This is a text-only version of the document "Moab - Final Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement - 2008". To see the original version of the document click here.

---

Moab Field Office Planning Area Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Type of Action: Draft ( ) Administrative (X) Final (X) Legislative ( )

Jurisdiction: All of Grand and the northern one-third of San Juan Counties, Utah. Abstract: This Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes and analyzes the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Moab Field Office. The Moab planning area is located in southeastern Utah and includes approximately 2.5-million acres of land in Grand and San Juan Counties. Within the Moab planning area, the BLM manages approximately 1.8-million acres of BLM-administered public land surface as well as about 29,000 acres of federal mineral estate. Alternatives A through D were presented in the Draft RMP and EIS. Alternative A is a continuation of the existing management (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, use of the public lands and resources continue to be managed under the 1985 Grand Resource Area RMP as amended. Alternative B emphasizes the protection/preservation of natural resources and minimizes human activities, over commodity production and extraction and motorized recreation access. Alternative C provides for a balanced approach of protection/preservation of natural resources while providing for commodity production and extraction. Alternative D emphasizes commodity production and extraction as well as motorized recreation access over the protection/preservation of natural resources. After careful consideration of both public and internal comments received on the Draft RMP/EIS, adjustments and clarifications have been made to Alternative C. As modified, Alternative C is now presented as the Moab Proposed RMP in the Final EIS. The major issues addressed include: 1) travel management, 2) recreation, 3) mineral development, 4) special designations, and 5) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protests: Protests on the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement must be postmarked or received no later than 30 days after publication of the Notice of Availability by the Environmental Protection Action in the Federal Register. The 30-day protest period (identified above) will not be extended. The close of the protest and period will be announced in news releases, newsletters, and on the Moab RMP website at: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/planning.html For further information, contact: Brent Northrup, Moab RMP Project Manager Bureau of Land Management Moab Field Office 82 E. Dogwood Moab, UT 84532 (435) 259-2100 Brent_Northrup@blm.gov

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

VOLUME 1 Table of Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures............................................................................................................................ xvii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xix List of Maps .............................................................................................................................. xxxi List of Appendices....................................................................................................................xxxv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................ES-1 ES.2 Purpose and Need..........................................................................................................ES-1 ES.2.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................ES-1 ES.2.2 Need .......................................................................................................................ES-2 ES.3 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................ES-2 ES.4 Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives ...........................................................................ES-2 ES.4.1 Alternative A - No Action ......................................................................................ES-2 ES.4.2 Alternative B ..........................................................................................................ES-2 ES.4.3 Proposed Plan.........................................................................................................ES-2 ES.5.4 Alternative D ..........................................................................................................ES-3 ES.5 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................ES-5 ES.6: Changes From The Draft RMP To The Proposed RMP ..............................................ES-5 ES.7: Next Steps ...................................................................................................................ES-6 CHAPTER ONE Purpose and Need ........................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan........................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.2 Need ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Description of the Moab Planning Area (MPA)................................................................ 1-2 1.2.1 Overview..................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Land Uses.................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 BLM's Planning Process .................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.1 Nine-step Planning Process......................................................................................... 1-4

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

1.3.2 Scoping and Identification of Issues For Development of The Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives..................................................................................................... 1-7 1.3.2.1 The Scoping Process ............................................................................................ 1-7 1.3.2.2 Issues Addressed Through Policy or Administrative Action............................... 1-8 1.3.2.3 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Because They Are Beyond the Scope of the Plan ................................................................................................. 1-9 1.3.3 Development of Planning Criteria ............................................................................ 1-10 1.4 Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs....................................................... 1-11 1.4.1 State of Utah ............................................................................................................. 1-11 1.4.2 County Land Use Plans............................................................................................. 1-11 1.4.3 Other Federal Plans................................................................................................... 1-11 1.4.4 Endangered Species Recovery Plans ........................................................................ 1-12 1.4.5 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) .......................................................... 1-12 1.4.6 Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Western Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS (PEIS)..................................................................................................................... 1-13 1.4.7 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the U.S. Department of the Interior; the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and the U.S Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service Concerning Oil and Gas Leasing Operations .... 1-13 1.4.8 Activity Plans and Amendments to the Grand Resource Area RMP (1985) ............ 1-13 1.4.9 Habitat Management Plans (HMP) ........................................................................... 1-14 1.5 Summary of Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS to the Proposed Plan RMP/Final EIS .. 1-15 1.5.1 Summary Of Changes To Decisions Between The Preferred Alternative (Draft EIS) And The Proposed Plan (Final EIS) .............................................................. 1-15 1.5.2 Clarifications............................................................................................................. 1-16 1.5.3 Updates To Data ....................................................................................................... 1-17 1.5.4 Map Changes ............................................................................................................ 1-17 1.5.5 Crucial Wildlife Habitat CHANGES........................................................................ 1-18 1.5.6 Summary of Changes ................................................................................................ 1-18 CHAPTER TWO Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives...................................................... 2-1 2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS................................................. 2-2 2.1.1 Brief Summary and Highlights of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives in Table 2.1 .................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.1.1 Travel Management ............................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.1.2 Recreation ............................................................................................................ 2-3 2.1.1.3 Oil and Gas Leasing and Development ............................................................... 2-3 2.1.1.4 Special Designations............................................................................................ 2-4 2.1.1.5 Special Status Species.......................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.1.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.1.1.7 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics.............................................. 2-5

iv

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

2.2 Summary of Impacts........................................................................................................ 2-59 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis ................................................ 2-117 2.3.1 Livestock Grazing Adjustments Alternative........................................................... 2-117 2.3.2 No Grazing Alternative........................................................................................... 2-117 2.3.3 No Leasing Alternative ........................................................................................... 2-118 2.3.4 The Red Rock Heritage Travel Plan Alternative .................................................... 2-119 CHAPTER THREE Affected Environment............................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Project Area Overview .................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Geographic Setting...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Climate ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Air Quality........................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.2 Status of Emissions ................................................................................................... 3-10 3.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-13 3.3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 3-13 3.3.2 Resource Overview................................................................................................... 3-13 3.4 Fire Management........................................................................................................... 3-23 3.4.1 Introduction and Resource Overview ....................................................................... 3-23 3.4.2 Fire Management Plan .............................................................................................. 3-25 3.4.3 Desired Wildland Fire Condition (DWFC)............................................................... 3-25 3.4.4 Landscape Level Management ................................................................................. 3-25 3.4.5 Fire Management Priorities....................................................................................... 3-27 3.4.6 Fire Management Activities to Meet DWFC............................................................ 3-27 3.4.7 Summary ................................................................................................................... 3-29 3.5 Health and Safety........................................................................................................... 3-29 3.5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 3-29 3.5.2 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 3-30 3.5.3 Abandoned Mines ..................................................................................................... 3-30 3.6 Lands and Realty ........................................................................................................... 3-32 3.6.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................... 3-32 3.6.2 MFO Lands and Realty Program .............................................................................. 3-32 3.7 Livestock Grazing .......................................................................................................... 3-39 3.7.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................... 3-39 3.7.2 Current Management Practices ................................................................................. 3-41 3.7.3 Specific Allotments of Concern................................................................................ 3-42

v

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

3.7.4 Resource Demand ..................................................................................................... 3-45 3.8 Minerals .......................................................................................................................... 3-45 3.8.1 Leasable Minerals ..................................................................................................... 3-46 3.8.2 Locatable Minerals.................................................................................................... 3-57 3.8.3 Salable Minerals........................................................................................................ 3-63 3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics..................................................... 3-68 3.9.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................... 3-68 3.9.2 Management Direction for Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ....... 3-70 3.10 Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................... 3-72 3.10.1 Resource Overview ................................................................................................. 3-72 3.10.2 Current Management Practices ............................................................................... 3-73 3.10.3 Resource Demand and Analysis ............................................................................. 3-74 3.10.4 Issues and Concerns ................................................................................................ 3-74 3.10.5 Resource Capability and Condition ........................................................................ 3-74 3.11 Recreation..................................................................................................................... 3-77 3.11.1 Resource Overview ................................................................................................. 3-77 3.11.2 Current Management Practices ............................................................................... 3-88 3.12 Riparian ........................................................................................................................ 3-93 3.12.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 3-93 3.12.2 Resource Overview ................................................................................................. 3-94 3.12.3 Riparian/Wetland Status ......................................................................................... 3-94 3.12.4 Invasive and/or Non-native Species........................................................................ 3-96 3.12.5 Riparian/Wetland Improvement and Restoration ................................................... 3-98 3.13 Socioeconomic Resources .......................................................................................... 3-100 3.13.1 Social and Economic Conditions .......................................................................... 3-100 3.13.2 Tribal Interests ...................................................................................................... 3-121 3.13.3 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................... 3-122 3.14 Soil and Water............................................................................................................ 3-124 3.14.1 Watersheds ............................................................................................................ 3-124 3.14.2 Soils....................................................................................................................... 3-125 3.14.3 Surface Water........................................................................................................ 3-127 3.15 Special Designations .................................................................................................. 3-130 3.15.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)............................................. 3-130 3.15.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................................................... 3-141 3.15.3 Wilderness Study Areas and Designated Wilderness ........................................... 3-142

vi

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

3.16 Special Status Species ................................................................................................ 3-147 3.16.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ................................................. 3-147 3.16.2 BLM Sensitive Species ......................................................................................... 3-152 3.16.3 Conservation Agreement Species ......................................................................... 3-164 3.17 Travel .......................................................................................................................... 3-164 3.17.1 Overview............................................................................................................... 3-164 3.17.2 Vehicular Routes................................................................................................... 3-165 3.17.3 Current Management............................................................................................. 3-167 3.18 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 3-168 3.18.1 Resource Overview ............................................................................................... 3-168 3.18.2 Dominant Vegetation Communities ..................................................................... 3-168 3.18.3 Special Status Plant Species.................................................................................. 3-171 3.18.4 Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds................................................................... 3-171 3.19 Visual Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-173 3.19.1 Resource Overview ............................................................................................... 3-173 3.19.2 Current Management Practices ............................................................................. 3-174 3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries................................................................................................ 3-176 3.20.1 Resource Overview ............................................................................................... 3-176 3.20.2 Big Game .............................................................................................................. 3-176 3.20.3 Upland Game ........................................................................................................ 3-186 3.20.4 Raptors .................................................................................................................. 3-187 3.20.5 Reptile, Amphibian, and Other Non-game Species .............................................. 3-187 3.20.6 Riparian and Aquatic Species ............................................................................... 3-187 3.21 Woodlands .................................................................................................................. 3-189 3.21.1 Resource Overview ............................................................................................... 3-189 3.21.2 Current Management............................................................................................. 3-190

vii

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

viii

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

VOLUME 2 Table of Contents CHAPTER FOUR Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Organization of Chapter.............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Analytical Assumptions .............................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.3 Assumptions and Methodology for Minerals Development Impacts ......................... 4-3 4.1.3.1 Oil and Gas .......................................................................................................... 4-3 4.1.3.2 Coal-bed Methane................................................................................................ 4-6 4.1.3.3 Potash and Salt..................................................................................................... 4-6 4.1.3.4 Uranium-Vanadium ............................................................................................. 4-6 4.1.3.5 Copper.................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.1.3.6 Sand and Gravel................................................................................................... 4-6 4.1.3.7 Building Stone ..................................................................................................... 4-6 4.1.3.8 Travertine............................................................................................................. 4-6 4.1.3.9 Clay ...................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.1.3.10 Humate............................................................................................................... 4-7 4.1.3.11 Existing Oil and Gas Leases .............................................................................. 4-7 4.1.3.12 Mining Claims for Locatable Minerals.............................................................. 4-7 4.1.4 Types of Impacts to be Addressed .............................................................................. 4-8 4.2 Impacts to Critical Elements.............................................................................................. 4-8 4.3 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives ................................................................... 4-9 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate ......................................................................................... 4-10 4.3.1.1 Global Climate Change...................................................................................... 4-10 4.3.1.2 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................ 4-10 4.3.1.3 Alternatives Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-13 4.3.1.4 Summary of Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-31 4.3.2 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 4-32 4.3.2.1 Analysis Considerations..................................................................................... 4-33 4.3.2.2 Impacts Common to All Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan ................. 4-34 4.3.2.3 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed Plan) ................................................................................................................... 4-37 4.3.2.4 Alternatives Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-39 4.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-56 4.3.3 Fire Management .................................................................................................... 4-56 4.3.3.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................ 4-56 4.3.3.2 Alternatives Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-58 4.3.4 Health and Safety .................................................................................................... 4-64 4.3.4.1 Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................... 4-64

ix

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

4.3.4.2 Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) ........................................................................ 4-67 4.3.5 Lands and Realty .................................................................................................... 4-67 4.3.5.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................ 4-68 4.3.5.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed Plan) ................................................................................................................... 4-69 4.3.5.3 Alternatives Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-69 4.3.6 Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................... 4-73 4.3.6.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................ 4-73 4.3.6.2 Alternative A...................................................................................................... 4-76 4.3.6.3 Alternative B...................................................................................................... 4-77 4.3.6.4 Proposed Plan..................................................................................................... 4-80 4.3.6.5 Alternative D...................................................................................................... 4-83 4.3.6.6 Summary of Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-84 4.3.7 Minerals ................................................................................................................... 4-85 4.3.7.1 Resource Decisions That Would Have Negligible Impacts On Mineral Resource Development ...................................................................................... 4-85 4.3.7.2 Assumptions....................................................................................................... 4-86 4.3.7.3 Alternative Impacts............................................................................................ 4-89 4.3.7.4 Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-113 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics............................................ 4-113 4.3.8.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives .............................................................. 4-114 4.3.8.2 Alternatives Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-114 4.3.8.3 Summary .......................................................................................................... 4-166 4.3.9 Paleontological Resources .................................................................................... 4-173 4.3.9.1 Paleontological Resource Assessment............................................................. 4-173 4.3.9.2 Paleontological Resource Impacts ................................................................... 4-177 4.3.9.3 Impacts to Paleontological Resources Common to All Alternatives............... 4-178 4.3.9.4 Alternatives Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-179 4.3.9.5 Summary of Impacts to Paleontological Resources......................................... 4-194 4.3.10 Recreation............................................................................................................ 4-194 4.3.10.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed Plan) ................................................................................................................. 4-197 4.3.10.2 Alternatives Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-197 4.3.10.3 Summary of Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-243 4.3.11 Riparian Resources ............................................................................................. 4-243 4.3.11.1 Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Riparian Resources ................... 4-243 4.3.11.2 Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Riparian Resources.................... 4-243 4.3.11.3 Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Riparian Resources.................. 4-244 4.3.11.4 Impacts of Mineral Resource Decisions on Riparian Resources ................... 4-245 4.3.11.5 Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions on Riparian Resources ..................................................................................... 4-246 4.3.11.6 Impacts of Recreation and Travel Decisions on Riparian Resources ............ 4-246 4.3.11.7 Impacts of Riparian Management Decisions on Riparian Resources............ 4-248

x

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

4.3.11.8 Impacts of Soil and Water Decisions on Riparian Resources........................ 4-250 4.3.11.9 Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Riparian Resources.............. 4-250 4.3.11.10 Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Riparian Resources.......... 4-252 4.3.11.11 Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Riparian Resources ............................ 4-253 4.3.11.12 Impacts of Wildlife Decisions on Riparian Resources ................................ 4-253 4.3.11.13 Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Riparian Resources ........................... 4-253 4.3.11.14 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................... 4-253 4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources ................................................................................... 4-254 4.3.12.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ............................................................ 4-254 4.3.12.2 Alternatives Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-255 4.3.12.3 Summary of Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-280 4.3.13 Soil and Water..................................................................................................... 4-280 4.3.13.1 Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Soil and Water .......................... 4-282 4.3.13.2 Impacts of Health and Safety Decisions on Soil and Water .......................... 4-283 4.3.13.3 Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Soil and Water........................... 4-283 4.3.13.4 Impacts of Livestock Grazing Management Decisions on Soil and Water ... 4-285 4.3.13.5 Impacts of Mineral Resource Decisions on Soil and Water .......................... 4-289 4.3.13.6 Impacts of Non-WSA lands with Wilderness Characteristics Resource Decisions on Soil and Water............................................................................ 4-294 4.3.13.7 Impacts of Recreation and Travel Management Decisions on Soil and Water................................................................................................................ 4-295 4.3.13.8 Impacts of Riparian Management Decisions on Soil and Water ................... 4-299 4.3.13.9 Impacts of Soil and Water Management Decisions on Soil and Water Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-300 4.3.13.10 Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Soil and Water..................... 4-303 4.3.13.11 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................... 4-305 4.3.14 Special Designations............................................................................................ 4-306 4.3.14.1 Assumptions................................................................................................... 4-306 4.3.14.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)...................................... 4-308 4.3.14.3 National Historic Trail – Old Spanish Trail................................................... 4-336 4.3.14.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs).................................................................... 4-337 4.3.14.5 Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Wilderness Areas (WAs)................... 4-353 4.3.14.6 Summary of Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-355 4.3.15 Special Status Species ......................................................................................... 4-356 4.3.15.1 Analysis Assumptions.................................................................................... 4-356 4.3.15.2 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ............................................................ 4-363 4.3.15.3 Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Special Status Species .............. 4-366 4.3.15.4 Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Special Status Species............... 4-368 4.3.15.5 Impacts of Health and Safety Decisions on Special Status Species .............. 4-370 4.3.15.6 Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Special Status Species ............... 4-371 4.3.15.7 Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Special Status Species ............. 4-374 4.3.15.8 Impacts of Mineral and Energy Development Decisions on Special Status Species ............................................................................................................. 4-377 4.3.15.9 Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions on Special Status Species................................................................................. 4-387

xi

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

4.3.15.10 Impacts of Paleontological Resources Decisions on Special Status Species ............................................................................................................. 4-388 4.3.15.11 Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Special Status Species........................ 4-389 4.3.15.12 Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Special Status Species ........................... 4-393 4.3.15.13 Impacts of Soil and Water Decisions on Special Status Species ................. 4-395 4.3.15.14 Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Special Status Species ....... 4-397 4.3.15.15 Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Special Status Species ..... 4-402 4.3.15.16 Impacts of Travel Decisions on Special Status Species............................... 4-404 4.3.15.17 Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Special Status Species ....................... 4-407 4.3.15.18 Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Special Status Species............... 4-408 4.3.15.19 Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Special Status Species ..... 4-410 4.3.15.20 Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Special Status Species....................... 4-413 4.3.15.21 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................... 4-414 4.3.16 Travel Management............................................................................................ 4-414 4.3.16.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan) ..... 4-414 4.3.16.2 Alternatives Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-415 4.3.16.3 Summary of Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-422 4.3.17 Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 4-422 4.3.17.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ............................................................ 4-422 4.3.17.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan) ..... 4-422 4.3.17.3 Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Vegetation Resources ............... 4-423 4.3.17.4 Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Vegetation Resources................ 4-424 4.3.17.5 Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Vegetation Resources .............. 4-425 4.3.17.6 Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Vegetation Resources.............................. 4-426 4.3.17.7 Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions on Vegetation Resources.................................................................................. 4-427 4.3.17.8 Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Vegetation Resources .......................... 4-428 4.3.17.9 Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Vegetation Resources .............................. 4-429 4.3.17.10 Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Vegetation Resources................ 4-430 4.3.17.11 Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Vegetation Resources ........ 4-431 4.3.17.12 Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Vegetation Resources ...... 4-433 4.3.17.13 Impacts of Travel Management Decisions on Vegetation Resources ......... 4-436 4.3.17.14 Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Vegetation Resources ........................ 4-437 4.3.17.15 Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Vegetation Resources ...... 4-438 4.3.17.16 Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Vegetation Resources........................ 4-440 4.3.17.17 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................... 4-440 4.3.18 Visual Resources ................................................................................................. 4-440 4.3.18.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan) ..... 4-442 4.3.18.2 Alternatives Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-442 4.3.18.3 Visually Sensitive Areas ................................................................................ 4-444 4.3.18.4 Summary of Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-449 4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries ......................................................................................... 4-449 4.3.19.1 Impacts of Resource Management Decisions with Negligible Impacts on Wildlife and Fisheries ...................................................................................... 4-451 4.3.19.2 Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries............... 4-451

xii

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

4.3.19.3 Impacts of Health and Safety Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries............... 4-452 4.3.19.4 Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ............... 4-453 4.3.19.5 Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries.............. 4-455 4.3.19.6 Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ............................. 4-460 4.3.19.7 Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ................................................................................. 4-470 4.3.19.8 Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries.......................... 4-470 4.3.19.9 Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ............................. 4-473 4.3.19.10 Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ............... 4-473 4.3.19.11 Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ......... 4-475 4.3.19.12 Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ..... 4-476 4.3.19.13 Impacts of Travel Management Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries......... 4-478 4.3.19.14 Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries........................ 4-480 4.3.19.15 Impacts of Visual Resources Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ............. 4-481 4.3.19.16 Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Management Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries .................................................................................................... 4-482 4.3.19.17 Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ....................... 4-487 4.3.19.18 Impacts of Habitat Fragmentation on Wildlife ............................................ 4-488 4.3.19.19 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................... 4-493 4.3.20 Woodlands ........................................................................................................... 4-493 4.3.20.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ............................................................ 4-493 4.3.20.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan) ..... 4-494 4.3.20.3 Alternatives Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-494 4.3.20.4 Summary of Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-498 4.3.21 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................................... 4-498 4.3.22 Short-term Use Versus Long-term Productivity.............................................. 4-499 4.3.22.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 4-499 4.3.22.2 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 4-499 4.3.22.3 Fire Management ........................................................................................... 4-499 4.3.22.4 Health and Safety........................................................................................... 4-500 4.3.22.5 Lands and Realty............................................................................................ 4-500 4.3.22.6 Livestock Grazing.......................................................................................... 4-500 4.3.22.7 Minerals ......................................................................................................... 4-500 4.3.22.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics........................................ 4-500 4.3.22.9 Paleontological Resources ............................................................................. 4-501 4.3.22.10 Recreation .................................................................................................... 4-501 4.3.22.11 Riparian Resources ...................................................................................... 4-501 4.3.22.12 Socioeconomic Resources ........................................................................... 4-501 4.3.22.13 Soil and Water.............................................................................................. 4-501 4.3.22.14 Special Designations.................................................................................... 4-501 4.3.22.15 Special Status Species.................................................................................. 4-502 4.3.22.16 Travel Management ..................................................................................... 4-502 4.3.22.17 Vegetation .................................................................................................... 4-502 4.3.22.18 Visual Resources.......................................................................................... 4-502 4.3.22.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources................................................................. 4-502

xiii

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

4.3.22.20 Woodlands ................................................................................................... 4-503 4.3.23 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.............................. 4-503 4.3.23.1 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 4-503 4.3.23.2 Fire Management ........................................................................................... 4-504 4.3.23.3 Lands and Realty............................................................................................ 4-504 4.3.23.4 Minerals ......................................................................................................... 4-504 4.3.23.5 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics........................................ 4-504 4.3.23.6 Riparian Resources ........................................................................................ 4-504 4.3.23.7 Soil and Water................................................................................................ 4-504 4.3.23.8 Special Designations...................................................................................... 4-504 4.3.23.9 Special Status Species.................................................................................... 4-505 4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................ 4-505 4.3.24.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 4-506 4.3.24.2 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 4-507 4.3.24.3 Health and Safety........................................................................................... 4-508 4.3.24.4 Lands and Realty............................................................................................ 4-508 4.3.24.5 Livestock Grazing.......................................................................................... 4-509 4.3.24.6 Minerals ......................................................................................................... 4-509 4.3.24.7 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics........................................ 4-509 4.3.24.8 Paleontological Resources ............................................................................. 4-510 4.3.24.9 Recreation ...................................................................................................... 4-511 4.3.24.10 Riparian Resources ...................................................................................... 4-512 4.3.24.11 Socioeconomic Resources ........................................................................... 4-512 4.3.24.12 Soil and Water.............................................................................................. 4-513 4.3.24.13 Special Designations.................................................................................... 4-514 4.3.24.14 Special Status Species, Vegetation, and Wildlife ........................................ 4-514 4.3.24.15 Travel Management ..................................................................................... 4-515 4.3.24.16 Visual Resources.......................................................................................... 4-516 4.3.24.17 Woodlands ................................................................................................... 4-517 CHAPTER FIVE Consultation and Coordination ................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Consultation and Coordination with Tribes, State and Local Governments, and Federal Agencies ............................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.1 Native American Consultation.................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2 Cooperating Agency Involvement .............................................................................. 5-4 5.2.3 State Agency Coordination ......................................................................................... 5-5 5.2.4 Consultation and Coordination with Other Federal Agencies .................................... 5-5 5.2.4.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................ 5-5 5.2.4.2 Environmental Protection Agency....................................................................... 5-6 5.2.4.3 National Park Service .......................................................................................... 5-6 5.2.4.4 U.S. Forest Service .............................................................................................. 5-6

xiv

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

5.3 Consistency with Other Plans......................................................................................... 5-6 5.4 Public Outreach and Participation .............................................................................. 5-20 5.4.1 Notice of Intent (NOI) to Plan and Scoping ............................................................. 5-20 5.4.2. Mailing List.............................................................................................................. 5-21 5.4.3 Planning Bulletins ..................................................................................................... 5-22 5.4.4 Website ..................................................................................................................... 5-22 5.4.5 Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft RMP/EIS ............................................... 5-22 5.4.6 Public Meetings ........................................................................................................ 5-23 5.5 Public Comments on the Moab DRMP/EIS ................................................................ 5-23 5.5.1 Process and Methodology ......................................................................................... 5-23 5.5.2 Comment Analysis.................................................................................................... 5-24 5.5.3 Summary of Public Comments ................................................................................. 5-36 5.5.4 Public Comments and Responses ............................................................................. 5-36 5.6 Record Of Decision ...................................................................................................... 5-159 5.7 Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS.................................................. 5-159 5.8 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................... 5-164 References.................................................................................................................................. X-1 Acronyms and Glossary ......................................................................................................... X-25 Index ....................................................................................................................................... X-47

xv

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Table of Contents

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xvi

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Nine-step planning process........................................................................................ 1-5 Figure 3.1. Thirty-year precipitation and air temperature plots for Moab, Utah (WRCC 2004). ........................................................................................................................ 3-3 Figure 3.2. Seasonal windroses in the MPA. ............................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3.3. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Northern Latitudes (24–90° N). ................. 3-8 Figure 3.4. Trend in air pollution impacts on visibility observed in Canyonlands National Park, Utah, 1990 through 2004 (EPA 2003c)......................................................... 3-10 Figure 3.5. Acres within grazing allotments of the MPA. ......................................................... 3-39 Figure 3.6. Seasonal unemployment in Grand County, 1999–2001. ....................................... 3-106 Figure 3.7. Changes in the Grand County economy (by SIC code), 1980–2000. ................... 3-111 Figure 3.8. Tourist spending in millions, Grand County, 1993–2003. .................................... 3-114 Figure 3.9. Farm income by category. ..................................................................................... 3-117 Figure 3.10. Oil (barrels) and gas production (mcf) in Grand County, 1984–2007. ............... 3-119

xvii

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Figures

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xviii

List of Tables Table ES1. OHV Categories (acres) in No Action Alternative vs. Proposed Plan................... ES-3 Table ES2. Designated Routes (miles) In Inventory vs. Proposed Plan................................... ES-4 Table ES3. SRMAs and Focus Areas In No Action Alternative vs. Proposed Plan................. ES-4 Table ES4. Special Designations In No Action Alternative vs. Proposed Plan ...................... ES-4 Table ES5. Non-WSA Areas Managed for Wilderness Characteristics In No Action Alternative vs. Proposed Plan................................................................................ ES-4 Table ES6. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) ............................................................... ES-5 Table 1.1. Land Management within the MPA (acres)................................................................ 1-3 Summary Table A. OHV Categories (acres), by Alternative ...................................................... 2-2 Summary Table B. SRMAs (quantity and acres) and Focus Areas (quantity), by Alternative ................................................................................................................ 2-3 Summary Table C. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres), by Alternative ............................ 2-3 Summary Table D. Potential ACECs (quantity and acres) Meeting the Relevance and Importance Criteria, by Alternative.......................................................................... 2-4 Summary Table E. Eligible/Suitable WSR Segments (river miles) with Tentative Classifications, by Alternative.................................................................................. 2-5 Summary Table F. Non-WSA Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics (quantity and total acres), by Alternative ................................................................. 2-6 Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives ......................................... 2-7 Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table ........................................................................................... 2-60 Table 3.1. Temperature and Precipitation Data Available for Three Locations in the Moab Planning Area (MPA; WRCC 2004) ........................................................................ 3-2 Table 3.2. Ambient Air Quality Data for the MPA ..................................................................... 3-5 Table 3.3. Summary of Visibility Impairment Pollutants Measured in the Canyonlands National Park a .......................................................................................................... 3-9 Table 3.4. 2005 Emissions Inventory for Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah......................... 3-10 Table 3.5. National Register-listed Sites, Buildings, and Districts Located on BLM Lands within the MPA....................................................................................................... 3-18 Table 3.6. Native American Organizations Historically Consulted by the MFO...................... 3-19 Table 3.7. Estimated Acreage within the MFO with High, Medium, and Low Probability to Contain Cultural Resource Sites......................................................................... 3-22 Table 3.8. Withdrawals in the MPA .......................................................................................... 3-36 Table 3.9. Current Number of Grazing Allotments in Each Management Category ................ 3-40

xix

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Tables

Table 3.10. Current Acreages of Plants that Are Similar to Potential Natural Community (PNC)...................................................................................................................... 3-41 Table 3.11. Current Number of Permitted Allotments under Each Grazing Management System..................................................................................................................... 3-42 Table 3.12. Ratings for Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential and Certainty .......... 3-46 Table 3.13. Cumulative Oil and Gas Production in the MPA, by Field, as of December 31, 2003 .................................................................................................................. 3-51 Table 3.14. Historical Locations and Hosts of Uranium and Vanadium Deposits in the MPA, by Mining District........................................................................................ 3-58 Table 3.15. Historical Uranium Grade and Production in the MPA, by Mining District¹......... 3-59 Table 3.16. Non-WSA Lands Inventoried in the 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory (revised 2003), Total Acreage and Acreage with and without Wilderness Characteristics......................................................................................................... 3-69 Table 3.17. Non-WSA Lands with and without Wilderness Characteristics (WC and NWC, Respectively) from Wilderness Characteristics Review ............................. 3-70 Table 3.18. Activities in the MPA, by Use Level...................................................................... 3-85 Table 3.19. River Recreation Use in the MPA .......................................................................... 3-87 Table 3.20. Comparison of 1985 RMP OHV Designations and Present OHV Designations ........................................................................................................... 3-88 Table 3.21. Utah OHV Registrations*, 1998 Compared with 2002 .......................................... 3-88 Table 3.22. 2003 Condition Status of Riparian Areas by Watershed within the MPA ............. 3-94 Table 3.23. Common Riparian Plant Species Occurring in the MPA ....................................... 3-96 Table 3.24. Watersheds and Issues Receiving Corrective Restoration Action.......................... 3-97 Table 3.25. Priority Riparian/Wetland Ecosystems in the MPA, 2004 vs. 1990....................... 3-98 Table 3.26. Land Jurisdiction in Grand County....................................................................... 3-100 Table 3.27. Population by Category in Grand County, 1990 and 2000................................... 3-104 Table 3.28. Unemployment Rates............................................................................................ 3-105 Table 3.29. Per-Capita Personal Income.................................................................................. 3-107 Table 3.30. Poverty Rates ........................................................................................................ 3-107 Table 3.31. Population by Household Type in Grand County, 2000....................................... 3-108 Table 3.32. Employment by Industry in Grand County........................................................... 3-110 Table 3.33. Trends in Employment (SIC code), Grand County, 1980, 1990, and 2000.......... 3-111 Table 3.34. PILT Payments to Grand County.......................................................................... 3-112 Table 3.35. Tourism-Related Tax Trends in Grand County .................................................... 3-114 Table 3.36. Visitation Trends................................................................................................... 3-115

xx

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Tables

Table 3.37. Budget and Fee Collections for Programs in the MPA, 2003 ............................. 3-116 Table 3.38. Grand County Agricultural Data........................................................................... 3-117 Table 3.39. Current Oil and Gas Activity on Lands Administered by the MFO..................... 3-119 Table 3.40. Grand County Population by Race and Ethnicity................................................. 3-122 Table 3.41. Summary of Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................ 3-130 Table 3.42. River Segments in the MPA Meeting Wild and Scenic River Eligibility ............ 3-143 Table 3.43. BLM Wilderness Study Areas under Jurisdiction of the MFO¹ ........................... 3-145 Table 3.44. Inventoried Ways and Known Impairments within WSA in the MPA ................ 3-146 Table 3.45. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species Occurring in the MPA, Utah ................................................................... 3-148 Table 3.46. BLM Sensitive Species Occurring in the MPA .................................................... 3-152 Table 3.47. State/BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the MPA, though Not Detected in the Last 10 Years............................................................ 3-155 Table 3.48. BLM Sensitive Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the MPA................ 3-162 Table 3.49. Acres of Land by GAP Cover Type in the MPA.................................................. 3-169 Table 3.50. Noxious and Invasive Species of Grand County, Utah ........................................ 3-172 Table 3.51. 2003 VRM Inventory Classes............................................................................... 3-176 Table 3.52. BLM-managed Mule Deer Habitat in the MPA ................................................... 3-177 Table 3.53. UDWR Target Wintering Mule Deer Herd Size and Annual Harvest for the Two WMUs Associated with the Planning Area.................................................. 3-178 Table 3.54. UDWR Current Mule Deer Estimates .................................................................. 3-178 Table 3.55. BLM-managed Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat in the MPA ................................... 3-179 Table 3.56. UDWR Wildlife Management Goals for Rocky Mountain Elk ........................... 3-179 Table 3.57. UDWR Current Rocky Mountain Elk Estimates.................................................. 3-180 Table 3.58. UDWR Wildlife Management Goals, Estimates, and Trends for Pronghorn....... 3-182 Table 3.59. UDWR Current Desert Bighorn Sheep Estimates in the MPA ............................ 3-184 Table 3.60. UDWR Wildlife Management Goals for Desert Bighorn Sheep in the MPA ...... 3-184 Table 3.61. BLM-managed Upland Game Habitat in the MPA .............................................. 3-186 Table 3.62. UDWR Inventory of Fisheries within the MPA ................................................... 3-187 Table 4.1. Predicted Oil and Gas Development and Associated Surface Disturbance for Each RFD Area within the MPA (All Lands) .......................................................... 4-4 Table 4.2. Summary of Predicted Surface Disturbance for Oil and Gas Activity on BLM Lands Only................................................................................................................ 4-4

xxi

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Tables

Table 4.3. Summary of Total Predicted Surface Disturbance for Mineral Development Activities (acres)....................................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4.4. Critical Elements......................................................................................................... 4-8 Table 4.5. Resources Not Impacted by Program Decisions in Chapter 2 (X = No Impact) ...... 4-11 Table 4.6. Emission Rates for Compressors .............................................................................. 4-17 Table 4.7. Emission Rates for Glycol Dehydrators ................................................................... 4-18 Table 4.8. Emission Rates for Flaring ....................................................................................... 4-18 Table 4.9. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas under Alternative A over 15 years.................................................................................... 4-21 Table 4.10. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year Emissions for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under Alternative A ................................................................................................ 4-21 Table 4.11. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under Alternative A.................... 4-22 Table 4.12. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas under Alternative B over 15 years .......................................................................... 4-23 Table 4.13. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under Alternative B........................................................................................................... 4-24 Table 4.14. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under Alternative B..................... 4-25 Table 4.15. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas under the Proposed Plan over 15 years................................................................... 4-26 Table 4.16. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under the Proposed Plan ......................................................................................................... 4-27 Table 4.17. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under the Proposed Plan ............. 4-27 Table 4.18. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas under Alternative D over 15 years.......................................................................... 4-29 Table 4.19. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under Alternative D .......................................................................................................... 4-30 Table 4.20. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under Alternative D.................... 4-30 Table 4.21. Comparison Among Alternatives of Emitted Pollutants Associated with Oil and Gas Development............................................................................................. 4-31 Table 4.22. Impacts Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................... 4-34

xxii

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Tables

Table 4.23. Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives ......................................................... 4-38 Table 4.24. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative A .............................................. 4-39 Table 4.25. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative B .............................................. 4-43 Table 4.26. Acres of High Site Density Lands in ACECs with Stipulations Affecting Cultural Resources, Alternative B .......................................................................... 4-47 Table 4.27. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under the Proposed Plan ....................................... 4-48 Table 4.28. Acres of High Site Density Lands in ACECs with Stipulations Affecting Cultural Resources, the Proposed Plan................................................................... 4-52 Table 4.29. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative D .............................................. 4-52 Table 4.30. Acreage of MPA Lands Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Development (% of Planning Area) .............................................................................................. 4-58 Table 4.31. SRMA Acreage by Alternative............................................................................... 4-59 Table 4.32. Acreage of ACEC Restrictions on Fire Management and Fuels Treatment (acres) ..................................................................................................................... 4-60 Table 4.33. Acres of Seasonal Restrictions on Surface-disturbing Activities in Sensitive Species Habitat Areas (For Decisions Not Common To All Alternatives Only) ....................................................................................................................... 4-61 Table 4.34. Travel Restrictions Impacting Fire Management and Risk (acres) ........................ 4-62 Table 4.35. Acres of Seasonal Restrictions on Surface-disturbing Activities in Wildlife Habitat Areas (For Decisions Not Common To All Alternatives) ......................... 4-63 Table 4.36. Woodland Resource Decisions Impacting Fire Management and Risk (acres)...... 4-64 Table 4.37. Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under All Alternatives...... 4-74 Table 4.38. Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under Alternative A ......... 4-76 Table 4.39. Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under Alternative B.......... 4-77 Table 4.40. Riparian Acres Not Available for Grazing and AUMs of Forage under Alternative B¹ ......................................................................................................... 4-78 Table 4.41. Additional Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under the Proposed Plan ......................................................................................................... 4-80 Table 4.42. Acres Unavailable for Grazing and AUMs of Forage under the Proposed Plan .... 4-81 Table 4.43. Additional Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under Alternative D .......................................................................................................... 4-83 Table 4.44. Total AUMs of Forage Available and Not Available to Livestock by Alternative .............................................................................................................. 4-84 Table 4.45. Total Acreage Available and Not Available to Livestock by Alternative.............. 4-84 Table 4.46. Annual Average Acres of Disturbance Due to Minerals Extraction Activities Under All Alternatives, as well as Percent of Total Planning Area ....................... 4-85

xxiii

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Tables

Table 4.47. Baseline/RFD Acreages of Lands and Average Predicted Number of Oil and Gas Wells in the Seven RFD Areas, over 15 Years ............................................... 4-86 Table 4.48. Acres of BLM Lands Available for Mineral Resource Development under Each Alternative ..................................................................................................... 4-88 Table 4.49. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas under Alternative A, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY)...... 4-91 Table 4.50. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas under Alternative B, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) ...... 4-93 Table 4.51. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas under the Proposed Plan, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) ..................................................................................................................... 4-94 Table 4.52. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas under Alternative D, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY)...... 4-95 Table 4.53. Acreages of Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource Development under Alternative B ........................................................................ 4-103 Table 4.54. Suitable Rivers and Restrictions on Mineral Development under Alternative B............................................................................................................................ 4-104 Table 4.55. Acreages of Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource Development under the Proposed Plan................................................................. 4-105 Table 4.56. Suitable Rivers and Restrictions on Mineral Development under the Proposed Plan ....................................................................................................................... 4-106 Table 4.57. Acreages of Each VRM Class, by Alternative ..................................................... 4-109 Table 4.58. Acres of Avoidance or Exclusion for Rights-of-way (ROWs) in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics................................................................. 4-117 Table 4.59. Bookcliffs RFD Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics .... 4-121 Table 4.60. Big Flat-Hatch Point RFD Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics....................................................................................................... 4-121 Table 4.61. Eastern Paradox RFD Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics....................................................................................................... 4-122 Table 4.62. RFD Areas with Projected Number of Wells per Year, over 15 Years ................ 4-122 Table 4.63. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Leasing Stipulations By Alternative ............................................................................................................ 4-123 Table 4.64. OHV Management in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ........... 4-149 Table 4.65. VRM Designation in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (acres) ................................................................................................................... 4-158 Table 4.66. Wood-Cutting Restrictions in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics....................................................................................................... 4-163

xxiv

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Tables

Table 4.67. Summary of Oil and Gas Leasing Involving Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics.................................................................................... 4-168 Table 4.68. Summary of VRM Classes Involving Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics....................................................................................................... 4-168 Table 4.69. Summary of OHV Area Designations Involving Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics.................................................................................... 4-169 Table 4.70. Acres of Woodland Harvest Designations Involving Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics.................................................................................... 4-169 Table 4.71. Mapped Geologic Units Within the MPA and their PFYC Classes in Approximate Descending Stratigraphic Order ..................................................... 4-174 Table 4.72. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under Alternative A for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA................................. 4-183 Table 4.73. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under Alternative B for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA ................................. 4-184 Table 4.74. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under the Proposed Plan for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA.......................... 4-184 Table 4.75. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under Alternative D for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA................................. 4-185 Table 4.76. WSA Acreages by PFYC Class ............................................................................ 4-189 Table 4.77. Recreation Activity Participation.......................................................................... 4-197 Table 4.78. Acres Open to Minerals Development and Projected Acres of Surface Disturbance (RFD) Associated with Oil and Gas Development, by Alternative ............................................................................................................ 4-204 Table 4.79. Summary of SRMA Recreation Analysis Data by Alternative ............................ 4-208 Table 4.80. VRM Management Classes I and II Acreage, by Alternative .............................. 4-240 Table 4.81. Grazing Restrictions (i.e., in Riparian Areas, by Alternative).............................. 4-244 Table 4.82. Acreage Managed as SRMA, by Alternative........................................................ 4-246 Table 4.83. Acres of Riparian Areas, by OHV Area Designation, by Alternative.................. 4-247 Table 4.84. Livestock Grazing Acres Available per Alternative............................................. 4-260 Table 4.85.A. Summary of Well Potential and Acres Open to Leasing on BLM Land per Alternative ............................................................................................................ 4-261 Table 4.86.A. Annual Estimated Royalty Revenue per Alternative ........................................ 4-264 Table 4.86.B. Annual Estimated Severance and Ad Valorem (Property) Taxes per Alternative ............................................................................................................ 4-265 Table 4.87. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative.................................................................... 4-279 Table 4.88. Factors Contributing to Site Degradation and Their Inherent Risks* .................. 4-281

xxv

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Tables

Table 4.89 Sensitive Soils in Designated Utility Corridors..................................................... 4-284 Table 4.90. Grazing Impacts on Erodible and Reclamation-limited Soils, by Alternative ..... 4-286 Table 4.91. Sensitive Soils with Potential to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Leasing, All RFD Areas ............................................................................................................ 4-291 Table 4.92. Oil and Gas Leasing Impacts on Erodible and Reclamation-limited Soils in the Bookcliffs and Greater Cisco RFD Areas....................................................... 4-292 Table 4.93. Sensitive Soils with Potential to be Impacted by OHV Use, by Alternative........ 4-296 Table 4.94. SRMA Acreage, by Alternative............................................................................ 4-297 Table 4.95. Acres of Sensitive Soils adjacent to River Segments Eligible for WSR Designation as Wild, by Alternative..................................................................... 4-304 Table 4.96. Acres ACEC Designated and % WSA by Alternative ......................................... 4-309 Table 4.97. Potential ACECs, Number of Wells Predicted, and Currently Leased Acreage .. 4-310 Table 4.98. Acres of Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative....................................................................... 4-312 Table 4.99. Acres of Book Cliffs Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative.............................................................................. 4-314 Table 4.100. Acres of Canyon Rims Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative....................................................................... 4-316 Table 4.101. Acres of Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative ................................ 4-317 Table 4.102. Acres of Colorado River Corridor Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative.......................................................... 4-320 Table 4.103. Acres of Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative............................ 4-324 Table 4.104. Acres of Labyrinth Canyon Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative................................................................ 4-326 Table 4.105. Acres of Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative................................................................ 4-328 Table 4.106. Acres of Ten Mile Wash Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative....................................................................... 4-329 Table 4.107. Acres of Upper Courthouse Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative................................................................ 4-331 Table 4.108. Acres of White Wash Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative.............................................................................. 4-334 Table 4.109. Acres of Wilson Arch Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative....................................................................... 4-336

xxvi

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Tables

Table 4.110. River Segments that would be Determined Suitable and Total River Miles by Alternative ....................................................................................................... 4-337 Table 4.111. WSRs, Number of Wells Predicted, and Currently Leased Acreage.................. 4-339 Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR Designation, by Alternative .................................................................................. 4-341 Table 4.113. WSA Acreages within the MPA......................................................................... 4-353 Table 4.114. OHV Designations in WSAs, by Alternative ..................................................... 4-354 Table 4.115. Miles of Route Designated, by WSA and by Alternative................................... 4-354 Table 4.116. Special Status Species in the MPA, by Habitat Type ......................................... 4-359 Table 4.117. Federally Listed Species' Riparian Habitat Proposed for Utility Corridors, in Acres and Percent of Total Habitat in the MPA, by Alternative .......................... 4-373 Table 4.118. Acres of Grazing Exclusions in Special Status Species Habitats, by Alternative ............................................................................................................ 4-374 Table 4.119. Salable Minerals Acres of Desert Shrub Habitat by Alternative ........................ 4-378 Table 4.120. Salable Minerals Acres of Sagebrush and Perennial Grassland Habitat by Alternative ............................................................................................................ 4-378 Table 4.121. Salable Minerals Acres of Piñon-Juniper Woodland Habitat by Alternative..... 4-379 Table 4.122. Salable Minerals Acres of Conifer and Mountain Shrub Habitat by Alternative ............................................................................................................ 4-379 Table 4.123. Percentage of Species Habitat Affected by Habitat Fragmentation, by Alternative ............................................................................................................ 4-380 Table 4.124. Salable Minerals Acres of Riparian Habitat by Alternative ............................... 4-381 Table 4.125. Average Acre-Feet of Water Required for Drilling and Extraction by Alternative, Over the Life of the Plan .................................................................. 4-382 Table 4.126. Existing Protected Special Status Species Habitat, and Acres and Percentage of This Total Habitat Proposed as Closed to Leasing or NSO, by Alternative .... 4-383 Table 4.127. Acres of Predicted Special Status Species' Habitat Disturbance in the MPA, by Alternative ....................................................................................................... 4-385 Table 4.128. Acres of Designated Non-motorized Focus Areas, by Alternative .................... 4-390 Table 4.129. Special Status Species Habitats Included within ACECs for Alternative B....... 4-399 Table 4.130. Special Status Species Habitats Included within ACECs for the Proposed Plan ....................................................................................................................... 4-400 Table 4.131. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat Managed as Wild and Scenic River, by Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-401 Table 4.132. Acreage of OHV Travel Designation Impacts, by Alternative........................... 4-405

