desired level of productivity and 

properly functioning ecological conditions. 

STANDARD 2. RIPARIAN AND WETLAND AREAS ARE IN PROPERLY FUNCTIONING CONDITION.

STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY AND FUNCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE TO SOIL TYPE,

CLIMATE AND LANDFORM. 

As indicated by: 

1. Stream bank vegetation consisting of or showing a trend toward species with root masses 

capable of withstanding high stream flow events. Vegetative cover adequate to protect stream 

banks and dissipate stream flow energy associated with high-water flows. protect against 

accelerated erosion. capture sediment. and provide for groundwater recharge. 

2. Vegetation reflecting: Desired Plant Community. maintenance of riparian and wetland soil 

moisture characteristics, diverse age structure and composition. high vigor. large woody 

debris when site potential allows. and providing food. cover and other habitat needs for 

dependent animal species. 

3. Revegetating point bars: lateral stream movement associated with natural sinuosity: channel 

width. depth, pool frequency and roughness appropriate to landscape position. 

4. Active floodplain. 

STANDARD 3. DESIRED SPECIES, INCLUDING NATIVE, THREATENED. 

As indicated by: 

1. Frequency, diversity, density, age classes, and productivity of desired native species 

necessary to ensure reproductive capability and survival. 

2. Habitats connected at a level to enhance species survival. 

3. Native species reoccupy habitat niches and voids caused by disturbances unless management 

objectives call for introduction or maintenance of nonnative species. 

4. Appropriate amount, type, and distribution of vegetation reflecting the presence of (1) the 

Desired Plant Community DPC, where identified in a land use plan conforming to these 

Standards, or (2) where the DPC is identified a community that equally sustains the desired 

level of productivity and properly functioning ecologic processes. 

STANDARD 4. BLM WILL APPLY AND COMPLY WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 

ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE OF UTAH (R.317-2) AND THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER 

AND SAFE DRINKING WATER ACTS. ACTIVITIES ON BLM LANDS WILL FULLY SUPPORT 

THE DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USES DESCRIBED IN THE UTAH WATER QUALITY 

STANDARDS {R.317-2) FOR SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER. 1 

As indicated by: 

1. Measurement of nutrient loads, total dissolved solids, chemical constituents, fecal coliform, 

water temperature and other water quality parameters. 

2. Macro-invertebrate communities that indicate water quality meets aquatic objectives. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 16 

A16-3

Because BLM Lands provide forage for grazing of wildlife, wild horses and burros, and 

domestic livestock, the following rules have been developed to assure that such grazing is 

consistent with the Standards listed here. 

1. BLM will continue to coordinate monitoring water quality activities with other Federal, State 

and technical agencies. 

D.3. GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT

1. Grazing management practices will be implemented that: 

a. Maintain sufficient residual vegetation and litter on both upland and riparian sites to 

protect the soil from wind and water erosion and support ecological functions; 

b. Promote attainment or maintenance of proper functioning condition riparian/wetland 

areas, appropriate stream channel morphology, desired soil permeability and permeability 

and infiltration, and appropriate soil conditions and kinds and amounts of plants and 

animals to support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow. 

c. Meet the physiological requirements of desired plants and facilitate reproduction and 

maintenance of desired plants to the extent natural conditions allow; 

d. Maintain viable and diverse populations of plants and animals appropriate for the site, 

e. Provide or improve within the limits of site potentials, habitat for Threatened or 

Endangered Species; 

f. Avoid grazing management conflicts with other species that have the potential of 

becoming protected or special status species; 

g. Encourage innovation, experimentation and the ultimate development of alternatives to 

improve rangeland management practices; 

h. Give priority to rangeland improvement projects and land treatments that offer the best 

opportunity for achieving the Standards. 

2. Any spring or seep developments will he designed and constructed to protect ecological 

process and functions and improve livestock, wild horse and wildlife distribution. 

3. New rangeland projects for grazing will be constructed in a manner consistent with the 

Standards. Considering economic circumstances and site limitations, existing rangeland 

projects and facilities that conflict with the achievement or maintenance of the Standards will 

be relocated and/or modified. 

4. Livestock salt blocks and other nutritional supplements will be located away from 

riparian/wetland areas or other permanently located, or other natural water sources. It is 

recommended that the locations of these supplements be moved every year. 

5. The use and perpetuation of native species will be emphasized. However, when restoring or 

rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands nonintrusive, nonnative plant species are 

appropriate for use where native species (a) are not available, (b) are not economically 

feasible, (c) can not achieve ecological objectives as well as nonnative species, and/or (d) 

cannot compete with already established native species 

6. When rangeland manipulations are necessary, the best management practices, including 

biological processes, fire and intensive grazing, will be utilized prior to the use of chemical 

or mechanical manipulations. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 16 

A16-4

7. When establishing grazing practices and rangeland improvements, the quality of the outdoor 

recreation experience is to be considered. Aesthetic and scenic values, water, campsites and 

opportunities for solitude are among those considerations. 

8. Feeding of hay and other harvested forage (which does not refer to miscellaneous salt, 

protein, and other supplements) for the purpose of substituting for inadequate natural forage 

will not be conducted on BLM lands other than in (a) emergency situations where no other 

resource exists and animal survival is in jeopardy, or (b) situations where the Authorized 

Officer determines such a practice will assist in meeting a Standard or attaining a 

management objective. 