xxvii

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Tables

Table 4.133. Acreage Within Select Special Status Species Habitats Closed to OHV Use, by Alternative ....................................................................................................... 4-405 Table 4.134. Acreages in Each VRM Class, by Alternative.................................................... 4-408 Table 4.135. Acreage of All Wildlife Timing Restrictions for Vegetation Types by Alternative ............................................................................................................ 4-411 Table 4.136. OHV Designations by Alternative...................................................................... 4-418 Table 4.137. Acreage of Vegetation Types Potentially Impacted in Utility Corridors, by Alternative ............................................................................................................ 4-424 Table 4.138. Acres of Each Vegetation Type Excluded from Grazing by Alternative ........... 4-426 Table 4.139. Predicted Surface Disturbance on BLM Lands from Minerals Activities for the 15-Year Life of the Plan (Acres) .................................................................... 4-427 Table 4.140. SRMA Acreages Proposed Under Each Alternative .......................................... 4-428 Table 4.141. Acres of Each Vegetation Type Protected in the Action Alternatives Due to Slope Steepness Category..................................................................................... 4-430 Table 4.142. OHV Area Designations for All Alternatives..................................................... 4-436 Table 4.143. Number of Acres in the MPA Open and Closed to Woodland Harvesting ........ 4-440 Table 4.144. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative.................................................................. 4-442 Table 4.145. MPA VRM Acreage Designations (by percent) ................................................. 4-443 Table 4.146. Acreage Comparison of Action Alternatives' VRM Management Classes to Alternative A VRM Inventory Classes................................................................. 4-443 Table 4.147. The 15-year Oil and Gas Reasonably Foreseeable Development within the Big Flat-Hatch Point and Eastern Paradox RFD Areas ........................................ 4-444 Table 4.148. Grouping of Wildlife Species by Habitat Type .................................................. 4-450 Table 4.149. Acres of Surface Disturbance due to Utility Corridors by Major Habitat Type ...................................................................................................................... 4-454 Table 4.150. Estimated Surface Disturbance (in acres) for Oil and Gas Well Development, by Vegetation (Wildlife Habitat) Type ......................................... 4-462 Table 4.151. Acres of Big Game Crucial Habitat Open and Closed to Surface Disturbance in the MPA by Alternative.................................................................................... 4-463 Table 4.152. Estimated Surface Disturbance (in Acres) on BLM Lands Associated with Geophysical Exploration by Vegetation Type...................................................... 4-464 Table 4.153. Acres of SRMAs and Designated "Non-Motorized Focus Areas" by Alternative* .......................................................................................................... 4-472 Table 4.154. Number of Acres Within Big Game Habitats That are Protected for Special Status Species ....................................................................................................... 4-476 Table 4.155. Wildlife Habitat Closed to OHV Use Under Each Alternative .......................... 4-479

xxviii

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Tables

Table 4.156. OHV Use Stipulations in Wildlife Habitat Under Each Alternative .................. 4-479 Table 4.157. Number of Acres in the MPA Open and Closed to Woodland Harvesting ........ 4-488 Table 4.158. Percent of Mule Deer and/or Elk Habitat Considered Unfavorable After Fragmentation by Roads (road density > 0.16 km/km²)....................................... 4-490 Table 4.159. Percent of Mule Deer and/or Elk Habitat Considered Unfavorable After Fragmentation by Roads (road density > 0.62 km/km²)....................................... 4-490 Table 4.160. Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat Fragmentation .................................................... 4-491 Table 4.161. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat Fragmentation Analysis (acres)......... 4-491 Table 4.162. Percentage of Vegetation Habitat Types Impacted by 400-meter Road Buffer for Migratory Birds ................................................................................... 4-492 Table 4.163. Acres Closed to Woodland Harvesting within Non-WSA Areas Identified with Wilderness Characteristics ........................................................................... 4-495 Table 4.164. Acres Closed to Woodland Harvesting within SRMAs...................................... 4-495 Table 4.165. Acres Closed to Woodland Harvesting within Potential ACECs ....................... 4-497 Table 4.166. Woodland Acres in the MPA.............................................................................. 4-497 Table 5.1. Tribal Organizations Contacted by the BLM, Utah State Director ............................ 5-3 Table 5.2. Meetings with Tribal Organizations as part of Scoping for the Land-use Plan.......... 5-4 Table 5.3. Meetings with Tribal Organizations to Discuss Draft Alternatives............................ 5-4 Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review............................................................................................ 5-7 Table 5.5. Open House Locations and Attendance.................................................................... 5-21 Table 5.6 Open House Locations, Dates, and Attendance......................................................... 5-23 Table 5.7. List of Organizations and Individuals that Submitted Substantive Comments ........ 5-27 Table 5.8. List of Individuals that Submitted Substantive Comments ...................................... 5-31 Table 5.9.a–c Public Comments and Responses........................................................................ 5-37 Table 5.10.a–t Comments Requiring a Change in the Document............................................ 5-118 Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS .......................................................... 5-160 Table 5.12. List of Preparers.................................................................................................... 5-164

xxix

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Tables

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xxx

List of Maps (MAPS CONTAINED IN VOLUME 3) 1-1 2-1 2-2-B 2-2-C 2-2-D 2-3 2-4 2-4-A 2-4-B 2-4-C 2-4-D 2-5-A 2-5-B 2-5-C 2-5-D 2-6 2-7 2-8-A 2-8-B 2-8-C 2-8-D 2-9-B 2-9-C 2-9-D 2-10-A 2-10-B 2-10-C 2-10-D 2-11-A 2-11-B Moab Planning Area Existing Withdrawals from Mineral Entry Utility Corridors-Alternative B Utility Corridors-Proposed Plan Utility Corridors-Alternative D Lands Identified for Disposal Grazing Allotments in the Moab Field Office Areas Not Available for Livestock Grazing-Alternative A Areas Not Available for Livestock Grazing-Alternative B Areas Not Available for Livestock Grazing-Proposed Plan Areas Not Available for Livestock Grazing-Alternative D Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations-Alternative A Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations-Alternative B Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations-Proposed Plan Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations-Alternative D Known Potash Leasing Areas Salable Minerals Sites Special Recreation Management Areas-Alternative A Special Recreation Management Areas-Alternative B Special Recreation Management Areas-Proposed Plan Special Recreation Management Areas-Alternative D Recreation Focus Areas-Alternative B Recreation Focus Areas-Proposed Plan Recreation Focus Areas-Alternative D Off Highway Vehicle Categories-Alternative A Off Highway Vehicle Categories-Alternative B Off Highway Vehicle Categories-Proposed Plan Off Highway Vehicle Categories-Alternative D Inventoried Routes-Alternative A Designated Routes-Alternative B

xxxi

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Maps

2-11-C 2-11-D 2-11-E (A) 2-11-E (B) 2-11-E (C) 2-11-E (D) 2-11-F (B) 2-11-F (C) 2-11-F (D) 2-12 2-13 2-14-A 2-14-B 2-14-C 2-15-B 2-15-C 2-16 2-17 2-18 2-19 2-20 2-21 2-22 2-23-A 2-23-B 2-23-C 2-23-D 2-24-B 2-24-C 2-25 2-25-A 2-26-A

Designated Routes-Proposed Plan Designated Routes-Alternative D Inventoried Motorcycle Routes-Alternative A Designated Motorcycle Routes-Alternative B Designated Motorcycle Routes-Proposed Plan Designated Motorcycle Routes-Alternative D Mountain Bike Single Track Trails-Alternative B Mountain Bike Single Track Trails-Proposed Plan Mountain Bike Single Track Trails-Alternative D Steep Slopes (Over 30 Percent) in Bookcliffs Moderate to High Saline Soils Areas of Critical Environmental Concern-Alternative A Areas of Critical Environmental Concern-Alternative B Areas of Critical Environmental Concern-Proposed Plan Wild and Scenic Rivers-Alternative B Wild and Scenic Rivers-Proposed Plan Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas Endangered Colorado River Fish Critical Habitat Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat Bald and Golden Eagle Habitat Sage Grouse Habitat Prairie Dog Sensitive Species Habitat Ferruginous Hawk and Burrowing Owl Habitat Visual Resource Management-Alternative A Visual Resource Management-Alternative B Visual Resource Management-Proposed Plan Visual Resource Management-Alternative D Areas Managed for Wilderness Characteristics-Alternative B Areas Managed for Wilderness Characteristics-Proposed Plan Pronghorn Habitat Pronghorn Habitat-Alternative A Desert Bighorn Sheep Protected Habitat-Alternative A
xxxii

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Maps

2-26-B 2-26-C 2-26-D 2-27-A 2-27-B 2-27-C/D 2-28 2-29-A 2-29-B 2-29-C 2-29-D 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16

Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing, Rutting, and Migration Habitat-Alternative B Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing, Rutting, and Migration Habitat-Proposed Plan Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing, Rutting, and Migration Habitat-Alternative D Deer and/or Elk Protected Habitat-Alternative A Deer and/or Elk Habitat-Alternative B Deer and/or Elk Habitat-Proposed Plan and Alternative D Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat Areas Not Available for Woodland Harvest and Wood Gathering-Alternative A Areas Not Available for Woodland Harvest and Wood Gathering-Alternative B Areas Not Available for Woodland Harvest and Wood Gathering-Proposed Plan Areas Not Available for Woodland Harvest and Wood Gathering-Alternative D Moab Planning Area Oil and Gas Fields Moab Planning Area Composite Oil and Gas Development Potential Moab Planning Area Coalbed Methane-Development Potential Moab Planning Area Coal Deposit-Development Potential Moab Planning Area Potash and Salt Deposit-Development Potential Moab Planning Area Uranium/Vanadium Deposit-Development Potential Moab Planning Area Copper Deposit-Development Potential Moab Planning Area Limestone Deposit-Development Potential Moab Planning Area Sand and Gravel Deposit-Development Potential Moab Planning Area Building Stone Deposit-Development Potential Moab Planning Area Travertine Deposit-Development Potential Moab Planning Area Humate Deposit-Development Potentail Moab Planning Area Clay Deposit-Development Potential Generalized Geology of the Planning Area Vegetation Types Moab Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Areas

xxxiii

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Maps

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xxxiv

List of Appendices (APPENDICES CONTAINED IN VOLUME 3) Land Tenure Adjustment And Withdrawal Criteria Film Permits: Minimum Impact Criteria Stipulations and Environmental Best Practices Applicable to Oil And Gas Leasing And Other Surface-disturbing Activities Appendix D Lands Identified For Disposal In Revised Moab RMP Appendix E Moab Field Office Recreation Rules Appendix F Special Recreation Management Areas: Goals, Settings, Outcomes and Management Prescriptions Appendix G Travel Plan Development Appendix H Hydraulic Considerations for Pipelines Crossing Stream Channels; Technical Note 423 Appendix I Relevance and Importance Evaluations of Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Nominations Appendix J Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process Appendix K Conservation Measures For T & E Species Of Utah From The Use Plan Programmatic Bas And Section 7 Consultations Appendix L Desired Future Condition for Vegetation Appendix M Drought Classification System Appendix N Additional Wildlife Information Appendix O Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats in Utah, August 2006 Appendix P Identification of Wilderness Characteristics on Non-WSA Lands Managed by Moab BLM Appendix Q Standards and Guides for Grazing Management Appendix R Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management for BLM Lands in Utah Appendix S Wildlife Impacts by RFD Area Appendix T Utah State University Study Results Appendix U Changes Between Moab Draft RMP/EIS and Moab Proposed RMP/Final EIS Appendix V Letter from the State of Utah Regarding Air Quality Mitigation Strategies Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C

xxxv

Moab PRMP/FEIS

List of Appendices

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xxxvi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
The BLM Moab (Utah) Field Office (Moab FO) has prepared this Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) to provide direction for managing public lands within the Moab Field Office and to analyze the environmental effects. A Draft RMP/EIS with four alternatives was presented to the public on August 25, 2007, which initiated a 90-day public comment period. The comments submitted by the public were considered in formulating the Proposed RMP, also referred to as the Proposed Plan. The Proposed RMP will replace the Grand Resource Area Resource Management Plan (RMP), which was signed in 1985. The Proposed RMP covers the same area as that covered by the 1985 RMP, which is all of Grand County and the northern one-third of San Juan County (BLM 1985). The Moab planning area (MPA) comprises approximately 2,756,065 acres of land, of which approximately 1,822,562 acres is public land administered by the BLM. Due to its easier access, the BLM Vernal FO presently manages a small amount of public land at the top of the Book Cliffs along the northern portion of the MPA. The MPA is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province. Geographically, the Moab FO is bounded by the Bookcliffs to the north, the Utah-Colorado state line to the east, Harts Point and Lisbon Valley to the south, and the Green River to the west. Major waterways within the planning area include the Colorado River, the Dolores River, and the Green River. Elevations within the planning area range from approximately 13,000 feet above mean sea level in the La Sal Mountains to approximately 3,900 feet above mean sea level at Mineral Bottom along the Green River. The planning area encompasses Arches National Park, Dead Horse Point State Park, and the La Sal Mountains of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The Moab FO shares boundaries with lands administered by the BLM Vernal, Monticello, Grand Junction, Uncompahgre, Dolores, and Price FOs, as well as with the Uintah/Ouray Indian Reservation and Canyonlands National Park. The Proposed RMP was prepared using the BLM’s planning regulations and guidance issued under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is incorporated into this document to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and requirements of BLM’s NEPA Handbook 1790-1.

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED
ES.2.1 PURPOSE
FLPMA requires that the BLM "develop, maintain, and when appropriate, revise land-use plans" (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1712 [a]). The BLM has determined it is necessary to revise existing land-use plans (LUP) and prepare a new RMP for the MPA based on a number of new issues that have arisen since preparation of the existing land-use plan (1985). The purpose of this Proposed RMP is to provide a comprehensive framework for BLM's management of the public

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Executive Summary

lands within the MPA and its allocation of resources pursuant to the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate of FLPMA.

ES.2.2 NEED
The Proposed Plan as presented in this document is necessary because there have been significant changes within the MPA since the time of the 1985 RMP.

ES.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement has been an integral part of BLM’s RMP effort. The scoping period for the Moab RMP began on June 4, 2003 and ended on January 31, 2004. Comments obtained from the public during the scoping period were used to define the relevant issues that would be resolved by presenting a broad range of alternative management actions. The Draft RMP/EIS was released to the public on August 25, 2007, with publication of the Notice of Availability by the Environmental Protection Agency. A 90-day public comment period ended on November 30, 2007. The BLM hosted four open houses during the public comment period to provide information to the public on the content of the Draft RMP/EIS and how to provide comments. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) in the Draft RMP/EIS was adjusted based on public comment to formulate the Proposed Plan which is presented in this document. See Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, for additional information on public involvement in the RMP process.

ES.4 PROPOSED PLAN AND DRAFT ALTERNATIVES
The Proposed Plan and three alternatives from the Draft RMP/EIS are presented in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Alternative C has been adjusted based on public comment and review of the Draft RMP/EIS and now represents the BLM’s Proposed Plan.

ES.4.1 ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION
Alternative A would be a continuation of existing management under the current Grand Resource Area RMP (1985), as amended.

ES.4.2 ALTERNATIVE B
Alternative B would offer more protection for wildlife and other natural resources, and favor natural systems over commodities development. It would emphasize the protection of natural resources and landscapes as well as non-motorized recreation.

ES.4.3 PROPOSED PLAN
The Proposed Plan would protect important environmental values and sensitive resources while allowing for commodities development. It would provide a balance between protection of important natural resources and commodity production, as well as offer a full range of recreation opportunities. Under the Proposed Plan, 1,866 acres would be open to cross country OHV use, 339,298 acres would be closed, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes in the remainder of the

ES-2

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Executive Summary

planning area (Table ES1). Approximately 2,642 miles of travel routes (including motorcycle trails) would be designated (Table ES2). Under the Proposed Plan, ten Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) would be designated, and 30 Focus Areas which emphasize a particular recreation activity would be established (Table ES3). Five Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) would be designated under the Proposed Plan, and 10 segments of 3 eligible rivers would be recommended as suitable for Wild and Scenic River (WSR) designation (Table ES4). Approximately 47,761 acres of non-Wilderness Study Area (WSA) lands (in 3 areas) would be managed to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics (Table ES5). All BLM lands within the MPA are classified for oil and gas leasing stipulations. About 370,250 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. About 217,480 acres would be managed with No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations, and 427,273 acres would be open with standard stipulations (Table ES6). The remaining 806,994 acres would be managed with timing limitation or controlled surface use stipulations.

ES.5.4 ALTERNATIVE D
Alternative D would emphasize commodity development over the protection of natural resources, and would emphasize motorized recreation. The following Tables present a summary of decisions, comparing the Proposed Plan to the No Action alternative. Table ES1 provides the acreage open, limited and closed to OHVs; Table ES2 provides the miles of designated routes; Table ES3 shows the SRMAs and Focus Areas; Table ES4 gives the Special Designations; Table ES5 provides the acreage of lands managed to protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness characteristics, and Table ES6 compares the oil and gas stipulations in the Proposed Plan and the No Action alternative. Table ES1. OHV Categories (acres) in No Action Alternative vs. Proposed Plan
Category Closed Limited to Existing Limited to Designated Open
1

Alt A No Action 5,062 1,196,920
1

PROPOSED PLAN 339,298 0 1,481,334 1,866

0 620,212

48,169 acres would be limited to designated roads and trails; and 309,749 acres would be limited to inventoried routes in WSAs.

ES-3

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Executive Summary

Table ES2. Designated Routes (miles) In Inventory vs. Proposed Plan
Item D and B routes D Routes only Singletrack Motocycle Routes Motorcycle Routes on Existing D Routes
1

Inventory 6,199 4,673 129

PROPOSED PLAN 3,693 2,519 150

1

142

163

At time of publication.

Table ES3. SRMAs and Focus Areas In No Action Alternative vs. Proposed Plan
Category SRMAs Focus Areas Alt A (ac) No Action 3 (141,234) 0 PROPOSED PLAN 10 (658,642) 30

Table ES4. Special Designations In No Action Alternative vs. Proposed Plan
Alt A No Action Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Wild and Scenic Rivers Number Acres Eligible Segments Suitable Segments 0 0 12 Deferred PROPOSED PLAN 5 63,232 29 10

Table ES5. Non-WSA Areas Managed for Wilderness Characteristics In No Action Alternative vs. Proposed Plan
Alt A No Action Units (#) Acres 0 0 PROPOSED PLAN 3 47,761

ES-4

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Executive Summary

Table ES6. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres)
Stipulation Standard TL and CSU NSO Closed Projected No. of wells/LOP Alt A No Action 1,038,344 389,605 38,912 353,293 451 PROPOSED PLAN 427,273 806,994 217,480 370,250 432

ES.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Selection of Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would maintain the current rate of progress in meeting land health standards and protecting resource values. It would allow for use levels to mostly continue at current levels in the same places in the MPA, with adjustments required in order to meet Standards for Rangeland Health or to mitigate resource concerns in compliance with existing laws and regulations. Alternative B would have the least potential to adversely impact physical and biological resources and would protect a variety of vegetation types and wildlife habitats. Alternative B would be the most restrictive to commodity extraction. Consequently, Alternative B would have the greatest potential for short-term adverse impacts to local economies and businesses that depend on public land for commodity extraction. Implementation of the Proposed Plan would allow for many uses to continue but would constrain certain activities in order to maintain or protect important natural resources. This could result in some short-term adverse impacts to local economies and resource extraction businesses, but long-term economic benefits would be gained from the emphasis on a diversity of recreational activities. Alternative D offers the greatest potential benefits to the local economy from traditional commodity extraction. Commodity extraction uses would generally be least encumbered by management decisions under this alternative. Alternative D would result in greater impacts on the physical and biological environment than actions proposed under Alternative B or the Proposed Plan. See Table 2.2 at the end of Chapter 2, Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives, for a summary of potential impacts of the Proposed Plan and the three alternatives brought forward from the Draft RMP/EIS. Detailed descriptions of impacts of the Proposed Plan and the draft alternatives are provided in Chapter 4.

ES.6: CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT RMP TO THE PROPOSED RMP
As a result of public comment and internal review of the Draft RMP/EIS, the Preferred Alternative has been adjusted and now represents BLM’s Proposed Action in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Changes regarding alternatives focused on adjustments to the Preferred

ES-5

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Executive Summary

Alternative in order to address public concerns while continuing to meet BLM’s legal and regulatory mandates. Changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/FEIS include clarifications in wording, changes to the Preferred Alternative (such as adding two allotments as unavailable for grazing). Additional information and changes throughout the document have been shaded in light gray (with the exception of Chapter 5). See the end of Chapter 1, Introduction, Purpose and Need, for a summary of these changes. See Appendix U for a complete listing of every change between the Draft RMP/EIS and the present document.

ES.7: NEXT STEPS
Following publication by the EPA and the BLM of a Notice of Availability of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS in the Federal Register and distribution of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, there will be a 30 day protest period. In addition, a 60-day Governor’s Consistency Review period runs concurrently with the first half of the protest period. The State Director will approve the Proposed RMP/FEIS by issuing a public Record of Decision (ROD), which is a concise document summarizing the findings and decisions brought forward from the Proposed RMP. However, approval shall be withheld on any portion of a plan being protested until final action has been completed on such protest. Before such approval is given, there shall be public notice and opportunity for public comment on any significant change made to the proposed plan. Among other decisions, the proposed ACEC designations and OHV categories (limitations and closures) will be approved when the ROD is signed. Implementation level decisions brought forward into this planning process will be appealable for 30 days after the ROD is signed.

ES-6

1.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND NEED
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to develop and periodically revise its Resource Management Plans (RMPs), which guide management of BLM-administered public lands. The BLM Moab, Utah, Field Office (MFO) is revising the Grand Resource Area RMP, which was last revised in 1985 (BLM 1985a). The new plan, which is to be called the Moab RMP, in conjunction with the accompanying Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), will provide future management direction for public lands within the boundaries of the Moab Planning Area (MPA). The Moab RMP covers all of Grand County and the northern third of San Juan County. The Proposed Plan presented in this document was crafted from the four alternatives presented in the Draft RMP/EIS that was released to the public for a 90-day comment period on August 25, 2007.

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
1.1.1 PURPOSE FLPMA requires that the BLM "develop, maintain, and when appropriate, revise land-use plans" (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1712 [a]). The BLM has determined it is necessary to revise existing land-use plans (LUP) and prepare a new RMP for the MPA based on a number of new issues that have arisen since preparation of the existing plans. In general, the purpose of this RMP is to provide a comprehensive framework for the BLM's management of the public lands within the MPA and its allocation of resources pursuant to the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate of FLPMA. In addition, the purpose of this plan revision is as follows: • • To consolidate the existing LUP and its amendments. To reevaluate, with public involvement, existing conditions, resources, and uses, and reconsider the mix of resource allocations and management decisions designed to balance uses and the protection of resources pursuant to FLPMA and applicable law. To resolve multiple-use conflicts or issues between resource values and resource uses. The resulting Moab RMP will establish consolidated guidance and updated goals, objectives, and management actions for the public lands in the decision area. The RMP will be comprehensive in nature and will address issues that have been identified through agency, interagency, and public scoping efforts. To disclose and assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable future actions resulting from the management actions in the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), its implementing regulations, and other applicable laws.

•

•

1.1.2 NEED A revision to the 1985 RMP is necessary because there have been significant alterations in the MPA in light of new information and changed resources, circumstances, and policies that may be relevant to the future management of public lands and allocation of resources under the multiple-

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

use and sustained yield mandate. This determination is further corroborated by a Special Evaluation Report, completed in 2002 by the MFO (BLM 2002a), which concluded that some of the decisions within the 1985 RMP are in need of revision. There have been changes in the laws, policies, and regulations that direct the management of the resources on MPA public lands. There has also been an increase in the amount of new information and resource data that need to be considered to better manage the public lands. Population in and visitation to the region have grown, and population demographics have changed, as have public awareness and use of lands within the MPA. Specifically, there may be a need to evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increases in recreation and visitor use, including scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in oil and gas development. Land use plan decisions may be changed only through the amendment or revision process.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MOAB PLANNING AREA (MPA)
1.2.1 OVERVIEW The MPA is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau physiographic province (Figure 1.1). It is located in southeastern Utah and includes all of Grand County and the northern third of San Juan County. Geographically, the MPA is bounded by the Book Cliffs to the north, the Utah-Colorado state line to the east, Harts Point and Lisbon Valley to the south, and the Green River to the west. Major waterways within the MPA include the Colorado River, the Dolores River, and the Green River. Elevations within the MPA range from approximately 13,000 feet above mean sea level in the La Sal Mountains to approximately 3,900 feet above mean sea level at Mineral Bottom along the Green River. The MPA encompasses Arches National Park, Dead Horse Point State Park, the La Sal Mountains of the Manti–La Sal National Forest, and the Uintah/Ouray Indian Reservation. The MPA shares boundaries with lands administered by the BLM Vernal, Monticello, Grand Junction, Uncompahgre, Dolores, and Price FOs, as well as with Canyonlands National Park (within the Monticello FO). The MPA comprises approximately 2,756,065 acres of land, of which approximately 1,822,562 acres is public land administered by the BLM (Table 1.1). In addition, the MFO also manages approximately 29,680 acres of subsurface mineral estate within the MPA and manages leasable minerals on 141,240 acres under U.S. Forest Service lands on the Manti–La Sal National Forest. Due to its easier access, the BLM Vernal FO presently manages a small amount of public land (33,331 acres) at the top of the Book Cliffs along the northern portion of the MPA. Decisions for these 33,331 acres are contained in the Vernal RMP. It is important to note that the BLM may only make decisions that affect public lands and resources, but it is responsible for collaborative planning with the public and adjacent jurisdictions so as to consider the impacts of its actions on all the resources in the region. Land ownership and administration of lands within the MPA are described in Table 1.1 and Map 1-1.

1-2

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

Table 1.1. Land Management within the MPA (acres)
Land Management BLM Indian Lands Department of Defense National Park Service Private State Trust Lands State Parks, County, City, Wildlife Park, and Outdoor Recreation Areas USDA Forest Service Acreage of Water Total
Source: BLM 2004a.

Grand County 1,529,390* 197,992 1,631 76,396 101,976 283,613 16,339 57,298 168 2,264,803

San Juan County 293,172 0 0 0 56,294 56,608 1,068 83,942 178 491,262

Total 1,822,562* 197,992 1,631 76,396 158,270 340,221 17,407 141,240 346 2,756,065

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

Also contained within the MPA are several communities, diverse terrain, and scenic landscapes that figure prominently in the settlement, history, culture, and recreational enjoyment of southern Utah. Many occupational pursuits historically associated with this region of the Intermountain West—including farming, ranching, mining, tourism, retail trade, transportation, and construction—are practiced by residents within the MPA. Major communities in the MPA are Moab, La Sal, Castle Valley, Thompson, Crescent Junction, and Elgin. Major transportation routes include Interstate 70 (I-70), U.S. Highway 191, and State Routes 279 (Potash State Scenic Byway), 128 (Colorado River State Scenic Byway), and 313 (Dead Horse Mesa State Scenic Byway). 1.2.2 LAND USES The MPA is internationally renowned for both its scenic quality and its recreational opportunities, which are the primary land uses in the MPA. Approximately 2 million visitors per year enjoy the diverse and varied recreational opportunities of the MPA and form the basis for Grand County's tourism-based economy. Recreational opportunities include scenic driving, mountain biking, hiking, rafting and boating, rock climbing, riding off-highway vehicles (OHVs), and horseback riding. The many trail-based recreational activities in the MPA are highly dependent upon route systems. Many of these route systems have been based on the network of roads and trails created originally for mineral exploration. Mineral exploration and development are the next most prominent use of public lands in the MPA. Oil and gas exploration and production has occurred within the MPA continually for the past 100 years. Production of oil and gas is currently taking place in Greater Cisco and the eastern Book Cliffs, in Lisbon Valley, and on Big Flat. Another current mineral activity in the MPA is copper development; a large commercial copper deposit has been delineated in Lisbon Valley, and production is currently underway. Uranium deposits can be found throughout the southern half of the MPA. These deposits have been mined continually for over 90 years, first for
1-3

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

their radium content and later for their vanadium co-product. Other mineral deposits within the MPA include potash, coal, placer gold, limestone, building stone, travertine, humate, sand and gravel, and clay. Another aspect of the MPA is the protection of certain natural and cultural resources from the impacts of human use. A number of federally listed endangered or threatened wildlife species inhabit the MPA, including the Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon. The MPA also contains habitat for deer, elk, bighorn sheep (both desert and Rocky Mountain), and pronghorn. Prehistoric archaeological sites of ancestral Pueblo and Fremont cultures are also known to be in the MPA, as are later historical sites of cultural significance. Other land uses within the MPA include rights-of-way (ROWs) for roads, pipelines, power lines, and communication sites, as well as commercial filming and livestock grazing.

1.3 BLM'S PLANNING PROCESS
FLPMA requires the BLM to use LUPs as tools by which "present and future use is projected" (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1701 [a][2]). FLPMA's implementing regulations for planning, 43 CFR Part 1600, state that land-use plans are a preliminary step in the overall process of managing public lands, "designed to guide and control future management actions and the development of subsequent, more detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses" (43 CFR Part 1601.0-2). Public participation and input are important components of land-use planning. Revision of an existing plan is a major federal action for the BLM. NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for major federal actions; thus, this EIS accompanies the revision of the existing RMP. This EIS analyzes the impacts of the Proposed Plan and three draft alternatives for the MPA, including the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative reflects current management (the existing plan). NEPA requires analysis of a No Action Alternative. 1.3.1 NINE-STEP PLANNING PROCESS The BLM uses a nine-step planning process (Figure 1.1) when developing and revising RMPs as required by 43 CFR Part 1600 and planning program guidance in the BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a). The planning process is designed to help the BLM identify the uses of BLM-administered lands desired by the public and to consider these uses to the extent they are consistent with the laws established by Congress and the policies of the executive branch of the federal government. As depicted in Figure 1.1, the planning process is issue-driven (Step 1). The plan revision process is undertaken to resolve management issues and problems as well as to take advantage of management opportunities. The BLM utilized the public scoping process to identify planning issues to direct (drive) the revision of the existing plan. The scoping process also was used to

1-4

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

introduce the public to preliminary planning criteria, which set limits to the scope of the RMP revision (Step 2).

Step 1 – Identification of Issues

Step 2 – Development of Planning Criteria

Step 3 – Inventory Data and Information Collection

Step 4 – Analysis of the Management Situation

Step 5 – Formulation of Alternatives

Step 6 – Estimation of Impacts of Alternatives

Step 7 – Selection of Preferred Alternative

Step 8 – Selection of the Resource Management Plan

Step 9 – Monitoring and Evaluation
Source: 43 CFR 1610.4

Figure 1.1. Nine-step planning process. As appropriate, the BLM used existing data from files and other sources and collected new data necessary to update or supplement existing data in order to address planning issues and to fill data gaps identified during public scoping (Step 3). Using these data, information concerning the resource management programs, and the planning criteria, the BLM completed an Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) (Step 4) to describe current management and to identify management opportunities for addressing the planning issues. Current management reflects management under the existing plan as well as management that would continue through selection of the No Action Alternative. The existing affected environment is summarized from the AMS into Chapter 3, Affected Environment, of the Draft RMP/EIS revision. Results of the first four steps of the planning process clarified the purpose and need and identified key planning issues that need to be addressed by the RMP revision. Key planning issues reflect the focus of the RMP revision and are described in more detail in Section 1.3.2, below. Alternatives constitute a range of management actions that set forth different priorities and measures to emphasize certain uses or resource values over other uses or resource values (usually representing a continuum from extraction and development to preservation/conservation) pursuant to the multiple-use and sustained yield mandates, so as to achieve certain goals or

1-5

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

objectives. During alternative formulation (Step 5), the BLM collaborated with cooperating agencies to identify goals and objectives (desired outcomes) for resources and resource uses in the MPA. These desired outcomes addressed the key planning issues, were constrained by the planning criteria, and incorporated the management opportunities identified by the BLM. The details of alternatives were filled in through the development of management actions and allowable uses anticipated to achieve the goals and objectives. The alternatives represent a reasonable range for managing resources and resource uses within the MPA. Chapter 2 of this document, Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives, describes and summarizes the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives considered in detail. This Proposed RMP/Final EIS also includes an analysis of the impacts of the Proposed Plan and the draft alternatives in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives, (Step 6). With input from cooperating agencies and BLM specialists, and consideration of planning issues, planning criteria, and the impacts of alternatives, the BLM identified and recommended that, at the time of the Draft RMP/EIS, Alternative C was the Preferred Alternative from among the four alternatives presented (Step 7). This is documented in the Draft RMP/EIS, which was distributed for a 90-day public review and comment period on August 25, 2007. Step 8 of the land-use planning process occurred following receipt and consideration of public comments on the Draft RMP/EIS. In preparing the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM considered all comments it received during the public comment period. The Proposed Plan was crafted from the draft alternatives. Step 9 is the monitoring and evaluation process. 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

1-6

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

monitoring asks the question: Was the specified activity successful in achieving the objective? This requires knowledge of the objectives established in the RMP as well as indicators that can be measured. Indicators are established by technical specialists in order to address specific questions, and thus avoid collection of unnecessary data. Success is measured against the benchmark of achieving desired future conditions established by the plan. Regulations at 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that the proposed plan establish intervals and standards, as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluation of the plan, based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions involved. Progress in meeting the plan objectives and adherence to the management framework established by the plan is reviewed periodically. CEQ regulations implementing NEPA state that agencies may provide for monitoring to assure that their decisions are carried out and should do so in important cases (40 CFR 1505.2(c)). To meet these requirements, the BLM will review the plan on a regular schedule in order to provide consistent tracking of accomplishments and provide information that can be used to develop annual budget requests to continue implementation. Land use plan evaluations will be used by BLM to determine if the decisions in the RMP, supported by the accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid. Evaluation of the RMP will generally be conducted every five years per BLM policy, unless unexpected actions, new information, or significant changes in other plans, legislation, or litigation triggers an evaluation. Land use plan evaluations determine if decisions are being implemented, whether mitigation measures are satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the related plans of other entities, whether there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions should be changed through amendment or revision. Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated. Specific monitoring and evaluation needs are identified by resource/uses throughout Chapter 2. 1.3.2 SCOPING AND IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AND DRAFT ALTERNATIVES 1.3.2.1 THE SCOPING PROCESS Public input was generated through a formal public scoping period, which began with the publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on June 4, 2003. The scoping period included six public scoping meetings. The formal scoping period ended on January 31, 2004. The majority of comments emphasized OHV management, recreation, and areas of special designation. Other issues of high interest included non–WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, minerals, livestock grazing, wildlife resources, and cultural resources. The scoping process identified the affected public and agency concerns, defined the relevant issues and draft alternatives that were examined in detail in the Draft RMP/EIS, and eliminated those that are not significant. For the Moab planning process, scoping comments received from the public were placed in one of three categories: 1. Issues identified for consideration in the Moab RMP;

1-7

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

2. Issues to be addressed through policy or administrative action (and therefore not addressed in the RMP); 3. Issues eliminated from detailed analysis because they are beyond the scope of the RMP (and therefore not addressed in the RMP). The Final Scoping Summary (available for review on the Moab planning web page at www.blm.gov/rmp/ut/moab), prepared in conjunction with the Draft RMP/EIS, summarizes the scoping process. Other resource and use issues are identified in the BLM Planning Handbook and Manual (H1610-1). All of these issues were considered in developing the draft alternatives that were brought forward in the Draft RMP/EIS. 1.3.2.2 ISSUES ADDRESSED THROUGH POLICY OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Policy or administrative actions include those actions that are implemented by the BLM because they are standard operating procedure, because federal law requires them, or because they are BLM policy. They are, therefore, issues that are eliminated from detailed analysis in this planning effort. Administrative actions do not require a planning decision to implement. The following issues raised during scoping are already addressed by administrative actions: • Compliance with existing laws and policies (e.g., FLPMA, NEPA, Endangered Species Act, American Antiquities Act, Clean Air Act, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act). Application of the BLM's Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management addresses, among other issues, the allocation of forage for grazing animals and wildlife, the numbers of livestock, and changes in grazing management practices. Education, enforcement/prosecution, vandalism, and volunteer coordination. Consistency with existing federal, state, and local plans. Management of cultural resources, which includes up-to-date inventories, non-disclosure of sensitive sites, proposal of cultural sites for the National Register of Historic Places, and Native American consultation. Management of the MPA's 11 existing Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs; approximately 348,800 acres) under the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP; H-8550-1; BLM 1995). These WSAs are statutorily required (pursuant to FLPMA Section 603[c]) to be managed to protect their suitability for Congressional designation into the National Wilderness Preservation System. There are, however, a few decisions that will be made for WSAs in this planning effort. They include applying a visual resources management (VRM) Class I objective to the WSAs and determining if the WSAs will be limited or closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. Because this planning effort will also consider designating ways in the limited areas as an implementation action, specific ways available for use will be disclosed and analyzed. Management of the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Area. This wilderness area was Congressionally designated in 2000 under Public Law 106-353 and is managed by the Grand Junction Field Office through an RMP for the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness.
1-8

•

• • •

•

•

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Completion of inventory of riparian and wetland areas and the use of monitoring and mitigation to help protect these resources. Continuing work on a comprehensive sign system and maps for recreational and other users. Administration of existing mineral leases, permits, and other authorized uses. Use of valid existing rights. Monitoring wildlife and biodiversity. Monitoring air quality. Mitigation measures for site-specific projects. Eligibility standards for specially designated areas. Protection of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Coordination with local, state, and federal agencies. Cooperation with user groups. The allocation of forage between livestock and wildlife and the application of specific management practices on allotments within the planning area. (This issue is provided for through the application of Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Management and supporting monitoring data. When monitoring and inventory data indicate, changes are made to livestock and wildlife numbers and their management to assure that resource objectives will be met. These allocation and management adjustments are implementation decisions according to the BLM's planning handbook and are done on an allotment or other site specific basis.)

1.3.2.3 ISSUES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS BECAUSE THEY ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PLAN Issues beyond the scope of the RMP planning process include all issues not related to decisions that would occur as a result of the planning process. They include decisions that are not under the jurisdiction of the MFO or that are beyond the capability of the BLM to resolve as part of the planning process. Issues identified in this category include the following: • The State of Utah and Grand and San Juan counties may hold valid existing rights-of-way in the planning area pursuant to Revised Statute (RS) 2477, Act of July 28, 1866, Chapter 262, 8, 14 Stat. 252, 253, codified at 43 U.S.C. 932. On October 21, 1976, Congress repealed R.S. 2477 through passage of FLPMA. This RMP does not adjudicate, analyze, or otherwise determine the validity of claimed rights-of-way. However, nothing in the RMP extinguishes any valid right-of-way, or alters in any way the legal rights the state and counties have to assert and protect RS 2477 rights or to challenge in federal court or other appropriate venues any use restrictions imposed by the RMP that they believe are inconsistent with their rights. New wilderness or WSA proposals. Eliminating grazing, mineral development, and OHV use on all public lands. Activities and uses beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM. Changing existing laws, policies, and regulations.

• • • •

1-9

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

• •

Availability of funding and personnel for managing programs. Considering alternative energy sources as substitutes for activities related to mineral development.

1.3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING CRITERIA Planning criteria are based on appropriate laws, regulations, BLM Manual sections, and policy directives, as well as on public participation and coordination with cooperating agencies, other federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes. Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and factors used to resolve issues and develop alternatives. Planning criteria are prepared to ensure decision making is tailored to the issues and to ensure that the BLM avoids unnecessary data collection and analysis. Planning criteria have been developed to guide the development of the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives. The planning criteria to be considered in the development of the RMP are as follows: • • • The planning process would recognize the existence of valid existing rights, including water rights. All decisions made in the planning process would apply only to public lands and, where appropriate, split-estate lands where the subsurface mineral estate is managed by the BLM. As described by law and policy, the BLM would strive to ensure that its management actions are as consistent as possible with other adjoining planning jurisdictions, both federal and non-federal. Management of existing WSAs would be guided by the IMP (BLM 1995). Should Congress release all or part of a WSA from wilderness study, resource management would be determined by preparing an amendment to the RMP. Actions inconsistent with RMP goals and objectives would be deferred until completion of requisite plan amendments. Because the management direction of the released land would continue in accordance with the goals and objectives established in the RMP, there is no separate analysis required in this land-use plan to address resource impacts if any WSAs are released. If Congress acts to designate any lands within the MPA as wilderness, they would be managed pursuant to Congress's designation and the Wilderness Act. The Standards for Public Land Health (BLM 1997a, 2002b) would apply to all activities and uses. The Standards, as well as the BLM guidelines for grazing and recreation management implemented to achieve the Standards, would be applicable to the Proposed Plan and the draft alternatives to the RMP analyzed in this Final EIS. Baseline Reasonably Foreseeable Management/Development scenarios would be developed and portrayed for oil and gas, and other uses as appropriate, based on historical, existing, and projected levels for all mineral resource programs. Based on consultation with Native Americans, the BLM would consider sites, areas, issues, and objects important to their cultural and religious heritage. The BLM would adhere to all applicable laws, including those on water rights and state and local laws where appropriate; regulations; BLM manual sections; and current policy

•

•

•

• •

1-10

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

directives pertaining to management of public lands. For example, all management actions would comply with the Endangered Species Act and all laws concerning cultural resources. • • • The socioeconomic impacts of the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives would be addressed. Areas potentially suitable for designation as ACECs and other special designations would be identified and, where appropriate, brought forward for analysis in the EIS. River segments would be considered for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and determinations of eligibility, suitability, tentative classification, and protective management would be made in accordance with Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and BLM Manual 8351.

1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER POLICIES, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS
This RMP is a preliminary step in the overall process of managing public lands. Subsequent more detailed or limited decisions and plans may implement BLM's projections. As a result, this planning process must recognize the many ongoing programs, plans, and policies that are being implemented in the MPA by other land managers and government agencies. The BLM will seek to be consistent with or complementary to other management actions whenever possible. Plans that need to be considered during the MFO's planning effort include the following: 1.4.1 STATE OF UTAH • • • • • Dead Horse Point State Park Resource Management Plan Plans of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) Regional plans of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) State of Utah plans relating to water management, water quality, nonpoint source pollution, watershed management, and air quality Utah's State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)

1.4.2 COUNTY LAND USE PLANS • • San Juan County, Utah: San Juan County Master Plan (1996) Grand County, Utah: Grand County General Plan Update (2004)

1.4.3 OTHER FEDERAL PLANS • • • • • • Canyonlands National Park Natural Resource Management Plan Canyonlands National Park general management plans (NPS 1974, 2003, 2006) Canyonlands National Park backcountry management plan (1984, 1995) Land and Resource Management Plan, Manti–La Sal National Forest (USDA [USFS] 1986) General Management Plan and Development Concept Plan: Arches National Park (NPS 1989) RMPs for the BLM Vernal, Grand Junction, Uncompahgre, Dolores, and Price field offices (BLM 1985b, 1985c, 1985d, 1987, 1989a, 1993a)

1-11

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

•

Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area Management Plan (BLM 2003a)

1.4.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PLANS Endangered species recovery plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species. • • • • • • • • • Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Plan (USFWS 1978, 1990, 1991, 2002a) Humpback Chub Recovery Plan (USFWS 1979, 1990a, 2002b) Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983) Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984, 1990b, 2002c) Recovery Implementation Program EA for the Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (USFWS 1987) Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan (USFWS 1988) Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995) Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999, 2002d) Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (USFWS 2002e)

1.4.5 ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT (EPCA) In May 2001, the Bush administration's Comprehensive National Energy Policy was issued, which directed the Secretary of the Interior to examine land status and lease stipulation impediments to federal oil and gas leasing, and review and modify those where opportunities exist (consistent with the law, good environmental practice and balanced use of other resources). Under this directive, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management delivered to Congress an inventory of U.S. oil and gas resources in five western basins, as well as the extent and nature of any restrictions or impediments to their development. This report was prepared at the request of Congress under the provisions of the 2000 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). In April 2003, the BLM specified four EPCA integration principles, as follows: 1. Environmental protection and energy production are both desirable and necessary objectives of sound land management practices and are not to be considered mutually exclusive priorities. 2. The BLM must ensure appropriate accessibility to energy resources necessary for the nation's security, while recognizing that special and unique non-energy resources can be preserved. 3. Sound planning will weigh the relative resource values, consistent with the multiple use and sustained yield mandates required by FLPMA. 4. All resource impacts, including those associated with energy development and transmission, will be mitigated to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.

1-12

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

1.4.6 ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 AND THE WESTERN ENERGY CORRIDOR PROGRAMMATIC EIS (PEIS) Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (designation of West-wide energy corridors) is being implemented via the current development of an interagency, Programmatic EIS (PEIS). The Final PEIS could amend numerous RMPs in the western U.S., providing decisions that will address numerous energy corridor-related issues, including the utilization of existing corridors (with enhancements and upgrades), identification of new corridors, supply and demand considerations, and compatibility with other corridor and project planning efforts. 1.4.7 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM); AND THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, U.S. FOREST SERVICE CONCERNING OIL AND GAS LEASING OPERATIONS The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to establish joint BLM and Forest Service policies and procedures for managing oil and gas leasing and operational activities pursuant to oil and gas leases on National Forest Service (NFS) lands, consistent with applicable law and policy. The MOU was signed in 2006 for the purpose of efficient, effective compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. The MOU establishes the roles of the Forest Service and the BLM in processing Applications for Permits to Drill and review of subsequent operations. 1.4.8 ACTIVITY PLANS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GRAND RESOURCE AREA RMP (1985) The existing Grand Resource Area RMP has undergone numerous land-use plan amendments from which decisions will either be carried forward under this new RMP or would be changed via the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives. The same is true for the activity level plans that have been completed in conformance with the Grand Resource Area RMP. The activity plans and amendments that will continue to be brought forward under the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives are noted below. Those that may be changed under the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives are also noted. • • • • • • Grazing Amendment to RMP (Livestock conversions) (1988); (changed by the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives in this planning process) Grand Resource Area RMP Oil and Gas Supplemental Environmental Assessment (1988); (changed by the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives in this planning process) Bighorn Sheep Amendment (1990, 1993b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Colorado Riverway Recreation Area Management Plan (1992a); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Sand Flats Recreation Management Plan (1994a); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Livestock Grazing Use Adjustments (1996); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives)

1-13

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

• • • • • • • •

Ken's Lake Emergency Plan (1996); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Utah's Colorado Riverway Special Management Recreation Area Amendment (2001a); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Mill Creek Canyon Management Plan (2001b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plan (2003b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Three Rivers Withdrawal (2004b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Cameo Cliffs Special Recreation Management Area Plan (2005b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Normal Year Fire Rehabilitation and Stabilization Plan (2006a); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Moab District Fire Management Plan (2006b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives)

1.4.9 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLANS (HMP) A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) provides guidance for the management of a defined habitat for a target wildlife species, protecting and improving habitat for that species and for other species utilizing the habitat. These plans are usually written in coordination with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources • • • • • • • • • • • Cisco Desert HMP (1985a); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Hatch Point HMP (1985b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Dolores Triangle HMP (1985c); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) The Potash-Confluence HMP (1986); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Wild and Scenic River Study Colorado and Lower Dolores Rivers EIS (NPS 1979); (changed by the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives in this planning process) Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness EIS (1990); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Lisbon Valley Copper Project EIS (BLM 1997b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Questar, Williams, and Kern River Pipeline Project EIS (BLM 2001c); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Remediation of the Moab Uranium Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah EIS (DOE 2005); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States (1991a); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Record of Decision. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 2007 (FES 07-21)

1-14

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

•

Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Report. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 2007 (FES07-21)

1.5 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT RMP/EIS TO THE PROPOSED PLAN RMP/FINAL EIS
The Draft RMP/EIS was released to the public on August 25, 2007, which initiated a 90-day comment period. Comments were received from the public, cooperators, and other interested parties. See Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, for details of the public comment process. As a result of public comment and internal review of the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM has formulated the Proposed Plan in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed Plan/FEIS does not carry forward Alternative C (the Preferred Alternative) from the Draft RMP/EIS. Rather the Proposed Plan/RMP consists of a combination of all the alternatives. Changes regarding the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives focused on adjustments in order to address public concerns while continuing to meet the BLM's legal and regulatory mandates. Additional information and changes throughout Chapters 1 through 4 have been shaded in light gray. Changes are a result of • • • • • adjustments to Decisions, clarifications to better explain the management proposed in the Draft RMP/EIS, updates to information, updates to maps, and minor corrections, including typographical errors.

1.5.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO DECISIONS BETWEEN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (DRAFT EIS) AND THE PROPOSED PLAN (FINAL EIS) • • • • • • • • • Add six decisions clarifying the BLM's responsibilities regarding Air Quality. Delete the Cultural Resources decision allocating percentages of sites to various categories. Delete prioritization of National Register nominations. Add a decision to Lands and Realty that specifically grants reasonable access to SITLA lands. Add two grazing allotments (Pear Park and Ida Gulch) to those not available for grazing. Add a decision to Minerals on working with stakeholders to determine emissions mitigation strategies for future leases. Add a decision regarding management of the Fisher Towers Trail as a National Recreation Trail. Delete a decision on AUMs in the Cisco Allotment in the Riparian Resources section. Add exception language to the decision prohibiting new OHV routes in saline soils. New routes would be allowed in saline soils in the Utah Rims SRMA and in the Dee Pass Motorized Focus Area.

1-15

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

• • • • • • •

Add "Mel's Loop" motorcycle route to the Travel Plan. Delete the decision regarding voluntary relinquishment of grazing in Ten Mile Wash. Add three decisions regarding Wild and Scenic rivers that recognize existing rights, privileges, and contracts along these rivers. Change the classification of Segment 1 of the Green River to "Wild," Segment 2 of the Green River to "Recreational," and Segment 5 of the Colorado River to "Scenic." Change the greater sage-grouse lek buffer area from 0.5 miles to 2.0 miles. Replace the Wildlife decision on mitigation to comply with BLM policy. Delete Parcel R-11 as an area available for disposal due to the presence of special status species on that parcel .

1.5.2 CLARIFICATIONS In addition to the modifications to the Proposed Plan, information has been updated and language clarified in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS in response to questions and comments received on the Draft RMP/EIS. Major clarifications are • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Implementation-level decisions have been identified by placing them in italics and asterisking with a footnote. clarify the definition of a "new route" for the cultural resources inventory requirement; clarify the extent of the Area of Potential Effect (660 feet) for cultural actions; clarify "reasonable access" to SITLA lands; clarify the merger of two utility corridors in the Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and D (rather than the elimination of a corridor); clarify that SITLA has priority in land exchanges; clarify the Spring Creek–Buckhorn allotment's location; clarify the three types of Special Recreation Management Areas; clarify boating management numbers on Colorado and Dolores Rivers; clarify authority for potential recreation fee for White Wash Sand Dunes; clarify protection of relevant and important values for those ACECs not carried forward to the Proposed Plan; clarify Wild and Scenic River management by listing the oil and gas leasing category, Visual Resource Management class and OHV designation for each suitable river segment; clarify wording in Travel Management to fully explain actions; clarify that elk and deer habitat are not identical; clarify development of cultural model for analysis; and clarify motorcycle routes in the Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and D.

1-16

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

1.5.3 UPDATES TO DATA • • • • • • • • • • • • • Correct acreages of non–WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in Alternative B Add information on global climate change Add air quality data from Canyonlands National Park Add information on SITLA lands within the Moab Field Office Add Utah State University social survey results Add wage distribution for recreation jobs Remove bald eagle from Threatened and Endangered Species headings Update socioeconomic data from the year 2000 to the year 2007 Add data on socioeconomics, including severance taxes and property taxes Add mileage data on miles of routes not designated for various resource values Add information on fiscal impacts to SITLA from BLM restrictions Add data on OHV impacts to resources in Appendix G (Travel Plan) Update Conservation Measures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1.5.4 MAP CHANGES • • • • • • • • • Map 2-3: Remove parcel R-11 from Lands Identified for Disposal. Map 2-4: Correct confusion concerning Spring Creek allotments. Map 2-4-C: Add Pear Park and Ida Gulch to allotments not available for livestock grazing. Maps 2-5-B, C and D: Remove area in Arches National Park as erroneously shown as available for leasing. Map 2-9-C: Adjust acreage of White Wash Sand Dunes Open OHV Area. Map 2-10-C: Adjust acreage of area open to cross country OHV. Map 2-11-A: Add map showing designated routes. Map 2-11-B, C and D: Remove roads in Arches National Park; add two routes on Colorado border. Map 2-11-E: Add Alternatives A and B maps for motorcycle routes; add Slickrock Trail; distinguish which motorcycle routes are also available for ATV's; add Thompson-Colorado BLM Alt C route to map; add Mel's Loop to the Proposed Plan. Map 2-24-C: Add names of areas with wilderness characteristics. Map 2-25: Make correction to pronghorn kidding habitat. Map 2-27 A, B, and C/D: Change name to Deer and/or Elk Habitat.

• • •

In addition to the above changes, adjustments were made to correct typographical or grammatical errors, add references, and clarify wording. Changes of this nature are not listed above.

1-17

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

1.5.5 CRUCIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT CHANGES In August 2005, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) changed its wildlife habitat classification system. Prior to 2005, the UDWR classification system distinguished between "critical" habitat (an area that provides for biological and/or behavioral requisites necessary to sustain the existence and/or perpetuation of a wildlife population) and "high value" habitat (an area that provides for intensive use by the species). The UDWR has been criticized for using the term "critical," as the same term refers to habitat federally designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In previous BLM planning efforts, mitigation decisions (usually timing stipulations) for impacts to the UDWR's "critical" habitats have been integrated into the planning process. The BLM rarely incorporated management decisions in its RMPs for "high value" habitats. The UDWR changed its classification system to include "critical" habitat with "high value" habitat, in part to accommodate the limitations of having classifications that were of no practical value to land managers. The new term "crucial" habitat is defined by the UDWR as "habitat on which the local population of a wildlife species depends for survival because there are no alternative ranges or habitats available. Crucial habitat is essential to the life-history requirements of a wildlife species. Degradation or loss of crucial habitat will lead to significant declines in the wildlife population in question." Crucial habitat boundaries appear larger on the wildlife maps in this Proposed Plan because they are a combination of the UDWR's old "critical" habitat and "high value" habitat, with some minor modifications. Timing stipulations for each of the species now apply to the whole crucial habitat area. It is important to note, however, that the application of waivers, exceptions, and modifications, as outlined in Appendix C, will be taken into consideration and used where/when applicable for all surface-disturbing activities in these areas. The range of alternatives in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS considered both of the UDWR's old classifications of critical and high value habitat. Minor boundary modifications have been made by the UDWR prior to incorporating them into crucial habitat boundaries. Because this information was taken into consideration and analyzed in the Draft, these minor changes are not considered significant in terms of resource uses and/or analysis in this Proposed Plan, and therefore a supplement to this EIS is not necessary for this purpose. 1.5.6 SUMMARY OF CHANGES The BLM has made numerous changes between the Draft RMP/Draft EIS and Proposed RMP/Final EIS. These changes are described above and detailed in Appendix U. The BLM has prepared this appendix to document whether changes between the Draft RMP/Draft EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS resulted in a significant change in circumstances or conditions, or whether the Proposed RMP/Final EIS contains different information from that which was presented to the public in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. Finally, the BLM wanted to confirm that all changes made to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS fall within the range of alternatives presented and analyzed in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS.

1-18

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

The regulation controlling whether or not a supplement is required is found at 40 CFR 1502.9(c), which provides that agencies • shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if (1) the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns, or (2) there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impact; may also prepare supplements when the agency determines that the purposes of the Act will be furthered by doing so; shall adopt procedures for introducing a supplement into its formal administrative record, if such a record exists; and shall prepare, circulate, and file a supplement to a statement in the same fashion (exclusive of scoping) as a draft and final statement unless alternative procedures are approved by the Council.

• • •

All changes to the MFO Draft RMP/Draft EIS were made in response to public comment and/or internal review. The majority of the changes were editorial changes made to add clarity to the document. In some cases, alternatives presented in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS were modified in the PRMP to reflect technical corrections and data updates. In other cases, such as in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, incorporation of updated information was necessary to refine the analysis in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives, that was incomplete or needed augmentation. None of the changes described above and further detailed in Appendix U meet the regulatory definition for significance in 40 CFR 1508.27(a) and (b). These regulations require an agency preparing a NEPA document to review the changes for significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Plan or its impacts, using context and intensity as the trigger for significance. The BLM has reviewed each substantive change through this regulatory standard and has determined that none of the changes, individually or collectively, require a supplement to this Final EIS.

1-19

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1-20

2.0 PROPOSED PLAN AND DRAFT ALTERNATIVES
This chapter presents the Proposed Plan which was crafted from the four alternatives in the Draft RMP/EIS. The Proposed Plan primarily mirrors the Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) from the Draft RMP, but has been modified through public comment, internal review, and cooperating agency coordination to reflect specific decisions carried forward from the other alternatives in the Draft RMP. The Moab field office (MFO) formulated this Proposed Plan from the reasonable range of alternatives presented in the Draft RMP/EIS for managing resources within the planning areas that considered issues and concerns raised during the scoping period (see Chapter 1, Section 1.3.2), planning criteria, and the guidance applicable to the resource uses. The Proposed Plan and the draft alternatives constitute a range of management actions that set forth different priorities and measures to emphasize certain uses or resource values over other uses or resource values under the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate so as to achieve certain goals or objectives. BLM recognizes that social, economic, and environmental issues cross land ownership lines and that extensive cooperation is needed to actively address issues of mutual concern. To the extent possible, the Proposed Plan and the draft alternatives (Alternatives A, B, and D) were crafted utilizing input from public scoping comments, Grand and San Juan County representatives, and other cooperating agencies. There are two other alternatives that were considered for detailed analysis, but did not meet the purpose and need for this plan revision or were not technically feasible or economically practical to carry forward. They were eliminated from detailed consideration and are briefly discussed in the last section of this chapter. Chapter 2 has been organized in the following manner: • • • Section 2.1 provides a brief summary of the major components of the Proposed Plan and of each draft alternative, and Table 2.1 provides the detailed alternative management strategies proposed under all four alternatives. Section 2.2 provides a comparative summary of the environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Plan and with each draft alternative. Section 2.3 outlines those alternatives the BLM initially considered but later eliminated, and the justifications for their dismissal from further evaluations.

Evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives is required by NEPA and by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Part 1502.14), as well as by BLM planning regulations. As is also required in the CEQ regulations, one alternative consists of "no action," which is the same as the continuation of management under the current Grand RMP (BLM 1985a) and subsequent plan amendments. The range of alternatives has been developed to: • • • meet the Purpose and Need outlined in Chapter 1; respond to environmental, operational, and economic concerns raised by the public, agencies, business and other special interest groups during the scoping process; and address potential environmental issues identified during review of the proposed management actions.

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES FROM THE PROPOSED RMP/EIS
The four alternatives presented in detail in Table 2.1 of this chapter are as follows: • • • • Alternative A is the No Action alternative and represents the continuation of existing management under the current Grand Resource Area RMP (1985a), as amended. Alternative B emphasizes the protection/preservation of natural resources and minimizes human activities, over commodity production and extraction and motorized recreation access. The Proposed Plan provides for a balanced approach of protection/preservation of natural resources while providing for commodity production and extraction. Alternative D emphasizes commodity production and extraction as well as motorized recreation access over the protection/preservation of natural resources.

Some of the decisions in this PRMP/FEIS are carried forward from the existing Grand RMP (BLM 1985a) because there are no impending issues associated with them, and they do not need to change. They are decisions that are common to all alternatives, thus, a range of alternative decisions are not necessary for these resources or uses. Other decisions are common to all action alternatives (Alternatives B, D and the Proposed Plan), but are different from the No Action Alternative due to a change in circumstances.

2.1.1 BRIEF SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AND DRAFT ALTERNATIVES IN TABLE 2.1
The major resources/uses where issues were identified during scoping were: travel management, recreation, oil and gas leasing and development, special designations (ACECs and Wild and Scenic Rivers), special status species, wildlife, and non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. These resources/uses, among others, are displayed under a range of management alternatives that set forth different priorities and measures to emphasize uses or resource values over other uses or resource values to achieve specific goals or objectives outlined in detail in Table 2.1. Below is a brief summary of the range of alternatives for those major resources/uses brought forward during scoping. Much more detail for each of these resources and uses, among others, and their proposed management is in Table 2.1. 2.1.1.1 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT All public lands are required to have off-highway vehicle (OHV) area designations. Areas must be classified as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel activities. OHV designation areas, or categories, are listed by alternative. Within the "Limited" category, routes would be limited to "designated roads and trails" (43 CFR Part 8340.0-5(g)). Specific routes are being designated as open to motorized use by alternative as part of implementation level planning. Summary Table A portrays how travel and access management would be designated under each alternative. Summary Table A. OHV Categories (acres), by Alternative
Category Closed Limited Alternative A No Action 5,062 1,196,920 Alternative B 437,424 1,475,074 PROPOSED PLAN 339,298 1,481,334 Alternative D 57,351 1,762,083

2-2

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS

Summary Table A. OHV Categories (acres), by Alternative
Category Miles of D Routes Designated1 Open
1

Alternative A No Action 4,673 620,212

Alternative B 2,144 0

PROPOSED PLAN 2,519 1,866

Alternative D 2,671 3,064

At time of publication

2.1.1.2 RECREATION Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) are proposed to manage intensively used recreation areas, and do not restrict other uses. Focus Areas are Recreation Management Zones and are proposed in order to emphasize and provide particular types of recreation opportunities. In Alternative B, non-motorized recreation in emphasized; in Alternative D, motorized recreation is emphasized. The Proposed Plan provides opportunities for both non-motorized and motorized recreation, as depicted in Summary Table B. Summary Table B. SRMAs (quantity and acres) and Focus Areas (quantity), by Alternative
Category SRMAs Focus Areas Alternative A No Action 3 (141,252 acres) 0 Alternative B 11 (976,173 acres) 22 PROPOSED PLAN 10 (658,642 acres) 30 Alternative D 6 (277,471 acres) 10

2.1.1.3 OIL AND GAS LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT One of the major decisions in a land-use plan is to determine which areas should be: 1) open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form stipulations, 2) areas open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as timing limitations (TL) or controlled surface use (CSU) restrictions, 3) areas open to leasing subject to major constraints such as no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulations, or 4) areas unavailable to leasing. All of these proposed decisions must be consistent with the goals and objectives of other resources and uses for each alternative. Summary Table C depicts how oil and gas leasing would be managed under each alterative. Summary Table C. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres), by Alternative
Stipulation Standard TL/CSU NSO Closed Alternative A No Action 1,038,344 389,605 38,912 353,293 Alternative B 264,344 543,751 342,931 671,444 PROPOSED PLAN 427,273 806,994 217,480 370,250 Alternative D 797,031 590,442 84,772 350,219

2-3

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS

In addition, this planning revision has applied the same oil and gas stipulations to all other surface-disturbing activities where they are not contrary to laws, regulations, or policy under all of the action alternatives. For example, if an area has a timing stipulation on it for oil and gas development, it would also apply that same timing stipulation on a right-of-way (ROW) construction proposal or an organized recreational event. 2.1.1.4 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 2.1.1.4.1 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) The Federal Register Notice of Intent (June 2003) for this plan revision requested ACEC nominations from the public for consideration in the planning effort. In order to be considered and carried forward into the range of alternatives for planning, an ACEC must meet the relevance and importance criteria in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(a), and must require special management. The MFO received and evaluated a total of 35 ACEC nominations of which 14 were determined to meet the relevance and importance criteria. The relevance and importance criteria encompass scenery, sensitive plant species, rare plants, cultural and historic resources, wildlife, fish, natural systems, and natural hazards. Summary Table D shows that all of the 14 potential ACECs were brought forward into Alternative B for designation consideration, and 5 potential ACECs were brought forward into the Proposed Plan for designation consideration. There are no existing designated ACECs in the Moab Planning Area (MPA); thus, there are none in the No Action Alternative (Alternative A). There were no ACECs brought forward for consideration in Alternative D. Where ACECs are designated, special management attention would be directed at the relevant and important values, resources, natural systems and/or natural hazards. Summary Table D. Potential ACECs (quantity and acres) Meeting the Relevance and Importance Criteria, by Alternative
Alternative A No Action 0 Alternative B 14 (613,077 acres) PROPOSED PLAN 5 (63,232 acres) Alternative D 0

2.1.1.4.2 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSRS) During planning, the BLM must assess all eligible river segments and determine which are suitable or non-suitable per Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1958, as amended. The MFO reviewed all river segments for wild and scenic river eligibility and suitability as part of the RMP process. Twenty-eight river segments were found to meet the eligibility criteria. BLM Manual 8351 directs BLM to provide tentative classifications of Wild, Scenic, or Recreational to the eligible river segments. Because the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) currently has no suitable river segments designated, the 29 river segments identified for eligibility would remain in eligibility status by BLM policy. Alternative B would propose all the segments, except Salt Wash, as suitable for Congressional designation into the Wild and Scenic River System, and the Proposed Plan would propose 10 river segments as suitable for Congressional designation into the system. This information is condensed in Summary Table E. Where rivers are determined to be suitable, protection of the outstandingly remarkable values, tentative classification, and free-flowing nature would be provided.

2-4

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS

Summary Table E. Eligible/Suitable WSR Segments (river miles) with Tentative Classifications, by Alternative
Alternative # River Segments River Miles Suitable or Eligible? A B PROPOSED PLAN D 29 28 10 0 287.5 287.2 127.3 NA Eligible Suitable Suitable NA Classifications 12 Wild, 9 Scenic, 8 Recreational 11 Wild, 9 Scenic, 8 Recreational 1 Wild, 4 Scenic, 4 Recreational, 1 Scenic/Recreational NA

2.1.1.5 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Land-use plan decisions must be consistent with BLM's mandate to recover listed species and must be consistent with objectives and recommended actions in approved recovery plans, conservation agreements and strategies, MOUs, and applicable biological opinions for threatened and endangered species. The MFO has three listed bird species (and one candidate species), one listed mammal species, and one listed plant species. Species conservation measures (Appendix K) have been developed in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They will be implemented under all alternatives. In addition, there are 43 sensitive species, including the Greater and Gunnison Sage-grouse, White-tailed and Gunnison prairie dog, where there is some discretion in management. Timing Limitations and Controlled Surface Use stipulations are applied to the habitat for these four species and are spread by alternative. 2.1.1.6 WILDLIFE In planning, BLM should identify actions and area wide use restrictions needed to achieve desired population and habitat conditions while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationships. The range of alternatives for wildlife actions and habitats includes: • • • • Pronghorn antelope – A Timing Limitation stipulation for surface-disturbing activities, including oil and gas development, of 45 days would be applied to pronghorn habitat. The size of habitat varies by alternative. Desert bighorn sheep – Alternatives B and the Proposed Plan: A no surface occupancy stipulation would be applied to lambing/rutting grounds and migration corridors. Alternative D: a Timing Limitation stipulation would be applied to lambing habitat. Deer and elk – A Timing Limitation stipulation for surface-disturbing activities, including oil and gas development. Timing limitation and acreage vary by alternative. Rocky mountain bighorn sheep – The objective is to manage and improve habitat. Habitat size varies by alternative.

2.1.1.7 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS During planning, the MFO identified decisions to protect, preserve and maintain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and

2-5

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS

outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation). In Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, there are goals and objectives to protect the resource and there are management actions presented that are necessary to achieve those goals and objections. As portrayed in Summary Table F, there are 33 areas, totaling 266,485 acres that were found to have wilderness characteristics outside of existing WSAs; all of them would be protected, preserved and maintained to preserve their wilderness characteristics values in Alternatives B. In the Proposed Plan, three of the areas totaling 47,761 acres would have decisions carried forward to protect, preserve and maintain the wilderness characteristics values. In Alternatives A and D, management of other resources values and uses would take precedent over the protection of wilderness characteristics. Summary Table F. Non-WSA Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics (quantity and total acres), by Alternative
Alternative A No Action 0 areas Alternative B 33 areas 266,485 acres PROPOSED PLAN 3 areas 47,761 acres Alternative D 0 areas

Table 2.1 provides a comprehensive description of the alternatives carried forward for detailed environmental analysis.

2-6

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives AIR QUALITY
Goals and Objectives:
Maintain existing air quality and air quality related values (e.g., visibility) by ensuring that all authorized uses on public lands comply with and support Federal, State, and local laws and regulations for protecting air quality.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
As appropriate, quantitative analysis of potential AQ impacts would be conducted for project-specific developments. Prescribed burns would be consistent with the State of Utah Division of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) permitting process and timed so as to minimize smoke impacts. Comply with Utah Air Conservation (UAC) Regulation R446-1. The best air quality control technology, as per guidance from the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ), would be applied to actions on public lands as needed to meet air quality standards. Comply with UAC Regulation R446-1-4.5.3, which prohibits the use, maintenance, or construction of roadways without taking appropriate dust abatement measures. Compliance would be obtained through special stipulations as a requirement on new projects and through the use of dust abatement control techniques in problem areas. Manage all BLM and BLM-authorized activities to maintain air quality within the thresholds established by the State of Utah Ambient Air Quality Standards and to ensure that those activities continue to keep the area as attainment, meet prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) Class II standards, and protect the Class I air shed of the National Parks (e.g., Arches and Canyonlands National Parks). Comply with the current Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) between BLM, USFS, and UDAQ. The MOU, in accordance with UAC regulation R446-1-2.4.4, requires reporting size, date of burn, fuel type, and estimated air emissions from each prescribed burn. 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. BLM will continue to work cooperatively with the Utah Airshed Group to manage emissions from wildland and prescribed fire activities. National Ambient Air Quality Standards are enforced by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (UDEQ-DAQ), with EPA oversight. Special requirements to reduce potential air quality impacts will be considered on a case-by-case basis in processing land-use authorizations. 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. 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.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Goals and Objectives:
Identify, preserve and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations (FLPMA, Section 103(c), 201(a) and (c); National Historic Preservation Act, Section 110(a); Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Section 14(a)). Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses (FLPMA, Section 103(c), National Historic Preservation Act, Sections 106, 110(a)(2)) by ensuring that all authorizations for land use and resource use will comply with the NHPA Section 106.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
The BLM would comply with all pertinent statutes, regulations, formal agreements, Executive Orders, and policy as it applies to cultural resource management for all actions resulting from decisions in this land-use plan. Protect burial sites, associated burial goods, and sacred items in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. Native American requests to practice traditional activities on public lands would be considered on a case-by-case basis and would be allowed where practical and appropriate. Reasonable access to specific sacred sites would be allowed under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. All treaty and trust responsibilities as they apply to public lands within the resource area would be honored.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
All land-disturbing activities within Traditional Cultural Properties would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts, where reasonable. Proposed projects or actions would be modified to avoid the area or site, avoid time of use by Native American groups, or would be eliminated altogether. Cultural sites may be closed to visitation when it is determined that this visitation is endangering site integrity. Camping would be prohibited and posted within or on archaeological and historic sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Class III inventory is not required prior to designations that allow continued use of an existing route, impose new limitations on an existing route, close an open area or travel route, keep a closed area closed, or keep an open area open. Class III cultural resources inventory would be conducted on newly designated ATV, motorcycle and mountain bike routes (48" wide or less) based on potential resource conflicts. Routes identified for survey would be prioritized based on landscape level overviews, cultural resource predictive models, and available site location, environmental, and contextual information. If eligible archaeological sites along these routes are being adversely impacted by continued route use, impacts would be mitigated. "New routes" are defined as those designated in the Travel Plan accompanying this RMP. Where there is a reasonable expectation that a proposed route designation would shift, concentrate or expand travel into areas where historic properties are likely to be adversely affected, Class III inventory and compliance with Section 106, focused on areas where adverse effects are likely to occur, is required prior to designation. Proposed designations of new routes would require Class III inventory of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and compliance with Section 106 prior to designation. Class III inventory of the APE and compliance with Section 106 would also be required prior to identifying new locations proposed as staging areas or similar areas of concentrated OHV use. Eligible cultural sites would be protected and impacts mitigated when it is determined that they are being impacted from grazing activities. New field inventories would be prioritized in areas of special cultural designation (e.g., ACECs, National Historic Trails, National Historic Landmarks) that have not been fully inventoried. Sego Rock Art Site and Wall Street/Colorado River Rock Art District, which have educational and recreational values, would be developed for public visitation and interpretation as long as such work does not contribute to the deterioration or destruction of the resources being interpreted. Work would be conducted in partnership with universities, museums, Tribes, and interested site stewards for the creation of interpretive materials on the archaeology of the Moab Planning Area (MPA). Specific management plans would be developed for up to seven culturally sensitive areas unless integrated into other activity plans. These plans would also include, but would not be limited to, developing a site monitoring system; identifying sites in need of stabilization, restoration, and protective measures (e.g., fences, surveillance equipment); developing research designs for selected sites/areas; and developing specific mitigation measures. Cooperate with counties to ensure county road and trail construction and maintenance activities avoid or minimize impacts to cultural resources. Cultural plants, once identified by interested tribes, would be managed to insure that ground-disturbing activities on the land do not contribute to the decline of cultural sensitive plant communities. Collection of plant resources would be considered on a case-by-case basis and would be allowed where practical and

2-7

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
appropriate. Cultural resource management priority for the Ten Mile Wash and Mill Creek Canyon would be scientific research of prehistoric sites and cultural landscapes. Manage the Mill Creek planning area in accordance with the Mill Creek Management Plan (2001b). Continue to allocate cultural sites, including ethnographic properties, to one of six management categories: a) scientific use; b) conservation for future use; c) traditional use; d) public use; e) experimental use; and f) discharged from management. Alternative management strategies for cultural resources are disclosed in the Special Designations sections. This section identifies areas with substantial cultural resources and alternative management prescriptions to protect these resources. These areas include the Behind the Rocks, Ten Mile Wash, and Mill Creek Canyon ACECs, and the Wall Street portion of Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon proposed ACEC. Cultural use allocations would be made at the time of site documentation; allocations can be changed as new information or management direction becomes available, subject to consistency with the approved plan. Cultural management plans will be a component of the implementation plans for the Labyrinth Canyons, Colorado Riverway, and South Moab SRMAs. Heritage tourism may be considered in these cultural management plans.

Alternative A (No Action)
No priority for field inventory.

Alternative B
Priority for new field inventory would be a 1.00-mile vulnerability zone surrounding cities and towns. Prioritize for Class II and Class III surveys: a total of 50,000 acres within the following areas: Bookcliffs, Dolores Triangle, Hidden Canyon/Bartlett Lisbon Valley, North Fork of Mill Creek , South Fork of Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon with adjacent uplands, and Ten Mile Wash and its tributaries.

PROPOSED PLAN
Priority for new field inventory would be a 0.50-mile vulnerability zone surrounding cities and towns.

Alternative D
Priority for new field inventory would be a 0.25-mile vulnerability zone surrounding cities and towns.

Prioritize for Class II and Class III surveys: a total of 30,000 acres within the Prioritize for Class II and Class III surveys: a total of 20,000 acres within the following areas: Bookcliffs, Dolores Triangle, North Fork of Mill Creek, South following areas: North Fork of Mill Creek, South Fork of Mill Creek, and Ten Fork of Mill Creek, Seven Mile, and Ten Mile Wash and its tributaries. Mile Wash and its tributaries. To prevent further degradation from occurring, target the following areas for restoration of damaged cultural resources: South and North Forks of Mill Creek, Bartlett/Hidden Canyon, Hell Roaring uplands, Ten Mile Wash and Wall Street Rock Art District. To prevent further degradation from occurring, target the following areas for restoration of damaged cultural resources: South and North Forks of Mill Creek, Ten Mile Wash and Wall Street Rock Art District.

No priority for restoration of damaged cultural resources.

To prevent further degradation from occurring, target the following areas for restoration of damaged cultural resources: Kane Springs Canyon from Highway 191 downstream to the Colorado River, Seven Mile Canyon, South and North Forks of Mill Creek, Bartlett/Hidden Canyon and Hell Roaring uplands, Ten Mile Wash and Wall Street Rock Art District.

No priority for public interpretation sites.

The following sites would be hardened and interpreted for public use: 3 sites in The following sites would be hardened and interpreted for public use: one site the Wall Street Rock Art District. in Lower Kane Springs Canyon, and 3 sites in the Wall Street Rock Art District.

The following sites would be hardened and interpreted for public use: 3 sites in Lower Kane Springs Canyon, and 4 sites in the Wall Street Rock Art District.

FIRE MANAGEMENT
Goals and Objectives:
Fire management would adopt the comprehensive Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management, September 2005 (LUP Amendment; BLM 2005c). This document maybe found at www.ut.blm.gov/fireplanning/index/htm. Direction and guidance approved by the LUP Amendment is carried forward under all alternatives and incorporated by reference into this PRMP/FEIS. The content and purpose of the LUP Amendment is summarized as follows: Establishes landscape-level, fire management goals and objectives. Describes Desired Wildland Fire Conditions (DWFC) and the management strategies and actions to meet DWFC goals. Describes areas where fire may be restored to the ecosystem through wildland fire use for resource benefit and areas where wildland fire use is not appropriate. Identifies Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) for fire management practices to protect natural and cultural resource values. Identifies criteria used to establish fire management priorities.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
The Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan (FMP) would be updated and amended to meet the direction and objectives of the RMP. Firefighter and public safety are the primary goals in all fire management decisions and actions. Wildland fire would be utilized to protect, maintain and enhance resources and, when possible, will be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. Hazardous fuels reduction treatments would be used 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 as well as benefits and values to be protected that are consistent with resource objectives. The BLM would implement a consistent, safe and cost-effective fire management program through appropriate planning, staffing, training, and equipment. Fire management objectives would be established for every area with burnable vegetation, based on sound science and consideration of other resource objectives. Emergency stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration efforts would be implemented to protect and sustain resources, public health and safety, and community infrastructure. The BLM would work together with partners and other affected groups and individuals to reduce risks to communities and to restore ecosystems. The Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions identified in consultation with the USFWS for the LUP Amendment would be implemented in fire-related actions.

2-8

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Criteria for Establishing Fire Management Priorities:
Protection of human life is the primary fire management priority. Establishing a priority among protecting human communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources is based on human health and safety, the values to be protected, and the costs of protection. When firefighters and other personnel have been committed to an incident, these human resources become the highest values to be protected. Priorities for all aspects of fire management decisions and actions are based on the following: Protecting the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI; including At-risk Communities and At-risk Watersheds). Maintaining existing healthy ecosystems. High priority sub-basins (HUC-4) or watersheds (HUC-5). Threatened, endangered, or special species. Cultural resources and/or cultural landscapes.

Suppression:
An "Appropriate Management Response" (AMR) procedure is required for every wildland fire that is not a prescribed fire. In all fire management decisions, strategies and actions, firefighter and public safety are the highest priority followed by consideration of benefits and values to be protected as well as suppression costs. The AMR can range from full suppression to managing fire for resource benefit (wildland fire use). Resource goals and objectives outlined in the RMP guide the development and implementation of AMR fire management activities in regard to the accomplishment of those objectives. The FMP establishes fire suppression objectives with minimum and maximum suppression targets for each Fire Management Unit (FMU) within the MPA. While firefighter and public safety are the first priority, considerations for suppression activities also include fire intensity, acreage, and spread potential, threats to life and property, potential to impact high-value resources such as critical habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive species, crucial wildlife habitat, cultural resources and/or riparian areas, historic fire regimes, and other special considerations such as wilderness and/or adjacent agency lands.

Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit:
Wildland fire is authorized as a tool, when appropriate, to allow naturally ignited wildland fire to accomplish specific resource management objectives. Due to existing resource conditions and proximity to values at risk, fire cannot be allowed to resume its natural role on all BLM lands in the MPA. Consideration of ongoing management actions and other natural changes would direct periodical reassessment of DWFC and determination of potential areas for wildland fire use. Operational management of wildland fire use is described in the Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP). The FMP identifies areas (FMUs) that may have the potential for wildland fire use. Wildland fire use may be authorized for all areas, except when the following resources and values may be negatively impacted and there are no reasonable Resource Protection Measures to protect such resources and values: WUI areas. Areas that are known to be highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or invasive weed invasion. Important terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Non-fire-adapted vegetation communities. Sensitive cultural resources. Areas of soil with high or very high erosion hazard. Class I air attainment areas and PM-10 non-attainment areas. Administrative sites. Developed recreation sites. Communication sites. Oil, gas and mining facilities. Above-ground utility corridors. High-use travel corridors, such as interstates, railroads, and/or highways.

Fuels Treatment:
Fuels management activities outlined in the FMP would be consistent with the resource goals and objectives contained in the RMP. To reduce hazards and to restore ecosystems, authorized fuels management actions include wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and mechanical, manual, chemical, biological, and seeding treatments. The FMP describes fuels management goals and objectives and the full range of fuels management strategies and actions authorized for fuels reduction. Fuels treatments are focused on the DWFC of restoring historic fire regimes to ecosystems when feasible, so that future wildland fire use actions can be more easily implemented. Fuels management actions may include but are not limited to the following activities: Mechanical treatments such as mowing, chopping, or chipping/grinding (brush cutter), chaining, tilling, or cutting. Manual treatments such as hand-cutting (chainsaw or handsaw) and hand-piling. Prescribed fire including broadcast, underburn, and hand-pile burning. Chemical spraying or biological treatments such as insects or goats/sheep. Seeding including aerial or ground application (manual or mechanical). Targeted areas may be treated in phases over a period of several years and may involve multiple and varied treatments. Estimated fuels reduction treatments of 5,000 to 10,000 acres/year are targeted dependent on budgetary and time constraints. These treatments are in addition to those to be accomplished under the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative and the National Healthy Lands Initiative. Implementation of fuels management actions would be prioritized using the following criteria: WUI areas. Areas with fuel loading that could potentially result in the loss of ecosystem components following wildland fire. Resource management goals and objectives.

2-9

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Prevention and Mitigation:
Prevention and mitigation goals target a reduction in unauthorized wildland fire ignitions. Goals include coordination with partners and affected groups and individuals, and a wide range of prevention and mitigation activities such as personal contacts, mass media, signing, and defensible space education. Implementation of fire prevention activities would be prioritized using the following criteria: WUI areas. Major travel corridors. Recreation sites. Public lands as a whole.

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR):
A Normal Year Fire Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan (NFRP) is in place to meet emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR) needs and to comply with up-to-date ESR policy and guidance. The NFRP is a programmatic implementation plan authorizing treatment options specific to vegetative communities and dependent upon post-wildland fire conditions and other site-specific considerations. Treatment actions are designed according to the type and severity of wildfire impacts and priorities include, but are not limited to, areas where the following criteria apply: It is necessary to protect human life and safety as well as property. Unique or critical cultural and/or historical resources are at risk. It is determined soils are highly susceptible to accelerated erosion. Perennial grasses and forbs (fire-tolerant plants) are not expected to provide soil and watershed protection within two years. There is a need to establish a vegetative fuel break of less flammable species (greenstrips). Unacceptable vegetation, such as noxious weeds, may readily invade and become established. Shrubs and forbs are a crucial habitat component for wintering mule deer, pronghorn, sage-grouse, or other special status species. Stabilization and rehabilitation are necessary to meet RMP resource objectives, including rangeland seedings. It is necessary to protect water quality. It is necessary to quickly restore threatened, endangered, or special species habitat populations to prevent adverse impacts.

HEALTH AND SAFETY
Goals and Objectives:
BLM would strive to ensure that human health and safety concerns on public lands remain a major priority.

Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Comply with all applicable Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) policies. In conformance with BLM's long-term strategies and national policies regarding Abandoned Mine Lands (AML), this RMP recognizes the need to work with our partners toward identifying and addressing physical safety and environmental hazards at all AML sites on public lands. In order to achieve this goal, a State strategy has been written. National program criteria for determining site priorities were used to develop the work plan. This State strategy is entitled "Utah's Abandoned Mine Land Multi Year Work Plan." The criteria that would be used to establish physical safety hazard program priorities are: The AML physical safety program's highest priority would be the cleaning up of those AML sites where (a) a death or injury has occurred, (b) the site is situated on or in immediate proximity to developed recreation sites and areas with high visitor use, and (c) upon formal risk assessment, a high or extremely high risk level is indicated. AML would be factored into future recreation management area designations, land-use planning assessments, and all applicable use authorizations. The site is presently listed or is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mines Module of Protection and Response Information System. AML hazards should be, to the extent practicable, mitigated or remediated on the ground during site development. The criteria used to establish water quality-based AML program priorities are: The State has identified the watershed as a priority based on (a) one or more water laws or regulations; (b) threat to public health or safety; and (c) threat to the environment. The project reflects a collaborative effort with other land managing agencies. The site is presently listed or is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mines Site Cleanup Module of Protection and Response Information System. The project would be funded by contributions from collaborating agencies. Identify and clean up unauthorized dumping sites and hazardous materials spills in the MPA as required to comply with applicable State, local, and Federal regulations. The State Multi Year Work Plan will be maintained and updated as needed to reflect current policy for identifying program physical safety and water quality AML sites priorities for reclamation and remediation.

2-10

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives LANDS AND REALTY
Goals and Objectives:
Retain lands within its administration except where necessary to accomplish resource goals and objectives outlined in the Plan. BLM would transfer lands out of Federal ownership or acquire non-Federal lands where needed to accomplish resource goals and objectives, improve administration of public lands, or meet essential community needs. Meet public needs for use authorizations such as rights-of-way (ROWs), alternative energy sources, and permits while minimizing adverse impacts to resource values. Using the Visual Resource Management (VRM) system, maintain generally undeveloped landscapes in the backgrounds of popular filming locations.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Under IMP and Congressional action, Wilderness Study Areas and Wilderness Areas would be exclusion areas for any ROWs (Section 501(a) FLPMA). Continue the withdrawal of lands along the Colorado, Dolores and Green Rivers (totaling 65,037 acres within the MPA) from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal, October 6, 2004). In addition, continue the Westwater (8,096 acres) and Black Ridge Wilderness (5,200 acres) withdrawals (see Map 2-1). Give land exchanges with the State of Utah priority consideration to resolve inholding issues.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) would be avoidance areas for any new ROWs (including communication sites and wind and solar sites). Decisions on LTAs and withdrawals would be made in accordance with the criteria contained in Appendix A. Determinations on authorizing commercial filming in the MPA would be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in Appendix B. Right-of-way (ROW) avoidance and exclusion areas would be consistent with the stipulations identified in Appendix C for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. These stipulations have been developed to protect important resource values. As per the State of Utah v. Andrus, Oct. 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. To reduce surface use conflicts along the U.S. Highway 191 utility corridor within Moab Canyon, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C), except those associated with utility ROWs. Authorization of any ROW for wind or solar energy development would incorporate best management practices including the USFWS's "Guidelines for Wind Power" and provisions contained in the Final Wind Energy Programmatic EIS (June 24, 2005; BLM 2005d). Both wind and solar energy development (renewable energy) can be considered wherever ROWs could be authorized. To be consistent with the existing withdrawals from mineral entry, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities within the area of the Three Rivers and Westwater Mineral Withdrawals. This action would further protect the riparian, wildlife, scenic, and recreation values addressed in these withdrawals. Applying a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing to lands within the Three Rivers Withdrawal, in combination with other areas where a no surface occupancy stipulation is applied, results in tracts of land that are physically inaccessible to oil and gas operations. For this reason, portions of the lands within the Three Rivers Withdrawal (e.g., along the Colorado River near the Richardson Amphitheater and along the Dolores River near Beaver Creek) would be closed to oil and gas leasing. These areas would be managed as no surface occupancy for other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Lands and/or interest in lands (such as minerals and conservation easements) acquired through future LTA would take on the management of the surrounding area. Land acquisitions would be pursued if they meet the criteria in Appendix A.

Utility Corridors
Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN
Designate an I-70 utility corridor that includes all major existing ROWs as identified in the RMP with a 1/2-mile width on each side of the widest ROW corridor ( 2-2-C). Designate the existing Moab Canyon utility corridor (Map 22-C).

Alternative D
Designate an I-70 utility corridor that includes all major existing ROWs as identified in the RMP with a 1-mile width on each side of the widest ROW corridor (Map 2-2-D). Designate the existing Moab Canyon utility corridor (Map 2-2-D).

All utility corridors would be 1 mile wide, except the existing Moab Canyon Designate an I-70 utility corridor that includes all major existing ROWs as utility corridor, which is constrained by the topography of Moab Canyon. This identified in the RMP with a 100-foot width on each side of the widest ROW physical corridor is only 1/4 mile wide at its narrowest point. corridor (Map 2-2-B). Designate the existing Moab Canyon utility corridor (Map 2-2-B).

Split the utility corridor south of Spanish Valley into two corridors, identical to Combine the two corridors south of Spanish Valley into a single corridor (Map Combine the corridors south of Spanish Valley into a single corridor (Map 2-2existing corridors (Map 2-2-B). 2-2-C). The corridor would include the approximately 2 to 3 miles separating D). This corridor would include the approximately 2 to 3 miles separating the the two segments. two segments.

Avoidance/Exclusion Areas for Rights-of-way (ROWs)
Alternative A (No Action)
About 354,015 acres would be exclusion areas for ROWs. About 48,245 acres would be avoidance areas for ROWs.

Alternative B
About 672,724 acres would be exclusion areas for ROWs. About 341,919 acres would be avoidance areas for ROWs.

PROPOSED PLAN
About 370,250 acres would be exclusion areas for ROWs. About 217,480 acres would be avoidance areas for ROWs.

Alternative D
About 355,146 acres would be exclusion areas for ROWs. About 84,772 acres would be avoidance areas for ROWs.

Disposal Land List
Alternative A (No Action)
The list of parcels identified for disposal totals 12,415 acres.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Parcels identified for disposal total 14,961 acres and are shown on Map 2-3 and Parcels identified for disposal total 14,961 acres and are shown on Map 2-3 and Parcels identified for disposal total 14,961 acres and are shown on Map 2-3 and in Appendix D. in Appendix D. in Appendix D.