9. In order to eliminate, minimize, or limit the spread of noxious weeds, (a) only hay cubes, hay 

pellets, or certified weed-free hay will be fed on BLM lands, and (b) reasonable adjustments 

in grazing methods, methods of transport, and animal husbandry practices will be applied. 

10. To avoid contamination of water sources and in advertent damage to non-target species, 

aerial application of pesticides will not be allowed within 100 feet of a riparian wetland area 

unless the product is registered for such use by the EPA. 

11. On rangelands where a standard is not being met, and conditions are moving toward meeting 

the standard, grazing may be allowed to continue. On lands where a standard is not being 

met, conditions are not improving toward meeting the standard or other management 

objectives, and livestock grazing is deemed responsible, administrative action with regard to 

livestock will be taken by the Authorized Officer pursuant to CUR 4180.2(c). 

12. Where it can he determined that more than one kind of grazing animal is responsible for 

failure to achieve a Standard, and adjustments in management are required. those adjustments 

will be made to each kind of animal, based on interagency cooperation as needed. in 

proportion to their degree of responsibility. 

13. Rangelands that have been burned, reseeded or otherwise treated to alter vegetative 

composition will be closed to livestock grazing as follows: (I) burned rangelands, whether by 

wildfire or prescribed burning, will be ungrazed for a minimum of one complete growing 

season following the burn; and (2) rangelands that have been reseeded or otherwise 

chemically or mechanically treated will be ungrazed for a minimum of two complete 

growing seasons. 

14. Conversions in kind of livestock (such as from sheep to cattle) will be analyzed in light of 

Rangeland Health Standards. Where such conversions are not adverse to achieving a 

Standard, or they are not in conflict with BLM land use plans, the conversion will be 

allowed. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-1

APPENDIX 17. 

HYDRAULIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR PIPELINES 

CROSSING STREAM CHANNELS; TECHNICAL NOTE 

423 

Suggested citations: 

Fogg, J. and H. Hadley. 2007. Hydraulic considerations for pipelines crossing stream channels. 

Technical Note 423. BLM/ST/ST-07/007+2880. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. 18 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techno2.htm.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007. Hydraulic considerations for pipelines crossing stream 

channels. Technical Note 423. BLM/ST/ST-07/007+2880. Bureau of Land Management, 

National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. 18 pp. http://www.blm.gov/nstc/ 

library/techno2.htm.

ABSTRACT

High flow events have the potential to damage pipelines that cross stream channels, possibly 

contaminating runoff. A hydrologic analysis conducted during the design of the pipeline can help 

determine proper placement. Flood frequency and magnitude evaluations are required for 

pipelines that cross at the surface. There are several methods that can be used, including 

reconnaissance, physiographic, analytical, and detailed methods. The method used must be 

appropriate for the site's characteristics and the objectives of the analysis. Channel degradation 

and scour evaluations are required for pipelines crossing below the surface. Proper analysis and 

design can prevent future pipeline damage and reduce repair and replacement costs.

Production services provided by: 

Bureau of Land Management 

National Science and Technology Center 

Branch of Publishing Services 

P.O. Box 25047 

Denver, CO 80225 

Copies available online at: 

www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techno2.htm
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-2

INTRODUCTION

In 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raised concerns about the potential for flash floods in 

ephemeral stream channels to rupture natural-gas pipelines and carry toxic condensates to the 

Green River, which would have deleterious effects on numerous special-status fish species 

(Figure 1). In November of the same year, BLM hydrologists visited the Uinta Basin in Utah to 

survey stream channels and compute flood magnitudes and depths to better understand possible 

flooding scenarios. From this they developed construction guidance for pipelines crossing 

streams in Utah. This guidance was later modified so that it was generally applicable to the arid 

and semiarid lands of the intermountain west. It may also have general applicability in other 

areas of the western United States. The purpose of this document is to present the modified 

guidance for placement of pipelines crossing above or below the surface of stream channels to 

prevent inundation or exposure of the pipe to the hydraulic forces of flood events. 

Figure 1. Pipeline breaks during flooding can release condensate toxic to sensitive fish 

species. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-3

SURFACE CROSSINGS

Pipelines that cross stream channels on the surface should be located above all possible 

floodflows that may occur at the site. At a minimum, pipelines must be located above the 100-

year flood elevation and preferably above the 500-year flood elevation. Two sets of relationships 

are available for estimating flood frequencies at ungaged sites in Utah. Thomas and Lindskov 

(1983) use drainage basin area and mean basin elevation for flood estimates for six Utah regions 

stratified by location and basin elevation (Table 1). Thomas et al. (1997) also use drainage area 

and mean basin elevation to estimate magnitude and frequency of floods throughout the 

southwestern U.S., including seven regions that cover the entire State of Utah. Results from both 

sets of equations should be examined to estimate the 100- and 500-year floods, since either of the 

relations may provide questionable results if the pipeline crosses a stream near the boundary of a 

flood region or if the drainage area or mean basin elevation for the crossing exceed the limits of 

the data set used to develop the equations. 