2-11

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives LIVESTOCK GRAZING
Goals and Objectives:
Achieve the attainment of Standards for Rangeland Health and other desired resource conditions by maintaining appropriate utilization levels of the range through management prescriptions and administrative adjustments of grazing permits. Achieve healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems that support the livestock industry while providing for other resource values such as wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, clean water, and functional watersheds.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Grazing would be managed according to the Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management to meet the Standards for Rangeland Health, including adjustment in seasons of use. On all allotments, allow allotment boundaries adjustments, joining and splitting, and modification of grazing season subject to appropriate NEPA review and analysis (see Map 2-4 for a map of grazing allotments). Continue to authorize grazing at the current preference levels (as per ten-year grazing permits) and adjust, if necessary to meet Standards for Rangeland Health. As amended in previous planning documents (the 1985 Grand RMP and a Plan Amendment analyzed in EA#068-94-047), grazing use would continue to not be authorized on the following allotments/areas (or portions of allotments/areas): Between The Creeks with 3,960 acres and 221 AUMs, to protect municipal watersheds, improve mule deer winter range, improve riparian habitat, and reduce recreation conflict. North Sand Flats with 18,246 acres and 798 AUMs, to reduce recreation conflict, improve mule deer winter range, and improve riparian habitat. South Sand Flats with 10,209 acres and 592 AUMs, to reduce recreation conflict, improve mule deer winter range, and improve riparian habitat. A portion of Arth's Pasture Allotment (Poison Spider area) with approximately 7,634 acres and 425 AUMs, to improve desert bighorn sheep habitat and reduce recreation conflict. Castle Valley with 6,074 acres and 190 AUMs, to protect the Castle Valley sole source aquifer, to improve mule deer winter range, and to reduce recreation conflict. Along Highway 128 from U.S. 191 to the Castle Valley Road, along U.S. 191 from Highway 313 to Moab, and along Highway 279 with 1,139 acres, to reduce recreation traffic conflict (no reduction in AUMs). A portion of the Kane Spring Allotment (that portion in Kane Spring Canyon between the open valley and the river; 558 acres and no reduction in AUMs), to reduce recreation traffic conflict and to enhance riparian species' habitat. An area along the Colorado River between Hittle and north of Dewey Bridge (400 acres and no reduction in AUMs), to reduce recreation traffic conflict and to enhance riparian species' habitat. Develop AMPs on seven allotments (Agate, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Harley Dome, Highlands, Monument Wash, and San Arroyo) and on any additional allotments if resource issues are identified to benefit vegetation, wildlife, livestock grazing and soils. Identify appropriate utilization levels based on allotment or site-specific management practices, such as season-of-use, grazing intensity and duration, and utilization patterns, as well as vegetative conditions, the presence or absence of range improvements, and resource issues or concerns. Use utilization levels as an indicator to evaluate if current grazing use is appropriate to meet resource objectives for the area. Generally moderate utilization levels (40–60%) would be used to indicate if general management objectives can be met. Utilization levels above those identified as appropriate would be used to adjust livestock use on a yearly basis through pasture and possible early removal from allotments as needed. Utilization levels may be especially important during periods of drought. Long-term adjustments to livestock use (term permits adjustments) require the evaluation of monitoring data including climate, actual grazing use, current or historic impacts, utilization mapping, and long-term trend data, as well as utilization levels. Follow the recommendations of the National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004c) and the Strategic Management Plan for Sage-grouse (UDWR 2002) where applicable. Conversion of allotments from cattle to domestic sheep would not be considered in recognized bighorn sheep habitat (see Maps 2-25 and 2-28). Collect monitoring data, including trend, utilization, actual use, and climate data to determine if existing livestock management practices are meeting land-use planning and resource objectives. Change class of livestock from sheep to cattle on the Hatch Point Allotment (96,951 acres) to benefit wildlife. Rangelands that have been burned, reseeded, or otherwise treated to alter vegetative composition would have livestock grazing use temporarily suspended as follows: (1) burned rangelands, whether by wildfire or prescribed burning, would be ungrazed for a minimum of one complete growing season following the burn; (2) rangelands that have been reseeded, or otherwise mechanically treated would be ungrazed for a minimum of two complete growing seasons following treatment.

Relinquishment of Preference:
Voluntary relinquishments of grazing permits and preference, in whole or in part, submitted by a permittee in writing to the BLM, would be handled on a case-by-case basis. BLM would not recognize as valid, relinquishments which are conditional on specific BLM actions and BLM would not be bound by them. Relinquished permits and the associated preference would remain available for application by qualified applicants after BLM considers if such action would meet rangeland health standards and is compatible with achieving land-use plan goals and objectives. Prior to re-issuance of the relinquished permit, the terms and conditions may be modified to meet RMP goals and objectives and/or site-specific resource objectives. However, upon relinquishment, BLM may determine through a site-specific evaluation and associated NEPA analysis that the public lands involved are better used for other purposes. Grazing may then be discontinued on the allotment through an amendment to the existing RMP or a new RMP effort. Any decision issued concerning discontinuance of livestock grazing is not permanent and may be reconsidered and changed through future LUP Amendments and updates.

Alternative A (No Action)
AUMs allotted to livestock: 107,071 Acres available for grazing: 1,695,621 Acres not available for grazing: 126,907

Alternative B
AUMs allotted to livestock: 106,574 Acres available for grazing: 1,668,732 Acres not available for grazing: 153,797

PROPOSED PLAN
AUMs allotted to livestock: 106,479 Acres available for grazing: 1,690,481 Acres not available for grazing: 132,047

Alternative D
AUMs allotted to livestock: 108,876 Acres available for grazing: 1,770,314 acres Acres not available for grazing: 52,214

Note: Please see Map 2-4-A for areas not available for livestock grazing under Note: Please see Map 2-4-B for areas not available for livestock grazing under Note: Please see Map 2-4-C for areas not available for livestock grazing under Note: Please see Map 2-4-D for areas not available for livestock grazing under this alternative. this alternative. this alternative. this alternative. Allotments Not Available for Grazing: Bogart with 14,744 acres and 209 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). Diamond with 18,620 acres and 588 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health Allotments Not Available for Grazing: Bogart with 14,744 acres and 209 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). Diamond with 18,620 acres and 588 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and Allotments Not Available for Grazing: Bogart with 14,744 acres and 209 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). Diamond with 18,620 acres and 588 AUMs (to benefit wildlife to benefit wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, Allotments Not Available for Grazing: Mill Creek with 3,921 acres and 137 AUMs (to reduce recreation and cultural conflict and to protect municipal watershed).

2-12

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
and erosive soils). erosive soils). watershed health and erosive soils). Pear Park, with 14,201 acres and 200 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). Ida Gulch, with 3,612 acres and 112 AUMs (to reduce recreation conflict and enhance riparian habitat). Portions of Professor Valley, Ida Gulch, and the River along Highway 128**, with 1,467 acres and 0 AUMs (to reduce recreation conflict and enhance riparian habitat). Mill Creek with 3,921 acres and 137 AUMs (to reduce recreation and cultural conflict and to protect municipal watershed). **A fence would be constructed along the southeast side of Highway 128 (set back to protect the scenic resources of the National Scenic Highway). This would result in all BLM lands between the Colorado River and Highway 128 being unavailable for grazing. This would reduce acreage in the allotments, but it would not reduce the AUMs, because the quality of the forage is low due to heavy use by motorists and other recreationists.

Pear Park, with 14,201 acres and 200 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). Spring Creek, with 1,550 acres and 45 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, especially mule deer and/or elk winter range). Beaver Creek with 2,304 acres and 0 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, especially riparian species and Colorado cutthroat trout).

Pear Park, with 14,201 acres and 200 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). Spring Creek-Buckhorn, approx. 600 acres and 45 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk winter range). Beaver Creek with 2,304 acres and 0 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially riparian species and Colorado cutthroat trout). Professor Valley, with 18,966 acres and 378 AUMs (to reduce recreation conflict and enhance riparian habitat). Ida Gulch, with 3,612 acres and 112 AUMs (to reduce recreation conflict and enhance riparian habitat). River, with 386 acres and 7 AUMs (to reduce recreation conflict and enhance riparian habitat). Mill Creek, with 3,921 acres and 137 AUMs (to reduce recreation and cultural conflict and to protect municipal watershed). Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that would be Available for Grazing: None

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that would be Available for Grazing: None

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that would be Available for Grazing: After allotment specific evaluation to assure resource objectives are met, the following areas would be available for livestock grazing: Spring Creek.

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that would be Available for Grazing: After allotment specific evaluation to assure resource objectives are met, the following areas would be available for livestock grazing: Pear Park (no domestic sheep would be allowed). Spring Creek. Bogart (no domestic sheep would be allowed). Cottonwood (no domestic sheep would be allowed). Diamond Canyon (no domestic sheep would be allowed). Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: Beaver Creek with 1,351 acres and 0 AUMs. Grazing in Saline Soils:

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: None Grazing in Saline Soils: Manage livestock grazing on portions of the following allotments to stabilize impacts on highly saline soils and reduce salinity in the Colorado River drainage. This includes the following allotments: Athena, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Crescent Canyon, Highland, Monument Wash, and Thompson Canyon (1985 Grand RMP).

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: None Grazing in Saline Soils: Use grazing systems and develop AMPs to minimize impacts to saline soils and reduce salinity in the Colorado River drainage in the following allotments: Agate, Big Flat-Ten Mile, Cisco Mesa, Crescent Canyon, Floy Creek, Harley Dome, Highlands, and San Arroyo. If Rangeland Health Standards indicate that soil compaction is an issue on the following allotments, assess all available data and determine if a change in the livestock season of use would correct the problem: Athena, Cisco, Coal Canyon, Horse Canyon, Little Grand, Lone Cone, and Monument. Grazing in Riparian Areas: Evaluate non-functioning and functioning-at-risk riparian areas using Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management to determine if exclusion from grazing would improve riparian functioning condition.

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: Beaver Creek with 1,351 acres and 0 AUMs. Grazing in Saline Soils:

Use grazing systems and develop AMPs to minimize impacts to saline soils Same as Alternative A. and reduce salinity in the Colorado River drainage in the following allotments: Agate, Athena, Big Flat-Ten Mile, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Coal Canyon, Crescent Canyon, Floy Creek, Harley Dome, Highlands, Horse Canyon, Little Grand, Lone Cone, Monument, and San Arroyo.

Grazing in Riparian Areas: Continue no grazing in South Sand Flats, North Sand Flats, Between the Creeks, Cottonwood, and Diamond, to benefit riparian areas.

Grazing in Riparian Areas: Evaluate non-functioning and functioning-at-risk riparian areas using Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management to determine if restriction from grazing would improve riparian functioning condition.

Grazing in Riparian Areas: Continue present grazing management.

The following riparian areas would be given priority for evaluation: Lower The following riparian areas would be given priority for evaluation: Ten Mile Gray Canyon of the Green River from Rattlesnake Canyon to Swasey's Beach, from Dripping Spring to the Green River, Mill Creek, Day Canyon, Seven Mile Ten Mile from Dripping Spring to the Green River, Day Canyon, Mill Creek, Canyon, and East Coyote (totaling 1,169 acres). Seven Mile Canyon, East Coyote, Kane Springs, and Hatch Wash (totaling

2-13

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
4,422 acres). Vegetation Treatments: Areas treated prior to 1985 are considered existing treatments. Land treatments on 11 allotments would be implemented to increase available forage by 8,514 AUMs to allow for increased use by livestock and wildlife. The increase in AUMs would be split evenly between livestock and wildlife where both are present. Land treatments include plowing and seeding, chaining and seeding, drill seeding. The following allotments are included in the land treatments: Bar X, Black Ridge, Buckhorn, Corral Wash, Hatch Point, Lisbon, Lower Lisbon, San Arroyo, Sand Flats, Taylor and Winter Camp. Vegetation Treatments: Maintain the existing vegetation treatments (46,307 acres) to increase available forage within the following allotments. These areas have been treated over the past 50 years and consist primarily of pinyon-juniper woodlands. These areas would be treated by prescribed fire, chemical or mechanical or other means in accordance with BLM sagebrush conservation guidance and other applicable resource goals. The improved forage would benefit wildlife. Allotments: Adobe Mesa, Big Triangle, Black Ridge, Buckhorn; Cisco;East Coyote, Fisher Valley, Granite Creek, Hatch Point, Lisbon, Lower Lisbon; Mountain Island, Rattlesnake South, Scharf Mesa, Spring Creek, Steamboat Mesa, Taylor, Windwhistle. Vegetation Treatments: Vegetation Treatments: Maintain the existing vegetation treatments (46,307 acres) to increase available Same as the Proposed Plan, but other vegetation treatments would be forage within the following allotments. These areas have been treated over the considered specifically to benefit livestock. past 50 years and consist primarily of pinyon-juniper woodlands. These areas would be treated by prescribed fire, chemical or mechanical or other means in accordance with BLM sagebrush conservation guidance and other applicable resource goals. The improved forage would benefit multiple use objectives including livestock and wildlife use. Allotments: Adobe Mesa, Big Triangle, Black Ridge, Buckhorn, Cisco, East Coyote, Fisher Valley, Granite Creek, Hatch Point, Lisbon, Lower Lisbon, Mountain Island, Rattlesnake South, Scharf Mesa, Spring Creek, Steamboat Mesa, Taylor, Windwhistle. Total Acres: 46,307. Conduct new vegetation treatments (6,900 acres) for increased forage in the following allotments with prescribed fire, chemical, mechanical or other means: Floy Canyon, Hatch Point, Lisbon, and Showerbath. Other vegetation treatments would be considered to benefit other resource values such as wildlife or watershed. Implement Range Projects to help maintain Rangeland Health Standards: Implement Range Projects to help maintain Rangeland Health Standards: Implement range projects that would emphasize livestock production.

Initiate prescribed fire and seeding on approximately 14,149 acres (in 10 allotments), as currently proposed in existing LUP Amendments, thereby Total Acres: 46,307. increasing AUMs by approximately 1,700 for livestock and wildlife. The Conduct no new vegetation treatments except those beneficial to other resource allotments include Showerbath Spring, Floy Canyon, Cottonwood, Diamond, values such as wildlife or watershed. Middle Canyon, Little Hole, Buckhorn, Adobe Mesa, Hatch Point, and Lisbon. Total Acres: 67,125. Implement Range Projects to meet or exceed Rangeland Health Standards: Implement livestock manipulation techniques (fences and water development) to benefit wildlife and livestock. Implement Range Projects to meet or exceed Rangeland Health Standards:

Implement range projects that would equally benefit livestock grazing and Implement range projects that would benefit resource values such as habitat for other resource values. wildlife, reducing soil compaction and erosion, and improving the health of riparian areas.

MINERALS
Goals and Objectives:
Provide opportunities for environmentally responsible exploration and development of mineral and energy resources subject to appropriate BLM policies, laws and regulations. Establish conditions of use through land-use planning to protect other resource values.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Continue the withdrawal of lands along the Colorado, Dolores, and Green Rivers, totaling 65,037 acres within the MPA, from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal, October 6, 2004). In addition, continue the Westwater (8,096 acres) withdrawal. Black Ridge Wilderness (5,200 acres) will remain closed, by law, to entry under the mining law. Wilderness Study Areas and designated Wilderness (358,806 acres) would remain closed, by law, to mineral leasing and development. Where public lands are sold or exchanged under 43 U.S.C. 682(B)(Small Tracts Act), 43 U.S.C. 869 (Recreation and Public Purposes Act), 43 U.S. C. 1718 (Sales) or 43 U.S. C. 1716 (Exchanges), the minerals reserved to the United States would continue to be removed from the operation of the mining laws unless a subsequent land-use planning decision expressly recommends restoring the land to mineral entry.

Leasable Minerals:
Split-estate lands (private surface/Federal minerals) and lands administered by other Federal agencies are not managed by the BLM. The lands include about 29,678 acres of split-estate lands and the lands administered by the Manti-LaSal National Forest (141,241 acres). The surface owner or surface management agency (SMA) manages the surface. BLM administers the operational aspects of mineral leases. On lands administered by other Federal agencies, lease stipulations would include those required by the SMA. On 20,061 acres of split-estate lands, the BLM would apply the same lease stipulations as those applied to surrounding lands with Federal surface. BLM would close or impose a no surface occupancy stipulation on 9,617 acres of split-estate lands (see Appendix C). Mitigation measures to protect other resource values would be developed during the appropriate site-specific environmental analysis and would be attached as conditions of approval to permits in consultation with the surface owner or SMA.

Coal:
The coal resources within the MPA include the Sego and the La Sal coal fields. Approximately 80% of the Sego coal field is within Wilderness Study Areas and is not available for development. For the remaining coal resources, no interest has been expressed for coal leasing and the potential for development of coal resources is low (see Mineral Potential Report). At such time as interest is expressed in coal leasing, the RMP would be amended as appropriate and mining unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 3461) would be applied by the MFO before any coal leases are issued. If coal leases are issued, they would be subject to special conditions developed in the RMP and the unsuitability assessment. This may restrict all or certain types of mining techniques. Before any coal could be removed, MFO would have to approve the mining permit application package, incorporating stipulations developed in the RMP.

Locatable Minerals:
Existing operations would continue to be subject to the stipulations developed for the notice or the plan of operations. The BLM would evaluate all operations authorized by the mining laws in the context of its requirement to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of Federal lands and resources. Consistent with the rights afforded claimants under the mining laws, operations conducted after this RMP would be required to conform to the surface disturbing stipulations developed in this RMP. Operations on BLM-administered lands open to mineral entry must be conducted in compliance with BLM's surface management regulations (43 CFR 3715, 3802, 3809, and 3814). BLM surface management regulations do not apply to operations on other Federal lands but do apply to split-estate lands.

2-14

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMPAlternatives B and D:
To be consistent with the existing withdrawals from mineral entry, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within the area of the Three Rivers and Westwater Mineral Withdrawals. This action would further protect the riparian, wildlife, scenic, and recreation values addressed in these withdrawals. To the extent possible, the stipulations developed for oil and gas leasing are applicable to all mineral activities (leasable, locatable, and salable). These stipulations are found in Appendix C. Leasable minerals include oil and gas, coal, and potash. Locatable minerals include gold, copper, and uranium. Salable minerals include sand and gravel, clay, and building stone. In areas where mineral activities would be incompatible with existing surface use, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). These areas are as follows: Moab and Spanish Valley, Castle Valley (including Mayberry Orchard), Thompson Springs, Moab Landfill, Moab Airport, and Dead Horse Point State Park. The Federal minerals within the incorporated city of Moab and town of Castle Valley are closed to oil and gas leasing by Federal regulation at 43 CFR 3100.0-3 (a)(2)(iii).

Leasable Minerals: Oil and Gas:
The plan would recognize and be consistent with the National Energy Policy Act and related BLM policy by adopting the following objectives: Recognizing the need for diversity in obtaining energy supplies. Encouraging conservation of sensitive resource values. Improving energy distribution opportunities. In accordance with an UDEQ-DAQ letter dated June 6, 2008, (see Appendix V) requesting implementation of interim nitrogen oxide control measures for compressor engines; BLM will require the following as a Lease Stipulation and a Condition of Approval for Applications for Permit to Drill: All new and replacement internal combustion 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 gas field engines of less than or equal to 40 design-rated horsepower. All new and replacement internal combustion gas field engines of greater than 300 design rated horsepower must not emit more than 1.0 gms of NOx per horsepower-hour. Lease stipulations would be developed to mitigate the impacts of oil and gas activity (see Appendix C and Maps 2-5-A through 2-5-D). The stipulations would adhere to the Uniform Format prepared by the Rocky Mountain Regional Coordinating Committee in March 1989. Stipulations reflect the minimum requirements necessary to accomplish the desired resource protection and would contain provisions/criteria to allow for exception, waiver and modification if warranted. Stipulations would be determined unnecessary if duplicative of Section 6 of the Standard Lease Terms. The BLM has identified Land-use Plan leasing allocations for all lands within the Moab Field Office. In addition, the Proposed RMP describes specific lease stipulations and program-related Best Management Practices (both found in Appendix C: Stipulations and Environmental Best Practices Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface Disturbing Activities) that apply to a variety of different resources. Oil and gas leases issued prior to the RMP would continue to be managed under the stipulations in effect when issued. Those issued subsequent to the plan would be subject to the stipulations developed in the plan. Environmental best management practices would be incorporated into subsequent permits and authorizations to mitigate impacts and conflicts with other uses and resource values (see Appendix C).

Potash and Salt (Non-energy Leasable):
Within the MPA, three areas fall within known potash leasing areas (KPLAs). KPLA designations, based on known geologic data, would remain in place until potash resources are depleted. In KPLAs, potash leases are acquired through competitive bidding. In areas where potash values are not known, MFO could issue prospecting permits, which could lead to issuance of a preference right lease. There are currently 8 leases and 13 pending prospecting permit applications within the MPA (Map 2-6). Additional KPLAs could be designated, based on geologic data, if interest warranted. Potash leasing and prospecting permits issued prior to the RMP would continue to be managed under the stipulations in effect when issued. Those leases issued subsequent to the RMP would be consistent with the oil and gas leasing stipulations developed in the RMP (see Appendix C).

Locatable Minerals:
A no surface occupancy stipulation cannot be applied to locatable minerals without a withdrawal. All public lands overlying Federal minerals are open to mining claim location unless specifically withdrawn from mineral entry by Secretarial order or by a public land law. Therefore, other than the existing withdrawals (Three Rivers, Westwater, and Black Ridge Wilderness), all public lands with the MPA remain open under the mining laws. Future withdrawals may be recommended in areas identified as closed or with a no surface occupancy stipulation if it becomes necessary to prevent unacceptable resource impacts.

Salable Minerals:
There are currently 12 community pits totaling about 2,693 acres designated in the MPA (Map 2-7). Existing mineral material sale contracts, free use permits, and material sites, including community pits, would continue to be subject to the permit stipulation conditions. Sales, permits, community pits or common use areas issued or designated after the RMP would be subject to permit stipulations developed in the RMP. These stipulations would be the same as those stipulations for oil and gas leasing except that areas with a no surface occupancy stipulation and closed would be closed to the disposal of salable minerals.

Alternative A (No Action)
Oil and Gas Leasing (see Map 2-5-A): Approximately 1,038,344 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, subject to standard lease terms (Category 1). Approximately 389,605 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to special conditions (controlled surface use/timing limitation stipulations [CSU/TL], or Category 2). Approximately 38,912 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing with no surface occupancy (NSO; Category 3). Approximately 353,293 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. (Category 4).

Alternative B
Oil and Gas Leasing (see Map 2-5-B): Approximately 264,344 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, subject to standard terms and conditions. Approximately 543,751 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to CSU and TL stipulations. Approximately 342,931 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to an NSO stipulation. Approximately 671,444 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, of which 318,709 acres are outside Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas. Of these 318,709 acres, 20,288 acres are within the Castle Valley and Moab-Spanish Valley watersheds, and 266,455 are within lands with wilderness characteristics. The remaining 31,966 acres are closed to oil and gas leasing because it is not reasonable to apply an NSO stipulation. This includes areas where the oil and gas resources are physically inaccessible by current directional drilling technology from outside the boundaries of the NSO areas. (These lands closed to oil and gas leasing

PROPOSED PLAN
Oil and Gas Leasing (see Map 2-5-C): Approximately 427,273 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, subject to standard terms and conditions. Approximately 806,994 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to CSU and TL stipulations. Approximately 217,480 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to an NSO stipulation. Approximately 370,250 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, of which 25,306 acres are outside Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas. About 25,306 acres are closed to oil and gas leasing because it is not reasonable to apply an NSO stipulation. This includes areas where the oil and gas resources are physically inaccessible by current directional drilling technology from outside the boundaries of the NSO areas. (These lands closed to oil and gas leasing would be managed to preclude all other surface-disturbing activities.) Should technology change, a Plan Amendment would be initiated to place these 25,306 acres under an NSO

Alternative D
Oil and Gas Leasing (see Map 2-5-D): Approximately 797,031 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, subject to standard terms and conditions. Approximately 590,442 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to CSU and TL stipulations. Approximately 84,772 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to an NSO stipulation. Approximately 350,219 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. In addition, 8,078 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would be managed as open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation, and 1,539 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would be closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix C).

2-15

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
would be managed to preclude all other surface-disturbing activities.) Should technology change, a Plan Amendment would be initiated to place these 31,966 acres under an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing. In addition, 7,259 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would be managed as open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation, and 2,358 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would be closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix C). Salable Minerals: Allow the disposal of salable minerals on 1,466,861 acres. Salable Minerals (see Map 2-5-B): stipulation for oil and gas leasing. In addition, 8,078 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would be managed as open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation, and 1,539 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would be closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix C).

Salable Minerals (see Map 2-5-C): Approximately 264,344 acres would be open to the disposal of salable Approximately 427,273 acres would be open to the disposal of salable minerals subject to standard terms and conditions. minerals subject to standard terms and conditions. Approximately 543,751 acres would be open to the disposal of salable Approximately 806,994 acres would be open to the disposal of salable minerals subject to CSU and TL stipulations. minerals subject to CSU and TL stipulations. Approximately 342,931 acres would not be open to the disposal of salable Approximately 217,480 acres would not be open to the disposal of salable minerals (in those areas subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas minerals (in those areas subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing). leasing). Approximately 671,444 acres would be closed to the disposal of salable Approximately 370,250 acres would be closed to the disposal of salable minerals. minerals. In addition, 7,259 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would not be In addition, 8,078 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would not be open to the disposal of salable minerals in those lands subject to an NSO open to the disposal of salable minerals in those lands subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas, and 2,358 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate stipulation for oil and gas, and 1,539 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would be closed to the disposal of salable minerals (see Appendix C). lands) would be closed to the disposal of salable minerals (see Appendix C). Locatable Minerals: Approximately 427,273 acres are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to standard terms and conditions. Approximately 962,258 acres are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to CSU and TL stipulations. Approximately 78,333 acres are withdrawn from operations to locatable minerals. Approximately 353,510 acres within WSAs are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to the IMP (1650-1). Approximately 268,873 acres are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to standard terms and conditions. Approximately 1,120,658 acres are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to CSU and TL stipulations. Approximately 78,333 acres are withdrawn from operations to locatable minerals. Approximately 353,510 acres within WSAs are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to the IMP (1650-1).

Salable Minerals (see Map 2-5-D): Approximately 797,031 acres would be open to the disposal of salable minerals subject to standard terms and conditions. Approximately 590,442 acres would be open to the disposal of salable minerals subject to CSU and TL stipulations. Approximately 84,772 acres would not be open to the disposal of salable minerals (in those areas subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing). Approximately 350,219 acres would be closed to the disposal of salable minerals. In addition, 8,078 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would not be open to the disposal of salable minerals in those lands subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas, and 1,539 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would be closed to the disposal of salable minerals (see Appendix C). Locatable Minerals: Approximately 797,031 acres are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to standard terms and conditions. Approximately 592,500 acres are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to CSU and TL stipulations. Approximately 78,333 acres are withdrawn from operations to locatable minerals. Approximately 353,510 acres within WSAs are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to the IMP (1650-1).

Locatable Minerals: Approximately 1,389,531 acres are open to operations for locatable minerals. Approximately 78,333 acres are withdrawn from operations to locatable minerals. Approximately 353,510 acres within WSAs are open to operations for locatable minerals subject to the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP; 1650-1).

Locatable Minerals:

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS
BLM has identified non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for management consideration in this planning effort. Wilderness characteristics include the appearance of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation (see Appendix P for more information).

Goals and Objectives:
Protect, preserve and maintain wilderness characteristics (appearance of naturalness, outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation or solitude) of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as appropriate, considering manageability and the context of competing resource demands. Manage these primitive lands and backcountry landscapes for their undeveloped character, and to provide opportunities for primitive recreational activities and experiences of solitude, as appropriate.

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics were not addressed in the 1985 Manage 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands (see Map 2-24-B) to protect, Grand RMP, as amended. These lands are managed according to the 1985 preserve and maintain wilderness characteristics by applying the following RMP prescriptions. prescriptions: Closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix C). Preclude other surface-disturbing activities, including mineral material sales (see Appendix C). Retain public lands in Federal ownership. Prohibit woodland harvest. Manage vehicle use as limited to designated roads. Designate as VRM Class II. Manage as exclusion areas for ROWs. Non-WSA lands to be managed for wilderness characteristics: Arches Adjacent (6,396 acres) Beaver Creek (25,722 acres), Behind the Rocks (3,643 acres), Big Triangle (5,200 acres), Coal Canyon (22,135 acres), Dead Horse

Manage 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands (see Map 2-24-C) to protect, preserve No non-WSA lands would be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. and maintain wilderness characteristics by applying the following prescriptions: Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Applying a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, in combination with the no surface occupancy applied because of the Three Rivers Withdrawal, results in tracts of land which are physically inaccessible to oil and gas operations within the Fisher Towers, Mary Jane, and Beaver Creek areas. For this reason, portions of non-WSA lands in these areas with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing. These areas would be managed to preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) including mineral material sales (see Appendix C).

2-16

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Cliffs (797 acres), Desolation Canyon (10,498 acres), Dome Plateau (14,207 acres), Fisher Towers (17,235 acres), Floy Canyon (9,983 acres), Flume Canyon (3,520 acres), Goldbar (6,437 acres), Gooseneck (843 acres). Granite Creek (4,528 acres), Harts Point (1,465 acres), Hatch Wash (10,983 acres), Hatch/Lockhart (2,670) acres), Hells Hole (2,538 acres), Hideout Canyon (11,607 acres), Horsethief Point (8,382 acres), Hunter Canyon (4,465 acres), Labyrinth Canyon (25,361 acres), Lost Spring Canyon (11,456 acres), Mary Jane Canyon (24,779 acres), Mexico Point (12,837 acres), Mill Creek Canyon (3,388 acres), Negro Bill Canyon (2,333 acres), Shafer Canyon (1,842 acres), Spruce Canyon (1,131 acres), Westwater Canyon (3,086 acres), Westwater Creek (7,188 acres), and Yellow Bird (357 acres). Retain public lands in Federal ownership. Prohibit woodland harvest. Manage vehicle use as limited to designated roads. Designate as VRM Class II. Manage as avoidance areas for ROWs. Non-WSA lands to be managed for wilderness characteristics: Beaver Creek (25,722 acres), Fisher Towers (5,540 acres within the Richardson Amphitheater), and Mary Jane Canyon (16,499 acres within the Richardson Amphitheater).

PALEONTOLOGY
Goals and Objectives:
Protect paleontological resources from surface-disturbing activities. Promote the scientific, educational, and recreational uses of fossils. Foster public awareness and appreciation of the MPA's paleontological heritage. Promote and facilitate scientific investigation of fossil resources.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Vertebrate fossils may be collected only by qualified individuals under a permit issued by the BLM Utah State Office. Vertebrate fossils include bones, teeth, eggs, and other body parts of animals with backbones such as dinosaurs, fish, turtles, and mammals. Vertebrate fossils also include trace fossils, such as footprints, burrows, gizzard stones, and dung. Fossils collected under a permit remain the property of the Federal government and must be placed in an approved repository (such as a museum or university) identified at the time of permit issuance.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
Locate, evaluate, and protect significant paleontological resources. Provide for public visitation and education opportunities while simultaneously protecting and supporting the scientific and research value of paleontological resources in the MPA. Recreational collectors may collect and retain reasonable amounts of common invertebrate and plant fossils for personal, non-commercial use. Surface disturbance must be negligible, and collectors may only use non-power hand tools. Casting of vertebrate fossils, including dinosaur tracks, is prohibited unless allowed under a scientific/research permit issued by the BLM Utah State Office. Lands identified for disposal would be evaluated to determine whether such actions would remove significant fossils (see Appendix D) from Federal ownership. Recognize and protect paleontological resources identified as part of the Dinosaur Diamond National Prehistoric Byway. Prohibit petrified wood gathering within the Colorado Riverway Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) to protect these paleontological resources for future public enjoyment. Prohibit private petrified wood collection only near high visitation sites within the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA. Manage petrified wood gathering outside these two SRMAs to allow for private collection of petrified wood (43 CFR 3620). Prohibit commercial sales of petrified wood products due to limited availability of such resources. Attach lease notices, stipulations, and other requirements to permitted activities to prevent damage to paleontological resources. Manage Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trail, Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway, and Poison Spider Track Site as important scientific and public education resources as guided by future SRMA activity-level plans. Personal collection of a reasonable amount of invertebrate and plant fossils would be allowed throughout the MPA. Where areas with rare and significant invertebrate and plant fossils are identified, these areas would be closed to personal collection.

RECREATION
Goals and Objectives:
To provide for multiple recreational uses of the public lands and sustain a wide-range of recreation opportunities and potential experiences for visitors and residents, while supporting local economic stability and sustaining the recreation resource base and sensitive resource values.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Management of recreation would be generally guided by the Utah Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management. The guidelines describe in a broad sense the conditions to be maintained or achieved for rangeland health within the recreation program.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
Where unacceptable damage to natural or cultural resources by recreational use is anticipated or observed, BLM would seek to limit or control activities by managing the nature and extent of the activity or by providing site improvements that make the activity more sustainable or by a combination of management controls and facility development. Such management actions would seek to reduce or eliminate the adverse impact while maintaining the economic benefits associated with a wide range of recreation uses. BLM would consider and, where appropriate, implement management methods to protect riparian resources, special status species, and wildlife habitat while enhancing recreation opportunities. Management methods may include limitation of visitor numbers, camping and travel controls, implementation of fees, alteration of when use takes place, and other similar actions to be approved through normal BLM procedures. BLM would coordinate management of recreation use with other agencies, State and local government and tribal units to provide public benefits. Recreational off-highway vehicle (OHV) and mechanized travel would be consistent with area and route designations described in the travel management plan. BLM would work with agency and government officials and permit holders to develop procedures, protocols, permits or other types of authorization, as appropriate, to provide reasonable access for non-recreational use of OHVs for military, search and rescue, emergency, administrative, and permitted uses. Dispersed camping is allowed where not specifically restricted. Dispersed camping may be closed seasonally or as impacts or environmental conditions warrant. All vehicle use associated with dispersed camping activities is required to stay on designated routes. Management actions limiting camping, wood gathering, firewood cutting, and requiring use of fire pans and portable toilets implemented through published closures limitations, restrictions, or special rules applicable to specific land areas within the MPA are carried forward in all alternatives (see Consolidation of

2-17

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Moab Field Office Rules, Closures, and Restrictions in Appendix E). Lands acquired within a management area through future land tenure adjustment would take on the management of the surrounding area. Provide visitor information and outreach programs that emphasize the value of public land resources and low impact recreation techniques while also providing information about recreation activities, experiences and benefits. Provide public information concerning the prevention of the spread of invasive and exotic weeds, and about wildlife species and their habitat especially in riparian areas. Continue to manage the Slickrock Bike Trail and Fisher Towers Trail as a National Recreation Trails consistent with their current secretarial designation. National Trails designation would be consistent with this plan. Continue supporting public use and enjoyment of the Prehistoric Highway National Scenic Byway. Assist with the development and implementation of a management plan. Support Grand County's efforts to obtain approval of corridor management plans for Utah Scenic Byways (Utah Highways 128, 313 and 279) and provide assistance, where feasible, in the development of byway facilities consistent with other decisions of the RMP. Continue to manage Kane Creek Road to Hurrah Pass and the roads to Needles, Anticline, and Minor overlooks as Utah Scenic Backways. BLM Back Country Byways and National Recreation Trails may be designated in the future as deemed appropriate with site-specific environmental analysis. Continue managing Kokopelli's Trail to facilitate its use as a potential segment of the American Discovery Trail. Seek to acquire public access along the entire route to facilitate potential designation as a National Recreation Trail.

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs)
Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D (see SRMA Maps 2-8-A through 2-8-D; see Appendix F for details on SRMAs):
Criteria for establishment of SRMAs, or adding or revising SRMA boundaries (using the Plan Amendment process, where appropriate) include: Recreation use requires intensive management strategies to provide recreation opportunities or maintain resource values. A recreation area management plan or interdisciplinary plan with intensive and specific recreation management actions is approved. BLM announces the management plan and plan approval through media. Generally, where SRMA boundaries are revised, management actions applicable to the original SRMA would also apply to the revised area. Manage all public lands within SRMAs for retention in Federal ownership consistent with the MFO exchange criteria and acquire high value non-Federal lands from willing sellers where such acquisition would further the purposes of each SRMA. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 0.5 miles of developed recreation sites (current and planned as Potential Future Facilities; see each SRMA). Manage all SRMAs for sustainable camping opportunities. Camping may be restricted to designated sites if use and conditions warrant. Manage all SRMAs according to Visual Resource Management Class for each respective alternative to protect scenic values and settings important to recreation. Approved recreation facilities supporting recreation area management objectives would be planned and designed to reduce visual impacts where feasible (see Visual Resource Management). Replace The Colorado River SRMA (24,124 acres) with the Two Rivers, Colorado Riverway and Dolores River Canyons SRMAs (Maps 2-8-A through 2-8-D) to provide for more focused management. Provide general recreation management guidance and subsequent implementation of management actions for activity plan level actions for SRMAs through continuation and modification of approved recreation area management plans (RAMPs) and development of new RAMPs for all SRMAs. A River Management Plan for the Colorado River from the Colorado State Line to Castle Creek, and for the Dolores River, would be completed. Designate SRMAs as either Destination SRMAs (majority of visitation from outside the area), Community SRMAs (the majority of visitation is from the local community), or Undeveloped SRMAs (the focus of the SRMA is to maintain the backcountry setting.)

Facilities:
Build and maintain additional recreation facilities consistent with the guidance provided in RAMPs and in the various focus areas as established in the RMP. In the absence of a RAMP, facilities may be considered through the NEPA process where they support the objectives of the SRMA. Campground facilities may be constructed; however, they would be located to avoid wetland, riparian, cultural resources, floodplains, and special status plant and animal species habitats. If avoidance is not possible, mitigation would be implemented to augment the values affected by the construction (MCA and Executive Orders). Continue to manage and maintain for recreation use all existing developed recreation sites. Follow site management guidance contained in RAMPs. Continue existing ROWs issued to BLM for all existing developed recreation sites and facilities. Issue similar protective ROWs for all new recreation facilities. Manage developed sites as necessary under the authority of 43 CFR Part 8360, inclusive of published closures, restrictions, and supplemental rules developed for the public lands within the MPA (see above), to protect visitor health and safety, reduce visitor conflicts, and provide for the protection of government property and resources.

Focus Areas or Recreation Management Zones (see Maps 2-9-A through 2-9-D; see Appendix F for more detail on SRMAs)
Focus areas are Recreation Management Zones (RMZ) for emphasizing particular types of recreation activities while still allowing for other uses in accordance with the Travel Plan. As RMZs, Focus Areas are established as a mechanism for enhancing specific recreation opportunities through facilities and education such as route marking, parking, camping, and information. Where a single focus SRMA or a specific RMZ (Focus Area) is not identified, the default focus of that area is motorized, backcountry touring on designated roads. The roads are those identified in the Travel Plan accompanying this RMP. The following types of Focus Areas are considered under the alternatives: Non-mechanized Recreation, Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring, Motorized Backcountry Touring, Scenic Driving Corridors, Specialized Sport Venue Non-motorized, Specialized Sport Venue Motorized, and Managed Open OHV Area.

Bookcliffs SRMA
Alternative A (No Action)
Continue to manage the Bookcliffs for general recreation use.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D
The Bookcliffs SRMA would not be established.

The Bookcliffs SRMA would not be established. The Bookcliffs SRMA (Map 2-8) would be established as an Undeveloped SRMA at 348,140 acres for non-mechanized recreation, especially equestrian use, hiking, backpacking, and big game hunting. It would be managed for low frequency of visitor interaction by not establishing new motorized, mechanized routes; no commercial motorized permits would be issued and competitive events would not be allowed.

2-18

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Cameo Cliffs SRMA
Alternative A (No Action)
BLM authorization of the ROW to San Juan County for the Hook and Ladder OHV trailhead and several sections of connector route would continue. In June 2005, the Cameo Cliffs Special Recreation Area (Map 2-8) was designated under a Plan Amendment to the Grand RMP. OHV designation for the area is Limited to Designated Routes. The focus activity in the Cameo Cliffs SRMA is motorized route use. Same as the Proposed Plan.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Manage the Cameo Cliffs area as a Destination SRMA (15,597 acres) under Same as the Proposed Plan. the Cameo Cliffs Recreation Area Management Plan. The Cameo Cliffs SRMA would provide sustainable opportunities for road-related motorized and mechanized outdoor recreation on a marked route system, and provide a nonmechanized hiking and equestrian area in Hook and Ladder Gulch and along the route of the Old Spanish Trail, while protecting and maintaining resource values including range, wildlife habitat, scenic, cultural, historical, recreational, and riparian values in current or improved condition. To facilitate use of the area for touring purposes, no motorized competitive events would be authorized. Work with San Juan County to further implement the Cameo Cliffs portion of the San Juan County All-terrain Vehicle Plan, and to protect and manage wildlife, vegetation, and cultural resources. Implement camping management rules as use levels and resource impacts warrant. Potential Future Facilities: Install Cameo Cliffs OHV Trailhead toilet.

Alternative D

Canyon Rims SRMA
Alternative A (No Action)
Manage the Canyon Rims SRMA (101,531 acres) (Map 2-8) to protect, Same as the Proposed Plan. manage and improve the natural resources of the area while allowing for recreation activities such as developed camping, visiting scenic overlooks, auto touring on the primary road system, touring the secondary road system by motorized vehicle and mountain bike, and hiking and backpacking the canyons (in accordance with the ROS classes) utilizing interpretive and educational opportunities to realize the potential of the area. Major management actions include: 1. Manage the area as open to mineral leasing with controlled surface occupancy except for developed recreation sites, which would be managed as open to leasing with no surface occupancy. 2. Manage the area to maintain ROS classes as inventoried. 3. Acquire or exchange private and State lands from willing landowners. 4. Manage the entire area as OHV travel limited to existing roads (mapped as part of the planning process). 5. Manage the western rim land areas of Hatch Point as VRM Class II and the remainder of the area as VRM Class III. 6. Maintain and/or improve all existing developed recreation sites as specified in the Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plan. 7. Restrict camping near developed recreation sites. 8. Close the entire recreation area to wood cutting and gathering. 9. Manage Hatch Wash and the lower section of West Coyote Creek for primitive, non-motorized recreation. 10. Restrict backcountry motorized events to commercial and non-race special events on the Flat Iron Mesa Jeep Safari route only. 11. Consider development of additional trails and recreation facilities only as necessary.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A except: Manage the Canyon Rims SRMA as a Destination SRMA (101,531 acres). Motorized travel would be limited to designated roads and trails. Manage the Windwhistle Nature Trail, Anticline Overlook Trail, Needles Overlook Trail, and Trough Spring Canyon Trail for hiking use only. Same as the Proposed Plan.

Alternative D

2-19

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation: N/A Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation: Same as the Proposed Plan. Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation (3,642 acres): Hatch Wash Hiking and Backpacking Focus Area inclusive of the area from Goodman Canyon to the confluence of Hatch Wash with Kane Creek Canyon including the lower section of West Coyote Creek (from private land west to confluence with Hatch Wash) and the lower section of Troutwater Canyon. New motorized routes would not be considered. Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors: N/A Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors: Needles and Anticline Roads – Utah Scenic Backways. Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as having a width of 1 mile from centerline (or to border of adjoining focus area). Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors: Needles and Anticline Roads – Utah Scenic Backways. Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as having a width of 1/2 mile from centerline (or to border of adjoining focus area). Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors: Needles and Anticline Roads – Utah Scenic Backways. Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as having a width of 1/4 mile from centerline (or to border of adjoining focus area). Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation: The focus area would not be established.

Colorado Riverway SRMA
Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN
Colorado Riverway SRMA would be established as a Destination SRMA at 89,936 acres. Management would be the same as Alternative A with the following exceptions and additions: Expand the boundary of the Colorado Riverway to include the lands north of the Entrada Bluffs Road to the boundary of the Two Rivers SRMA, as well as lands south of the Entrada Bluffs Road (one mile corridor). Manage the Colorado Riverway as a Destination SRMA to manage camping, boating, river access, trail, and interpretive facilities in popular areas along or near the Colorado River and to protect the outstanding resource values of the area. Guidance for management is included in the Colorado Riverway Recreation Area Management Plan. Manage the Dewey Bridge to Castle Creek portion of the Colorado River to provide opportunities for high use boating in a scenic setting (see Boating Management below). Manage south shore recreation sites (from Dewey Bridge to Lion's Park) under the Colorado Riverway RAMP. Manage the north shore to provide quality undeveloped designated camping and hiking opportunities while assuring protection of high quality habitat for bighorn sheep as well as for other resource values. Manage the Kane Creek Crossing area to emphasize responsible designated camping and scenic touring. Manage the Entrada Bluffs Road area to emphasize designated camping opportunities, and scenic touring. Manage the Shafer Basin addition to emphasize scenic backcountry driving opportunities (no camping allowed in this area). Manage the Amphitheater Loop, Fisher Towers, Negro Bill Canyon, Hunter Canyon, and Corona Arch trails and Professor Creek to provide high quality hiking-only opportunities while preserving ecological resources. Provide for parking and manage the Kings Bench route (above the Kane Creek Road near the Kings Bottom camping area) as a hiking route. Obtain public access from a willing seller across the short section of private land that is located along the route. Manage the seldom-used 1.5-mile long route (that spurs left from the Poison Spider Mesa Road) on the intermediate bench between the Colorado River and Poison Spider Mesa for hiking use. If future use levels warrant, develop a return hiking trail loop on the river side of the road bed. Manage the Kane Creek Road to Amasa Back Jeep Road section of the Historic Jackson's Ladder trail as hiking and biking only.

Alternative D
Colorado Riverway SRMA would be established at 79,126 acres (this acreage excludes the Entrada Bluffs area). Management prescriptions would be the same as the Proposed Plan.

The Colorado Riverway (Map 2-8) was established as a recreation management Same as the Proposed Plan, except: area in 1992 and extended in 2001. Management has focused upon providing Expand boundary to include the entire Top of the World area and lands improvements to sites to facilitate recreation use and protection of scenic and along the Entrada Bluffs Road up to the boundary of the Colorado River other resource values. Subsequent recreation plan amendments have addressed SRMA (103,467 acres). camping in the Onion Creek area, the construction of a bike lane along SR 128 Prohibit camping on the north side of the river along Highway 128. from the Porcupine Rim Trail to Lion's Park, the construction of a nonProhibit camping at the Kane Creek Crossing Area. motorized bridge on non-Federal land at Lion's Park, and the establishment of a non-mechanized route system in the area between Onion and Professor Creeks. Major management actions include: 1. Acquiring specific tracts of State land. 2. Acquiring private lands or scenic easements from willing sellers. 3. Restricting motorized and mechanized travel to designated routes. 4. Developing and managing recreation facilities and uses. 5. Limiting camping and camp fires to designated sites. 6. Closing the area to firewood cutting and limiting firewood gathering to riverside driftwood. 7. Recommending withdrawal of the area from mineral entry. 8. Limiting use of the Fisher Towers, Negro Bill Canyon, Hunter Canyon, and Corona Arch trails to foot travel.* Lands along the Colorado River within the riverway are withdrawn from mineral entry through the Three Rivers Withdrawal.

2-20

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Establish the proposed Pothole Arch and Rockstacker trails on Amasa Back (Kane Creek) as mountain bike routes. Work with Monticello Field Office to designate the Jackson's Ladder historic horse trail as a mountain bike trail from Jackson's Hole to the Amasa Back Jeep Road. Work with private land owners to secure non-motorized access to the bottom of this route. Manage the Portal Trail to provide both hiking and mountain bike opportunities. Potential Future Facilities: N/A Potential Future Facilities: Entrada Bluffs Camping Area; camping in this area would be limited to this campground. Hittle Bottom Group Campsites; camping in this area would be limited to this campground. Kane Creek Crossing Camping Area; camping in this area would be limited to this campground. Kane Creek Road Riverway Information Area. Utah Highway 279 Riverway Information Area. Wall Street climbing area toilet. Lower Castle Creek Trail head and parking area. Utah Highway 128 Bike Lane. Potential Future Facilities (in addition to those already in the Colorado Riverway Plan): Castle Valley Interpretive Site. Entrada Bluffs Camping Area; camping in this area would be limited to this campground. Hittle Bottom Group Campsites. Kane Creek Crossing Camping Area. Work with SITLA to implement joint camping management in this area. Kane Creek Road Riverway Information Area. Lower Castle Creek Trail Access. Poison Spider Dinosaur Track Trail. Utah Highway 128 Bike Lane. Utah Highway 279 Riverway Information Area. Wall Street climbing area toilet. Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation: Potential Future Facilities: Same as the Proposed Plan except: Do not designate Entrada Bluffs Camping Area or limit camping. Do not designate Hittle Bottom Group Campsites or limit camping. Do not designate Kane Creek Crossing Camping Area or limit camping. Do not construct Wall Street climbing area toilet.

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation: N/A

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation: Negro Bill Hiking and Ecological Study Focus Area (12,510 acres) inclusive of Negro Bill Canyon from the Sand Flats Recreation Area boundary to the eastern rim of Mat Martin Point with allowance for recreational mechanized use of the Porcupine Rim Trail from the junction approximately 1.55 miles east of Little Spring (upper exit to Sand Flats Road) to Highway 128.

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation: Negro Bill Hiking and Ecological Study Focus Area (1,287 acres) inclusive of the core of Negro Bill Canyon as identified in the 1985 RMP as the Negro Bill Canyon Outstanding Natural Area. Equestrian use of Negro Bill Canyon would be prohibited.

Negro Bill Hiking and Ecological Study Focus Area (8,684 acres) inclusive of Negro Bill Canyon between the Sand Flats Recreation Area and the Porcupine Rim Trail. Manage for recreational mechanized use on the main portion of the Porcupine Rim Trail from the junction approximately 1.55 miles east of Little Spring (upper exit to Sand Flats Road) to Highway 128 (with the exception of Negro Bill Canyon would be restricted to day use only. Equestrian use of the Porcupine Rim Trail to Coffeepot Rock which would be managed for motorized use.) Negro Bill Canyon would be prohibited. Manage the Porcupine Rim Trail to provide only hiking and mountain biking opportunities. Management of this trail may change pending resolution of wilderness designation for the Negro Bill Canyon WSA. No new motorized routes would be considered. Temporal zoning, permitting and vehicle type restrictions would be used to mitigate user conflicts on the Porcupine Rim Jeep Safari Route. Manage the Negro Bill Canyon Trail for hiking use only. Equestrian use of Negro Bill Canon would be prohibited. Manage the Porcupine Rim Trail to provide only hiking and mountain biking opportunities. Management of this trail may change pending resolution of wilderness designation for the Negro Bill Canyon WSA. No new motorized routes would be considered.

Richardson Amphitheater/Castle Rock, Hiking, Climbing and Equestrian Focus Richardson Amphitheater/Castle Rock, Hiking, Climbing and Equestrian Focus Richardson Amphitheater/Castle Rock, Hiking, Climbing and Equestrian Focus Area (24,767 acres) bounded by Fisher Valley, the rim of "Top of the World" Area: Area: escarpment, Highway 128, and non-Federal lands along the east side of the The Richardson Amphitheater/Castle Rock, Hiking, Climbing and Same as the Proposed Plan. Castle Valley Road. Motorized use allowed on the Fisher Towers Road, the Equestrian focus area would not be established. Up to 15 miles of equestrian trails would be marked within this focus Onion Creek Road, roads serving private ranches and water developments in area. the Professor Valley area, and the motorized access route to the viewpoint of Professor Valley (the saddle between Adobe Mesa and Castle Rock) and the road to designated undeveloped campsites below Castle Rock. Work with Utah Open Lands (a private land conservation organization) to establish a semideveloped camping area to serve rock climbers. The Onion Creek Benches equestrian trail system between Onion and Professor Creeks would be managed to provide opportunities for equestrian trail riding. An equestrian-oriented reservable camping area would be managed in Onion Creek upstream from Highway 128. Up to 30 miles of equestrian trails would be marked within this focus area. Manage the Amphitheater Loop and Fisher Tower Trails for hiking only. Consider connecting hiking trails between Onion Creek and the

2-21

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Amphitheater Loop Trail. Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors: N/A Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors: Same as the Proposed Plan, except increase scenic corridor average width to 1 mile from centerline or line of sight (whichever is shorter) or to border of adjoining focus area (see VRM for management prescriptions). Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors: These corridors include Highways 128 and 279 (which are both designated Utah Scenic Byways), as well as the Kane Creek/Hurrah Pass portion of the Lockhart Basin Scenic Backway and the BLM portion of the LaSal Mountain Loop Road Scenic Backway. Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as having a width of 1/2 mile from centerline, or line of sight or to border of adjoining focus area (whichever is shorter; see VRM for management prescriptions). Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue, Non-motorized: Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors: Same as the Proposed Plan, except reduce scenic corridor average width to 1/4 mile from centerline (or to border of adjoining focus area; see VRM for management prescriptions).

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue, Non-motorized: N/A

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue, Non-motorized: No specialized sport venue-non motorized would be established. BASE jumping would not be allowed in developed recreation sites.

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue, Non-motorized:

Tombstone Competitive BASE Jumping Focus Area (42 acres): Same as the Proposed Plan, except BASE-jumping would be allowed in all areas. Manage Tombstone area to provide BASE jumping opportunities along the Kane Creek Road. BASE jumping would not be allowed in developed recreation sites. Wall Street Sport Climbing Focus Area (44 acres) (with special protective measures taken for rock art): Manage Wall Street area to provide rock climbing opportunities along the Potash Road. Boating Management: Boating Management: Dewey to Castle Creek: Manage to provide an opportunity for scenic, Same as the Proposed Plan, except: mild whitewater boating. No restrictions on amount of private use would Dewey to Castle Creek: Permit 25 unallocated commercial permits. be established unless unacceptable resource impacts occur. Permit 22 River access camping by boaters would be allowed on the north side of unallocated commercial permits. No further restrictions on amount of the Colorado River and limited to existing campgrounds on the south side commercial use would be established. of the Colorado River. Camping would be restricted to designated campsites along the north side Camping on the south side of the river: same as the Proposed Plan. of the Colorado River and existing campgrounds on the south side of the Colorado River.

Boating Management: Dewey to Castle Creek: Continue the existing river management program on the Colorado and Dolores Rivers (24,000 passenger days per year: 30 commercial outfitters) to provide for the safe and enjoyable long-term use of the rivers.

Boating Management: Same as the Proposed Plan, except: Dewey to Castle Creek: No restrictions on amount of private use would be established unless unacceptable resource impacts occur. Permit 20 unallocated and 2 allocated (100 user days each) commercial permits. Establish additional restrictions on amount of commercial use if conditions warrant based on desired resources objectives. Camping would be restricted to existing campgrounds along the Colorado River from Dewey to Castle Creek. There would be no camping along the north side of the Colorado River.

Dolores River Canyons SRMA
Alternative A (No Action)
Continue to manage the Dolores River Canyons area for general recreation use. Same as the Proposed Plan. BLM presently has no recreation management plan in place for the area except for private and commercial boating management. The Dolores River and its floodplain is an existing SRMA (Colorado River SRMA).

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Manage the Dolores River Canyons (Map 2-8) as an Undeveloped SRMA (31,661 acres). Maintain high quality opportunities for non-motorized boating and day hiking or backpacking in a remote setting supported by basic trailheads, trails, and car camping facilities that support primitive, non-motorized use of the canyon system. Major management actions would include prohibition of motorized and mechanized recreation use within the Dolores River's tributary canyons consistent with the Travel Plan. No new motorized routes would be considered. Boating Management: Boating Management:

Alternative D
Dolores River Canyons SRMA would not be established.

Boating Management: Colorado State Line to Bridge Canyon: Continue the existing river management program on the Colorado and Dolores Rivers (24,000 passenger days per year: 30 commercial outfitters) to provide for the safe and enjoyable long-term use of the rivers.

Boating Management: Same as the Proposed Plan, except:

Colorado State Line to Bridge Canyon: Manage to provide opportunities for Colorado State Line to Bridge Canyon: establish maximum group size of scenic whitewater boating trips. Permits required for private and commercial use. Establish maximum group size of 25 (excluding guides on commercial 16 (including guides on commercial trips). trips). Do not establish daily launch limits. Permit 14 unallocated commercial outfitters.

Dolores River Canyons SRMA would not be established.

Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA
Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN
Manage the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges area (Map 2-8) as a Destination

Alternative D
Establish Dee Pass SRMA (60,939 acres), consisting of the Dee Pass

No specific recreation decisions were made under the Grand RMP for this area. Same as the Proposed Plan, except:

2-22

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
BLM manages private boating use in Labyrinth Canyon in conjunction with the Utah Divisions of State Parks and Recreation and Fire, Forestry and State Lands under the terms of a cooperative agreement. The agreement establishes an interagency river permit system and coordinates implementation of common river protection rules including group size and use of fire pans and portable toilets. BLM also issues permits for shoreline use related commercial river trips. Lands along the Green River in Labyrinth Canyon were withdrawn from new entry under the mining laws through the Three Rivers Withdrawal. Front country type use takes place along SR 313 and the Island in the Sky Road. This highway was designated the Dead Horse Mesa Scenic Byway by the State of Utah in the early 2000s. To manage dispersed camping and protect scenic values, BLM established a 1-mile-wide corridor along SR 313 and the Island in the Sky Entrance Road where camping is limited to designated sites, wood cutting and firewood gathering are prohibited, and portable toilets are required. BLM currently limits camping in the corridor to the Horsethief Campground, the Big Mesa, and Cowboy Camp camping areas. BLM also limits camping and prohibits woodcutting and firewood gathering in a onemile-wide corridor along the Gemini Bridges Road. Manage the small Cowboy Camp for tent camping and manage the Big Mesa area for group use. OHV and mountain bike travel are limited to existing roads and trails in the portion of the area south of the Ten mile Point Road (except for the Bartlett/ Tusher Slickrock area which was left open for 2 wheel riding). The area around the White Wash Sand Dunes is Open to OHV travel. In addition to the Mineral Bottom Takeout, BLM manages several additional facilities in the area including the Mill Canyon Dinosaur Interpretive Trail, the Halfway Stage Station Interpretive Site, and the Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway Interpretive site. BLM also manages and maintains route markings (with user group assistance) on the Monitor and Merrimac, Seven Mile Rim, Poison Spider Mesa, Golden Spike, Goldbar Rim, Gemini Bridges, Lower Monitor and Merrimac, Bar M, and Klondike Bluffs routes which are used by both motorized and non-motorized visitors. The 3-D, Crystal Geyser, Hellroaring Rim, Secret Spire, and Wipeout Hill routes are authorized for Jeep Safari and other uses. Potential Future Facilities: N/A Potential Future Facilities: Same as the Proposed Plan, except: There would be no campground constructed in Bartlett Wash. Camping would not be allowed in Bartlett Wash. There would be no campground constructed at Courthouse Rock. Camping would not be allowed in the Courthouse Rock area. Potential Future Facilities: Bartlett Campground: camping in this area would be restricted to this campground. Big Mesa Campground: camping in this area would be restricted to this campground. Blue Hills Road OHV Trailhead. Courthouse Rock Campground, camping in this area would be restricted to this campground. Cowboy Camp Campground, camping in this area would be restricted to this campground. Monitor and Merrimac Bicycle and OHV Trailhead relocation. White Wash Sand Dunes OHV Parking and Camping Area. Gemini Bridges Parking Area and Trailhead. Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors: Highway 313 and the Island in the Sky Road (Utah Scenic Byway): Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as having a width of 1/2 mile from centerline (or to border of adjoining focus area; see Appendix C). Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation: Potential Future Facilities: Same as the Proposed Plan, except: Bartlett Campground would not be built; dispersed camping would be allowed in Bartlett. Expand White Wash Sand Dunes OHV Base Area, including campground. The White Wash Sand Dunes and surrounding uplands would be managed to restore their ecological and scenic values and provide an opportunity for ecological interpretation and study. Emphasis would be placed upon protection of the cottonwood trees found in the open dune fields, water source protection, stream bank stabilization, and bighorn sheep habitat protection. Motorized travel in the White Wash area (like the rest of the SRMA) would be limited to designated routes. Close the Bartlett/Tusher/Courthouse/Ten Mile area to camping. SRMA (300,650 acres). General management guidance includes building upon motorized route system and the White Wash open OHV area. This area current management as outlined in Alternative A with the following additions: constitutes a subset of the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges area. Continue issuing permits, for both private and commercial users, with common river protection rules for Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA and consider extending the BLM/State cooperative agreement for management of non-commercial use to include management of commercial river use. If future use levels warrant, relocate the Mineral Bottom Takeout to a more suitable location and initiate cooperative site operations with the National Park Service. Limit camping to designated sites in high-use areas including the Scenic Driving Corridors and all areas east of the Dubinky Well Road as well as along Ten Mile Wash. Manage backcountry areas to facilitate scenic motorized touring on designated routes with special emphasis upon establishment of lowdevelopment, end of route parking areas and route signing. Improve road to the Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trailhead to accommodate passenger car traffic. Consider development of an alternative single-track mountain bike route on Poison Spider Mesa across the mesa top to the top of the Portal Trail.

Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors: N/A

Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors: Highway 313 and the Island in the Sky Road (Dead Horse Mesa Utah Scenic Byway): Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as having a width of 1 mile from centerline (or to border of adjoining focus area; see Appendix C). Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation:

Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors: No scenic driving focus areas would be established.

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation:

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation:

2-23

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
N/A Goldbar/Corona Arch Hiking Focus Area (4,787 acres) covers the lands below the Golden Spike OHV route inclusive of the Culvert Canyon drainage to the southern rim of Long Canyon. Manage the Corona Arch Trail for hiking only. Develop a hiking loop route in Culvert Canyon from the canyon bottom up to Jeep Arch and back on the western bench of Culvert Canyon. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to protect primitive hiking opportunities and scenic values. White Wash Sand Dunes Ecological Study and Hiking Focus Area (9,708 acres) would be established. Ten Mile Canyon Hiking and Equestrian Focus Area (1,871 acres) inclusive of Ten Mile Wash from Dripping Spring to the Green Riverwith equestrian use limited to the main canyon. Spring Canyon Hiking Focus Area (457 acres) would be established upstream from the Spring Canyon Bottom Road. No new motorized routes would be considered. Labyrinth Canyon Canoe Focus Area (8,182 acres) inclusive of the rims along the east side of Labyrinth Canyon from Placer Bottom to Canyonlands National Park excluding the Hey Joe Mine OHV and mountain bike route and the route downstream from Spring Canyon. Temporal zoning, permitting and vehicle type restrictions would be used to mitigate user conflicts on the Hey Joe Mine Route. Seven Mile Canyons Equestrian Focus Area same as the Proposed Plan. Goldbar/Corona Arch Hiking Focus Area (4,191 acres) covers the lands No non-mechanized focus areas would be established. below the Golden Spike OHV route inclusive of the Culvert Canyon drainage to the northern rim of Long Canyon exclusive of the main stem of the Day Point Road. Manage the Corona Arch Trail for hiking only. Develop a hiking loop route in Culvert Canyon from the canyon bottom up to Jeep Arch and back on the western bench of Culvert Canyon to the canyon to just up canyon from the railroad spur. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix C) to protect primitive hiking opportunities and scenic values. No new motorized routes would be considered. White Wash Sand Dunes Ecological Study and Hiking Focus Area would not be established. Ten Mile Canyon Hiking and Equestrian Focus area would not be established. Spring Canyon Hiking Focus Area (457 acres) would be established upstream from the Spring Canyon Bottom Road. No new motorized routes would be considered. Labyrinth Canyon Canoe Focus Area (7,709 acres) inclusive of the rims along the east side of Labyrinth Canyon from Placer Bottom to Mineral Bottom exclusive of the Hey Joe Mine OHV and mountain bike route. No new motorized routes would be considered. Seven Mile Canyons Equestrian Focus Area (1,026 acres) inclusive of the north and south forks of Seven Mile Canyon westward from the junction of the two canyons. Equestrian use in this area would be restricted to private (non-commercial) horse use. No new motorized routes would be considered.. Focus Areas: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring: Focus Areas: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring: Klondike Bluffs Mountain Biking Focus Area (14,626 acres) between No mountain bike backcountry touring focus areas would be established. Arches National Park and U.S. 191. Work with Grand County and SITLA to establish mountain-bike only opportunities in the Klondike area. Manage the Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway Interpretive Trail for hiking only. Bar M Mountain Biking Focus Area (2,904 acres) between Arches National Park, U.S. Highway 191, and the Bar M area state lands, exclusive of motorized access for the Copper Ridge Jeep Safari Route and the 191 rock quarry access road. Convert existing routes to mechanized use and provide for a limited number of new and connecting routes to support use of area as the destination for the 191 bike lane. Recommend that the old highway route in Moab Canyon be managed for nonmotorized use to facilitate use of the route as part of the 191 bike lane. Tusher Slickrock Mountain Biking Focus Area (428 acres) on slickrock between Bartlett and Tusher Washes with main access from Bartlett Wash to reduce traffic in Tusher Canyon. Manage the Tusher Canyon slickrock and Bartlett slickrock areas for mountain bike and hiking use only. Cross-country mountain biking across slick rock would be allowed throughout this area. Mill Canyon/Upper Courthouse Mountain Biking Focus Area (5,744 acres) inclusive of areas within the Mill Canyon and upper Courthouse drainages with continued use of the Seven Mile Rim Jeep Safari route for motorized use, with non-motorized trailheads near the Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trail and the Halfway Stage Station. Manage the Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trail for hiking only (35 miles of road designated for motorized travel; 23 miles of route managed for mechanized use only). Focus Area: Motorized Backcountry Touring: Focus Area: Motorized Backcountry Touring: Focus Area: Motorized Backcountry Touring: Focus Area: Motorized Backcountry Touring:

Focus Areas: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring: N/A

Focus Areas: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring: Klondike Bluffs Mountain Biking Focus Area (14,626 acres) between Arches National Park and U.S. 191. Roads would be restricted to nonmotorized access with the exception of Class B roads and the Copper Ridge Jeep Safari Route. Management same as the Proposed Plan (42 miles of road designated for motorized travel; 40 miles of route managed for mechanized use only). Bar M Mountain Biking Focus Area (2,904 acres) between Arches National Park, U.S. Highway 191 and the Bar M area state lands, exclusive of motorized access for the Copper Ridge Jeep Safari Route and the 191 rock quarry access road. Convert selected existing routes to mechanized routes. Recommend that the old highway route in Moab Canyon be managed for non-motorized use to facilitate use of the route as part of the 191 bike lane (12 miles of road designated for motorized travel; 10 miles of route managed for mechanized use only). Tusher Slickrock Mountain Biking Focus Area would not be established and would not available for slick rock mountain biking (there are no designated routes in this area). Mill Canyon/Upper Courthouse Mountain Biking Focus Area would not be established. Manage the Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trail for hiking only.

2-24

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
N/A Gemini Bridges/Poison Spider Mesa Focus Area would not be established. Gemini Bridges/Poison Spider Mesa Focus Area (16,299 acres) for multiple use, including full-size OHV, ATV, and motorcycle use with consideration given to managing routes suitable for each vehicle type. Travel would be intensively managed on designated routes only. Close the spur route to Gemini Bridges to facilitate public use and help restore damaged lands along the spur route. Construct a parking area near the bridges. Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venues (Non-motorized): Mineral Canyon/Horsethief Point Competitive BASE Jumping Focus Area (762 acres) would be established. Bartlett Slickrock Freeride Focus Area (166 acres) would be established. No man-made structures would be added to facilitate "stunt riding." Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized): Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area (35,290 acres) for motorcycle and ATV use: This is the area for competitive motorized events. Competitive routes within this area would be identified based on site-specific NEPA analysis. All routes designated for motorized use in the accompanying Travel Plan would remain open while Section 106 cultural resource inventories are conducted. If these inventories indicate the presence of eligible sites within the travel corridor, the route would be altered or closed. All new routes would require Section 106 cultural resource inventory prior to designation. Establish a managed OHV route system with provision for ongoing management of existing single-track routes to maintain their single-track character. Airport Hills Motocross Focus Area (285 acres): Manage the focus area for motocross use in partnership with local government under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. A patent would be issued to local government. Focus Areas: Managed Open OHV area (cross country travel allowed): White Wash Sand Dunes Open OHV Focus Area, (1,866 acres) encompassing the area round the dunes themselves. Manage the central portion of the White Wash Sand Dunes for motorized sand play with exception of the dune field cottonwood trees and White Wash water sources which would be closed to motorized travel and fenced. Limit camping use in the White Wash Sand Dunes area to designated sites and establish basic camping facilities on the bench on the north side of White Wash. Implement a fee system, under the guidelines of the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act, to help fund cost of intensive management of the White Wash Sand Dunes area. No motorized backcountry touring focus areas would be established.

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venues (Non-motorized): N/A

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venues (Non-motorized): Mineral Canyon/Horsethief Point Competitive BASE Jumping Focus Area would not be established. Bartlett Slickrock Freeride Focus Area would not be established. Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized): Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area would not be established. Airport Hills Motocross Focus Area would not be established.

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venues (Non-motorized): No specialized sport venues (non-motorized) would be established.

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized): N/A

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized): Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area (57,875 acres) for motorcycle and ATV use: This is the area for competitive motorized events. Competitive routes within this area would be identified based on site-specific NEPA analysis. All routes designated for motorized use in the accompanying Travel Plan would remain open while Section 106 cultural resource inventories are conducted. If these inventories indicate the present of eligible sites, the route would be altered or closed. All new routes would require Section 106 cultural resource inventory prior to designation. Establish a managed OHV route system with provision for on-going management of existing single-track routes to maintain their single-track character.

Focus Areas: Managed Open OHV Areas (cross country travel allowed): N/A

Focus Areas: Managed Open OHV Areas (cross country travel allowed): No open areas for OHV use would be designated on public lands in the MPA. Open OHV use areas would not be considered for lease or patent under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.

Focus Areas: Managed Open OHV Areas (cross country travel allowed): Greater White Wash Sand Dunes Open OHV Focus Area (3,064 acres) bounded by the Duma Point Road, the Red Wash/Ruby Ranch Road, and portion of the Crystal Geyser Jeep route between the Ruby Ranch Road and the Duma Point Road. Manage the entire Greater White Wash Sand Dune area as Open to OHV use for motorized sand play except for the dune field cottonwood trees and White Wash water sources which would be closed to motorized travel and fenced. Limit camping use in the White Wash Sand Dunes area to designated sites and establish basic camping facilities on the bench on the north side of White Wash. Implement a fee system to help fund cost of intensive management of the White Wash Sand Dunes area.

Lower Gray Canyon SRMA
Alternative A (No Action)
Continue existing management as described in the 1979 Desolation-Gray Canyons Management Plan prepared by the BLM Price Field Office. Same as the Proposed Plan.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Lower Gray Canyon SRMA would not be established. Manage the Lower Gray Canyon SRMA (3,759 acres within the MPA; see Map 2-8) as a Destination SRMA in coordination with the Price Field Office. Manage river recreation in accordance with the Desolation-Gray Canyons Management Plan. Manage the existing riverside and the parallel bench route loop trails from Nefertiti Rapid to Rattlesnake Canyon for hiking and equestrian use. Vehicle camping limited to designated sites.

2-25

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Sand Flats SRMA
Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A, plus: Manage the Sand Flats Area (Map 2-8) as a Destination SRMA (6,246 acres). Guidance for management is included in the Sand Flats RAMP. Close the Moab Slickrock Bike Trail to four-wheeled vehicles and ATV use for safety purposes. The Slickrock Bike Trail would be open to motorcycles and mountain bikes only. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to protect recreation and scenic values.

Alternative D
Same as the Proposed Plan, except: Establish a Slickrock mountain bike free-ride area. Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to protect scenic values (VRM Class II).

The Sand Flats RAMP was approved in August of 1994. Management of the Same as the Proposed Plan, except: Sand Flats Recreation Area is also supported by the June 1994 Cooperative Close the Moab Slickrock Bike Trail to all motorized vehicles. Agreement with Grand County, which authorizes the county to collect fees for the benefit of the recreation area and participate in the operational management of the area to help implement the recreation area management plan. The plan includes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Acquisition of State lands through exchange. OHV travel limited to designated roads and trails. Provision for entrance and use fees. Development of campgrounds. Potential development of a drinking water source. Provision for parking lots at the Slickrock and Little Spring trailheads. Installation of toilets. Development of an entrance station. Provision for visitor protection. Information and various services. Limit camping to designated sites. Limit OHV and mountain bike travel to designated routes. Prohibit wood collecting and gathering.

South Moab SRMA
Alternative A (No Action)
Continue to manage the Mill Creek Power Dam hiking trailhead, the Ken's Same as the Proposed Plan. Lake Recreation Site, the Hidden Valley hiking trailhead and the Blue Hill multi-use trailhead and undeveloped camping area as recreation sites. Continue to manage the Mill Creek Canyon hiking trails, the Ken's Lake hiking trail system, the Hidden Valley Hiking trail, the Steelbender/Flat Pass OHV/ mountain bike route, the Behind the Rocks OHV route, the Strike Ravine OHV route, and the Kane Creek Canyon Rim OHV/mountain bike route as recreation routes. Continue to limit camping to designated sites and prohibit wood gathering and cutting along the Black Ridge Road, the Pack Creek Road, the LaSal Mountain Loop Road and the Kane Creek Canyon Rim Road out to the Picture Frame Arch area. Prohibit camping on the west side of Spanish Valley, and in Mill Creek. Continue to manage Ken's Lake as a developed recreation site in partnership with the holders of the ROW for Ken's Lake (Spanish Valley Water and Sewer District). Continue to manage the Mill Creek Canyon planning area in accordance with the approved interdisciplinary Mill Creek Canyon Management Plan.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Manage the South Moab SRMA (Map 2-8) as a Destination SRMA (63,999 acres). Same as Alternative A, except provide additional emphasis upon development of non-motorized trails through agreements with neighboring land owners through preparation of management guidance covering the Ken's Lake area. Work with Grand and San Juan counties to establish the New Spanish Trail Bicycle Lane to provide safe bicycle access from Canyonlands Field to the Pack Creek Picnic Area. Work with Moab City and Grand County to extend the Mill Creek Parkway to the Power Dam trailhead to provide safe access for cyclists and hikers. Formalize and continue the existing partnership with the water district to share management expenses at Ken's Lake. Manage the Mill Creek Canyon planning area in accordance with the approved interdisciplinary management plan (as in Alternative A). Work with Grand County, SITLA, and private land owners to establish the "Power line" trail along the west side of Moab and Spanish Valleys from Kane Creek Road near the river portal south via the Hidden Valley Trailhead to the southern end of the Behind the Rocks area. Work with San Juan and Grand Counties, SITLA, and private land owners to establish the Red Rock Horse Trail along the east side of Spanish Valley via Ken's Lake from the Johnson's Up-on-Top Road to the Loop Road/Pack Creek junction area. Work with the Backcountry Horsemen, SITLA and San Juan County to establish equestrian riding loop routes south from the Ken's Lake Trailhead.

Alternative D
South Moab would not be established as an SRMA.

2-26

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors: N/A Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors: Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors: Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors: South Moab would not be established as an SRMA. LaSal Mountain Loop Road Scenic Backway: Manage for scenic driving LaSal Mountain Loop Road Scenic Backway. Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as: having a width of 1 mile from centerline enjoyment. The corridor is defined as: having a width of 1/2 mile from (or to border of adjoining focus area; see Appendix C). centerline (or to border of adjoining focus area) (see Appendix C). Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation: Mill Creek Canyon Hiking Focus Area: Same as the Proposed Plan, except include motorized routes identified in the Travel Plan for this alternative. Temporal zoning, permitting and vehicle type restrictions would be used to mitigate user conflicts on the Steel Bender Routes. Behind the Rocks Hiking Focus Area: Same as the Proposed Plan. Temporal zoning, permitting, and vehicle type restrictions would be used to mitigate user conflicts on the Pritchett Canyon and Moab Rims. Hunter Canyon Rim Road at the end of the Jeep Safari route is available for mountain bike travel. Manage Hidden Valley Trail as non-mechanized only. Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation:

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation: N/A

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation:

Mill Creek Canyon Hiking Focus Area (16,950 acres) inclusive of the South Moab would not be established as an SRMA. north and south forks of Mill Creek, Rill Creek, and Burkholder Draw south to the LaSal Mountain Loop Road with motorized use limited to the Steelbender OHV route and routes identified in the Travel Plan for this alternative. Emphasize management of the core area of Mill Creek to provide primitive hiking opportunities. Commercial equestrian use of Mill Creek Canyon and its tributaries would be prohibited except for use along the Steelbender/Flat Pass OHV/mountain bike route. No new motorized routes would be considered. Behind the Rocks Hiking Focus Area (17,536 acres) inclusive of the area currently closed to motorized use in the 1985 RMP and the Hunter Canyon area between Pritchett Canyon and the eastern rim of Kane Creek Canyon exclusive of the Pritchett Canyon and Behind the Rocks OHV route. Manage the Hunter Canyon trail for hiking only. Emphasize the management the core area of Behind the Rocks to provide primitive hiking opportunities. No new motorized routes would be considered. Focus Area: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring: Upper Spanish Valley Mountain Biking Focus Area (2,255 acres; Mud Spring Area) for development of a beginner to intermediate skill level mountain bike trail system through conversion of existing routes and development of new routes. Work with SITLA to expand route system on adjacent state lands. Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Non-motorized): 24 Hours of Moab Focus Area (2,905 acres) would be established to facilitate mountain bike speed-related events. Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized): Potato Salad Hill Climbing Focus Area (41 acres) would be established within the boundary of the fenced areas emphasizing hill climbing events. Parking limitations would be established to limit vehicle group size.* Focus Area: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring: South Moab would not be established as an SRMA.

Focus Area: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring: N/A

Focus Area: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring: Same as the Proposed Plan.

Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Non-motorized): N/A Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized): N/A

Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Non-motorized): Same as the Proposed Plan. Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized): Potato Salad Hill spur route would be closed to motorized travel.

Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Non-motorized): South Moab would not be established as an SRMA. Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized): South Moab would not be established as an SRMA.

Two Rivers SRMA
Alternative A (No Action)
The 1985 RMP provided for continuation of the river management program, Same as the Proposed Plan. which was initiated in early 1970s in response to increased demand for recreational boating. Existing management of the Colorado River focuses upon providing facilities and management to support and regulate commercial and private river use of the Colorado and Lower Dolores Rivers. Management activities are described in the annual Colorado and Dolores Rivers operating plan. Boating Management: Boating Management: Continue the existing river management programs on the Colorado and Dolores Same as the Proposed Plan except: Rivers (24,000 passenger days per year; 30 commercial outfitters) to provide State Line to Westwater Ranger Station: Seek to manage for moderate use for the safe and enjoyable long-term use of the rivers. flat water boating in conjunction with the Ruby/Horsethief Canyons section in Colorado. Westwater Canyon: Manage to provide an opportunity for whitewater boating in a highly primitive and very remote setting. Establish maximum group size of 16 (including guides on commercial trips). Establish daily launch limit of 48 people for each sector.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Manage the Two Rivers SRMA (29,839 acres) as a Destination SRMA (Map 2-8) with the objective of continuing to provide distinct, high quality opportunities for recreational boating and camping, and to protect the outstanding resource values. Use launch systems and campsite assignments to reduce inter-party contacts.

Alternative D
Manage the Two Rivers SRMA (14,056 acres) as a Destination SRMA with the objective of continuing to provide distinct, high quality opportunities for recreational boating and camping. Use launch systems and campsite assignments to reduce inter-party contacts.

Boating Management:

Boating Management:

State Line to Westwater Ranger Station: Manage for relatively high use Same as the Proposed Plan, except: flat water boating in conjunction with the Ruby/Horsethief Canyons State Line to Westwater Ranger Station: Seek to manage for of high use section in Colorado. Co-administer a private boating or parking permit flat water boating in conjunction with the Ruby/Horsethief Canyons system and user limitations and fees in conjunction with Colorado BLM section in Colorado. as a means of providing for adequate take-out. Westwater Canyon: Manage to provide an opportunity for whitewater Westwater Canyon: Manage to provide an opportunity for whitewater boating in a semi-primitive (social only) and remote setting. Establish boating in a primitive and remote setting. Permits required for private and maximum group size of 32 (including guides on commercial trips). commercial use. Distribute potential use levels equally from May 1 to Establish daily launch limit of 128 people for each sector.

2-27

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Cisco Landing to Dewey Bridge: For private use, no restrictions on amount of private use would be established unless warranted by future use levels. Permit 20 unallocated and 2 allocated (100 user days each) commercial permits. Establish additional restrictions on amount of commercial use if conditions warrant based on desired resource objectives. Dolores River from Bridge Canyon to its confluence with the Colorado River: Establish maximum group size of 16 (including guides on commercial trips). September 30 (allocation season) between private and commercial sectors (including guides). Establish maximum private group size of 25 people and a daily launch limit of 75 people. For commercial use, establish a maximum trip size of 25 passengers, plus one crew member per passenger carrying craft, plus two additional crew. Establish a commercial daily launch limit of 75 passengers. Permit 18 commercial outfitters. Cisco Landing to Dewey Bridge: Manage to provide an opportunity for scenic flat water boating or as an extension of Westwater Canyon trips. For private use, no restrictions on amount of use would be established. Permit 22 unallocated commercial permits. No further restrictions on amount of commercial use would be established. Manage the Dewey Bridge Recreation Site under the Colorado Riverway RAMP. Dolores River from Bridge Canyon to its confluence with the Colorado River: Manage to provide opportunity for scenic whitewater boating trips. Permits required for private and commercial use. Establish maximum group size of 25 (excluding guides on commercial trips). Do not establish daily launch limits. Permit 14 unallocated commercial outfitters. Potential Future Facilities: Cisco Landing to Dewey Bridge: Permit 25 unallocated commercial permits. Dolores River from Colorado State Line to its confluence with the Colorado River: Establish maximum group size of 32 (excluding guides on commercial trips.

Potential Future Facilities: N/A

Potential Future Facilities: Same as the Proposed Plan, except do not seek to develop a take-out facility separate from the Westwater Ranger Station launch ramp.

Potential Future Facilities:

Acquire additional lands at the Westwater Ranger Station to include additional Same as the Proposed Plan. camping, parking and launch facilities. Seek to develop a take-out facility separate from the Westwater Ranger Station launch ramp to reduce congestion at the ranger station. Seek opportunities to expand legal and physical access to facilitate camping at the Ranger Station. Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation: Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation: Establish the Westwater Canyon River Use and Hiking Focus Area The focus areas would not be established. (23,479 acres) inclusive of Westwater Canyon along the Colorado River between Westwater Ranch and Rose Ranch and the surrounding uplands. New motorized routes would not be considered.

Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation: N/A

Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation: Same as the Proposed Plan.

Utah Rims SRMA
Alternative A (No Action)
Continue to manage the Utah Rims area for general recreation use. BLM presently has a limited management program in place for the area included in the proposed Utah Rims SRMA. Manage the Kokopelli's Trail for recreation use. Manage Bitter Creek Campsite for camping. Continue limiting travel to existing routes.

Alternative B
Same as the Proposed Plan, except: No new recreational routes would be established.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Manage the Utah Rims area (Map 2-8) as a Community SRMA (15,424 acres) Utah Rims SRMA would not be established. to provide sustainable opportunities for motorized, mechanized and nonmotorized route related recreation while protecting and maintaining resource values including range, wildlife habitat, scenic, cultural, recreational, and riparian values in current or improved condition. Work with Colorado BLM to coordinate management of the Utah Rims and Rabbit Valley Colorado areas. Management actions would include: 1. Limiting motorized and mechanized travel to a designated road and route system, including where feasible, the establishment and management of a network of single-track routes. 2. Acquisition of public access across non-Federal lands for the route system. 3. Development of a staging area. 4. Potential separation of types of single-track route use by time period. 5. Limited provision of camping facilities. 6. Prohibition of competitive, motorized events on the single-track route system to maintain its single-track nature. Add single-track routes to the route system on a case-by-case basis pending resolution of resource concerns.

2-28

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Moab Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) Establishment
Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
Manage all lands within the MPA not within an SRMA as the Moab Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA; see Maps 2-8-A through 2-8-D and Appendix F). ERMA lands may be designated as SRMAs in the future based on intensity of use and would be analyzed through the plan amendment process. Minimal facilities may be constructed in the ERMA as needed to insure visitor health and safety, reduce user conflict, and protect resources. Provide general recreation management guidance and subsequent implementation of management actions for activity plan level actions for the Moab ERMA through development of a Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP). Address both site-related issues (development and management in response to user demand and changing conditions) and backcountry management issues (the retention of backcountry characteristics, e.g., low level of development, relative lack of crowding, and feeling of remoteness). Amend the RMP, as necessary, for RMP level recreation and non-recreation actions proposed through the RAMP developed subsequent to RMP approval. Manage OHV travel as limited to designated routes or closed, depending on the specific area (see Travel Management section, beginning on page 2-47). Monitor recreation activity in the Moab ERMA to maintain recreation opportunities and protect resource values.

Moab ERMA Management Guidance
Alternative A (No Action)
Continue making improvements to sites and areas as necessary and supported by activity and project level planning to balance demand for recreation opportunities and protection of the recreation resource base. Continue to manage the Utah portion of the Kokopelli's Trail as a multi-day mountain bike and vehicle route (in part) with associated camping areas.

Alternative B
Same as the Proposed Plan, except: Upper Fisher Mesa would not be managed to emphasize mountain biking use.

PROPOSED PLAN
Continue making improvements to sites and areas as necessary and supported by activity and project level planning to balance demand for recreation opportunities and protection of the recreation resource base. Continue to manage the Utah portion of the Kokopelli's Trail as a multiday mountain bike and vehicle route (in part) with associated camping areas. Develop basic camping and trailhead facilities to serve the Lost Spring Canyon area should use levels and impacts warrant. Construct information boards at the main exits along I-70 to inform visitors about recreation opportunities, travel management, low impact recreation techniques, and visitor safety issues. Upper Fisher Mesa (1,365 acres) would be managed to emphasize mountain biking. BLM would convert existing roads and provide new connecting routes for bicycle use in conjunction with the existing bike route within the Manti-LaSal National Forest. Motorized access would be retained along the main existing Fisher Mesa access road. Manage the Bookcliffs area (335,457 acres) for non-mechanized recreation, especially equestrian use, hiking, backpacking and big game hunting. It would be managed for low frequency of visitor interaction by not establishing new motorized or mechanized recreation routes, no commercial motorized permits would be issued, and competitive events would not be allowed. Manage the Sego Canyon Rock Art Site as a day use recreation area. Consider acquisition of the adjacent private rock art area north of the interpretive site to expand interpretive opportunities.

Alternative D
Same as the Proposed Plan, except: Manage the Bookcliffs area (141,679 acres) for non-mechanized recreation, especially equestrian use, hiking, backpacking and big game hunting. It would be managed for low frequency of visitor interaction by not establishing new motorized or mechanized recreation routes, no commercial motorized permits would be issued, and competitive events would not be allowed.

General Policy for Issuance and Management of Special Recreation Permits (SRPs)
Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
SRPs would be issued as a discretionary action as a means to: help meet management objectives, provide opportunities for economic activity, facilitate recreational use of the public lands, control visitor use, protect recreational and natural resources, and provide for the health and safety of visitors. Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate. Priority for authorization of new SRPs for events would be given to applicants proposing uses that: do not duplicate existing events; take place outside of March, April, May, and October; make use of less-crowded weekdays; utilize facilities off public lands for overnight accommodation of guests; display and communicate the Canyon Country Minimum Impact Practices; and focus visitation on sites and areas capable of withstanding repeated use. All SRPs would contain standard stipulations appropriate for the type of activity and may include additional stipulations necessary to protect lands or resources, reduce user conflicts, or minimize health and safety concerns. There would be no competitive mechanized or motorized events in Wilderness Study Areas while these areas are managed under the IMP.

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Issue and manage special recreation permits for a wide variety of uses to enhance outdoor recreational opportunities, provide opportunities for private enterprise, manage user-group interaction, and limit the impacts of

Alternative D
Same as the Proposed Plan, except that increased emphasis would be placed upon realizing positive economic and community benefits through SRP management.

Continue to issue and manage special recreation permits (e.g., four-wheel drive Same as the Proposed Plan, except: vehicle tours, horseback trips, bear hunting camps, survival school) to enhance Increased emphasis would be placed upon mitigating the impacts of new outdoor recreational opportunities and provide business opportunities for

2-29

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
private enterprise. Continue to permit competitive and noncompetitive OHV events. uses in support of conservation of natural and cultural resource values. Organized group permits required for groups with 15 or more vehicles (one driver/vehicle.) such uses upon natural and cultural resources. Organized group permits required for groups with 25 or more vehicles (one driver/vehicle.) Organized group permits required for groups with 50 or more vehicles (one driver/vehicle.)

RIPARIAN
Goals and Objectives:
Manage riparian areas for properly functioning condition (PFC) and ensure stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate for local soil type, climate, and landform. Avoid or minimize the disturbance, loss, or degradation of riparian, wetland, and associated floodplains; preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values; and provide for fish, wildlife and special status species habitats.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Manage riparian resources for PFC, which is described as the presence of adequate vegetation, landforms, or large woody debris, in accordance with the Utah Standards for Public Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management for BLM Lands in Utah and with the Grazing Guidelines for Grazing Management. Retain the Between the Creeks, North Sand Flats, and South Sand Flats Allotments as not available for grazing to benefit riparian resources. These allotments include the following streams: Negro Bill Canyon, portions of Mill Creek, and Rill Creek. Mitigation to reduce impacts to floodplains and riparian areas include (from Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management for BLM Lands in Utah and BLM Riparian Manual 1737): 1. Where feasible and consistent with user safety, developed travel routes would be located/relocated away from sensitive riparian/wetland areas. 2. Camping in riparian areas would be avoided and must be managed, monitored, and modified as conditions dictate to reduce vegetation disturbance and sedimentation. 3. Stream crossings would be limited in number dictated by the topography, geology, and soil type. Design any necessary stream crossings to minimize sedimentation, soil erosion and compaction (minimize longitudinal routes along stream banks, design crossings perpendicular to the stream). 4. Where necessary, control recreational use by changing location or kind of activity, season, intensity, distribution and/or duration. 5. Grazing actions to meet riparian objectives include vegetation use limits, fencing, herding, change of livestock class, temporary closures, change of season, and/or alternate development or relocation of water sources. 6. Any water diversions from riparian areas by BLM or non-BLM entities would be designed and constructed to protect ecological processes and functions. 7. Implement weed management stipulations and education to reduce spread of noxious weeds along stream corridors. 8. To the extent possible, mineral removal and lease development (including placer mining) must be located away from water's edge and outside of riparian/wetland zones.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
Limit activities in riparian areas, as necessary, to achieve and maintain PFC. Grazing actions to meet riparian objectives can include fencing, herding, change of livestock class, temporary closures, and/or change of livestock season of use. Preclude surface-disturbing activities within 100-year floodplains, 100 m of riparian areas, public water reserves, and 100 m of springs. Prioritize restoration activities in riparian systems that are Functioning at Risk or Non-functioning. Continue to apply integrated species management to accomplish riparian restoration through biological, chemical, mechanical, and manual methods (e.g., tamarisk control, willow plantings). Acquire riparian lands and water resources (from willing sellers) to preserve and maintain riparian habitat and instream flow. Do not dispose of riparian or wetland resources unless resource loss is mitigated. Develop watershed management plans for impaired systems as identified in current TMDL reports (e.g., Onion Creek, Mill Creek, and Castle Creek). Close riparian areas to woodcutting, except where permitted for traditional cultural practices identified for Native Americans or for restoration to benefit riparian values. Establish Lower South Fork of Seven Mile Canyon as a Riparian/Wetland Demonstration Area for the improvement and restoration of riparian, wetland and wildlife resources. Grazing would not be authorized on portions of the following streams (listed with affected allotments): the Colorado River from Dewey Bridge to Hittle Bottom (Professor Valley), and Lower Kane Creek (Kane Creek Springs). Management strategies would be implemented to restore degraded riparian communities, protect natural flow requirements, protect water quality, and manage for year-round flow.

Alternative A (No Action)
Grazing Actions: Retain the Between the Creeks, North Sand Flats, South Sand Flats, Spring Creek, Castle Valley, Pear Park, Bogart, Cottonwood and Diamond Allotments as not available to grazing to benefit riparian resources. Maintain the reduction of AUMs in the Cisco Allotment (1,819 AUMs allocated to livestock). Grazing Actions:

Alternative B
Grazing Actions: Evaluate non-functioning and functioning at risk riparian areas using Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management to determine if exclusion from grazing would improve riparian functioning condition. The following riparian areas would be given priority for evaluation: Lower Gray Canyon of the Green River from Rattlesnake Canyon to Swasey's Beach, Ten Mile from Dripping Spring to the Green River, Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon, East Coyote, Kane Springs, and Hatch Wash (totaling 4,673 acres). BLM would be required to build and maintain fences and provide access to water in Seven Mile Wash, and East Coyote wetland areas. Cottonwood, Bogart and Diamond Allotments (which include Cottonwood and Diamond Canyons) would continue to not be available

PROPOSED PLAN
Grazing Actions: Evaluate non-functioning and functioning at risk riparian areas using Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management to determine if restriction from grazing would improve riparian functioning condition. The following riparian areas would be given priority for evaluation: Ten Mile from Dripping Spring to the Green River, Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon, and East Coyote (totaling 1,420 acres). Cottonwood, Bogart, Pear Park and Diamond Allotments (which include Cottonwood and Diamond Canyons) would continue to be not available to grazing to benefit riparian resources. Castle Valley would also not be available for grazing. Spring Creek would be available for grazing.

Alternative D
Grazing management in riparian areas would be identical as described in Alternative A, except that Spring Creek, Pear Park, Castle Valley, Cottonwood, Diamond and Bogart Allotments would be available for grazing.