Table 1. Examples of Flood Frequency Equations for Ungaged Sites in Utah

Regression equations for peak discharges for Uinta Basin (from Thomas and Lindskov 1983) 

Discharge Q in cubic feet per second, Area in square miles, Elevation in thousands of feet 

Recurrence 

interval (yrs) 

Equation Number of stations 

used in analysis 

Average standard 

error of estimate (%) 

2 Q = 1,500 A0.403 E -1.90 25 82 

5 Q = 143,000 A0.374 E-3.66 25 66 

10 Q = 1.28 x 106 A0.362 E-4.50 25 64 

25 Q = 1.16 x 107 A0.352 E-5.32 25 66 

50 Q = 4.47 x 107 A0.347 E-5.85 25 70 

100 Q = 1.45 x 108 A0.343 E-6.29 25 74 

Procedures for estimating 100-year and 500-year flood magnitudes for other States are described 

in the U.S. Geological Survey's National Flood Frequency Program (Ries and Crouse 2002) 

(Figure 2). Full documentation of the equations and information necessary to solve them is 

provided in individual reports for each State. The National Flood Frequency (NFF) Website 

(http://water.usgs.gov/software/nff.html) provides State summaries of the equations in NFF, 

links to online reports for many States, and factsheets summarizing reports for States with new or 

corrected equations. Background information in each State's flood frequency reports should be 

checked to ensure that application of the equations is not attempted for sites with independent 

variables outside the range used to develop the predictive equations. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-4

Figure 2. View of the output from NFF. 

Once the flood frequency for a site has been estimated, determining the depth of flow associated 

with an extreme flood (i.e., the elevation of the pipeline at the crossing) may be approached in a 

number of ways. Procedures for estimating depth of flow for extreme floods in Utah are 

presented in Thomas and Lindskov (1983). Similar procedures presented in Burkham (1977, 

1988) are generally applicable for locations throughout the Great Basin and elsewhere. The 

reconnaissance, physiographic, analytical, and detailed methods described in those reports will 

be summarized briefly in this paper. Burkham (1988) describes an additional method (historical 

method) not presented here, since the data for its use (high-water marks for an extreme historical 

flood with known discharge and recurrence interval) are rarely available in public land situations 

for which this guidance is intended. 

RECONNAISSANCE METHOD

The reconnaissance method (as the name implies) is a fairly rough and imprecise method for 

delineating flood-prone areas (Burkham 1988; Thomas and Lindskov 1983). It is most applicable 

to stable or degrading alluvial channels with multiple terrace surfaces, although such terraces 

may be difficult to detect on severely degrading streams. In this procedure, the channel of 

interest is examined to approximate the area that would be inundated by a large flood. A 

geomorphic reconnaissance of the site is conducted, and it may be supplemented with aerial 

photos, maps, and historical information available for the reach of interest. In addition to the 

morphology of the channel, floodplain, and terraces, information on vegetation (e.g., species, 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-5

flood tolerance, drought tolerance) and soils (e.g., development, stratification, and drainage) can 

be helpful for identifying flood-prone areas (Burkham 1988). For best results, the geomorphic 

analysis should include reaches upstream and downstream of the site and should attempt to 

determine the general state of the stream channel as aggrading, degrading, or stable. (Additional 

guidance on detection of stream degradation is presented in the section on subsurface crossings). 

In the reconnaissance method, identification of bankfull elevation and the active floodplain (i.e., 

floodplain formed by the present flow regime) provides inadequate conveyance for extreme 

flood events (Figure 3). Past floodplains or present terraces also must be identified, since these 

surfaces may be inundated by extreme floods in the present flow regime, especially in arid and 

semiarid environments. Pipelines should be constructed so that they cross at or above the 

elevation of the highest and outermost terrace (Figure 4). The highest terrace is unlikely to be 

accessed in the modern flow regime by any but the most extreme floods. 

Practitioners of the reconnaissance method need considerable experience in geomorphology, 

sedimentation, hydraulics, soil science, and botany. Also, since this method is based on a 

geomorphic reconnaissance of the site, no flood frequency analysis is required and no recurrence 

interval can be assigned to the design elevation. An additional drawback to the method is that the 

accuracy of the results is unknown. However, the reconnaissance method may be the most 

rational one for delineating flood-prone areas on some alluvial fans and valley floors where 

channels become discontinuous (Burkham 1988). While this is the quickest approach to 

designing a pipeline that crosses a channel, it likely will result in the most conservative estimate 

(i.e., highest elevation and greatest construction cost) for suspension of the pipeline. 

Figure 3. Although this pipeline crossed above the bankfull channel indicators, it was not 

high enough to escape more extreme floods. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-6

Figure 4. This New Mexico pipeline crosses the channel near the elevation of the highest 

terrace, which places it above even the most extreme flood events. 

PHYSIOGRAPHIC METHOD

A slightly more intensive approach to designing pipelines that cross streams is based on the 

physiographic method for estimating flood depths at ungaged sites described by Thomas and 

Lindskov (1983) and Burkham (1988). The procedure uses regional regression equations (similar 

to the flood frequency equations described above) to estimate maximum depth of flow 

associated with a specified recurrence-interval flood (Table 2). Flood depth is then added to a 

longitudinal survey of the channel thalweg in the vicinity of the crossing (10 to 20 channel 

widths in length), resulting in a longitudinal profile of the specified flood. Elevation of the flood 

profile at the point of pipeline crossing is the elevation above which the pipeline must be 

suspended. The method is generally applicable where 1) the project site is physiographically 

similar to the drainage basins used to develop the regression equations and 2) soil characteristics 

are the same at the project site as in the basins where the regression equations were developed. 

While this procedure requires a field survey and calculation of flood depths at points along the 

channel, it may result in a lower crossing elevation (and possibly lower costs) for the pipeline. 