2-30

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
to grazing to benefit riparian resources. Castle Valley, Spring Creek and Pear Park would also be not available for grazing. Season-of-Use: N/A Watershed Management Plans: Not specified. Season-of-Use: Season of use adjustments would be made on a case-by-case basis to achieve PFC. Watershed Management Plans: Prioritize development and implementation of the Watershed Management Plans and riparian studies for the following areas: Mill Creek (including North Fork, Rill, and Burkholder), Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, White Wash, Bartlett Wash, Tusher Wash, Mill Canyon, Courthouse Wash, Professor Creek, Negro Bill Canyon, Cottonwood/Diamond, Spring Canyon, Red Wash, Green River, Colorado River, Onion Creek and Westwater Creek. Season-of-Use: Season of use adjustments would be made on a case-by-case basis to achieve PFC. Watershed Management Plans: Prioritize development and implementation of the Watershed Management Plans and riparian studies for the following areas: Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, Bartlett Wash, Tusher Wash, Mill Canyon, Courthouse Wash, Cottonwood-Diamond, and Onion Creek. Season-of-Use: Season of use adjustments would be made on a case-by-case basis to achieve PFC. Watershed Management Plans: Do not prioritize Watershed Management Plans.

SOIL AND WATER
Goals and Objectives:
Manage watersheds to enhance ecosystem health and provide for public uses. Maintain and improve existing water quality by ensuring that all authorized uses on public lands comply with State water quality standards and with the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. Manage watersheds to maintain or improve soil quality and long-term productivity.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Comply with all State, Federal and local laws to protect municipal watersheds (Thompson, Moab, and Castle Valley), and watersheds of any public or private water supply such as Windwhistle Campground, Westwater Ranger Station, La Sal Creek, and Browns Hole. Coordinate with Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining to remediate existing Abandoned Mine Lands sites. Comply with Floodplain Executive Order 11988. BLM would work with partners to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and continue BLM's cooperative work with the Utah Divisions of Water Rights and Water Quality in accordance with the administrative memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the cooperative agreement addressing water quality monitoring.

Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Allow no surface occupancy and preclude surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 100-year floodplains, within 100 m of a natural spring, or within public water reserves. In cooperation with Grand and San Juan Counties, develop BMPs for road maintenance and construction in high risk areas (e.g., floodplains, riparian zones, and areas with sensitive soils). Continue management of the Mill Creek planning area in accordance with the Mill Creek Management Plan (2001). Develop watershed management plans for municipal watersheds to ensure water sources are protected adequately. Monitor municipal water quality/watershed conditions. To protect sensitive soils on slopes, apply a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) prohibiting surface-disturbing activities on slopes in the Bookcliffs (see Map 2-12) greater than 30% from November 1 to April 30. This restriction includes road construction and traffic on existing roads associated with initial drilling operations. In addition, apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) on slopes greater than 30% throughout the MPA. Follow Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) recommendations on 303(d) listed streams, currently Mill, Castle, and Onion Creeks. Minimize surface disturbance in areas identified as having "sensitive soils" (see Chapter 3, Soil and Water) unless long-term impacts can be mitigated. Maintain vegetation based on desired future condition to provide adequate ground cover to prevent accelerated erosion in wind erodible soils. Apply environmental BMPs to all oil and gas authorizations in accordance to WO IM 2007-021 and the most current version of the "Goldbook." Develop BMPs to address health and safety concerns associated with blowing dust along U.S. 191 and I-70. Maintain or improve soil quality and long-term soil productivity through the implementation of Standards for Rangeland Health and other soil protection measures. Manage uses to minimize and mitigate damage to soils. Maintain and/or restore overall watershed health and reduce erosion, stream sedimentation, and salinization of water. Coordinate with Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency to ensure required minimum instream flow of 3.0 cfs in Mill Creek below the Sheley diversion. Implement portions of Greater Sagers Wash Watershed Management Plan that pertain to surface disturbance. No additional OHV routes would be allowed in saline soils other than those already designated in the Travel Plan accompanying this RMP (see Appendix G). An exception would be considered on a case-by-case basis for proposed routes in the Dee Pass Motorized Focus Area and in the Utah Rim SRMA. Exceptions could also be considered on a case-by-case basis outside these two areas if potential impacts could be mitigated and if the action would benefit other natural and cultural resources. Develop BMPs for activities on saline and other sensitive soils. Specific recommendations regarding surface and subsurface pipeline crossings found in Guidance for Pipeline Crossings (see Appendix H) would be implemented to prevent breakage and subsequent contamination. Implement guidelines from Technical Reference 1730-2, where feasible, to protect or restore the functions of biological soil crusts. Manage public lands in a manner consistent with the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, implementing BMPs and watershed restoration projects to reduce salinity contributions to the Colorado River system.

2-31

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Alternative A (No Action)
Aquifers/Watersheds: The Castle Valley aquifer was not addressed. The Mill Creek-Spanish Valley aquifer was not addressed. Aquifers/Watersheds: Close the Castle Valley watershed to oil and gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities to protect the Castle Valley sole source, unconfined, surficial aquifer.

Alternative B
Aquifers/Watersheds:

PROPOSED PLAN
Aquifers/Watersheds: Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation to oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities in the Castle Valley watershed in order to protect the sole source, unconfined, surficial aquifer.

Alternative D
Do not apply a stipulation to protect the Castle Valley aquifer. Do not apply a stipulation to protect the Mill Creek-Spanish Valley aquifer.

Close the Mill Creek-Spanish Valley watershed to oil and gas leasing and other Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation to oil and gas leasing and preclude surface-disturbing activities to protect the aquifer for the Moab area. other surface-disturbing activities in the Mill Creek-Spanish Valley watershed in order to protect the aquifer for the Moab area. Saline Soils in Mancos Shale: Apply a timing limitation on 313,800 acres of Mancos Shale prohibiting surface-disturbing activities from November 1 to April 30. Saline Soils in Mancos Shale: Saline Soils in Mancos Shale: Saline Soils in Mancos Shale: Do not apply a timing limitation to saline soils in the Mancos Shale. To minimize watershed damage on saline soils in the Mancos Shale, apply a Same as Alternative B. timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) prohibiting surface-disturbing activities on 330,142 acres of moderately to highly saline soils in the Mancos Shale (see Map 2-13) from December 1 to May 31. This restriction includes road construction and traffic on existing roads associated with drilling operations. Grazing: Grazing: Use grazing systems and develop AMPs to minimize impacts to saline soils.

Grazing:

Grazing: Same as Alternative A.

Manipulate livestock grazing on portions of ten allotments to lessen impacts on Use Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management saline soils and reduce salinity in the Colorado River Drainage. to consider adjusting season of use on allotments with saline soils to minimize soils compaction. Watershed Management Plans: Not specified. Watershed Management Plans: Prioritize development and implementation of the Watershed Management Plans for the following areas: Mill Creek (including North Fork, Rill, and Burkholder), Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, White Wash, Bartlett Wash, Tusher Wash, Mill Canyon, Courthouse Wash, Professor Creek, Negro Bill Canyon, Cottonwood/Diamond, Spring Canyon, Red Wash, Green River, Colorado River, Onion Creek and Westwater Creek.

Watershed Management Plans: Prioritize development and implementation of the Watershed Management Plans for the following areas: Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, Bartlett Wash, Tusher Wash, Mill Canyon, Courthouse Wash, Cottonwood-Diamond, and Onion Creek.

Watershed Management Plans: Do not prioritize Watershed Management Plans.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS – AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACECs)
The term "Area of Critical Environmental Concern" means areas within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1702(a)).

Goals and Objectives:
Designate, modify and manage areas as ACECs where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.

Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternative B (see Maps 2-14-A through 2-14-D for ACECs by alternative; see Appendix I for the Relevance and Importance Evaluations of Area of Critical Environmental Concern Nominations)
In those areas where ACECs overlap with WSAs, the WSA management prescriptions, as stipulated in the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP), would take precedence. ACECs would be avoidance areas for all ROWs, including wind, solar energy and communication sites.

Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
The area is not designated as an ACEC. Behind the Rocks WSA would be managed according to the IMP to protect wilderness values (12,635 acres). Manage 694 acres as open to oil and gas leasing, 1,958 acres as no surface occupancy, and 15,196 acres as closed.

Alternative B
Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC (17,836 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. This area includes the Behind the Rocks WSA (12,635 acres) in its entirety. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of natural systems (threatened, sensitive, and endangered plants), cultural resources and scenery, the following management prescriptions would apply: Designate as VRM Class I. No vegetation treatments except for noxious weeds and exotics. Cultural resources would be prioritized for Class III inventory. Vehicle-based camping only in campgrounds. No campfires outside of

PROPOSED PLAN
Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC (5,201 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. This area excludes the Behind the Rocks WSA, which would be managed according to the IMP to protect wilderness values. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of natural systems (threatened, sensitive and endangered plants), cultural resources and scenery, the following management prescriptions would apply: Designate as VRM Class II. No vegetation treatments (except for exotic/noxious weeds). Cultural resources in Behind the Rocks ACEC would be prioritized for Class III inventory.

Alternative D
The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but are not limited to: The Behind the Rocks WSA would be managed according to the IMP to protect wilderness values (12,635 acres). The remaining 5,201 acres will be managed as follows: Designate as VRM Class III. Allow vegetation treatments. Open to oil and gas leasing with standard terms and conditions.

2-32

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
campgrounds. No new motorized or mechanized routes, motorized/mechanized travel limited to designated routes. Manage the WSA as closed to oil and gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities (12,635 acres). Manage the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to oil and gas leasing (4,231 acres). In the remaining 970 acres, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities. No commercial or private use of woodland products. Vehicle-based camping only in campgrounds. No campfires outside of campgrounds. No new motorized or mechanized routes, motorized/mechanized travel limited to designated routes. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). No commercial or private use of woodland products. There are approximately 12,635 acres of this potential ACEC proposed for designation under another statutory authority (Wilderness Study Area) and no further management attention is required.

Bookcliffs Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
This area is not designated as an ACEC.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Proposed area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but are not limited to: The WSAs (Desolation, Flume, Floy, Coal, and Spruce) would be managed according to the IMP. Areas outside of the WSAs (54,174 acres) would be managed according to the following prescriptions: Apply standard and controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Same as the Proposed Plan.

Alternative D

Bookcliffs Potential ACEC (304,252 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Desolation, Flume, Floy, Coal and Spruce WSAs would be managed according This area includes Desolation, Flume, Floy, Coal, and Spruce WSAs (250,207 acres). to the IMP to protect wilderness values (250,207 acres). Manage 15,757 acres as open to oil and gas leasing, 38,415 acres with timing limitations and controlled surface use, and 250,207 acres as closed. OHV designations include open and limited to existing routes. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of wildlife and cultural resources, the following management prescriptions would apply: All WSAs would be managed according to the IMP. Work with UDWR and other agencies to create and implement a Habitat Management Plan for the Bookcliffs. No new motorized or mechanized routes. Motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes outside the WSA and closed in the WSA. Manage WSAs as closed to oil and gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities (249,988 acres). Manage the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to oil and gas leasing (19,901acres). In the remaining 34,363 acres, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). No commercial or private use of woodland products. Prioritize Bookcliffs for Class III cultural inventory.

Canyon Rims Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
Not designated as an ACEC. Manage as part of the Canyon Rims SRMA (see SRMA prescriptions). Designate as VRM Class II. Manage with timing limitations and controlled surface use for oil and gas leasing.

Alternative B
Canyon Rims Potential ACEC (23,400 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important value of scenery, the following management prescriptions would apply: Designate as VRM Class II. No new motorized or mechanized routes. Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes. Manage consistently with the Canyon Rims Recreation Area Plan. Manage the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to oil and gas leasing (3,417 acres). Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing, and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) on the remaining 19,983 acres.

PROPOSED PLAN
Proposed area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but are not limited to: Manage as part of the Canyon Rims SRMA (see SRMA prescriptions). Designate as VRM Class II. Avoid permitting new ROWs. Apply controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities on 15,422 acres. The Scenic Byway corridor (7,035 acres) would be managed as controlled surface use for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). The remainder of the area (943 acres) would be managed as open with standard stipulations.

Alternative D
Proposed area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but are not limited to: Manage as part of the Canyon Rims SRMA (see SRMA prescriptions). Designate as VRM Class II and III. Avoid permitting new ROWs. The area would be managed with the following stipulations for oil and gas: 2,226 acres are open to leasing subject to standard terms and conditions, and apply controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities to 17,420 acres. The Scenic Byway corridor (3,754 acres) would be managed as controlled surface use for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C).

Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
This area is not designated as an ACEC.

Alternative B
Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex Potential ACEC (117,481 acres)

PROPOSED PLAN
Proposed area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the

Alternative D
The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage

2-33

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Currently implemented Seasons of Use for livestock grazing: Agate - 3/15, would be designated as an ACEC. acreage would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area. Cisco - 5/10, Cisco Mesa - 5/15, Corral Wash - 5/10, Harley - 5/12, Highlands Special Management: To protect the relevant and important value of wildlife, include, but are not limited to: - 5/15, Monument Wash - 5/15, Pipeline - 5/15, San Arroyo - 5/25, and Sulphur the following management prescriptions would apply: Maintain current season of use, and manage grazing to allow for adequate Canyon - 4/12. seed production. Use grazing systems and develop AMPs to protect prairie dog habitat in Manage 97,089 acres as open to oil and gas leasing, 19,240 acres with timing Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and the following allotments or portions of allotments: Agate, Cisco, Cisco limitations and controlled surface use, and 1,152 acres as no surface other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 660 feet of Mesa, Harley Dome, Highlands, Monument Wash, Pipeline, San Arroyo. occupancy. active prairie dog colonies. No permanent above-ground facilities would Establish rest-rotation system to allow adequate recovery for seed be allowed within the 660-foot buffer. dispersal and establishment. Work with UDWR to prohibit shooting of prairie dogs year-round and ban prairie dog poisoning on public lands. Develop cooperative agreements with UDWR and USFWS to inventory prairie dog densities and to manage habitat for prairie dogs, ground squirrels and raptors. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). No new motorized or mechanized routes. Motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes.

Colorado River Corridor Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
Negro Bill Canyon would be designated as Outstanding Natural Area (1,375 acres). Continue the Three Rivers Withdrawal for locatable minerals (18,519 acres). Manage the river corridor as part of the Colorado River Recreation Area and the Colorado River SRMA. Manage 34,342 acres as open to oil and gas leasing, 10,864 acres with timing limitations and controlled surface use, 1,189 acres as no surface occupancy, and 3,613 acres as closed.

Alternative B
Colorado River Corridor Potential ACEC (50,483 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Negro Bill Canyon would no longer be designated as an Outstanding Natural Area, but would be included within the Colorado River Corridor ACEC. Negro Bill Canyon WSA would be managed according to the IMP to protect wilderness values. Manage recreation use according to the Colorado Riverway SRMA (see SRMA prescriptions) with the exception of the Dry Mesa/Cache Valley area north of the Colorado River. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of natural systems (threatened, sensitive and endangered plants), fish and wildlife, and scenery, the Colorado River Corridor would be designated as an ACEC with the following management prescriptions: Designate as VRM Class I. No permitted activities north of the Colorado River (excluding immediate river corridor) during crucial bighorn lambing and rutting periods, April 1 through June 15 and October 1 to December 15, respectively. Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes. No competitive OHV events. Vehicle-based camping only in designated campsites on south side of the Colorado River. Campfires for vehicle-based camping would be allowed only within designated campsites on the south side of the Colorado River. No Special Recreation Permits would be issued north of the river (except for immediate river corridor used by river runners). No vegetation treatments except for noxious weeds and exotics. Season of use adjustments for livestock grazing in crucial bighorn lambing and rearing habitat (see Wildlife). Retain ACEC in public ownership except lands involved in the existing Professor Valley land exchange. Prioritize acquisition of inholdings as opportunity presents itself. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on 9,196 acres for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Close

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but are not limited to: are not limited to: Negro Bill Canyon would no longer be designated as an Outstanding Natural Area. The Negro Bill Canyon WSA would be managed according to the IMP to protect wilderness values. Designate as VRM Class II (see VRM section starting on page 2-50) except for Negro Bill WSA, which would be managed as VRM Class I. Manage recreation use according to the Colorado Riverway SRMA (see SRMA prescriptions) with the exception of the Dry Mesa/Cache Valley area north of the Colorado River, which would be managed according to the following prescriptions: No permitted activities north of the river (except in the immediate river corridor) during crucial bighorn lambing and at rutting seasons, April 1 through June 15 and October 1 to December 15, respectively. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) in VRM Class II areas, areas within the Three Rivers Withdrawal (see Map 2-1) and in crucial bighorn lambing and rearing areas. Within these areas, prohibit geophysical exploration for oil and gas, and close to minerals material disposal. Close areas unreachable by directional drilling to oil and gas leasing. Negro Bill Canyon would no longer be designated as an Outstanding Natural Area. The Negro Bill Canyon WSA would be managed according to the IMP to protect wilderness values. Manage recreation use according to the Colorado Riverway SRMA (see SRMA prescriptions). Area would be managed the same as the Proposed Plan, with the following exceptions: Permitted activities would be allowed year-round. Apply controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within the Three Rivers Withdrawal (see Map 2-1). Open to minerals material disposal. Open to geophysical exploration for oil and gas. No commercial or private collection of woodland products on the south side of the river.

2-34

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
33,548 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to oil and gas leasing. Close 8,008 acres, which are unreachable by directional drilling to oil and gas leasing. No commercial or private collection of woodland products.

Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
This area is not designated as an ACEC. Manage the portions of the Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Potential ACEC (34,004 acres) within the Flume, the Coal Canyon and the Spruce WSAs according to the IMP to protect the wilderness values.

Alternative B
Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Potential ACEC (35,830 acres) would be designated as an ACEC.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Special Management: NOTE: ACEC would only be designated until hazard is no longer present. At that point, management would revert to Manage areas outside the WSAs with timing limitations and controlled surface the IMP. To protect the relevant and important values of natural systems, and to mitigate the natural hazards due to fire, the following management use for oil and gas leasing (1,825 acres). prescriptions would apply: Continue to keep area not available to livestock grazing. Close to vehicle use at the end of the Class B-road system, except for administrative access. No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes outside the WSA, and closed in the WSA. No competitive events. Suspend commercial permits (guiding or special groups). Manage the acreage within the WSAs (34,027 acres) as closed to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. Manage the remaining acreage within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to oil and gas leasing (1,690 acres). Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities on the remaining acreage (113 acres; see Appendix C).

Cottonwood Diamond Watershed would be designated as an ACEC with the The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage same prescriptions as in Alternative B, except that 34,027 acres within the would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but WSA are closed to oil and gas leasing, and the remaining 1,804 acres would be are not limited to: managed as no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing. Other surfaceManage portions of the area that are in the Flume, Spruce or Coal WSA disturbing activities would be precluded (see Appendix C). according to IMP.

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
This area is not designated as an ACEC. Manage 6,425 acres as open to oil and gas leasing, 4,606 acres with timing limitations and controlled surface use, 2,094 acres as no surface occupancy, and 362 acres as closed. Continue the Three Rivers Withdrawal for locatable minerals (2,034 acres). Avoid permitting new ROWs.

Alternative B
Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon Potential ACEC (13,500 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of scenery, wildlife, natural systems (threatened, sensitive, and endangered plants), and cultural resources, the following management prescriptions would apply: Designate as VRM Class I. Permitted activities would be confined to main roads within crucial bighorn lambing habitat from April 1 through June 15. This restriction would not apply to filming if the filming meets the minimum impact criteria (see Appendix B). Wall Street rock art sites would be managed for public use with the emphasis on interpretation. Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes. Vehicle-based camping only in designated campgrounds. No campfires except in campgrounds. Retain ACEC in public ownership except for the previously initiated Moab Salt Exchange Parcel (635 acres). Manage non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to oil and gas leasing (3,502 acres). Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to the remaining acreage (9,998 acres).

Proposed Plan
Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon would be designated as an ACEC with the same prescriptions as in Alternative B, except: Designate Highway 279 and Long Canyon as VRM Class II; manage the remainder of the ACEC as VRM I. Manage the entire area as no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities.

Alternative D
The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but are not limited to: Designate as VRM Class III. The area would be managed with the following stipulations for oil and gas: 5,741 acres would be open to leasing subject to standard terms and conditions, and apply a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities on 5,370 acres. In addition, 2,389 acres along the Colorado River would be managed as no surface occupancy (see Appendix C).

2-35

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Labyrinth Canyon Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
This area is not designated as an ACEC.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage Labyrinth Canyon Potential ACEC (8,528 acres) would be designated as an Same as the Proposed Plan. would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but ACEC. Manage as open to oil and gas leasing subject to standard terms and conditions and as open with controlled surface use stipulations for oil and gas. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of scenery are not limited to: Designate as VRM Class II. and fish, the following management prescriptions would apply: Continue the Three Rivers Withdrawal for locatable minerals. No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized Designate as VRM Class I. No commercial or private use of woodland products. travel limited to designated routes. No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and travel limited to designated routes. preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Manage non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to oil No commercial or private use of woodland products. and gas leasing (5,492 acres). Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) on the remaining lands (3,036 acres). No commercial or private use of woodland products.

Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
This area is not designated as an ACEC. Manage Mill Creek Canyon WSA (9,780 acres) according to the IMP to protect wilderness values. Manage the WSA as closed to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. Manage remainder of the area as open with standard stipulations. Livestock grazing would be available in the Mill Creek Allotment.

Alternative B
Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC (13,501 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. This area includes the Mill Creek Canyon WSA (9,780 acres) in its entirety.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC (3,721 acres) would be designated as an The proposed area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the ACEC. This area excludes the Mill Creek Canyon WSA. The Mill Creek acreage would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which Canyon WSA (9,780 acres) would be managed according to the IMP to protect include, but are not limited to: The Mill Creek Canyon WSA would be managed according to the IMP to Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of cultural wilderness values. protect wilderness values (9,780 acres). resources, scenery, and natural systems (cold water fishery/riparian/watershed Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of cultural resources, scenery, natural systems: (cold water fishery/riparian/watershed and and wildlife), the following management prescriptions would apply: The remaining 3,721 acres would be managed as follows: wildlife), the following management prescriptions would apply to 3,721 acres Recreation activities would be managed according to the South Moab SRMA Recreation activities would be managed according to the South Moab in the ACEC: in that portion within the SRMA. SRMA. Recreation activities would be managed according to the South Moab Designate as VRM Class II. Prioritize Mill Creek for Class III cultural inventory. SRMA. Livestock grazing would not be available. Protect Native American traditional cultural places. Prioritize Mill Creek for Class III cultural inventory. Apply controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations for oil and gas Designate as VRM Class I. Protect Native American traditional cultural places. leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Livestock grazing would not be available. Designate as VRM Class II. No vehicle-based camping. Livestock grazing would not be available. No campfires in riparian areas. No vehicle-based camping. Motorized competitive events would be prohibited. No campfires in riparian areas. No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized Motorized competitive events would be prohibited. travel limited to designated routes. No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized All recreational events would be confined to the designated roads in the travel limited to designated routes. ACEC. All recreational events would be confined to the designated roads in the Limit recreation facility development to day-use only. ACEC. Acquire state land within ACEC as the opportunity arises. Limit recreation facility development to day-use only. Maintain 3 cfs in the South Fork of Mill Creek below the Sheley Acquire state land within ACEC as the opportunity arises. diversion. Maintain 3 cfs in the South Fork of Mill Creek below the Sheley Manage the area as closed to oil and gas leasing. No recreational mining diversion. would be allowed. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and No fuel wood harvesting permits would be issued. preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Private wood gathering for backpacking campfires would be allowed in No recreational mining would be allowed. the uplands only. No fuel wood harvesting permits would be issued. Private wood gathering for backpacking campfires would be allowed in the uplands only.

2-36

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Ten Mile Wash Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
This area is not designated as an ACEC. Manage as controlled surface use for oil and gas use. Open to competitive motorized events.

Alternative B
Ten Mile Wash Potential ACEC (4,980 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of natural systems (riparian/wetlands), wildlife, cultural resources and natural hazards, the following management prescriptions would apply: Prioritize Ten Mile for Class III cultural inventory. Prioritize Ten Mile as a scientific research area. No grazing in Ten Mile Canyon downstream from Dripping Springs. Prioritize area for riparian restoration. No vehicular travel in Ten Mile Wash from Dripping Springs to the Green River. Restrict camping and campfires to designated sites at Dripping Spring. Manage non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to oil and gas leasing (232 acres). Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to the remaining acreage (4,748 acres). No commercial or private collection of woodland products. NOTE: In Alternative B, Ten Mile does not have a designated road in it; therefore, all the road-related prescriptions have been removed from Alternative B.

PROPOSED PLAN
Ten Mile Wash Potential ACEC (4,980 acres) would be designated as an ACEC with the following management prescriptions: Prioritize Ten Mile for Class III cultural inventory. Prioritize Ten Mile as a scientific research area. No grazing in Ten Mile Canyon downstream from Dripping Springs. Prioritize area for riparian restoration. Restrict camping and campfires to designated sites at Dripping Spring. Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes. No competitive events. Establish speed limits. Reroute designated road around the wetlands south of the cattle guard near Dripping Springs. Restrict vehicle access at the Green River; designate a parking area at the Green River. Permits for motorized recreational use may be required if monitoring indicates long-term damage. Require permits for groups greater than 25 vehicles. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). No commercial or private collection of woodland products.

Alternative D
The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but are not limited to: Continue present grazing management in Ten Mile Canyon. No campfires outside of designated sites. Motorized travel on designated routes only (see Map 2-11-D). Require permits for groups greater than 50 vehicles. Apply a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to 2,558 acres.

Upper Courthouse Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
This area is not designated as an ACEC. Managed as open to oil and gas leasing with standard terms and conditions. No commercial or private use of woodland products.

Alternative B
Upper Courthouse Potential ACEC (11,529 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Recreation use would be managed in accordance with the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of historic/cultural/paleontological resources and natural systems (threatened, sensitive, endangered, and relict plants), the following management prescriptions would apply: Prioritize Upper Courthouse for a Class III cultural inventory. No collection of petrified wood. No new range improvements except for fencing. No vegetation treatments except for noxious weeds and exotics, and to restore riparian environments. Active protection of archeological sites from grazing. Limit OHVs to designated routes (no sandhill climbing routes would be designated). No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes. Vehicle-based camping only in designated sites. No campfires outside of campgrounds. No competitive OHV events. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). No commercial or private use of woodland products.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but are not limited to: are not limited to: Recreation use would be managed in accordance with the Labyrinth Rims/ Gemini Bridges SRMA. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to mesa-top relict plant communities. Avoid permitting new ROWs on the mesa-top relict plant communities. No commercial or private use of woodland products. Recommend the mesa-top relict plant communities for the withdrawal of locatable minerals. Manage as open for oil and gas leasing (see Map 2-5-D). Open to locatable mineral development. No commercial or private use of woodland products.

2-37

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Westwater Canyon Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
This area is not designated as an ACEC.

Alternative B
Westwater Canyon Potential ACEC (5,069 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. This area is within the Westwater Canyon WSA.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage Same as the Proposed Plan. would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but Manage the Westwater WSA according to the IMP to protect wilderness Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of scenery are not limited to: values. Manage the Westwater Canyon WSA according to the IMP to protect Manage as closed to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. and fish, the following management prescriptions would apply: wilderness values. Manage the Westwater Canyon WSA according to the IMP to protect Continue with the existing withdrawal for locatable minerals. wilderness values. Avoid permitting new ROWs. Designate as VRM Class I. Closed to motorized and mechanized travel. Acquire inholdings within ACEC. Manage as closed for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. No commercial or private use of woodland products.

White Wash Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
This area is not designated as an ACEC. Competitive motorized events would be allowed. Open to cross country OHV travel. Manage as no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing. Open to locatable mineral development.

Alternative B
White Wash Potential ACEC (2,988 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important value of natural systems (riparian dune systems), the following management prescriptions would apply: Limit OHVs to designated routes. Competitive motorized events would not be allowed. Vehicle-based camping in campgrounds only. No fires or wood gathering allowed. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). No commercial or private use of woodland products.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but are not limited to: are not limited to: Recreational use in this area would be managed according to the White Wash Sand Dunes Open OHV Focus Area (1,866 acres) within the Labyrinth Rims/ Gemini Bridges SRMA. The remaining 1,122 acres would be managed according to the Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area in the same SRMA. About 1,866 acres are open to OHV, and 1,122 acres are limited to designated routes. Competitive motorized events would be allowed. Manage as open to oil and gas leasing (see Map 2-5-C). Open to locatable mineral development. No commercial or private use of woodland products. Recreational use in this area would be managed according to the White Wash Sand Dunes Open OHV Focus Area within the Dee Pass SRMA for this alternative. The entire area would be open to OHV use. Competitive motorized events would be allowed.

Wilson Arch Potential ACEC
Alternative A (No Action)
The area is not designated as an ACEC. Managed as open to oil and gas leasing.

Alternative B
Wilson Arch Potential ACEC (3,700 acres) would be designated as an ACEC.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the acreage Same as the Proposed Plan, except designate as VRM Class III. would default to prescriptions applicable to the general area, which include, but Special Management: To protect the relevant and important value of scenery, Wilson Arch would be designated as an ACEC with the following management are not limited to: Designate as VRM Class II. prescriptions: Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and Designate as VRM Class I. other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Build one trail up to Wilson Arch for hiking use only. Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). No commercial or private use of woodland products.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS – NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL – OLD SPANISH TRAIL
Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Segments of the Old Spanish Trail would be identified and classified for historic integrity and condition. These segments would then be designated for appropriate types of management and travel. Landmarks along the Old Spanish Trail would be identified for historic integrity and interpreted only if the action would not impact the values at the site. All interpretation projects would be done in consultation with Native Americans and other interested parties including the Old Spanish Trail Association and

2-38

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
National Park Service. Consider plan amendment, as necessary, to incorporate provisions of the forthcoming Old Spanish Trail Comprehensive Management Plan. Participate in the development of the management plan for the Old Spanish Trail and assist with its implementation as opportunities arise, consistent with other decisions of the RMP. Support protective management, interpretation, and public enjoyment and understanding of the National Historic Old Spanish Trail, consistent with the Old Spanish Trail Comprehensive Management Plan. Seek to acquire public access to the site of the Old Spanish Trail ford of the Green River, upstream from the town of Green River, Utah, for the purpose of developing an interpretive site. Consistent with the Cameo Cliffs and Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plans (RAMPs), consider developing and managing a section of the Old Spanish Trail for equestrian use.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSRs)
Goals and Objectives:
Review all eligible rivers to determine suitability for Congressional designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). To the extent of the BLM's authority (limited to BLM lands within the river corridor), maintain and enhance the free flowing character, preserve and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values, and allow no activities within the river corridor that would alter the tentative classification of those river segments determined suitable for congressional designation in the NWSRS until Congress acts.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
River segments found suitable and recommended for designation would be managed to protect their free-flowing condition and to protect the outstandingly remarkable values and maintain the tentative classification within line-of-sight up to 1/4 mile (1/3 miles on the Colorado and Dolores Rivers) from the high water mark on each bank of the river (not to exceed 320 acres per mile). Management that would apply should any rivers be designated by Congress is identified in BLM Manual 8351.51 (see Appendix J and Maps 2-15-B and 2-15-C for river segments found suitable for WSR designation, by alternative). BLM would not seek water rights as part of a suitability decision made in the Record of Decision for this RMP. WSR segments recommended as suitable for Wild would be designate as VRM Class I; Scenic and Recreational segments would be designated as VRM Class II. OHV travel would be limited to designated routes or closed, depending on the river segment. The stipulations that would be applied to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities within suitable river segments have been developed based on other resource values such as scenery, wildlife and fisheries, riparian, and recreation. In all cases, these stipulations are sufficient to protect the outstandingly remarkable values. All suitable segments would be managed with a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing as well as all other surface-disturbing activities, or as closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix C and Maps 2-5-B and 2-5-C for the surface stipulations application to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities, by alternative). 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 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Besides applying consistent criteria across agency jurisdictions, the joint study would avoid piece-mealing 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. 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 Proposed Plan 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(s). 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. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers System does not create new water rights for the BLM. Federal reserved water rights for new components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System are established at the discretion of Congress. If water is reserved by Congress when a river component is added to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, it 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.

Beaver Creek (7.7 miles)
• •
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for either of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Segment 1 – Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 1 – Forest Service boundary to one mile from Dolores River Segment 2 – One mile to Dolores River

Alternative B
Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable

PROPOSED PLAN
Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable

Alternative D

2-39

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Colorado River (66.5 miles)
• • • • • • • • •
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for any of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Segment 1 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 2 – Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Closed VRM designation: Class I Segment 3 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 4 – Suitable–Recreational Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 5 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 6 – Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 1 – Colorado-Utah state line to Westwater Canyon Segment 2 – Westwater Canyon (Mile 125) to River Mile 112 Segment 3 – River Mile 112 to confluence with the Dolores River Segment 3(a) – River Mile 112 to Cisco Wash Segment 3(b) – Cisco Wash to confluence with the Dolores River Segment 4 – Confluence with the Dolores River to River Mile 49 near Potash Segment 4 (portion for Alternative D only) – Hittle Bottom to Take Out Beach Segment 5 – River Mile 44.5 to Mile 38.5 state land boundary Segment 6 – River Mile 37.5 below state land to Mile 34 Canyonlands National Park

Alternative B
Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Closed VRM designation: Class I

PROPOSED PLAN
Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable Segment 3 – Not suitable Segment 4 – Not suitable Segment 5 – Not suitable Segment 6 – Not suitable

Alternative D

Segment 3(a) – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 3(b) – Suitable–Recreational Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 4 – Suitable–Recreational Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 5 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 6 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II

2-40

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Cottonwood Canyon (10.4 miles)
•
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Closed VRM designation: Class I Source near Cottonwood Point to private land (includes the first 1/2 mile of Horse Canyon)

Alternative B
Not suitable

PROPOSED PLAN
Not suitable

Alternative D

Dolores River (22.0 miles)
• • •
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for any of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Segment 1 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 2 – Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class I Segment 3 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 1 – Colorado-Utah state line to Fisher Creek Segment 2 – Fisher Creek to Bridge Canyon Segment 3 – Bridge Canyon to Colorado River

Alternative B
Oil and gas leasing: NSO

PROPOSED PLAN
Segment 1 – Suitable–Recreational OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 2 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 3 – Suitable–Recreational Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable Segment 3 – Not suitable

Alternative D

Green River (99.0 miles)
• • • • • • • •
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for any of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification Segment 1 – Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Closed Segment 1 – Coal Creek to Nefertiti Boat Ramp Segment 2 – Nefertiti Boat Ramp to Swasey's Boat Ramp Segment 3 – Swasey's Boat Ramp to I-70 Bridge Segment 3(a) – Swasey's Boat Ramp to River Mile 97 (confluence with the San Rafael River; combination of Segment 3 and part of Segment 4) Segment 4 – I-70 Bridge to River Mile 91 below Ruby Ranch Segment 4(a) – Mile 97 (confluence with the San Rafael River) to Canyonlands National Park boundary (part of Segment 4 and all of Segments 5 and 6) Segment 5 – Mile 91 below Ruby Ranch to Hey Joe Canyon Segment 6 – Hey Joe Canyon to Canyonlands National Park Boundary

Alternative B
Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Closed

PROPOSED PLAN
Segment 1 – Suitable – Wild Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable Segment 3 – Not suitable

Alternative D

2-41

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable–Recreational Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 3 – Suitable–Recreational Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 4 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 5 – Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class I Segment 6 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable – Recreational Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 3 – Not suitable Segment 3(a) – Not suitable Segment 4 – Not suitable Segment 4(a) – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 5 – Not suitable Segment 6 – Not suitable Segment 4 – Not suitable Segment 5 – Not suitable Segment 6 – Not suitable

Mill Creek (6.0 miles)
• •
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for either of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Closed VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable–Scenic Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Closed VRM designation: Class I Segment 1 – National Forest boundary to private property below diversion Segment 2 – T26S, R23E, Section 19 to Power Dam

Alternative B
Segment 1 – Suitable–Recreational Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable

PROPOSED PLAN
Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable

Alternative D

2-42

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Negro Bill Canyon (7.4 miles)
• •
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for either of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Segment 1 – Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Closed VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable–Recreational Oil and gas leasing: NSO OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 1 – From state land below rim to 1/4 mile from Colorado River Segment 2 – Last 1/4 mile to Colorado River

Alternative B
Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable

PROPOSED PLAN
Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable

Alternative D

North Fork Mill Creek (11.2 miles)
•
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Closed VRM designation: Class I National Forest boundary near Wilson Mesa to Mill Creek

Alternative B
Not suitable

PROPOSED PLAN
Not suitable

Alternative D

Onion Creek (12.5 miles)
• •
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for either of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Segment 1 – Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable–Recreational Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class II Segment 1 – Source to Onion Creek Road Segment 2 – Beginning of Onion Creek Road to Colorado River

Alternative B
Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable

PROPOSED PLAN
Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable

Alternative D

Professor Creek (7.4 miles)
•
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: Closed National Forest and state land boundary to diversion near private land

Alternative B
Not suitable

PROPOSED PLAN
Not suitable

Alternative D

2-43

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class I

Rattlesnake Canyon (31.6 miles)
•
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Closed VRM designation: Class I Source to Green River (including Flat Nose George Tributary)

Alternative B
Not suitable

PROPOSED PLAN
Not suitable

Alternative D

Salt Wash (0.3 miles)
•
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Arches National Park boundary to Colorado River

Alternative B
Salt Wash to be deferred until NPS does suitability on portion within Arches National Park. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. By default, the lower 0.25 miles of this 0.3-mile segment is within Segment 4 of the Colorado River. Consequently, it would be managed as suitable with a recreation classification.

PROPOSED PLAN
Salt Wash to be deferred until NPS does suitability on portion within Arches National Park. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. By default, the lower 0.25 miles of this 0.3-mile segment is within Segment 4 of the Colorado River. Consequently, it would be managed as suitable with a recreation classification.

Alternative D
Salt Wash to be deferred until NPS does suitability on portion within Arches National Park. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification.

Thompson Canyon (5.5 miles)
•
Alternative A (No Action)
Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. Suitable–Wild Oil and gas leasing: Closed OHV category: Limited to designated routes VRM designation: Class I Source of Thompson to Fisher Creek (Cottonwood Canyon; tributary of Dolores River)

Alternative B
Not suitable

PROPOSED PLAN
Not suitable

Alternative D

2-44

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS – WILDERNESS AND WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSAs)
Goals and Objectives:
Preserve the wilderness character of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) until Congress designates them wilderness or releases them. Manage the Black Ridge Wilderness Area to provide for the protection of wilderness character and for the use and enjoyment of visitors in a manner that leaves it unimpaired for future use (43 CFR 8560).

Management Common to PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B. and D:
Manage WSAs under the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP; USDI-BLM 1995; see Map 2-16). Manage for the continued preservation of each WSA's wilderness character. Manage Black Ridge Wilderness Area (5,200 acres; part of the McInnis Canyon National Conservation Area) in accordance with applicable law, regulation, policy, and management for the area (see Maps 2-16-A through 2-16-D). For WSAs, no surface disturbance, permanent new development, or ROWs are allowed, and the lands are closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix C). For designated Wilderness, any new development or surface disturbance is for wilderness purposes, and the lands are closed to mineral leasing and location. These are non-discretionary, non-planning decisions. Only Congress can release a WSA from wilderness consideration. Should any WSA, in part or in whole, be released from wilderness consideration, proposals in the released area would be examined on a case-by-case basis. All proposals inconsistent with Interim Management Policy (IMP) would be deferred until completion of requisite plan amendments. Because a plan amendment would be required, there is no separate analysis in this Land-use Plan to address resource impacts if any WSAs are released. Fire activities and projects in WSAs would follow the IMP. Designate WSAs and Wilderness as VRM Class I. Under the Proposed Plan and under Alternatives A and D, where routes would remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use could continue on a conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs ("ways" when located within WSAs – see Glossary) could continue as long as use of these routes does not impair wilderness suitability, as provided by the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM 7/5/95). The miles of motorized routes in WSAs (see below for miles of route per WSA) are only conditionally open to vehicle use. If Congress designates the area as wilderness, the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or non-compliance are found through monitoring efforts to impair the area's suitability for wilderness designation, BLM 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 nonimpairment of wilderness values.

Behind the Rocks WSA (12,635 acres)
Alternative A (No Action)
Designate the majority of the Behind the Rocks WSA as closed to OHV use. About 3.55 miles of inventoried way are designated.

Alternative B
Designate the Behind the Rocks WSA as closed to OHV use. No miles of route are designated.

PROPOSED PLAN
Designate a portion of the Behind the Rocks WSA as closed to OHV use (11,822 acres). Designate OHV use in the remainder of the WSA as limited to designated routes (813 acres, with 0.9 miles of designated route).

Alternative D
Designate the Behind the Rocks WSA as limited to designated routes (with 0.9 miles of designated routes).

Black Ridge (52 acres) and Lost Spring Canyon (1,624 acres) WSAs
Note: Most of the original Black Ridge WSA was designated Wilderness with the creation of the McInnis Canyon NCA. Most of the original Lost Spring Canyon WSA has been incorporated into Arches National Park. Alternative A (No Action)
Designate Black Ridge and Lost Spring Canyon WSAs as limited to inventoried routes, with 0.25 miles of route designated in Lost Spring Canyon WSA and 0 miles of route designated in Black Ridge WSA.

Alternative B
Designate Black Ridge and Lost Spring Canyon WSAs as closed to OHV use, with 0 miles of route designated in Lost Spring Canyon WSA and 0 miles of route designated in Black Ridge WSA.

PROPOSED PLAN
Designate Black Ridge and Lost Spring Canyon WSAs as limited to designated Same as the Proposed Plan. routes, with 0.25 miles of route designated in Lost Spring Canyon WSA and 0 miles of route designated in Black Ridge WSA.

Alternative D

Desolation Canyon (81,603 acres), Floy Canyon (72,605 acres), Flume Canyon (50,800 acres), Coal Canyon (60,755 acres), Mill Creek Canyon (9,780 acres), Negro Bill Canyon (7,820 acres), and Spruce Canyon (20,990 acres) WSAs
Note: Acreage of Desolation Canyon WSA is for the MPA portion only. Remainder of this WSA is managed by the Price Field Office. Acreage of Flume Canyon WSA includes 2,750 acres in areas administered by the Vernal Field Office. Alternative A (No Action)
Designate these WSAs as limited to inventoried routes, with: 8.2 miles of inventoried way designated in Desolation Canyon WSA. 23.5 miles of inventoried way designated in Floy Canyon WSA. 10.1 miles of inventoried way designated in Flume Canyon WSA. 8.0 miles of inventoried way designated in Coal Canyon WSA. 1.8 miles of inventoried way designated in Mill Creek Canyon WSA. 3.5 miles of inventoried way designated in Negro Bill Canyon WSA. 1.0 mile of inventoried way designated in Spruce Canyon WSA.

Alternative B
Designate these WSAs as closed to OHV. No miles of route would be designated. Same as Alternative B.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D
Designate these WSAs as limited to designated routes, with 1.5 miles of inventoried way designated in Floy Canyon WSA. 1.5 miles of inventoried way designated in Coal Canyon WSA. 1.4 miles of inventoried way designated in Mill Creek Canyon WSA. 1.1 miles of inventoried way designated in Negro Bill Canyon WSA.

Westwater Canyon WSA (31,160 acres)
Alternative A (No Action)
Designate the Westwater Canyon WSA as limited to inventoried routes, with 22.5 miles of inventoried way designated.

Alternative B
Designate the Westwater Canyon WSA as closed to OHV, with no miles of route designated.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Designate a portion of the Westwater Canyon WSA as closed to OHV (23,690 Designate the Westwater Canyon WSA as limited to designated routes, with acres). Designate the remainder of the WSA as limited to designated routes, 8.4 miles of route designated.

2-45

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
with zero miles designated (7,470 acres).

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Goals and Objectives:
Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats (including but not limited to designated critical habitat) of Federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate plant or animal species to actively promote recovery to the point that they no longer need protection under the Endangered Species Act. Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats of BLM (State) Sensitive plant and animal species to prevent the listing of these species under the Endangered Species Act. Implement management strategies that restore degraded riparian communities; protect natural flow requirements; protect water quality; manage for stable, non-eroding banks; and manage for year-round flows where applicable. Allow or participate in research of threatened and endangered (T&E) and Sensitive species and their habitats. Avoid practices that permanently convert sagebrush shrubland to invasive species.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
As required by the Endangered Species Act: Implement recovery actions identified in Recovery Plans and in Conservation Agreements, Plans and Strategies in coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), and other interested entities. The BLM would be an active participant in all recovery implementation teams. The protection of habitat for listed and non-listed plant and animal species would be considered prior to authorizing any actions that could alter or disturb such habitat. No management action would be permitted on public lands that would jeopardize the continued existence of plant or animal species that are listed or are officially proposed or are candidates for listing as T&E. Surveys of habitat or potential habitat for special status species (including any sensitive species under consideration for formal designation as T&E) would be made prior to taking any action that could affect these species. Surveys would be conducted using protocols established for potentially affected species. BLM would conduct or cooperate in surveys to determine the extent of listed and non-listed plant and animal species and their habitat or potential habitat. Any listed or non-listed special status species survey must be conducted by qualified biologists, botanists, or ecologists that have been approved by the BLM. Monitoring, using approved protocol, would be required on listed and non-listed special status species habitat that may be affected by BLM authorization of any activities within that habitat. Follow current and future recovery plans and manage habitat for T&E and BLM Sensitive species: Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. Humpback Recovery Plan. Humpback Chub Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Humpback Recovery Plan. Bonytail Recovery Plan. Bonytail Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Bonytail Recovery Plan. Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. Razorback Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Support and implement special status plant and animal Species Management Plans. Coordinate actions with UDWR and other involved entities. Support population and habitat monitoring. Support and implement current and future special status plant and animal species Conservation Plans, Strategies, and Agreements. Coordinate actions with USFWS and other involved entities. Support population and habitat monitoring. As of 2005, Conservation Plans Strategies and Agreements include: Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation Agreement and Strategy Conservation Agreement for the Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker and Flannelmouth Sucker (see Map 2-17). Follow current and future Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices (BMP) for Federally Listed Species (see Appendix K). Species include but are not limited to: Jones Cycladenia, Mexican Spotted Owl, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Bald Eagle, and the Endangered Fish of the Colorado River. Work with UDWR to implement the Utah Wildlife Action Plan (UDWR 2005a) to coordinate management actions that will conserve native species and prevent the need for additional listings. Mitigate all unavoidable habitat losses for special status species as required by policy or law. Avoid construction of new roads within listed and non-listed special status plant and animal species habitats. Apply lease notices for listed plant and animal species as determined by Section 7 consultation between BLM and USFWS. Apply appropriate lease notices for any non-listed special status plant and animal species that occur or could potential occur applicable proposed lease areas. Develop cooperative agreements with other agencies or entities to inventory and/or monitor existing or potential habitat for listed and non-listed special status plant and animal species. Plan and implement assessment and monitoring plans for T&E and BLM Sensitive species. Participate in the Colorado River Fishes Recovery and Implementation Program. Coordinate with USFWS and UDWR to allow for the reintroduction of T&E and BLM Sensitive species into historic or suitable range. These reintroductions would be analyzed with site-specific NEPA. Allow translocations and population augmentation of special status species to aid in conservation and recovery efforts. Implement necessary habitat manipulations and monitoring to ensure successful translocation efforts. Apply environmental best management practices (BMPs) to all oil and gas operations in accordance with WO IM 2007-021 and the latest version of the "Goldbook" (see Appendix C).