Also, since the regional regression equations estimate flood depths for specific recurrenceinterval floods, it is possible to place a recurrence interval on the crossing design for risk 

calculations. However, regional regression equations linking depth of flood to recurrence interval 

have not been developed for many areas. In States where they have been developed (e.g., 

Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, and Oklahoma), standard errors of the estimates have 

ranged from 17 to 28 percent, with an average standard error of 23 percent (Burkham 1988). 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-7

Table 2. Examples of Depth Frequency Equations for Ungaged Sites in Utah

Regression equations for flood depths for Uinta Basin (from Thomas and Lindskov 1983) 

Flood depth D in feet, Area in square miles, Elevation in thousands of feet 

Recurrence 

interval (yrs) 

Equation Number of stations 

used in analysis 

Average standard 

error of estimate (%) 

2 D = 1.03 A0.159 16 30 

5 D = 13.3 A0.148E-1.03 16 28 

10 D = 68.6 A0.131 E-1.69 16 26 

25 D = 556 A0.128 E-2.59 16 24 

50 D = 1330 A0.123 E-2.95 15 24 

100 D = 1210 A0.130 E-2.86 14 22 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

The analytical method described by Burkham (1988) uses uniform flow equations to estimate 

depth of flow associated with a particular magnitude and frequency of discharge. Typically, a 

trial-and-error procedure is used to solve the Manning uniform flow equation for depth of flow, 

given a design discharge (i.e., a flood of specified recurrence interval), a field-surveyed cross 

section and channel slope, and an estimate of the Manning roughness coefficient (n). Numerous 

software packages are available to facilitate the trial-and-error solution procedure (e.g., 

WinXSPRO). Since the Manning formula is linear with respect to the roughness coefficient, 

estimating this coefficient can be a significant source of error and is likely the most significant 

weakness in this approach. Estimating roughness coefficients (n values) for ungaged sites is a 

matter of engineering judgment, but n values typically are a function of slope, depth of flow, 

bed-material particle size, and bedforms present during the passage of the flood wave. Guidance 

is available in many hydraulic references (e.g., Chow 1959). Selecting n values for flows above 

the bankfull stage is particularly difficult, since vegetation plays a major role in determining 

resistance to flow. Barnes (1967) presents photographic examples of field-verified n values, and 

Arcement and Schneider (1989) present comprehensive guidance for calculating n values for 

both channels and vegetated overbank areas (i.e., floodplains). Depth of flow determined with 

uniform flow equations, such as the Manning equation, represents mean depth of flow to be 

added to the cross section at the site of the pipeline crossing. 

Burkham (1977, 1988) also presented a simplified technique for estimating depth of flow, 

making use of the general equation for the depth-discharge relation: 

d = C Q f

Values of f (the slope of the relationship when plotted on logarithmic graph paper) can be 

determined from "at-station" hydraulic geometry relationships at gaging stations in the region. 

Only the upper portion of the gaging-station ratings should be used to derive the slope (f value) 

for application to extreme floods, since a substantial portion of the flow may be conveyed in the 

overbank area. Alternatively, Burkham (1977, 1988) presents a simplified procedure for 

estimating f that requires only a factor for channel shape. Leopold and Langbein (1962) 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-8

computed a theoretical value of 0.42 for natural channels, while Burkham (1988) computed a 

theoretical value of 0.46 for parabolic cross sections. Burkham (1977) earlier reported an average 

f value of 0.42 from 539 gaging stations scattered along the eastern seaboard and upper Midwest, 

while Leopold and Maddock (1953) reported an average f value of 0.40 for 20 river cross 

sections in the Great Plains and the Southwest. Park (1977) summarized f values from 139 sites 

around the world and found most values occurred in the range of 0.3 to 0.4. Additional 

assumptions in Burkham (1977, 1988) enable an estimate of the coefficient C in the depthdischarge relationship with only a single field measurement of width and maximum depth at 

some reference level in the channel (e.g., bankfull stage) (Burkham 1977, 1988). Depth of flow 

determined from Burkham's simplified technique represents maximum depth of flow to be 

added to the thalweg at the cross section. 

The analytical methods described by Burkham (1977, 1988) generally will be more accurate than 

the physiographic and reconnaissance methods described previously; thus, they may result in 

lower pipeline elevations and construction costs than the previous methods. However, analysis of 

flood elevations for the most sensitive situations should probably be conducted with the detailed 

method described below. 

DETAILED METHOD

Additional savings in construction costs for pipelines crossing channels may be realized by 

applying a detailed water-surface-profile model of flow through the crossing site. The watersurface-profile model requires a detailed survey of both the longitudinal channel profile (at least 

20 channel widths in length) and several cross sections along the stream (Figure 5). Design flows 

(e.g., 100-year and 500-year floods) are calculated for the channel at the crossing with the 

regional regression equations described above and routed through the surveyed channel reach 

using a step-backwater analysis. The step-backwater analysis uses the principles of conservation 

of mass and conservation of energy to calculate water-surface elevations at each surveyed cross 

section. Computed water-surface elevations at successive cross sections are linked to provide a 

water-surface profile for the flood of interest through the reach of interest. The computations are 

routinely accomplished in standard software, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' HECRAS model. Whereas the analytical methods described previously assume steady, uniform flow 

conditions through the reach, a detailed water-surface-profile model is capable of handling both 

gradually and (to some extent) rapidly varied flow conditions. Since the computation uses a 

detailed channel survey, it is the most accurate method to use; however, it is likely the most 

expensive method for the same reason. Burkham (1988) indicates that the error in flood depths 

predicted from step-backwater analysis can be expected to be less than 20 percent. The stepbackwater computations require an estimate of the Manning roughness coefficient (n) as an 

indicator of resistance to flow and assume fairly stable channel boundaries. Estimation of the 

roughness coefficient (n) includes the same considerations discussed previously for the analytical 

methods. The assumption of fairly stable channel boundaries is not always met with sand-bed 

channels and is an issue of considerable importance for designing subsurface pipeline crossings 

as well. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-9

Figure 5. Application of a water-surface-profile model requires both a longitudinal channel 

profile and several surveyed cross sections (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration 

Working Group 1998). 

Of the methods presented for determining elevation of floods for pipelines crossing channels, the 

detailed method is the most accurate and should be used for situations with high resource values, 

infrastructure investment, construction costs, or liabilities in downstream areas. In undeveloped 

areas, the physiographic and analytical methods may be used to provide quick estimates of flood 

elevations for sites with fewer downstream concerns. The reconnaissance method provides the 

roughest estimates but may be all that is warranted in very unstable areas, such as alluvial fans or 

low relief valley floors (e.g., near playas). The detailed, analytical, and physiographic methods 

all assume relatively stable channel boundaries but may be used on sand channels with an 

accompanying loss of accuracy. In very sandy channels, the accuracy of results from the detailed 

method may not be significantly better than the results from one of the intermediate methods 

unless a mobile-boundary model is used (Burkham 1988). 

SUBSURFACE (BURIED) CROSSINGS

Since many of the pipelines are small and most of the channels are ephemeral, it is commonplace 

to bury the pipelines rather than suspending them above the streams. The practice of burying 

pipelines at channel crossings likely is both cheaper and easier than suspending them above all 

floodflows; however, an analysis of channel degradation and scour should be completed to 

ensure the pipelines are not exposed and broken during extreme runoff events (Figure 6). 

Without such an analysis, channels should be excavated to bedrock and pipelines placed beneath 

all alluvial material. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-10

Figure 6. Channel degradation or scour during flash-flood events may expose buried 

pipelines, resulting in costly breaks. 

Buried pipelines may be exposed by streambed lowering resulting from channel degradation, 

channel scour, or a combination of the two. Channel degradation occurs over a long stream reach 

or even the entire drainage network and is generally associated with the overall lowering of the 

landscape. Degradation also may be associated with changes in upstream watershed or channel 

conditions that alter the water and sediment yield of the basin. Channel scour is a local 

phenomenon associated with passage of one or more flood events or site-specific hydraulic 

conditions that may be natural or human-caused in origin. Either process can expose buried 

pipelines to excessive forces associated with extreme flow events, and an analysis of each is 

required to ensure integrity of the crossing. 

CHANNEL DEGRADATION

Detection of long-term channel degradation must be attempted, even if there is no indication of 

local scour. Conceptual models of channel evolution (e.g., Simon 1989) have been proposed to 

describe a more-or-less predictable sequence of channel changes that a stream undergoes in 

response to disturbance in the channel or the watershed. Many of these models are based on a 

"space for time" substitution, whereby downstream conditions are interpreted as preceding (in 

time) the immediate location of interest, and upstream conditions are interpreted as following (in 

time) the immediate location of interest. Thus, a reach in the middle of the watershed that 

previously looked like the channel upstream will evolve to look like the channel downstream 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-11

(Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 1998). Since channel evolution models 

can help predict current trends where a pipeline crosses a channel, they may indicate areas to be 

avoided when relocation of the crossing is an option. Most conceptual models of channel 

evolution have been developed for landscapes dominated by streams with cohesive banks; 

however, the same processes occur in streams with noncohesive banks, with somewhat less welldefined stages. 

Geomorphic indicators of recent channel incision (e.g., obligate and facultative riparian species 

on present-day stream terraces elevated above the water table) also may be helpful for 

diagnosing channel conditions. However, long-term trends in channel evolution are often 

reversed during major flood events, especially for intermittent and ephemeral channels in arid 

and semiarid environments. Thus, a stream that is degrading during annual and intermediate 

flood events may be filled with sediment (i.e., it may aggrade) from tributary inputs during a 

major flood, and channels that are associated with sediment storage (i.e., aggrading) during the 

majority of runoff events may be "blown out" with major degradation during unusual and 

extreme large floods. 

In some situations, a quantitative analysis of channel degradation may be warranted. Plots of 

streambed elevation against time permit evaluation of bed-level adjustment and indicate whether 

a major phase of channel incision has passed or is ongoing. However, comparative channel 

survey data are rarely available for the proposed location for a pipeline to cross a channel. In 

instances where a gaging station is operated at or near the crossing, it is usually possible to 

determine long-term aggradation or degradation by plotting the change in stage through time for 

one or more selected discharges. The procedure is called a specific-gage analysis (Figure 7) and 

is described in detail in Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices

(Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 1998). When there is no gaging station 

near the proposed channel crossing, nearby locations on the same stream or in the same river 

basin may provide a regional perspective on long-term channel adjustments. However, specificgage records indicate only the conditions in the vicinity of the particular gaging station and do 

not necessarily reflect river response farther upstream or downstream of the gage. Therefore, it is 

advisable to investigate other data in order to make predictions about potential channel 

degradation at a site. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-12

Figure 7. Specific-gage plots of the gage heights associated with index flows through time 

may indicate general channel lowering in the drainage basin (Federal Interagency 

Stream Restoration Working Group 1998; Biedenharn et al. 1997). 