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO):
If BLM determines that a proposed action may affect MSO or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS would be initiated (see Map 2-18).

2-46

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Monitor and protect known Protected Activity Center (PAC) sites according to USFWS recommendations and MSO Recovery Plan. Manage habitat for MSO according to USFWS and UDWR recommendations and recovery plans. Develop cooperative agreements with other agencies and entities to inventory and monitor existing potential habitat and annually schedule assessment plans of MSO habitat to determine quality of habitat and presence of species. Protect occupied and potential habitat, including designated critical habitat for the MSO, by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C). These stipulations would preclude temporary activities within designated critical habitat from March 1 through August 31. Permanent actions are prohibited year-round within 0.5 miles of a PAC.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWFL):
If BLM determines that a proposed action may affect SWFL or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS would be initiated. Monitor and protect known nesting sites according to USFWS recommendations and SWFL Recovery Plan. Manage habitat for SWFL according to USFWS and UDWR recommendations and recovery plans; avoid loss or disturbance of suitable riparian habitat. Develop cooperative agreements with other agencies and entities to inventory and monitor existing potential habitat and annually schedule assessment plans of SWFL habitat to determine quality of habitat and presence of species. Protect SWFL and their habitat by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C) within suitable habitat. These stipulations would preclude activities within a 100-m buffer of suitable habitat year long. Activities within 0.25 miles of occupied breeding habitat would not occur during the breeding season, May 1 through August 15.

Bald Eagle:
If BLM determines that a proposed action may affect bald eagles or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS would be initiated. Acquire lands with roost and nest sites through land exchange, purchase or donation. Conduct assessments of wintering bald eagle habitat to delineate essential winter habitat and to develop necessary protective measures. Monitor nesting territories annually during breeding season (generally January 1 through August 31). Protect bald eagle nest sites by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C) within 1.0 mile of documented nest sites (2,439 acres). These stipulations would preclude surface-disturbing activities within a 1.0 mile radius of nest sites from January 1 through August 31 (see Map 2-19). No permanent structures would be allowed within 0.5 miles of known bald eagle nest sites year-round. Deviations may be allowed only after appropriate levels of consultation and coordination with the USFWS. Protect bald eagle winter habitat by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C) within 0.5 mile of winter roost areas. These stipulations would preclude activities and permanent structures within a 0.5 mile radius of winter roost sites from November 1through March 31 (see Map 2-19). No permanent structures would be allowed within 0.5 mile of winter roost sites, if the structure would result in the habitat becoming unsuitable for future winter roosting by bald eagles.

Sage-grouse:
Advance the conservation of Greater sage-grouse as well its habitat in accordance with the BLM National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy to avoid contributing to its listing under the Endangered Species Act (see Map 2-20). Consistent with RMP goals and objectives, utilize and apply, as needed, the following plans as part of implementing the BLM's National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, Strategic Management Plan for Sage-grouse (UDWR 2002), Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (WAFWA 2006), and the Gunnison Sage-grouse Range-wide Conservation Plan. Follow The Gunnison Sage-grouse Range-wide Conservation Plan (GSRSC 2005) for suggested management practices within 4 miles of active Gunnison sage-grouse leks. Work cooperatively with UDWR; universities; State, county, and local agencies; and private organizations to develop expanded data; assist with analysis; identify important habitat and potential restoration areas and treatments; and form cooperative agreements with other agencies and organizations to inventory sage-grouse densities and identify suitable habitat for expansion. Develop and implement suitable sage-grouse habitat restoration projects. Allow for translocation of sage-grouse in suitable unoccupied habitat.

White-tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dogs:
The White-tailed prairie dog and the Gunnison prairie dog are BLM and State sensitive species; translocations of these species would be considered in suitable unoccupied habitats (see Map 2-21). Manage both prairie dog species and their habitats in coordination with the UDWR. Apply habitat management guidance and population monitoring strategies as recommended in the newly developed multi-agency White-tailed and Gunnison's Prairie Dog Management Plan. Develop cooperative agreements with other agencies to inventory prairie dog densities and identify suitable habitat for expansion.

Colorado River Endangered Fish:
No surface-disturbing activities within the 100-year floodplain of the Colorado River, Green River, and at the confluence of the Dolores and Colorado Rivers would be allowed. Any exceptions to this requirement would require consultation with the USFWS. Restrictions on surface disturbance within this critical habitat would be developed through this consultation process (see Map 2-17).

Golden Eagle:
Known golden eagle nest sites would be protected according to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act amended in 1978. Acquire lands with nest and roost sites through land exchange or acquisition. Conduct assessments of wintering golden eagle habitat. Protect golden eagle nest sites and habitat (12,902 acres) by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C). These stipulations would preclude surface-disturbing activities within 0.5 miles of documented nest sites from February 1 to July 15 (see Map 2-19).

Burrowing Owl:
Protect burrowing owls by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS (see Appendix O) for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C) by precluding surface-disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of known nests from March 1 through August 31 (see Map 2-22). Domestic sheep camps, temporary watering sites, and salt and mineral blocks would not be located within 0.25 miles of occupied burrowing owl nests from March 1 through August 31.

2-47

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Maintain ground squirrel and prairie dog colonies to provide habitat and nesting burrows for burrowing owls. The species would be managed under the guidance provided by the Raptor Best Management Practices (BMPs; see Appendix O), which includes implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers to protect nesting raptors and their habitats.

Kit Fox:
Protect kit fox by precluding surface-disturbing activities within 200 m of a kit fox den.

Ferruginous Hawk:
Manage ferruginous hawk nesting and foraging habitat by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS (see Appendix O) for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C) precluding surface-disturbing activities within 0.5 miles of active nests from March 1 through August 1 (see Map 2-22). Domestic sheep camps, temporary watering sites, and salt and mineral blocks would not be located within 0.5 miles of occupied ferruginous hawk nests from March 1 through August 1. The species would be managed under the guidance provided by the Raptor BMPs (see Appendix O), which includes implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers to protect nesting raptors and their habitats.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo:
Avoid loss or disturbance of yellow-billed cuckoo habitat and manage yellow-billed cuckoo nesting and foraging habitat by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C). These stipulations preclude surface-disturbing activities within 100 m of yellow-billed cuckoo habitat within riparian areas from May 15 through July 20. Compliance with BLM Riparian Policy would restrict surface disturbance within 100 m of riparian habitat and would therefore protect nesting habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo.

Jones Cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii):
Require specific site inventories for all surface disturbing projects in areas with suitable Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii habitat. BLM would restrict activities, in suitable Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii habitat. Restrictions include limiting motorized travel to designated routes, precluding surface disturbing activities within 300 feet of plants and suitable habitat, and precluding construction activities from May 15th through June 30th within occupied habitat (see Standard Terms and conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C). Other restrictions include avoiding road construction, land disposal, and utilities in this habitat, as well as avoiding grazing activities such as trailing, salting, watering and herding.

California Condor
• Within potential habitat for the California Condor, surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. • Surface disturbing activities will not occur within 1.0 mile of nest sites during the breeding season of August 1 to November 30 or within 0.5 mile of established roosting sites (see Standard Terms and Conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C). • No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 1.0 mile of nest sites and within 0.5 miles of established roosting sites.

Greater Sage-grouse Habitats
Alternative A (No Action)
Not specified.

Alternative B
About 12,850 acres of pre-settlement habitat (see Map 2-20) would be subject to controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations (if sage-grouse occupation is identified by BLM in cooperation with UDWR) as follows: Leks (within 2 miles of active strutting grounds): apply controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). These stipulations would preclude surface-disturbing activities from March 1 to May 15. Allow no permanent above-ground facilities within the 2 mile buffer year-round. Nesting and Brood-rearing Habitat: apply a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude activities from March 15 to July 15. Winter Habitat: apply a timing limitation stipulation to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude surface-disturbing activities from November 15 to March 14 on 12,850 acres. Any surface occupancy that would require or result in loss or fragmentation of 12,850 acres of habitat would be avoided or minimized. If surface occupancy cannot be avoided, BLM would recommend that sagebrush habitat be reclaimed. BLM would require onsite mitigation measures that prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to protect surface resources in accordance

PROPOSED PLAN
About 3,068 acres of potential habitat would be subject to controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations (if sage-grouse occupation is identified by BLM in cooperation with UDWR) as follows: Leks (within 2 miles of active strutting grounds): apply controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). These stipulations would preclude surface-disturbing activities from March 1 to May 15. Allow no surface-disturbing activities year-round within 0.5 mile buffer of active leks. Allow no permanent above-ground facilities within the two mile buffer. Nesting and Brood-Rearing Habitat: apply a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude activities from March 15 to July 15. Winter Habitat: apply a timing limitation stipulation to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude surface-disturbing activities from November 15 to March 14 on 3,068 acres. Any surface occupancy that would require or result in loss or fragmentation of 3,068 acres of habitat would be avoided or minimized. If surface occupancy cannot be avoided, BLM would recommend that sagebrush habitat be reclaimed. BLM would require onsite mitigation measures that prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to protect surface resources in accordance

Alternative D
About 1,986 acres of potential brooding habitat would be subject to controlled surface use and timing limitations stipulations (if sage-grouse occupation is identified by BLM in cooperation with UDWR) as follows: Leks (within 0.25 miles of active strutting grounds): apply controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). These stipulations would preclude surface-disturbing activities from March 1 to May 15. Allow no permanent above-ground facilities within the 0.25 mile buffer year-round. Nesting and Brood-Rearing Habitat: apply a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude activities from March 15 to July 15. Winter Habitat: apply a timing limitation stipulation to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude surface-disturbing activities from November 15 to March 14 on 1,986 acres. Any surface occupancy that would require or result in loss or fragmentation of 1,986 acres of habitat would be avoided or minimized. If surface occupancy cannot be avoided, BLM would recommend that sagebrush habitat be reclaimed. BLM would require onsite mitigation measures that prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to protect surface resources in accordance

2-48

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
with 40 CFR 1508.20. with 40 CFR 1508.20. with 40 CFR 1508.20.

Gunnison Sage-grouse Habitat
Alternative A (No Action)
Not specified.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

About 246,107 acres of pre-settlement habitat (See Map 2-20) would be subject About 175,727 acres of current potential habitat would be subject to controlled About 41,620 acres of potential brooding habitat would be subject to controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations (if sage-grouse occupation is to controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations (if sage-grouse surface use and timing limitation stipulations (if sage-grouse occupation is identified by BLM in cooperation with UDWR) as follows: occupation is identified by BLM in cooperation with UDWR) as follows: identified by BLM in cooperation with UDWR) as follows: Lek habitat (within 2.0 miles of active strutting ground): Apply controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude permanent surface occupancy within 2.0 miles of an active lek. No surface-disturbing activities would be allowed from March 20 to May 15. Allow no permanent above-ground facilities within the buffer. Prohibit or limit year-round construction of fences. Where opportunity exists, remove existing fences. Prohibit construction of power lines or other structures. Avoid issuing ROWs that would result in permanent above-ground facilities within 2.0 miles of a lek. Human caused disturbances would be avoided from March 20 to May 15. In year-round habitat (within 6.0 miles of active lek): avoid construction of fences, power lines, and tall structures. Leks (within 2 miles of active strutting grounds): apply controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). These stipulations would preclude surface-disturbing activities from March 20 to May 15. Allow no surface disturbing activities year-round within 0.5 mile buffer of active leks. Allow no permanent above-ground facilities within the two mile buffer. Prohibit or limit year-round construction of fences. Where opportunity exists, remove existing fences. Prohibit construction of power lines or other structures. Avoid issuing ROWs that would result in permanent above-ground facilities within 0.5 miles of a lek. Human caused disturbances would be avoided from March 20 to May 15. In year-round habitat (within 4.0 miles of active lek): minimize fence construction and avoid overhead power line construction where it would provide new raptor hunting perches and the possibility of collision for sage-grouse. Fences deemed necessary to construct should be built with materials that maximize visibility for sage-grouse to avoid collision. Any surface occupancy that would require or result in loss or fragmentation of any of the 175,727 acres of identified Gunnison sage-grouse habitat would be avoided or minimized. If surface occupancy cannot be avoided sagebrush habitat would be reclaimed. BLM would require onsite mitigation measures that prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to protect surface resources in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.20. Lek habitat (within 0.25 miles of active strutting ground): Apply controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). These stipulations would preclude permanent surface occupancy within 0.25 miles of an active lek. No surface-disturbing activities would be allowed from March 20 to May 15. Allow no permanent above-ground facilities within the buffer. Prohibit or limit year-round construction of fences. Where opportunity exists, remove existing fences. Prohibit construction of power lines or other structures. Avoid issuing ROWs that would result in permanent above-ground facilities within 0.25 miles of a lek. Human caused disturbances would be avoided from March 20 to May 15.

Not specified.

Any surface occupancy that would require or result in loss or fragmentation of 246,107 acres of habitat would be avoided or minimized. If surface occupancy cannot be avoided sagebrush habitat would be reclaimed. BLM would require onsite mitigation measures that prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to protect surface resources in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.20.

Any surface occupancy that would require or result in loss or fragmentation of 41,620 acres of habitat would be avoided or minimized. If surface occupancy cannot be avoided sagebrush habitat would be reclaimed. BLM would require onsite mitigation measures that prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to protect surface resources in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.20.

White-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat
Alternative A (No Action)
Not specified.

Alternative B
Manage 199,505 acres of historic habitat (see Map 2-21) designated by UDWR. Manage 117,481 acres of this habitat as the Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex ACEC; apply no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within the ACEC. Manage the remaining 82,024 acres of habitat to protect active prairie dog colonies by applying a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude surface-disturbing activities within 1,300 feet of these colonies. No permanent above-ground facilities would be allowed within the 1,300-foot buffer.

PROPOSED PLAN
Manage the contiguous 117,481 acres of historic habitat designated by UDWR. Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 660 feet of active prairie dog colonies. This stipulation would preclude surface-disturbing activities within 660 feet of these colonies. No permanent above-ground facilities would be allowed within the 660-foot buffer.

Alternative D
Manage 31,186 acres of occupied habitat designated by UDWR. Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 660 feet of active prairie dog colonies. This stipulation would preclude surface-disturbing activities within 660 feet of these colonies. No permanent above-ground facilities would be allowed within the 660-foot buffer.

Gunnison Prairie Dog Habitat
Alternative A (No Action)
Not specified.

Alternative B
Manage 10,700 acres of habitat designated by UDWR for Gunnison prairie dogs (see Map 2-21). Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 1,300 feet of active prairie dog colonies. This stipulation would preclude surface-

PROPOSED PLAN
Manage 10,700 acres of habitat designated by UDWR for Gunnison prairie dogs. Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 660 feet of active prairie dog colonies. This stipulation would preclude surface-disturbing

Alternative D
Manage Gunnison prairie dog habitat using standards terms and conditions.

2-49

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
disturbing activities within 1,300 feet of these colonies. No permanent above-ground facilities would be allowed within 1,300 feet of prairie dog colonies. Construction of new power lines would be prohibited within 1,300 feet of prairie dog colonies. activities within 660 feet of these colonies. No permanent above-ground facilities would be allowed within 660 feet of prairie dog colonies. Power lines would be avoided within prairie dog colonies; however in the event that power lines are required within colonies, raptor anti-perch devices would be required.

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT Motorized Travel
Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Under the Proposed Plan and under Alternatives A and D, where routes would remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use could continue on a conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs ("ways" when located within WSAs – see Glossary) could continue as long as use of these routes does not impair wilderness suitability, as provided by the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM 7/5/95). The miles of motorized routes in WSAs (see page 2-42 and 2-43 for miles of route per WSA) are only conditionally open to vehicle use. If Congress designates the area as wilderness, the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or non-compliance are found through monitoring efforts to impair the area's suitability for wilderness designation, BLM 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 nonimpairment of wilderness values.*

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
BLM, in preparing its RMP designations and its implementation-level travel management plans, is following policy and regulation authority found at: 43 C.F.R. Part 8340; 43 C.F.R. Subpart 8364; and 43 C.F.R. Subpart 9268. Provide opportunities for a range of motorized recreation experiences on public lands while protecting sensitive resources and minimizing conflicts among various users. Identification of specific designated routes would be initially established through the chosen Travel Plan accompanying this RMP (see Appendix G) and may be modified through subsequent implementation planning and project planning on a case-by-case basis. These identified routes would be available regardless of other management actions. These adjustments would occur only in areas with limited route designations and would be analyzed at the implementation planning level. These adjustments would be done through a collaborative process with local government and which would include public review of proposed route changes. Site-specific NEPA documentation would be required for changes to the route designation system. † All areas would be limited, open, or closed to motorized travel. Limit travel by motorized vehicle on all lands administered by the MFO to designated routes, except for Managed Open Areas, and for areas that are closed to motorized travel (see Maps 2-10-A through 2-10-D; see Appendix G for Travel Plan development). BLM could impose limitations on types of vehicle allowed on specific designated routes if monitoring indicates that a particular type of vehicle is causing disturbance to the soil, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural or vegetative resources, especially by off-road travel in an area that is limited to designated roads. OHV access for game retrieval, antler collection and dispersed camping would only be allowed on designated routes (designated routes/spurs have been identified specifically for dispersed camping). Adherence to the Travel Plan is required for all activities, except where otherwise explicitly permitted. Only designated roads and managed open areas are available for motorized commercial and organized group use (see Maps 2-11-B through 2-11-D for route designations by alternatives). Where the authorized officer determines that off-road vehicles are causing or would cause considerable adverse impacts, the authorized officer shall close or restrict such areas. The public would be notified as to these closures and restrictions. Any routes that are not baseline routes would be signed "Closed" on the ground. Such routes would be considered as impacts to the area's natural character, and use of such routes would be considered cross country use and not allowed. Non-inventoried routes should be rehabilitated. Under the Proposed Plan and under Alternatives A and D, where routes would remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use could continue on a conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs ("ways" when located within WSAs – see Glossary) could continue as long as use of these routes does not impair wilderness suitability, as provided by the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM 7/5/95). The miles of motorized routes in WSAs (see below for miles of route per WSA) are only conditionally open to vehicle use. If Congress designates the area as wilderness, the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or non-compliance are found through monitoring efforts to impair the area's suitability for wilderness designation, BLM 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 nonimpairment of wilderness values.

♦

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B
437,424 acres would be closed to OHV travel. 1,475,074 acres would be limited to designated routes. 0 acres would be open to cross country travel (see Map 2-10-B).

PROPOSED PLAN
339,298 acres would be closed to OHV travel. 1,481,334 acres would be limited to designated routes. Approx. 2,000 acres (White Wash Sand Dunes) would be open to cross country travel (see Map 2-10-C).

Alternative D
57,351 acres would be closed to OHV travel. 1,762,083 acres would be limited to designated routes and/or inventoried routes within WSAs. 3,064 acres (White Wash Sand Dunes and the Airport Hills) would be ∗ open to cross country travel (see Map 2-10-D).

Continue to manage motorized vehicle travel under the travel designations established in the 1985 Grand RMP as modified by subsequent Federal Register notices published under the authority of 43 CFR 8340 (see Map 2-10A). Manage 620,212 acres as open to off-road vehicle travel, 1,196,920 acres as OHV travel limited to existing roads and trails (of which 48,169 acres would be OHV travel limited to designated roads and trails and 309,749 acres within WSAs would be limited to inventoried routes) and 5,062 acres as closed to OHV travel. Miles of Route: 6,199 miles motorized routes. 199 miles inventoried verified motorized single-track.

Designated Routes: 3,328 miles motorized routes. 122 miles of full-sized motorized routes converted to motorcycle-only use.

Designated Routes: 3,693 miles motorized routes.
†

Designated Routes: 3,855 miles motorized routes. 347 miles for motorcycles (151 miles on inventoried routes and 196 miles on inventoried single-track).

313 miles for motorcycles (163 miles on inventoried routes and 150 miles on inventoried single-track). †*

†

This is an implementation decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information

2-50

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Dirt Bike Trail/Route: Dirt bike route from Colorado State Line to Thompson not designated. Dirt Bike Trail/Route: Do not designate dirt bike routes from the Colorado State Line to Thompson, Utah. Dirt Bike Trail/Route: Dirt Bike Trail/Route: Designate dirt bike route from Colorado State Line to Thompson (see Map 2- Designate 58.3 miles of dirt bike route from the Colorado State Line to 11), utilizing 9 miles of single-track and 22 miles of inventoried Grand County Thompson. Portions of this route (48 miles) are considered new and will roads. These totals are reflected in the mileage under "designated routes." † require site-specific NEPA analysis prior to possible designation and use. The remaining 10 miles of the route may be used immediately. These totals are reflected in the mileage under "designated routes."

Mechanized Recreational Travel (e.g., mountain bikes)
Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
Provide opportunities for mechanized travel on all routes open to motorized use. Prohibit new bike routes within non-WSA lands managed for wilderness characteristics or within hiking focus areas. Limit mechanized travel to designated trails and managed routes for resource protection purposes. Routes that are no longer available for motorized travel may be converted to bike routes upon application of site-specific NEPA analysis. Manage approximately 11.2 miles of routes on the following trails for non-motorized use only: Jackson Trail, "Baby Steps," Hunter Canyon Rim, Portal Trail, Hidden Valley, and Porcupine Rim single-track section. (Hidden Valley and Porcupine Rim Trails are subject to IMP.) Identification of specific designated routes would be initially established through the RMP process and may be modified through subsequent planning at the activity plan and project plan levels on a case-by-case basis. These modifications would be analyzed through site-specific NEPA.

Alternative A (No Action)
Continue to manage mechanized travel under closure and restriction notices published in the Federal Register under the authority of 43 CFR 8364. Manage 4 miles of route on the following trails for mechanized use: Jackson Trail. Portal Trail.

Alternative B
Design and implement up to 75 additional miles of managed mechanized trails. Implement these new system routes solely by converting inventoried routes not designated for motorized travel to non-motorized use, where appropriate, and installing support facilities such as trailheads and route signage. No new single track trails would be considered (see Map 2-11-F(B)).

PROPOSED PLAN
Design and implement up to 150 new miles of managed mechanized trails. In addition, convert existing inventoried routes not designated for motorized travel to non-motorized use, where appropriate, and install appropriate support facilities such as trailheads and route signage.† Initially designate the following existing trails for mechanized use (totaling 11.3 miles; see Map 2-11-F(C):† Fisher Mesa (in conjunction with USFS; 5.8 miles). Pothole (on Amasa Back; 1.2 miles). Rockstacker (on Amasa Back; 0.9 miles). Lower Porcupine Singletrack (LPS; 1.4 miles). "Power line" Trail (0.07 miles on public land). Mill Creek Parkway Extension (0.16 miles on public land).

Alternative D
Design and implement up to 300 new miles of managed mechanized trails. In addition, convert inventoried routes not designated for motorized travel to nonmotorized use, where appropriate, and install appropriate support facilities such as trailheads and route signage. Same as the Proposed Plan, except also initially designate the following additional trails for mechanized use (totaling 15.5 miles; see Map 2-11-F(D)): Goldbar Singletrack (4.4 miles) This new proposed trail would be analyzed with site-specific NEPA before implementation.

Non-mechanized Recreational Travel (e.g., hiking, backpacking, and equestrian)
Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
Non-mechanized travel is not restricted on public lands except where limited or prohibited to protect specific resource values, provide for public safety or maintain an identified opportunity. Provide opportunities for non-mechanized travel on all routes open to mechanized use and manage routes identified in each alternative to exclude motorized and mechanized use and provide opportunities for non-mechanized travel independent of motorized and mechanized routes. Limit non-mechanized travel on specific lands to designated trails and managed routes for resource protection purposes. Manage 17 miles of routes on the following trails for non-mechanized use: Amphitheater Loop, Fisher Towers, Negro Bill, Corona Arch, Trough Spring Canyon, Anticline Overlook, Needles Overlook, Windwhistle Nature Trail, Mill Canyon Dinosaur Interpretive Trail, Copper Ridge Sauropod Interpretive Trail, and Sego Canyon Interpretive Trail. Identify specific routes through the RMP process. These routes may be modified through subsequent planning at the RMP, activity plan, and project plan levels on a case-by-case basis. Work with equestrian groups to identify additional trails for equestrian and hiker use only. These trails would be designated based on site-specific NEPA analysis.

Alternative A (No Action)
Not addressed.

Alternative B
Design and implement up to 25 additional miles of managed nonmechanized trail system consistent with the Travel Plan. Implement these new system routes largely by converting roads to non-mechanized use and installing appropriate support facilities such as trailheads and route signage. Manage the Hidden Valley Trail as non-mechanized only. Mark the following existing trails: Castleton, Culvert-Goldbar Loop. Mark a new trail from Onion Creek to Amphitheater Loop. Equestrian Use:

PROPOSED PLAN
Design and implement up to 50 miles of managed non-mechanized trail system consistent with the Travel Plan. Implement these new system routes largely by converting existing, low utilization roads to nonmechanized use and installing appropriate support facilities such as trailheads and route signage. Mark the following existing trails: Castleton, Culvert-Goldbar Loop. Mark a new trail from Onion Creek to Amphitheater Loop. Equestrian Use:

Alternative D
Design and implement up to 100 additional miles of managed nonmechanized trail system consistent with the Travel Plan. Implement these new system routes largely by converting existing, low utilization roads to non-mechanized use and the installation of appropriate support facilities such as trailheads and route signage. In addition to the trails proposed in the Proposed Plan, work to gain public access to the Heavenly Stairway Trail. Equestrian Use:

Equestrian Use:

2-51

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
All public lands within the field office are presently available for equestrian use. Equestrian use in Negro Bill Canyon has been discouraged because the sandy hiking trail is easily damaged by equestrian use. The Mill Creek Canyon Plan specifies that commercial equestrian use would not be renewed. Same as the Proposed Plan, except the following additional equestrian trails would be developed. Hikers would also be allowed on this trail, but there would be no motorized or mechanized vehicles allowed: Ten Mile from Dripping Springs to Green River. The following trails would be managed for equestrian use. Hikers would also be allowed on these trails, but there would be no motorized or mechanized vehicles allowed: Onion Creek Benches (Colorado Riverway SRMA). Ida/Stearns Gulch Equestrian Trail System. Castle Creek Equestrian Trail. Rattlesnake Trail above Nefertiti Boat Launch. Seven Mile Canyons. Red Rock Horse Trail (Ken's Lake to Johnson's Up-on-Top). Same as the Proposed Plan.

VEGETATION
Goals and Objectives:
Manage vegetation resources for desired future conditions (DFC) ensuring ecological diversity, stability, and sustainability, including the desired mix of vegetation types, structural stages, and landscape/riparian function and provide for livestock grazing and for native plant, fish, and wildlife habitats (see Appendix L for Desired Future Conditions for Vegetation). Maintain existing vegetation treatment areas as appropriate. Control invasive and non-native weed species and prevent the introduction of new invasive species by implementing a comprehensive weed program (as per national guidance and local weed management plans in cooperation with state, federal, and affected counties), including: coordination with partners; prevention and early detection; education; inventory and monitoring; and using principles of integrated weed management. Manage for vegetation restoration, including control of weed infestations and control of invasive and undesirable nonnative species. Maintain, protect and enhance special status plant and animal habitats in such manner that the potential need to consider any of these species for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act does not arise. Develop management prescriptions for all surface-disturbing resource uses during times of extended drought (see description of Adaptive Drought Management, below). Maintain or enhance the integrity of current sagebrush and sage steppe communities and identify areas in need of restoration. Initiate restoration and/or rehabilitation efforts to ensure sustainable populations of sage-grouse, mule deer and other sagebrush obligate species.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Utilize the BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy – Guidance for Management of Sagebrush Plant Communities for Sage-Grouse Conservation, when applicable, in the development and implementation of vegetation and land treatments, livestock manipulation techniques, fire projects, energy exploration and development and any surface-disturbing activity within sagebrush and sage steppe communities. Sagebrush/steppe communities would be a high priority for wildfire suppression, emergency stabilization and fuel reduction to avoid catastrophic fires in these communities. Reclaim and restore up to 257,809 acres of sagebrush habitat and shrub-steppe ecosystems where appropriate in accordance with the BLM sagebrush conservation guidance. Reclamation/restoration would be undertaken in cooperation with the Utah Partners for Conservation and Development (UPCD) and may include removing surface material, re-contouring, spreading topsoil, seeding or planting seedlings, and/or changing livestock grazing strategies, such as, changing season of use, type of use, removing or reducing spring grazing, reducing livestock numbers, reducing grazing intensity, improving distribution, requiring rest rotation practices, or exclusion. Work in coordination with UDWR to reduce wildlife numbers, as necessary, to restore sagebrush habitat. Provide opportunities for seed gathering of various vegetation types while protecting other resources. Restoration and rehabilitation would use native seed-mixes wherever possible. Non-native species may be used as necessary for stabilization or to prevent invasion of noxious or invasive weed species. Gather necessary vegetation information and continue monitoring to assess if planning objectives are being met. Utilize the techniques and methods for vegetation treatments identified in the Utah ROD for Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Seventeen Western States (2007). Control noxious weed species and prevent the infestation and spread of invasive species. Develop cooperating agreements with other Federal, State, local and private organizations to control invasive and noxious weed species. Reduce tamarisk and Russian olive where appropriate using allowable vegetation treatments. Restore riparian habitat to native willow and cottonwood communities. Where appropriate, replant cottonwoods and willow subsequent to wildland fire or other disturbance in riparian areas. Promote science and research opportunities in the San Arroyo Area/Exclosures, Sagers Watershed Area/Exclosures and Big Flat Area/Exclosures (approximately 300 acres each). Establish Lower South Fork of Seven Mile Canyon as a Riparian/Wetland Demonstration Area for the improvement and restoration of the riparian area. Insect pests would be treated in coordination with the State of Utah, other Federal agencies, affected counties, adjoining private land owners and other directly affected interests. See Livestock Grazing for other vegetation treatments.

Adaptive Drought Management:
Establish criteria for restricting activities during drought (see Appendix M for Drought Classification System) based on the following measures/parameters:

Severe (D2):
Send drought letters. UDWR coordination for big game herd control. Prepare local seasonal precipitation graphs. Suspend or limit seed collecting activities.

2-52

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Extreme (D3):
No new surface-disturbing activities in areas with sensitive soils (subject to valid existing rights or actions associated with other valid permitted activities; see oil and gas Appendix C for definition of surface-disturbing activities). Changes in livestock use would be based on site-specific data on those allotments that are affected by drought. OHV use and competitive motorized events would be confined to designated roads and routes within the open OHV area. Require additional erosion-control techniques/BMPs for surface-disturbing activities (e.g., hydromulching). Limit prescribed burns and vegetation treatments.

Exceptional (D4):
Changes in livestock use will be based on site-specific data on those allotments that are affected by drought. No new surface-disturbing activities (subject to valid existing rights or actions associated with other valid permitted activities). Consider closing areas to public entry.

Alternative A (No Action)
Not specified.

Alternative B
Avoid or minimize to the extent possible the loss of sagebrush/steppe habitat from BLM-initiated or authorized actions. The BLM recommends that loss of sagebrush/steppe habitat essential to wildlife (e.g., sage-grouse, mule deer, and sagebrush obligate species) be reclaimed or mitigated off-site.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as the Proposed Plan. Avoid or minimize to the extent possible the loss of sagebrush/steppe habitat from BLM-initiated or authorized actions. The BLM recommends that loss of sagebrush/steppe habitat essential to wildlife (e.g., sage-grouse, mule deer, and sagebrush obligate species) be reclaimed or mitigated off-site.

Alternative D

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM)
Goals and Objectives:
Manage public lands in a manner that protects the quality of scenic values. Recognize and manage visual resources for overall multiple use, filming, and recreational opportunities for visitors to public lands. Manage BLM actions to preserve those scenic vistas that are most important.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
WSAs and designated wilderness would be designated as VRM Class I.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
Wild and Scenic River (WSR) segments recommended as suitable for Wild would be designated as VRM Class I, Scenic would be designated as VRM Class II, and Recreational would be managed the same as the underlying VRM management class. For all VRM classes, all resource uses and management activities would be required to meet VRM objectives. However, recreation developments in the immediate foreground of Key Observation Points (KOPs) in VRM Class I and II areas would require special consideration to meet both recreational and VRM objectives. These facilities often create more contrast than would be acceptable; however this contrast would be allowed if the facilities are part of the expected image of the public being served. The contrast should be allowed only to the extent needed for the function of the facility, which should reflect design excellence and be a positive element of the built environment. Structures should blend into the landscape while retaining functionality. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to all areas designated as VRM Class I. Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to all areas designated as VRM Class II. This would require surface-disturbing activities to meet the objectives of VRM Class II. Designated utility corridors within VRM Class II areas would be designated as VRM Class III only for utility projects. Necessary road maintenance could occur regardless of VRM class. Public lands within the viewshed of Arches National Park would be designated as VRM Class II. See Maps 2-23-A through 2-23-D for VRM Management Classes, by alternative.

Alternative A (No Action)
VRM management classes identified only for Canyon Rims (33,037 acres designated as VRM Class II; 67,236 acres designated as VRM Class III). Interim management classes would be assigned through site-specific analysis based on the current VRM inventory. Wilderness, WSAs, and Negro Bill Outstanding Natural Area would be designated as VRM Class I.

Alternative B
Areas with high potential for oil and gas development (Big Flat/Hatch Point/Lisbon Valley and Eastern Bookcliffs/Greater Cisco) would be designated according to the underlying VRM inventory (VRM Classes II and III). The following ACECs would be designated as VRM Class I: Behind the Rocks, Canyon Rims, Colorado River, Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon, Mill Creek Canyon, Upper Courthouse, Westwater and Wilson Arch. Manage the remaining ACECs according to the underlying VRM inventory class.

PROPOSED PLAN
Areas with high potential for development of oil and gas (Big Flat/Hatch Point/Lisbon Valley, and Eastern Bookcliffs/Greater Cisco) would be designated as VRM Class III with the exception of those portions of SRMAs and ACECS that have more stringent VRM classifications. Manage the Shafer Basin portion of the Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon ACEC as VRM Class I. Scenic driving corridors would be designated as VRM Class II within a specified viewshed not to exceed 0.5 mile from centerline. Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 0.5 mile of scenic driving corridors.

Alternative D
Areas with high potential for oil and gas (Big Flat/Hatch Point/Lisbon Valley, and Eastern Bookcliffs/Greater Cisco) development would be designated as VRM Class III or IV with the exception of the more stringent VRM classification established for the rims of the Canyon Rims Recreation Area. Scenic driving corridors would be designated as VRM Class II within a specified viewshed not to exceed 0.25 mile from centerline. Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 0.25 mile of scenic driving corridors. Manage the following areas with high quality visual resources as VRM Class II: Sand Flats, the Colorado, Dolores and Green River corridors, Tusher Canyon (Bookcliffs), the Colorado Riverway, Matt Martin Point, areas bordering Arches National Park, Hatch Wash, the rims of Canyon Rims, the Mill Creek area, and Beaver Creek (see Map 2-23-D).

Scenic driving corridors would be designated as VRM Class II within a specified viewshed not to exceed 1 mile from centerline. Apply a no surface Manage the following areas with high-quality visual resources as VRM Class occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surfaceII: Sand Flats, Gemini Bridges/Monitor and Merrimac/Poison Spider/Goldbar/ disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 1 mile of scenic driving corridors. Corona Arch area, the Colorado, Dolores and Green River corridors, Tusher

2-53

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Manage the following areas with high quality visual resources as VRM Class II: Sand Flats, Gemini Bridges/Monitor and Merrimac/Poison Spider/Goldbar/ Corona Arch area, the Colorado, Dolores and Green River corridors, Tusher Canyon (Bookcliffs), areas of the Colorado Riverway not within the Colorado River ACEC, Matt Martin Point, areas bordering Arches National Park, Kane Creek, Hatch Wash, the rims of Canyon Rims, Beaver Creek and the eastern Book Cliffs (see Map 2-23-B). 349,110 acres would be designated as VRM Class I. 401,015 acres inventoried as VRM Class II, of which 33,037 acres would be designated as VRM II. 800,782 acres inventoried as VRM Class III, of which 67,236 would be designated as VRM III. 271,356 acres inventoried as VRM Class IV. 453,462 acres would be designated as VRM Class I. 373,647 acres would be designated as VRM Class II. 784,246 acres would be designated as VRM Class III. 210,532 acres would be designated as VRM Class IV. Canyon (Bookcliffs), the Colorado Riverway, Matt Martin Point, areas bordering Arches National Park, Kane Creek, Hatch Wash, the rims of Canyon Rims, the Mill Creek and Behind the Rocks ACECs, Beaver Creek, and Long Canyon (see Map 2-23-C).

358,911 acres would be designated as VRM Class I. 365,566 acres would be designated as VRM Class II. 829,158 acres would be designated as VRM Class III. 268,133 acres would be designated as VRM Class IV.

349,617 acres would be designated as VRM Class I. 245,773 acres would be designated as VRM Class II. 956,724 acres would be designated as VRM Class III. 269,641 acres would be designated as VRM Class IV.

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
Goals and Objectives:
Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats to support natural wildlife diversity, reproductive capability, and a healthy, self-sustaining population of wildlife and fish species. Manage crucial, high-value, and unfragmented habitats as management priorities.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Continue to implement and modify three Habitat Management Plans (HMPs) summarized in Appendix N: Hatch Point HMP, Dolores Triangle HMP, and the Potash-Confluence HMP. The Hatch Point HMP: Manage to benefit pronghorn and improve sagebrush habitat for sage-grouse and other wildlife species. Emphasize habitat management, change in livestock class from sheep to cattle, and maintenance of land treatments. Potash-Confluence HMP: Manage to benefit desert bighorn sheep, but also include guidance for chukar partridge, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon. Water developments to benefit desert bighorn are to be maintained; under this HMP, 278,000 acres of land administered by the BLM are to be maintained in good condition and habitat is to be improved where needed. Eight specific management objectives were established (see Appendix N for details). The Dolores Triangle HMP: Manage to benefit deer, elk, and bighorn sheep. Improve bald eagle, riparian and native and naturalized fish habitat through the installation of fencing and enclosures in Granite, Coates, Ryan, and Renegade Creeks by installing six in-stream structures (see Appendix N for details). Livestock grazing would not be authorized on the following allotments/areas (or portions of allotments/areas) in order to benefit wildlife resources: A portion of the Kane Spring Allotment (that portion in Kane Spring Canyon between the open valley and the river; 558 acres and 0 AUMs). An area along the Colorado River between Hittle and north of Dewey Bridge (400 acres, AUMs would remain the same). Between The Creeks with 3,960 acres and 221 AUMs. North Sand Flats with 5,860 acres and 798 AUMs. South Sand Flats with 10,209 acres and 592 AUMs. A portion of Arth's Pasture Allotment (Poison Spider area; approximately 6,200 acres and 425 AUMs). Support and implement current and future animal species Conservation Plans, Strategies and Agreements. Coordinate actions with UDWR and other involved entities. Support population and habitat monitoring.

Migratory Birds:
Executive Order 13186, "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds," would be integrated into all activities with potential adverse impacts, wildlife management programs, and other resources including but not limited to riparian-wetland habitat, rangeland health standards and guidelines raptor protection, fire, special status species, off-site mitigation and habitat enhancement. Management actions would emphasize birds listed on the current USFWS "Birds of Conservation Concern" (2002f or as updated) and Utah Partners-in-Flight priority species. Habitats that would be emphasized are the Cisco Desert Bird Habitat Conservation Area, Colorado and Dolores River Bird Habitat Conservation Area, Green River Bird Habitat Conservation Area, and the Cottonwood and Willow Creek Bird Habitat Conservation Area (see Appendix N). As a supplement to complying with Executive Order 13186, the Bird Habitat Conservation Areas identified in the Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah (Martinsen et al. 2005 or as updated), would receive priority for conducting bird habitat conservation projects, through cooperative funding initiatives such as the Intermountain West Joint Venture. Implement Executive Order 13186, "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds" during all activities to protect habitat for migratory birds. Management would emphasize birds listed on the current USFWS "Birds of Conservation Concern" (2002 or as updated) and Partners-in-Flight priority species (as updated). As specific habitat needs and population distribution to "Birds of Conservation Concern" and Partners-in-Flight priority species are identified, BLM would use adaptive management strategies to further conserve habitat and avoid impacts to these species. Prioritize the maintenance and/or improvement of lowland riparian, wetlands, and low and high desert scrub communities which are the four most important and used habitat types by migratory birds in MPA. Prevent the spread of invasive and non-native plants, especially cheatgrass, tamarisk, and Russian olive. Strive for a dense under story of native species in riparian areas with a reduction in tamarisk and improvement of cottonwood and willow regeneration. During nesting season for migratory birds (May 1 – July 31), avoid surface-disturbing activities and vegetative-altering projects and broad-scale use of pesticides in identified occupied migratory bird habitat.

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
Coordinate with UDWR and other partners to help accomplish the population and habitat goals and objectives of big game Herd Management Plans that are consistent with and meet the goals and objectives of this land-use plan. The BLM will approach compensatory mitigation on an "as appropriate" basis where it can be performed onsite, and on a voluntary basis where it is performed offsite, or, in accordance with current guidance. Restrict dispersed camping in riparian areas to protect riparian wildlife habitat. Restrictions could include limiting camping to designated sites or prohibiting camping. Implement a limited fire suppression policy and initiate prescribed fires where treatment by fire would increase vegetation productivity and increase forage for wildlife. Modify the grazing season of use or change class of livestock for individual allotments as necessary to accommodate forage needs for wildlife.

2-54

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
Predator management would continue to be coordinated with Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)-Wildlife Services and UDWR and would be conducted utilizing the guidance provided by the existing MOU with APHIS-Wildlife Services. BLM would continue to coordinate with, and provide support to UDWR for introduction/reintroduction of native or naturalized fish or wildlife species into historic or suitable habitats as determined appropriate. Introduction, transplantation, augmentation and re-establishment of both naturalized and native species would be considered and would include, but may not be limited to, pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, wild turkey, bison, beaver, chukar, otter, and Colorado River cutthroat trout and other native and naturalized fish species, pursuant to guidance and direction provided in BLM's 1745 Manual. Raptors would be managed under the auspices of Best Management Practices (BMPs; see Appendix O), which would include implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers. These BMPs implement the USFWS's Guidelines for Raptor Protection From Human and Land-use Disturbances, with modifications allowed as long as protection of nests is ensured. Seasonal and spatial buffers are also listed in Appendix O. Cooperate with utility companies to prevent electrocution of raptors. Temporarily close areas (amount of time depends on the species) near raptor nest to rock climbers or other activities if the activity could result in nest abandonment. Support and implement where possible the Northern River Otter Management Plan; coordinate with UDWR to determine potential release sites; support population monitoring. Manage riparian areas to ensure a multi-aged, multi-layered structure, allowing for retention of snags and diseased trees. Provide multiple layers of vegetation (vertical structure) within 10 feet of the ground. Minor adjustments to crucial wildlife habitat boundaries periodically made by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) would be accommodated through plan maintenance.

Pronghorn Habitat:
Manage 78,476 acres of current pronghorn habitat that UDWR has designated in the La Sal (Hatch Point Herd) Wildlife Management Unit. Implement the Hatch Point HMP. Manage 743,524 acres of pronghorn habitat that UDWR has designated in the Cisco Desert and on the following allotments: Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Harley Dome, San Arroyo, Horse Canyon, Pipeline, Floy Creek, Athena, Little Grand, Corral Wash Canyon, Agate, Little Hole, Monument Wash, Highlands, 10-Mile Point, Big Flat, Ruby Ranch, Bar-X, Crescent Canyon, Squaw Park, and San Arroyo (see Map 2-24). Management of pronghorn habitat (see Map 2-25) would be done in coordination with UDWR and may include (but would not be limited to) the following actions: Installing and improving year-round water resources within the La Sal Management Unit and the Cisco Desert Herd unit. Supporting a change in class of livestock from sheep to cattle on the Hatch Point area. Changing class of livestock from cattle to sheep would not be allowed within pronghorn habitat. Installing water developments every 2 square miles on summer and fawning areas. Constructing fences that allow for pronghorn passage. Dismantling un-needed fences. Installing restrictive fencing to stop pronghorn passage onto highways. Increasing forage through vegetation treatments on approximately 4,400 acres.