Other sources of information include the biannual bridge inspection reports required in all States 

for bridge maintenance. In most States, these reports include channel cross sections or bed 

elevations under the bridge, and a procedure similar to specific gage analysis may be attempted 

(Figure 8). Simon (1989, 1992) presents mathematical functions for describing bed-level 

adjustments through time, fitting elevation data at a site to either a power function or an 

exponential function of time. Successive cross sections from a series of bridges in a basin also 

may be used to construct a longitudinal profile of the channel network; sequential profiles so 

constructed may be used to document channel adjustments through time (Figure 9). Again, 

bridge inspection reports so used indicate only the conditions in the vicinity of those particular 

bridges (where local scour may be present) and must be interpreted judiciously for sites 

upstream, downstream, or between the bridges used in the analysis. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-13

Figure 8. Plots of bed elevation versus time may be developed from biannual bridge 

inspection reports to document systemwide degradation or aggradation (Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 1998). 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-14

Figure 9. Sequential longitudinal profiles also may be used to document channel lowering 

through time (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 1988; 

Biedenharn et al. 1997). 

In the absence of channel surveys, gaging stations, and bridge inspection reports (or other 

records of structural repairs along a channel), it may be necessary to investigate channel 

aggradation and degradation using quantitative techniques described in Richardson et al. (2001) 

and Lagasse et al. (2001). Techniques for assessing vertical stability of the channel include 

incipient motion analysis, analysis of armoring potential, equilibrium slope analysis, and 

sediment continuity analysis. Incipient motion analysis and analysis of armoring potential are 

equally applicable to both long-term degradation and short-term scour and fill processes, while 

equilibrium-slope and sediment-continuity analyses are more closely tied to long-term channel 

processes (i.e., degradation and aggradation). 

CHANNEL SCOUR

In addition to long-term channel degradation at subsurface crossings, general channel scour must 

be addressed to ensure safety of the pipeline. General scour is different from long-term 

degradation in that general scour may be cyclic or related to the passing of a flood (Richardson 

and Davis 2001). Channel scour and fill processes occur naturally along a given channel, and 

both reflect the redistribution of sediment and short-term adjustments that enable the channel to 

maintain a quasi-equilibrium form. In other words, channels in dynamic equilibrium experience 

various depths of scour during the rising stages of a flood that frequently correspond to equal 

amounts of fill during the falling stages, resulting in minimal changes in channel-bed elevation. 

Where pipelines cross channels, it is important to determine the potential maximum depth of 

scour so that the pipeline is buried to a sufficient depth and does not become exposed when bed 

scour occurs during a flood.

General scour occurs when sediment transport through a stream reach is greater than the 

sediment load being supplied from upstream and is usually associated with changes in the 

channel cross section. General scour can occur in natural channels wherever a pipeline crosses a 

constriction in the channel cross section (contraction scour). Equations for calculating 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-15

contraction scour generally fall into two categories, depending on the inflow of bed-material 

sediment from upstream. In situations where there is little to no bed-material transport from 

upstream (generally coarse-bed streams with gravel and larger bed materials), contraction scour 

should be estimated using clear-water scour equations. In situations where there is considerable 

bed-material transport into the constricted section (i.e., for most sand-bed streams), contraction 

scour should be estimated using live-bed scour equations. Live-bed and clear-water scour 

equations can be found in many hydraulic references (e.g., Richardson and Davis 2001). In either 

case, estimates of general scour in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing must be added to the 

assessment of channel degradation for estimating the depth of burial for the crossing. 

Other components of general scour can result from placement of subsurface crossings relative to 

the alignment of the stream channel. Pipelines crossing at bends in the channel are particularly 

troublesome, since bends are naturally unstable and tend to collect both ice and debris (which 

can cause additional constrictions in the flow). Channel-bottom elevations are usually lower on 

the outside of meander bends and may be more than twice as deep as the average depth in 

straighter portions of the channel. Crossings in the vicinity of stream confluences also create 

difficulties, since flood stages and hydraulic forces may be strongly influenced by backwater 

conditions at the downstream confluence. For example, sediment deposits from tributary inputs 

may induce contraction scour opposite or downstream of the deposit. Additional complications 

are introduced where pipelines are located near other obstructions in the channel. Channelspanning obstructions (e.g., beaver dams or large wood) may induce plunge-pool scour 

downstream of the structure, and individual obstructions in the channel induce local scour akin to 

pier scour characteristic of bridge piers at highway crossings. 

Even in the absence of contraction scour, general scour will still occur in most sand-bed channels 

during the passage of major floods. Since sand is easily eroded and transported, interaction 

between the flow of water and the sand bed results in different configurations of the stream bed 

with varying conditions of flow. The average height of dune bedforms is roughly one-third to 

one-half the mean flow depth, and the maximum height of dunes may nearly equal the mean 

flow depth. Thus, if the mean depth of flow in a channel was 5 feet, maximum dune height could 

also approach 5 feet, half of which would be below the mean elevation of the stream bed 

(Lagasse et al. 2001). Similarly, Simons, Li, and Associates (1982) present equations for 

antidune height as a function of mean velocity, but limit maximum antidune height to mean flow 

depth. Consequently, formation of antidunes during high flows not only increases mean watersurface elevation by one-half the wave height, it also reduces the mean bed elevation by one-half 

the wave height. Richardson and Davis (2001) reported maximum general scour of one to two 

times the average flow depth where two channels come together in a braided stream. 

Pipeline crossings that are buried rather than suspended above all major flow events should 

address all of the components of degradation, scour, and channel-lowering due to bedforms 

described above. In addition, once a determination is made on how deep to bury the pipeline at 

the stream crossing, the elevation of the pipe should be held constant across the floodplain. If the 

line is placed at shallower depths beneath the floodplain, channel migration may expose the line 

where it is not designed to pass beneath the channel (Figure 10). 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-16

Figure 10. Lateral migration of this stream channel during high water excavated a section 

of pipeline under the floodplain that was several feet shallower than at the original 

stream crossing. 

In complex situations or where consequences of pipeline failure are significant, consideration 

should be given to modeling the mobile-bed hydraulics with a numerical model such as HEC-6 

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1993) or BRI-STARS (Molinas 1990). The Federal Interagency 

Stream Restoration Working Group (1998) summarizes the capabilities of these and other 

models and provides references for model operation and user guides where available. 

CONCLUSION

Pipelines that cross perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream channels should be constructed 

to withstand floods of extreme magnitude to prevent rupture and accidental contamination of 

runoff during high flow events. Pipelines crossing at the surface must be constructed high 

enough to remain above the highest possible floodflows at each crossing, and pipelines crossing 

below the surface must be buried deep enough to remain undisturbed by scour and fill processes 

typically associated with passage of peak flows. A hydraulic analysis should be completed 

during the pipeline design phase to avoid repeated maintenance of such crossings and eliminate 

costly repairs and potential environmental degradation associated with pipeline breaks at stream 

crossings.
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-17

LITERATURE CITED

Arcement, G.J., Jr. and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for selecting Manning's roughness 

coefficients for natural channels and flood plains. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2339. 38 pp. 

Barnes, H.H., Jr. 1967. Roughness characteristics of natural channels. U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1849. 213 pp. 

Biedenharn, D.S., C.M. Elliott, and C.C. Watson. 1997. The WES stream investigation and 

streambank stabilization handbook. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. 

Vicksburg, MS. 

Burkam, D.E. 1977. A technique for determining depths for T-year discharges in rigid boundary 

channels. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 77-83. 38 pp. 

Burkham, D.E. 1988. Methods for delineating flood-prone areas in the Great Basin of Nevada 

and adjacent states. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2316. 20 pp. 

Chow, V.T. 1959. Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw Hill, New York. 680 pp. 

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream corridor restoration: 

Principles, processes, and practices. National Technical Information Service, Order No. 

PB98-158348INQ, Washington, DC. 

Lagasse, P.F., J.D. Schall, and E.V. Richardson. 2001. Stream stability at highway structures. 

Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 20, Third Edition, FHWA NHI 01-002. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

Leopold, L.B. and W.B. Langbein. 1962. The concept of entropy in landscape evolution. U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 500-A. 20 pp. 

Leopold, L.B. and T. Maddock, Jr. 1953. The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some 

physiographic implications. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252. 57 pp. 

Molinas, A. 1990. Bridge stream tube model for alluvial river simulation (BRI-STARS), user's 

manual. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project No. HR 15-11. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Park, C.C. 1977. World-wide variations in hydraulic geometry exponents of stream channels: An 

analysis and some observations. Journal of Hydrology 33:133-146. 

Richardson, E.V. and S.R. Davis. 2001. Evaluating scour at bridges. Hydraulic Engineering 

Circular No. 18, Fourth Edition, FHWA NHI 01-001. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 
Kanab Record of Decision & Approved RMP Appendix 17 

A17-18

Richardson, E.V., D.B. Simons, and P.F. Lagasse. 2001. Highways in the river environment. 

Report FHWA NHI 01-004, Hydraulic Design Series No. 6. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

Ries, K.G., III and M.Y. Crouse. 2002. The National Flood Frequency Program, version 3: A 

computer program for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods for ungaged sites. 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4168. 42 pp. 

Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in distributed alluvial channels. Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms 14(1): 11-26. 

Simon, A. 1992, Energy, time and channel evolution in catastrophically disturbed fluvial 

systems. In Phillips, J.D. and W.H. Renwick (eds.). Geomorphic systems: 

geomorphology. Vol. 5. pp. 345-372. 

Simons, Li, and Associates. 1982. Engineering analysis of fluvial systems. Fort Collins, CO. 

Thomas, B.E. and K.L. Lindskov. 1983. Methods for estimating peak discharge and flood 

boundaries of stream in Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 83-4129. 77 pp. 

Thomas, B.E., H.W. Hjalmarson, and S.D. Waltemeyer. 1997. Methods for estimating magnitude 

and frequency of floods in the southwestern United States. U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2433. 195 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1993. HEC-6 scour and deposition in rivers and reservoirs: Users 

manual. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA. 

The mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. 
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 1

Land Ownership

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

BLM Wilderness Area

Bankhead-Jones Land Use Lands

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

National Park Service (NPS)

Private

State

Wildlife, Park and Outdoor

US Forest Service (USFS)

USFS Wilderness Area

Water

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Recreation Areas
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 10

Route Designations

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Closed

Limited

Open

BLM Managed Lands

Approved RMP
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 11

Right-Of-Way

Restrictions

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Avoidance

Exclusion

Seasonal Avoidance

BLM Managed Lands

Excluded from wind and

Approved RMP

solar energy development
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 12

Locatable MineralsRecommended

Withdrawals

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Approved RMP

Areas Recommended for

BLM Managed Lands

Withdrawal from Locatable

Mineral Entry
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 13

Areas Available for FLPMA

Section 203 Sales

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Approved RMP

Lands Available for

BLM Managed Lands

FLPMA Section 203 Sales
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 14

Oil and Gas Leasing

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Approved RMP

Closed to Leasing

Open to Leasing Subject to Major Constraints

Open to Leasing Subject to Moderate Constraints

Open to Leasing Subject to Standard Terms and Conditions
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 15 T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Approved RMP

Areas Unsuitable for

Surface Coal Mining

Known Recoverable Coal Resource Area

Coal Resources Considered Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 16

Mineral Materials

(Salable) Disposal

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Approved RMP

Closed to Mineral Materials (Salable)

BLM Managed Lands
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 17

Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Approved RMP

Cottonwood Canyon ACEC

BLM Managed Lands
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 18

Suitable Wild and

Scenic Rivers

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Approved RMP

Orderville/

Esplin Gulch

North Fork

Virgin River

East Fork

Virgin River

Meadow Creek/

Mineral Gulch

Wild

Scenic

BLM Managed Lands

Paria River
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 19

General Surface

Disturbance Restrictions

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Approved RMP

No Surface Disturbing Actions

Seasonal Limitations

Wilderness Study Areas

BLM Wilderness Area
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 2

Mule Deer Habitat

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Habitat Value

Crucial

Substantial

Mule Deer Transition Areas

Season

Summer

Winter

Year-long

Surface disturbing activities are not excluded in these areas. All timing and controlled

surface use limitations are subject to waivers, exceptions, and/or modification identified in Appendix 3.

Source: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2006
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 20

Areas With Fragile Soils

or Relict Vegetation

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Approved RMP

Fragile Soils

Relict Vegetation
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 21 T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Source: U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2004

Mexican Spotted Owl

Critical Habitat

Mexican Spotted Owl

BLM Managed Lands

Critical Habitat
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 22 T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Surface disturbing activities are not excluded in these areas. All timing and controlled

surface use limitations are subject to waivers, exceptions, and/or modification identified in Appendix 3.

Source: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2006

Greater Sage-Grouse

Brooding and Winter

Habitat

Greater Sage-Grouse

Greater Sage-Grouse

Winter Range

Brooding Areas
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 23

Desert Bighorn

Sheep Habitat

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Habitat Value

Crucial

High

Season

Year-long

Surface disturbing activities are not excluded in these areas. All timing and controlled

surface use limitations are subject to waivers, exceptions, and/or modification identified in Appendix 3.

Source: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 24

Paleontological Resource

Potential

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Paleontologic Sensitivity*

High

Medium

Low

No Data

Source: Utah BLM

*Please note that the dataset used to create

this model lumps the Kayenta, Moenave, Navajo,

and Wingate formations into the Glen Canyon

Group labeled here as Medium. The Navajo and

Wingate Formations rate as Medium while the

Moenave and Kayenta should rate as high.
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 3

Elk Habitat

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Habitat Value

Crucial

Substantial

Season

Summer

Winter

Year-long

Surface disturbing activities are not excluded in these areas. All timing and controlled

surface use limitations are subject to waivers, exceptions, and/or modification identified in Appendix 3.

Source: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2006
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 4

Pronghorn Habitat

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Habitat Value

Crucial

Season

Summer

Winter

Year-long

Surface disturbing activities are not excluded in these areas. All timing and controlled

surface use limitations are subject to waivers, exceptions, and/or modification identified in Appendix 3.

Source: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2006
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 5

Priority Areas For

Vegetation Treatment

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Treatment Areas

Wildlife Priority Treatment Areas

Livestock Grazing Treatment Areas

Soils/Watershed Priority

Approved RMP
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 6

Visual Resource

Management

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV

Approved RMP
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 7

Non-WSA Lands Managed

For Wilderness

Characteristics

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale

Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Approved RMP

Orderville

Canyon

Parunuweap Canyon Moquith

Mountain

Upper Kanab Creek

East of Bryce

Non-WSA lands managed for Wilderness Characteristics

Lands Analyzed and found to have Wilderness Characteristics

Lands Analyzed and found not to have Wilderness Characteristics

Land Aquired through West Desert Land Exchange Act of 2000

Existing Wilderness Study Areas

BLM Wilderness Area
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 8

Special Recreation

Management Areas

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Escalante

Kanab Community, Non Motorized RMZ

Kanab Community, OHV RMZ

Moquith Mtn, Non-Dunes Wooded RMZ

Moquith Mtn, Dunes RMZ

North Fork Virgin River

Orderville Canyon

Paria Canyon, Canyon RMZ

Paria Canyon, Uplands RMZ

Approved RMP
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or

completeness of this data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.

GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kanab Approved Resource Management Plan

Kanab Field Office, UT

Map 9

Off-Highway Vehicle

Area Designations

T

31

S

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

T

42

S

43

44

R 9W 8 7 6 5 4 1/2 4 3 2 R 1W R 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R10E

Panguitch

Hatch

Alton

Glendale Orderville

Mt Carmel

Kanab

Tropic

Big Water

Escalante

Boulder

Garfield County

Kane County

Garfield County

Kane County

Lake

Powell

Projection: UTM, Zone 12 North

Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

Kanab Field Office, GIS Program

October 2008

89

89

89

89

15

89

Towns

Kanab Field Office

Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

Water

State Highway

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Approved RMP

Closed

Limited to Designated

Open

Roads and Trails