Bighorn Sheep Habitat:
Film permits would comply with minimum impact criteria (see Appendix B) from April 1 through June 15 and from October 15 through December 15 within 123,490 acres of crucial bighorn sheep habitat (see Maps 2-25-B through 2-25-D). No change in class of livestock from cattle to sheep conversions would be considered in recognized bighorn habitat. (see Maps 2-26 and 2-28). Follow the recommendations found in the BLM Bighorn Sheep Rangeland Management Plan, as revised (1993b); the Utah BLM Statewide Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Plan, as revised (1986a); and the Revised Guidelines for the Management of Domestic Sheep and Goats in Native Wild Sheep Habitats (BLM 1998a). Support the current bighorn sheep population and manage to increase desert bighorn population (prior stable numbers) on 330,892 acres. Population goals would be reached by releases, by reestablishment, and through change of livestock class and installation of new water facilities (see Appendix N for details). Management of bighorn sheep habitat in coordination with UDWR would include: installing water developments every 5 square miles in or within 2 miles of escape terrain, precluding exotic ungulate, wild horses or burros within 10 miles of habitat, and constructing fences that allow for bighorn sheep passage (3 strands with bottom wire smooth) and dismantling un-needed fences. Manage 9,278 acres along the rim of Hatch Point as part of the Lockhart Bighorn Sheep habitat areas. Apply a timing limitation stipulation to oil and gas leases and other permitted uses, which would restrict surface-disturbing activities from April 1 through June 15 for lambing and from October 15 through December 15 for rutting (see Appendix C). Manage 317,523 acres of total desert bighorn sheep habitat on the following grazing allotments: Buckhorn, North River, Little Grand, Taylor, Ten Mile Point, Arth's Pasture, Spring Canyon Bottom, Big Flat, Kane Springs, Potash, Horsethief, Behind the Rocks, and Ruby Ranch. Support conversion of sheep AUMs to cattle on Hatch Point Allotment.* Improve desert bighorn habitat by installing and improving year-round water resources within all desert bighorn habitat and provide additional water sources at a minimum spacing of one water development in each 2 square mile area on lambing grounds.

Deer and/or elk:
Manage UDWR current deer habitat of 534,329 acres in the Bookcliffs and 313,551 acres on the La Sal Mountains as mule deer habitat by improving or maintaining vegetative conditions to benefit both livestock and wildlife and by maintaining or improving the ecological condition of rangelands. Increase elk forage through vegetation treatments such as chemical, mechanical, and prescribed fire on approximately 40,000 acres of elk winter range (see Livestock Grazing). Manage crucial and high value deer and/or elk summer range (105,636 acres) within the Bookcliffs and La Sal Wildlife Management Unit by applying a timing limitation stipulation that would preclude surface-disturbing activities from May 15 to June 30 (see Appendix C; see Maps 2-27-B and Map 2-27-C/D. All forage on acquired state lands in upper Castle Valley within crucial deer winter range would be allocated to deer.

Pronghorn Habitat
Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN
Protect pronghorn fawning habitat (293,741 acres) within Cisco Desert and on Hatch Point (the La Sal Wildlife Management Units) by applying a timing limitation stipulation that would preclude surface-disturbing activities from May 1 to June 15 (see Appendix C). Spring grazing would be adjusted on a case-by-case basis on 188,975 acres on allotments within crucial pronghorn habitat in the Cisco Desert to encourage forb production. These allotments include Athena, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Harley Dome, and San Arroyo.

Alternative D
Protect pronghorn fawning habitat on Hatch Point (78,477 acres) by applying a timing limitation stipulation that would preclude surface-disturbing activities from May 1 to June 15 (see Appendix C). No adjustments to season of use would be made.

For pronghorn fawning habitat, exploration, drilling, and other development is Protect current pronghorn habitat (822,001 acres) within Cisco Desert (743,524 prohibited from May 15 through June 15. acres) and Hatch Point (78,477 acres; the La Sal Wildlife Management Units: see Map 2-24) by applying a timing limitation stipulation that would preclude surface-disturbing activities from May 1 to June 15 (see Appendix C). Cisco Desert HMP: Improve pronghorn habitat by excluding livestock grazing Spring grazing would be adjusted on 188,975 acres on allotments within activities from May 15 through June 20 or during extreme snow conditions. crucial pronghorn habitat in the Cisco Desert to encourage forb production. Change season of use on fawning grounds to reduce disturbance. These allotments include: Athena, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Crescent, Harley Dome, Hatch Point HMP: Pronghorn fawning areas would exclude livestock grazing San Arroyo, Pipeline, and Bar X.

2-55

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives
from May 1 till June 30. Changes in season of use (November 1 through June 1) number of livestock (27% reduction), change in livestock class from sheep to cattle, fencing, seeding, and rest/rotation to improve habitat are recommended. Cisco Desert HMP: Increase the percent browse and forb species on 6,375 acres of grass vegetation from less the 5% to 30% browse and forb. Hatch Point HMP: Implement rest/rotation on three pastures developed on the Hatch Point Allotment. One pasture to be grazed from November 1 to March 1, the second from March 1 to June 1, and the third to receive a year-long rest from grazing. A total of 69 acres were to be seeded to attain a combination of succulent forbs, grasses, and shrubs that would provide spring forage. Fencing would be utilized as a management tool to accomplish this. Pronghorn fawning areas would not be grazed from May 1 till June 30 on Hatch Point. These allotments include: Hatch Point, Lisbon, and Windwhistle. Develop, where applicable, a rest/rotation of pasture or other grazing management systems within allotments that have crucial pronghorn habitat to encourage forb production prior to fawning. Change in livestock class from sheep to cattle, fencing, seeding and rest/rotation to improve habitat would be encouraged.

Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat
Alternative A (No Action)
Avoid situating major ROWs within 48,245 acres in the Mineral Bottom, Potash and Westwater areas to protect crucial bighorn sheep habitat. Apply a Category 2 mineral leasing stipulation in order to protect 25,431 acres of bighorn sheep.

Alternative B
To protect lambing, rutting, and migration habitat (130,419 acres), apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C).

PROPOSED PLAN
To protect lambing, rutting, and migration habitat (101,897 acres), apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Within migration corridors pipeline construction and geophysical exploration for oil and gas development would be allowed outside lambing and rutting periods from June 16 through October 14 and from December 15 through March 31, respectively. Manage lambing areas and manage 46,319 acres (see Map 2-26-C) with the following prescriptions: Camping would be allowed in designated campsites except for areas within the Green River riparian corridor, which remain open to unrestricted camping. No camping in Shafer Basin and Long Canyon. Livestock use would be adjusted on North River and, Taylor Allotments (Dry Mesa Pasture).

Alternative D
To minimize disturbance within bighorn lambing and rutting areas (46,319 acres) apply a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This limitation would preclude surface-disturbing activities from April 1 through June 15, and from October 15 through December 15. Same as the Proposed Plan with the exception that camping would not be restricted to designated campsites in lambing areas (see Map 2-26-D).

Manage 46,319 acres of lambing habitat (see Map 2-26-B) with the following Potash-Confluence HMP: Improve 42,500 acres of crucial bighorn sheep habitat by preventing surface disturbance during lambing and breeding seasons. prescriptions: Assist in the development of livestock manipulation techniques on Horsethief Point, Spring Canyon Bottom, and Ten-Mile Point Allotments to improve or maintain bighorn sheep habitat. Change season of use on the Potash Allotment to reduce competition on lambing and breeding grounds. Camping would be allowed in designated campsites only. No camping in Shafer Basin and Long Canyon. Livestock use would be adjusted on North River and, Taylor Allotments (Dry Mesa Pasture).

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat
Alternative A (No Action)
The 1990 amendment to the 1985 RMP recognized 194,560 acres of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat.

Alternative B
Manage the entire 458,242 acres of habitat for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep that UDWR has designated from the Green River to the Colorado border according to the stipulations described in management common to all. This management would include improving or maintaining habitat and vegetative conditions to benefit bighorn sheep while maintaining or improving the ecological condition of rangelands (see Map 2-28). Support conversion of sheep to cattle on allotments that are within nine miles of the 458,242 acres of managed Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat. Once conversion occurs, do not allow re-conversion (from cattle to sheep). Allotments include Agate, Bar-X, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Corral Wash Canyon, Floy Creek, Harley Dome, Rattlesnake North, and San Arroyo.

PROPOSED PLAN
Manage 310,726 acres of currently occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn habitat from the Green River to Pipeline Canyon according to stipulations described in management common to all. This management would include improving or maintaining habitat and vegetative conditions to benefit bighorn sheep while maintaining or improving the ecological condition of rangelands (see Map 228).

Alternative D
Manage 194,560 acres of occupied habitat defined in the 1985 RMP. (Same as Alternative A) according to stipulations described in management common to all. This management would include improving or maintaining habitat and vegetative conditions to benefit bighorn sheep while maintaining or improving the ecological condition of rangelands (see Map 2-28).

Any future proposal for a change in kind of livestock from cattle to sheep in Rocky Mountain bighorn habitat would be denied.

Support conversion of sheep to cattle on allotments that are within nine miles Same as Alternative A. of the 310,726 acres of managed Rocky Mountain bighorn habitat. Once conversion occurs, do not allow re-conversion (from cattle to sheep). This includes the Cisco and Cisco Mesa Allotments, San Arroyo, Winter Camp and Harley Dome.

Deer and/or Elk Habitat
Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN
Protect deer and/or elk crucial winter habitat (349,955 acres) by applying a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing as well as other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix C). (This includes 73,160 acres in WSAs, which are already closed to leasing.) This limitation would preclude surfacedisturbing activities from November 15 through April 15.

Alternative D
Protect deer and/or elk crucial winter habitat (349,955 acres) by applying a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing as well as other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix C). (This includes 73,160 acres in WSAs, which are already closed to leasing.) This limitation would preclude surfacedisturbing activities from December 1 through April 15.

In order to protect deer and/or elk winter range, exploration, drilling, and other Protect deer and/or elk crucial and high value winter habitat (635,774 acres) by development activity would be allowed only from May 16 to October 31 on applying a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing as well as other 260,769 acres of deer and/or elk winter range. surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude surface-disturbing activities from November 1 through May 15. (This acreage includes 240,258 acres in WSAs, which are already closed to leasing.)

2-56

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Livestock Grazing Allotment Decisions Affecting Wildlife
Allotments Not Available for Grazing: Bogart with 14,751 acres and 209 AUMs. Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs. Diamond with 19,112 acres and 588 AUMs. Pear Park, with 14,202 acres. Spring Creek, with 924 acres. Beaver Creek with 1,351 acres and 0 AUMs. Allotments Not Available for Grazing: Bogart with 14,751 acres and 209 AUMs. Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs. Diamond with 19,112 acres and 588 AUMs. Pear Park, with 14,202 acres. Spring Creek, with 924 acres. Beaver Creek with 1,351 acres and 0 AUMs. Professor Valley with 20,424 acres and 378 AUMs. Ida Gulch with 3,624 acres and 112 AUMs. River, with 388 acres and 7 AUMs. Mill Creek, with 3,922 acres and 137 AUMs. Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: None. Allotments Not Available for Grazing: Bogart with 14,751 acres and 209 AUMs. Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs. Diamond with 19,112 acres and 588 AUMs. Portions of Professor Valley along Highway 128. Ida Gulch with 3,624 acres and 112 AUMs. Portions of River along Highway 128. Mill Creek with 3,922 acres and 137 AUMs. Pear Park with 14,202 acres. Allotments Not Available for Grazing: Mill Creek with 3,922 acres and 137 AUMs.

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: None.

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: After performing rangeland health assessments, the resulting AUMs could be made available for grazing: Spring Creek.

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: After performing rangeland health assessments, the resulting AUMs could be made available for grazing: Pear Park (no domestic sheep would be allowed). Spring Creek. Bogart (no domestic sheep would be allowed). Cottonwood (no domestic sheep would be allowed). Diamond Canyon (no domestic sheep would be allowed). Areas Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: Beaver Creek.

Areas Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: None.

Areas Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: None.

Areas Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation: Beaver Creek.

WOODLANDS
Goals and Objectives:
Manage forests and woodlands for healthy conditions that contribute to healthy habitat for animal and plant species, proper watershed functioning conditions, and riparian restoration and enhancement. Provide woodland products on a sustainable basis consistent with maintaining ecosystem health and other resource management objectives to meet local needs where such use does not limit the accomplishment of goals for the management of other important resources. Encourage, where feasible, the harvest of forest products in areas of proposed or existing vegetation treatments to lessen the need for additional treatment or land disturbance, and in areas that need restoration for ecological benefits. Identify, maintain, and restore forests with late successional characteristics to a pre-fire suppression condition. The MFO would adopt the USFS old-growth definitions and identification standards as per the USFS document "Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain Region (April 1993)." In instances where the area of application in the previous document does not apply (e.g., Pinus edulis), use the document "Recommended Old-Growth Definitions and Descriptions, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region (Sept. 1992)."

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:
Permits for harvest of woodland products would continue to be sold to the public, consistent with the availability of woodland products and the protection of sensitive resource values. As needed, designate private and commercial wood gathering areas for the following uses: firewood, fence posts, Christmas tree cutting, green wood cutting, and plant gathering for landscaping. Use woodland harvest to assist in managing woodlands to accomplish goals outlined in the Fire Management Plan. Prohibit public fuelwood gathering in riparian areas. Permit sustainable harvest (including cutting of green willows, squawbush, and cottonwoods) for Native American traditional ceremonial use.

Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:
Additional areas may be closed to wood gathering and wood harvest as needed to protect sensitive resources. Follow national BLM Forest Health and Forest Management Standards and Guidelines to assess conditions and guide management actions for the forest and woodland resource. Provide for salvage harvest of wood in beetle-kill areas, when compatible with other resource objectives.

2-57

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.1 Moab PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Areas Available for Woodland Harvest
Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D
Provide 1,243,734 acres for woodland harvest and wood gathering. See Map 2- Provide 958,124 acres for woodland harvest and wood gathering. See Map 229-A for areas in which woodland harvest and wood gathering is prohibited 29-B for areas in which woodland harvest and wood gathering is prohibited (609,385 acres) to protect resources values. (863,250 acres) to protect resource values. Provide 1,168,988 acres for woodland harvest and wood gathering. See Map 2- Provide 1,243,734 acres for woodland harvest and wood gathering. See Map 229-C for areas in which woodland harvest and wood gathering is prohibited 29-D for areas in which woodland harvest and wood gathering is prohibited (652,386 acres) to protect resource values. (609,385 acres) to protect resource values.

2-58

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.2 Summary of Impacts

2.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Table 2.2 provides a comparative summary of the environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Plan and with each alternative.

2-59

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B AIR QUALITY
Cultural Resources, Paleontological Resources, Visual Resources, Lands and Realty, Livestock Management, Riparian Resources, Soil and Water, Special Designations, Special Status Species, Vegetation, Wildlife, and Woodlands Incremental benefits due to restrictions and/or reductions in surface disturbing activities, grazing, vegetation disturbance, and riparian disturbance. Alternative A is generally the least restrictive of these activities, and therefore has the lowest associated potential benefit but is not expected to result in a substantial decrease in air quality. Generally the most restrictive of the proposed alternatives and therefore has the highest potential for incremental benefits to air quality. The Proposed Plan is less restrictive than Alternative B, but more beneficial than Alternatives A and D. Alternative D is less restrictive than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, but more beneficial than Alternative A.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Fire Management

Reduce fuel loads and wildfire Same as Alternative A severity would reduce air quality impacts. Limited short-term impacts would result from controlled burns and prescribed fire. Small to negligible adverse impacts due to surface disturbance and operation of heavy equipment during remediation. Adverse emissions of atmospheric pollutants on both short-term and long-term durations. Alternative A would have the most mineral development activities, but is not expected to result in a substantial decrease in air quality or exceedance of state or federal air quality criteria. Same as Alternative A

Same as Alternative A

Same as Alternative A

Hazard Management

Same as Alternative A

Same as Alternative A

Mineral Resources

Same as Alternative A, except that the least oil and gas development would occur under this alternative.

Same as Alternative A, except that the second least oil and gas development would occur under this alternative.

Same as Alternative A, except that the third least (or second most) oil and gas development would occur under this alternative.

2-60

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural Resources NHPA and BLM policy to identify resources, and avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts would apply. Livestock grazing restrictions in high site density areas provide long-term benefits to cultural resources in restricted areas. 50,000 acres targeted for priority site identification studies; more than any other alternative. Greater focus on restoration of damaged sites than any other alternative. There would be mixed, longterm, beneficial and adverse impacts from site interpretation. Livestock grazing restrictions in high site density areas (fewer than Alternative B) provide longterm benefits to cultural resources in restricted areas. 30,000 acres targeted for priority site identification studies; the second most of all alternatives. Second greatest focus on restoration of damaged sites of all alternatives. There would be mixed, long-term, beneficial and adverse impacts from site interpretation; more sites developed for public use than under Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. Same as the Proposed Plan except livestock grazing would be restricted in fewer areas, and fewer sites would be targeted for restoration. More sites would be allocated for public use than under any other alternative. 20,000 acres would be targeted for resource identification studies; less than any other action alternative.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Fire Management

Negative impacts from fuels Same as Alternative A. treatments over 5,860 acres and non-fire fuels treatments over 1,347 acres every 10 years in high site-density areas. Mineral withdrawals on 13,296 acres reduce opportunities for adverse impacts to cultural resources. Adverse impacts over 3,776 acres of high site density lands encompassed by designated utility corridors. Same as Alternative A except 6,309 acres of high site density lands encompassed by designated utility corridors, and reduced opportunities for adverse impacts in WSAs or Was (exclusion areas) and ACECs (considered avoidance areas for rights-of-way).

Same as Alternative A.

Lands and Realty

Same as Alternative B except 28,400 acres of high site density lands encompassed by designated utility corridors.

Same as Alternative B except 29,983 acres of high site density lands encompassed by designated utility corridors.

2-61

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Livestock Grazing

Alternative A (No Action)
Reduced opportunities for longterm adverse impacts over 126,907 acres of existing grazing closures and 24,329 acres of high site density lands also closed to grazing. Longterm adverse impacts from trampling and rubbing over 273,890 acres of high site density lands.

Alternative B
Reduced opportunities for longterm adverse impacts over 153,797 acres of grazing closures, 3,263 acres of wildlife closures, and 29,758 acres of high site density lands closed to grazing. Long-term adverse impacts from trampling and rubbing over 272,818 acres of high site density lands This alternative has slightly greater benefit and lesser impact to cultural resources than any other alternative. Same as Alternative A except: An additional 41,488 acres of high site density lands closed to mineral entry, leasing, and development, 401 acres of oil and gas disturbance on high site density lands, 239 acres of geophysical disturbance on high site density lands, and 836,137 acres of land available for salable minerals. This alternative has the least potential adverse impact and greatest beneficial impact to cultural resources.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative B except that 114,235 acres of grazing closures would occur, with 25,177 acres of high site density land closed to livestock grazing and 277,399 acres of high site density lands open to grazing. This alternative has slightly higher overall potential for adverse impact than Alternative B but less than Alternatives A and D. Same as Alternative B except: Approximately 527 acres of disturbance on high site density lands for oil and gas development. Approximately 352 acres of disturbance on high site density lands for geophysical work. 1,234,717 acres of land available for saleable minerals. This alternative has the second least potential adverse impact and second greatest beneficial impact to cultural resources s.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative B except that 52,214 acres of grazing closure would occur, with approximately 12,386 acres of high site density lands closed to livestock grazing and 290,190 acres of high site density lands would be open to grazing. This alternative has slightly higher overall potential for adverse impact than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan but less than Alternative A. Same as Alternative B except: Approximately 594 acres of disturbance on high site density lands for oil and gas development. Approximately 396 acres of disturbance on high site density lands for geophysical work. 1,387,473 acres of land available for saleable minerals. This alternative has the third least (second most) potential adverse impact and greatest beneficial impact to cultural resources.

Minerals

Reduced of opportunities for direct and inadvertent impacts from ground disturbance and increased human activity over 458,665 acres closed to mineral entry, leasing, and development. Approximately 618 acres of disturbance could occur on high site density lands for oil and gas development. Approximately 407 acres of disturbance could occur on high site density lands for geophysical work. Adverse impacts possible over 1,467,758 acres of land available for salable minerals.

2-62

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B
Same as Alternative A.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A.

Paleontological Resources Limited long-term adverse impacts from collection of fossil materials. Limited long-term beneficial impacts from raising awareness about fossil collecting and preservation goals. Recreation—SRMAs Reduced long-term, adverse impacts over 49,543 acres of high site density lands managed as SRMAs.

Reduced long-term, adverse impacts over 217,994 acres of high site density lands managed as SRMAs.

Same as Alternative A except 160,885 acres of high site density lands would be managed as SRMAs. This would result in less protection from long-term adverse impacts to cultural resources than under Alternative B and more than Alternatives A and D. Same as Alternative A except up to 19,029 acres of high site density lands would be managed as ACECs with restrictions on surface disturbance.

Same as Alternative A except 74,278 acres of high site density lands would be managed as SRMAs.

Special Designations

Long-term benefits due to reduced surface disturbance over 243 acres of high site density lands managed as Outstanding Natural Area (ONA).

Same as Alternative A except up to 109,809 acres of high site density lands would be managed as ACECs with restrictions on surface disturbance.

NO ACECs or ONAs would be designated.

2-63

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)
1,049 acres of high site density lands closed to OHV use with long-term benefits to cultural resources. 208,757 acres of high site density lands where OHV use is limited to designated routes, with mixed long-term beneficial and adverse impacts to cultural resources. 92,628 acres of high site density lands open to cross country OHV use without designated routes, with long-term adverse impacts to cultural resources. Existing levels of direct and indirect impacts, primarily adverse, to cultural resources along travel routes would be maintained. This alternative has the least benefit and most potential for adverse impacts to cultural resources of all alternatives.

Alternative B
Same as Alternative A except the acreages are as follows: 72,415 acres closed 230,160 acres limited to designated routes 0 acres open to cross country OHV use This alternative has the most long-term benefits for cultural resources and least potential for long-term adverse impacts of all alternatives. 327 linear miles of travel routes in high site density areas would be closed, providing long-term direct and indirect benefits to cultural resources. This alternative has the most benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative B except as follows: 69,215 acres closed 232,875 acres limited to designated routes 486 acres open to cross country OHV use 19 miles of designated motorcycle routes on high site density lands This alternative has the second most long-term benefits for cultural resources and second least potential for long-term adverse impacts of all alternatives. 238 linear miles of travel routes in high site density areas would be closed, providing long-term direct and indirect benefits to cultural resources. This alternative has the second most benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives. Same as Alternative B except 74,672 acres of high site density lands outside of WSAs, WAs, and WSRs and an additional 3,447 acres of high site density lands in WSRs managed as VRM Class I. This alternative has the second most long-term benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative B except as follows: 17,981 acres closed 283,951 acres limited to designated routes 643 acres open to cross country OHV use 21 miles of designated motorcycle routes on high site density lands This alternative has the second least long-term benefits for cultural resources and second most potential for long-term adverse impacts of all alternatives. 214 linear miles of travel routes in high site density areas would be closed, providing long-term direct and indirect benefits to cultural resources. This alternative has the third most (second least) benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives. Same as Alternative A except 72,703 acres of high site density lands outside of WSAs, WAs, and WSRs managed as VRM Class I. This alternative has the third most (second least) long-term benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives.

Visual Resources

Long-term, indirect, benefits due to reduced surface disturbance over 349,101 acres of WSAs and WAs and 72,609 acres of high site density lands outside of WSAs and WAs managed as VRM Class I. This alternative has the least long-term benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives.

Same as Alternative A except 106,105 acres of high site density lands outside of WSAs, WAs, and WSRs and an additional 18,301 acres of high site density lands in WSRs managed as VRM Class I. This alternative has the most long-term benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives.

2-64

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B
Limited, long-term, benefits to cultural resources from restrictions on woodcutting in non-WSA areas managed for wilderness characteristics. Management of 47,784 acres of high site density lands with restrictions on surface disturbance provide long-term benefits for cultural resources in those areas. This alternative has the most long-term benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives. Same as Alternative A except 183,677 acres of high site density lands closed to use of woodland products.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Non-WSA Lands with There are no management Wilderness Characteristics actions for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under Alternative A.

Same as Alternative B except: Same as Alternative A. Management of 12,773 acres of high site density lands with restrictions on surface disturbance provide long-term benefits for cultural resources in those areas. This alternative has the second most long-term benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives.

Woodlands

Reduced disturbance over 144,146 acres of high site density lands closed to use of woodland products.

Same as Alternative A except 159,985 acres of high site density lands closed to use of woodland products.

Same as Alternative A except 144,146 acres of high site density lands closed to use of woodland products.

FIRE MANAGEMENT
Fire Management Reduced fuel loads and wildfire Same as Alternative A. severity over 5,000 to 10,000 acres per year of prescribed fire and non-fire treatment areas concentrated in pinyon-juniper woodland and wildland/urban interfaces. Slightly decreased risk of inadvertent fire starts due to limits on the number of people and vehicles associated with filming, and on the use of pyrotechnics and explosives. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Lands and Realty

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

2-65

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Minerals

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A except 6,480 acres of projected disturbance in the MPA.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A except 6,720 acres of projected disturbance in the MPA.

Mineral development-related Same as Alternative A except surface disturbance and 3,975 acres of projected activities would slightly increase disturbance in the MPA. the risk of human-caused fires surrounding 6,765 acres of projected disturbance. Increased risk of human- and vehicle-caused wildland fires over 678,250 acres open to cross-country OHV travel,. Slightly reduced risk of wildfire over 29,654 acres would be closed to all OHV travel. Slightly reduced risk of humancaused fire over 151,252 acres closed to dispersed camping within SRMAs. Alternative A is generally the least restrictive of vegetation treatments and woodland harvest and, therefore, has the lowest risk of fuel loading and catastrophic wildfire. Slightly reduced risk of wildfire over entire MPA (closed to cross-country OHV travel), and 358,126 acres closed to all OHV travel. The impacts of limiting camping would be the same as Alternative A, except within 976,173 acres.

Recreation and Travel

Fire risk would be slightly higher than Alternative B, with 1,866 acres open to cross-country OHV travel and 349,843 acres closed to OHV travel. The impacts of limiting camping would be the same as Alternative A, except within 658,642 acres.

Fire risks would be higher than Alternatives B and C (but lower than A), with 3,348 acres open to cross-country OHV travel and 29,654 acres closed to OHV travel. The impacts of limiting camping would be the same as Alternative A, except within 277,471acres. Alternative B is generally the second least restrictive of vegetation treatments and woodland harvest and, therefore, has the second lowest risk of fuel loading and catastrophic wildfire.

Special Designations, Woodlands, Wildlife, Special Status Species

Alternative B is generally the most restrictive of vegetation treatments and woodland harvest and, therefore, has the highest risk of fuel loading and catastrophic wildfire.

The Proposed Plan is generally the most second restrictive of vegetation treatments and woodland harvest and, therefore, has the second highest risk of fuel loading and catastrophic wildfire.

HEALTH AND SAFETY
Minerals Hazardous materials risk from Same as Alternative A. the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials would be negligible given the small number of wells projected. Nevertheless, any mineral exploration and development would increase the potential for adverse and long-term hazardous materials risks in the planning area. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

2-66

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Abandoned Mine Land

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A.

Abandoned mine land site and Same as Alternative A. area mitigation and reclamation priorities would assist in minimizing risks to health and safety.

LANDS AND REALTY
Lands and Realty Alternative A would have the smallest impacts to the placement of future ROWs due to ROW exclusion and avoidance and restrictions on surface disturbance of any of the alternatives (353,293 acres closed to surface disturbing activities; 38,912 acres designated as NSO; and 389,605 acres with timing and controlled surface use limitations). Alternative B would have the greatest impacts to the placement of future ROWs due to ROW exclusion and avoidance and restrictions on surface disturbance of any of the alternatives (672,724 acres closed to surface disturbing activities; 341,919 acres designated as NSO; and 544,412 acres with timing and controlled surface use limitation stipulations). The Proposed Plan would have fewer impacts to the placement of future ROWs due to ROW exclusion and avoidance and restrictions on surface disturbance than Alternative B, but more so than Alternatives A or D (370,250 acres closed to surface disturbing activities; 217,480 acres designated as NSO; and 806,994 acres with timing and controlled surface use limitation stipulations). Alternative D would have fewer impacts to the placement of future ROWs due to ROW exclusion and avoidance and restrictions on surface disturbance than Alternatives B and C, but greater impacts than Alternative A (355,146 acres closed to surface disturbing activities; 84,772 acres designated as NSO; and 590,442 acres with timing and controlled surface use limitation stipulations).

LIVESTOCK GRAZING
Fire Management Short-term, adverse impacts on Same as Alternative A. livestock grazing in treated areas. Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced risk of fire and improved forage. Adverse impacts to grazing from making 126,907 acres unavailable for grazing. Surface disturbing activities on 679 total acres annually under this alternative could lead to losses of AUMs and acres available to livestock grazing. Adverse impacts to grazing from making 153,797 acres unavailable for grazing. Surface disturbing activities on 426 total acres annually under this alternative could lead to losses of AUMs and acres available to livestock grazing. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing

Adverse impacts to grazing from making 114,234 acres unavailable for grazing. Surface disturbing activities on 721 total acres annually under this alternative could lead to losses of AUMs and acres available to livestock grazing.

Adverse impacts to grazing from making 52,214 acres unavailable for grazing. Surface disturbing activities on 743 total acres annually under this alternative could lead to losses of AUMs and acres available to livestock grazing.

Minerals

2-67

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Recreation

Alternative A (No Action)
Loss of AUMs from grazing restrictions at developed recreation sites.

Alternative B
Same as Alternative A.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A.

Travel

Impacts resulting in potential No impacts because cross loss of vegetation for livestock country travel is not allowed. grazing from cross country OHV travel on 602,212 acres. Short-tem negative impacts to livestock grazing when site closures are necessary; possible long-term beneficial impacts after a site is rehabilitated. Same as Alternative A with eight additional sites excluded from livestock grazing.

Impacts resulting in potential loss of vegetation for livestock grazing from cross country OHV travel on 1,866 acres. Same as Alternative A with six additional sites excluded from livestock grazing.

Impacts resulting in potential loss of vegetation for livestock grazing from cross country OHV travel on 3,064 acres. Same as Alternative A.

Riparian

Soils/Watershed

Temporary or permanent Same as Alternative A. decreases in acres or AUMs available to livestock to mitigate damage to soils. Short-term, adverse impacts on Same as Alternative A. livestock grazing in areas that are closed following treatment. Long-term, beneficial impacts from improved forage. Slight changes in grazing Same as Alternative A. season of use in pronghorn and bighorn sheep habitat (using Rangeland Health Standards).

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Vegetation

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Wildlife

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

2-68

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B MINERAL RESOURCES
Mineral Resources Most beneficial impacts to mineral development with 1,427,949 total leasable acres under standard lease terms and special stipulations, 451 oil and gas wells, 2,397 acres geophysical exploration, and 1,467,768 salable acres. Adverse impacts to mineral development on 313,800 acres of saline soils and 823,094 acres of high-limitations soils closed to surface disturbance. Most adverse impact to mineral development with 808,096 total leasable acres under standard lease terms and special stipulations, 264 oil and gas wells, 1,404 acres geophysical exploration, and 808,097 salable acres. 11,207 acres with limiting designations. Adverse impacts to mineral development on 330,142 acres of saline soils and 487,917 acres of high-limitations soils closed to surface disturbance, and 2 watersheds closed to mineral development. Adverse impacts to mineral development within 301,115 acres designated as ACECs and limiting development. Most-adverse impacts to minerals development on 453,462 acres managed as VRM Class I and 373,647 acres designated VRM Class II. Most adverse impacts to mineral development, with 266,485 acres managed to protect WC. These acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Second most adverse impacts with 1,234,267 total leasable acres under standard lease terms and special stipulations, 432 oil and gas wells, 2,072 acres geophysical exploration, and 1,234,267 salable acres. 10,437 acres with limiting designations. Adverse impacts to mineral development on 330,142 acres of saline soils and 710,129 acres of high-limitations soils closed to surface disturbance, and 2 watersheds NSO for mineral development. Adverse impacts to mineral development within 30,563 acres designated as ACECs and limiting development. Second-most adverse impacts to minerals development on 358,911 acres managed as VRM Class I and 365,567 acres designated VRM Class II. Second most beneficial impacts to mineral development with 1,387,473 total leasable acres under standard lease terms and special stipulations, 448 oil and gas wells, 2,329 acres geophysical, and 1,387,473 salable acres. Adverse impacts to mineral development 487,917 acres of high-limitations soils closed to surface disturbance.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Soil and Water

Special Designations

Adverse impacts to mineral development over 1,287 acres in Negro Bill Outstanding Natural Area. Second-least adverse impacts to minerals development on 349,110 acres (of WSAs) managed as VRM Class I and 401,015 acres designated VRM Class II.

No impact.

Visual Resources

Least adverse impacts to minerals development on 349,617 acres managed as VRM Class I and 245,773 acres designated VRM Class II.

Non-WSA Lands with No non-WSA lands with Wilderness Characteristics wilderness characteristics would be managed.

Second-most adverse impacts, Same as Alternative A. with 47,761 acres managed to protect WC.NSO for oil and gas leasing.

2-69

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Wildlife and Fisheries

Alternative A (No Action)
Least adverse impacts to mineral development over 503,574 acres of total habitat with restrictive stipulations over 227 days.

Alternative B
Most adverse impacts to mineral development with 1,553,233 acres total habitat with restrictive stipulations over 273 days.

PROPOSED PLAN
Second most adverse impacts to mineral development with 1,379,134 acres total habitat with restrictive stipulations over 273 days.

Alternative D
Third most adverse impacts to mineral development (second least) with 590,442 acres total habitat with restrictive stipulations over 273 days.

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS
Non-WSA Lands with Adverse impacts to 94% of the Wilderness Characteristics non-WSA areas inventoried with wilderness characteristics. Adverse impacts would include major surface disturbing activities and degradation of the wilderness characteristics of the entire area. Approximately 81% would be open to mineral leasing with standard lease terms or with controlled surface use/timing limitation stipulations. In addition, 53% would be open to cross-country OHV use and 74% would be open to woodland harvest. Potential loss of wilderness characteristics on non-WSA lands across the entire area over the life of the plan. Beneficial protection of naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation across all non-WSA lands inventoried with wilderness characteristics. Beneficial management including closed to oil and gas leasing, NSO for other surface disturbing activities, retained in federal ownership, vehicle use limited to designated roads, woodland harvest prohibited, VRM Class II, and exclusion areas for ROWs. Therefore the entire inventory (266,485 acres) of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be preserved under this alternative. Beneficial protection of naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation across 18% of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (47,761 acres). Adverse impacts to naturalness and outstanding opportunities on 61% of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics open to mineral leasing, 53% managed under VRM Classes III and IV, and 61% open to woodlands harvest. Potential degradation of the wilderness characteristics of those non-WSA lands not managed specifically to protect wilderness characteristics. Adverse impacts to 87% (232,133 acres) of the non-WSA areas inventoried with wilderness characteristics (as described under Alternative A). Approximately 87% would be open to mineral leasing with standard lease terms or with controlled surface use/timing limitation stipulations. In addition, 74 % would be open to woodland harvest. Potential loss of wilderness characteristics on non-WSA lands across the entire area over the life of the plan.

2-70

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Fire Management, Lands and Realty, Livestock Grazing, Minerals, Special Designations, Travel, NonWSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, and Woodlands Long term direct and indirect adverse impacts from construction of roads, fire lines, prescribed burns, 21,701 acres of utility corridors, 1,695,621 acres (total) open to livestock grazing, 838,412 acres open to oil and gas development, 391,133 acres open to unrestricted OHV travel, and 760,344 acres open to woodland harvest in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units. Beneficial impacts from fossils recovered as a result of mitigation and designation of ACECs, WSRs, WSAs, WA. Designates the fewest acres of land as ACECs, WSAs and WSRs. 0 acres as WSRs, and 1,287 acres as ACEC. No acres designated to be managed for wilderness characteristics on non-WSA lands Has highest overall potential for adverse impacts. Same as Alternative A, except: 38,633 acres of utility corridors, 1,668,732 acres (total) open to livestock grazing, 487,227 acres open to oil and gas development, no lands open to unrestricted OHV travel, and 614,848 acres open to woodland harvest in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units. 71,072 acres designated as WSRs, 610,703 acres as ACECs. 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands to be managed for wilderness characteristics. Has lowest potential for adverse impacts. Same as Alternative A except: 101,359 acres of utility corridors, 1,708,294 acres (total) open to livestock grazing, 730,458 acres open to oil and gas development, 7 acres open to unrestricted OHV travel, and 737,198 acres open to woodland harvest in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units. 41,495 acres designated as WSRs, 63,781 acres as ACECs. 47,761acres of non-WSA lands to be managed for wilderness characteristics. Has second lowest potential for adverse impacts. Same as Alternative A except: 123,132 acres of utility corridors, 1,770,314 acres (total) open to livestock grazing, 814,739 acres open to oil and gas development, 38 acres open to unrestricted OHV travel, and 760,198 acres open to woodland harvest in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units. 0 acres designated as WSRs, 35,042 acres as ACECs Has second highest potential for adverse impacts.

Paleontology

Long- and short-term direct and Same as Alternative A. indirect beneficial impacts from mitigation of surface disturbing actions in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units; designation of some paleontologically sensitive sites as SRMAs; and enhanced educational, interpretive and scientific opportunities.

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

2-71

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B RECREATION
Air Quality Long-term, beneficial impacts to Same as Alternative A. scenic quality from interagency MOUs and BMPs controlling smoke, haze, and air pollutants. Long-term, adverse impacts on Protection-related actions all users from least protection of applied to 50,000 acres of recreation/cultural resources cultural resources. would have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation. Short-term, adverse impacts on Same as Alternative A. recreation from surface disturbances, scenic quality degradation, and loss of vegetation. Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources from reduced fire risks, enhanced wildlife habitat, and improved scenic quality. Negligible short-term impacts, Same as Alternative A. with beneficial, long-term impacts from increased recreational opportunities for all users in remediated/reclaimed hazardous areas. Long-term, beneficial impacts on all recreation user groups from protection of 70,237 acres of scenic and recreation resources in the Three Rivers and Westwater Mineral Withdrawal Areas. Similar to Alternative A, but more beneficial impacts, from NSO leasing stipulations within the withdrawal areas. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Cultural

Impacts similar to Alternative B, Impacts similar to Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, from but to a lesser degree than the protection of 30,000 acres of Proposed Plan. recreation/cultural resources.

Fire Management

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Health and Human Safety

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Lands and Realty

Same as Alternative B.

Same as Alternative B.

2-72

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Livestock Grazing

Alternative A (No Action)
Direct and indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts on wildlife viewing and hunting from changes in allotment use and grazing exclusion in riparian areas. Grazing vegetation treatments on 67,125 acres would have short-term, adverse impacts on recreation, but longterm benefits from reduced fire risks, enhanced wildlife habitat, and improved scenic quality. Indirect and direct, short-term and long-term, adverse impacts on recreational opportunities from surface-disturbing impacts to natural resources from noise, intrusive night lighting, soil erosion, and cross-country geophysical activities. Minor, adverse impacts to recreation resources and users from resource use conflicts.

Alternative B
Beneficial, long-term, indirect impacts to wildlife viewing and hunting from forage treatments on 46,307 acres and exclusion of grazing in 4,673 acres of riparian areas.

PROPOSED PLAN
Impacts slightly less beneficial than Alternative B, with riparian grazing exclusion on 1,497 acres.

Alternative D
Same beneficial impacts from forage treatments as Alternative B, but less beneficial riparian protection than Alternatives B or C. Slightly more beneficial than Alternative A.

Minerals

Impacts similar to Alternative A, except that fewer acres of RFD predicted development (56% of Alternative A) would reduce the adverse impacts to recreation.

Impacts similar to Alternative A, Impacts negligibly less adverse with slightly reduced adverse than Alternative A. impacts from RFD predicted development (96% of Alternative A).

Recreation, Book Cliffs SRMA

Long-term, beneficial impacts to SRMA would not be SRMA would not be recreation resources and non- established, with impacts to the established, with impacts to the mechanized from reduced same as Alternative A. same as Alternative A. conflicts and preservation of resources in 348,140-acre Undeveloped SRMA. Mechanized users would be adversely restricted to 18 miles of routes. Beneficial, long-term impacts on Same as Alternative B. resources and on motorized and non-motorized users from resource protection, expanded recreational opportunities, additional facilities, and reduced user conflicts within the 15,597acre SRMA. Same as Alternative B.

Recreation, Cameo Cliffs SRMA

Minor impacts to resources from OHV surface disturbances along designated routes. Adverse impacts to nonmotorized users from continued use of the 15,597-acre SRMA as a focus area for OHVs.

2-73

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Recreation, Canyon Rims SRMA

Alternative A (No Action)
Potential long-term, adverse impacts from minerals leasing, VRM III objectives, and user conflicts within the 101,531-acre SRMA. Long-term, beneficial resource protection impacts from travel route designation, camping restrictions. Long-term, beneficial impacts for all user groups from continued management for reduced user conflicts and restrictions on surface disturbances within the 17,983acre SRMA.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D
Impacts similar to Alternative A, but with more beneficial impacts to scenic drivers and hikers.

Long-term, beneficial impacts Same as Alternative B. from reduced user conflicts for motorized, mountain biking, and non-mechanized users within the SRMA from management of focus areas and increased recreational opportunities. Long-term, beneficial impacts Impacts similar to Alternative B, from resource protection, but with more beneficial impacts reduced user conflicts from to all user groups. additional facilities, additional focus areas, and restricting camping to designated areas in the 103,467-acre SRMA. Longterm, adverse impacts to specialized, river floating groups. Long-term, adverse impacts on Same as Alternative B. motorized and mountain biking users. Beneficial, long-term impacts to resources and users within the 31,661-acre SRMA from expanded recreational opportunities for boating and hiking, and a reduction in user conflicts.

Recreation, Colorado Riverway SRMA

Beneficial impacts to recreation from designated of a 79,126acre SRMA, but long-term, adverse impacts from user conflicts because of management of fewer, and smaller, focus areas, and fewer facilities.

Recreation, Dolores River Canyons SRMA

Long-term, adverse impacts to resources from lack of management prescriptions for the area, creating the likelihood of user conflicts and resource degradation.

Same as Alternative A.

2-74

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Recreation, Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges/Dee Pass SRMAs

Alternative A (No Action)
Beneficial, short-term impacts to resources from maintained opportunities and facilities, and maintained protection of resources. Long-term, adverse impacts to resources and all user groups from lack of management prescriptions to protect resources from increased visitation, increased recreation demands.

Alternative B
Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation through focus areas for non-motorized and motorized users within the 300,650-acre SRMA and the increased number of facilities that would reduce user conflicts and surface disturbances. Longterm, adverse impacts on motorized, specialized and mountain biking groups from user conflicts in SRMA areas without focus area management. Long-term, beneficial impacts on resources from continued management under the current management plan and from increased opportunities within the 3,759-acre SRMA. Long-term, beneficial protection of resource values within the 6,246-acre SRMA. Beneficial impacts on mountain bikers, but adverse impacts on OHV users from prohibitions on Slickrock Trail use.

PROPOSED PLAN
Impacts similar to Alternative B, but more beneficial, through focus areas for scenic driving, non-motorized, motorized, specialized, and mountain biking users within the 300,650acre SRMA.

Alternative D
Impacts similar to Alternative A, except for increased long-term, beneficial motorized recreational opportunities within the 60,939-acre Dee Pass SRMA and the White Wash Open OHV area.

Recreation, Lower Gray Canyon SRMA

Long-term, beneficial impacts along Lower Gray Canyon from continued management under the Desolation-Gray Management Plan. Short-term, beneficial impacts from adequate management of current levels of user needs and demands. Long-term, adverse impacts from lack of adequate management to address overcrowding, increasing user demands, and increasing user conflicts.

Same as Alternative B, with the Same as Alternative A, as the same management SRMA would not be designated. prescriptions.

Recreation, Sand Flats SRMA

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except for beneficial impacts to OHV motorcycle user from access to the Slickrock Trail and reduced beneficial impacts on mountain bikers.

Impacts similar to the Proposed Plan, except more beneficial, long-term recreational opportunities for mountain biking within the free-ride area.

2-75

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Recreation, South Moab SRMA

Alternative A (No Action)
Long-term, adverse impacts to motorized, mountain biking, and non-mechanized users from inadequate management to address user needs, demands, resource impacts, user displacement, and resource impacts.

Alternative B
Long-term, beneficial impacts on scenic driving, mountain biking, and non-mechanized users from reduced conflicts, reduced displacement, protection of resources, and expanded recreational opportunities within focus areas of the 63,399-acre SRMA. Long-term, adverse impacts on specialized (motorized) users from reduced opportunities. Long-term, beneficial impacts on river and non-mechanized users from enhanced river and shoreline recreation opportunities, increased facilities, focus areas, and permit system modification within the 29,839-acre SRMA. Short-term, adverse impacts on river opportunities from permit limits. Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced OHV impacts, additional facilities, and reduced user conflicts within the 15,424acre SRMA.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Impacts similar to Alternative B, Same as Alternative A. except for additional beneficial impacts to specialized users from opportunities on Potato Salad Hill.

Recreation, Two Rivers SRMA

Short-term, beneficial impacts on river recreation from continued management. Longterm, adverse impacts on river recreation from inadequate management to address increasing user demands, resource impacts, user conflicts.

Impacts similar to Alternative B, but more beneficial to recreation users from more river opportunities under less restrictive permit limits.

Impacts similar to the Proposed Plan, except for long-term, adverse impacts from lack of river focus area and potential degradation of river experiences by increasing permit numbers and group sizes within the 14,056-acre SRMA.

Recreation, Utah Rims SRMA

Long-term, adverse impacts from continued management allowing OHV noise, surface disturbances, and from intensifying user conflicts between mountain bikers, motorized OHV, and nonmechanized users.

Impacts similar to Alternative B, Same as Alternative A. except more benefits from increased opportunities from expanded 7 system and singletrack (motorcycle) opportunities.

2-76

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Recreation, Moab ERMA

Alternative A (No Action)
Long-term, adverse impacts on recreation from inadequate management of intensifying user conflicts along Kokopelli's Trail.

Alternative B
Adverse impacts to users of Kokopelli's Trail similar to Alternative A. Long-term, beneficial impacts from additional facilities and opportunities to reduce user conflicts and meet user demands. Similar to Alternative A, but to a greater degree, from emphasis on resource protection while managing for a wide range of opportunities.

PROPOSED PLAN
Impacts similar to Alternative B, except more beneficial impacts from additional mountain biking opportunities on 1,365-acre Upper Fisher Mesa.

Alternative D
Similar to the Proposed Plan, but to a lesser degree, from reduced acres managed for recreation.

Recreation, Special Recreation Permits

Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation from current management by providing recreational opportunities for commercial and private groups, and protecting resources.

Impacts similar to Alternative B, but to a greater degree, from more specific permit stipulations to protect resources.

Impacts similar to the Proposed Plan, but to a less beneficial degree, from reduced resource protection. Short-term, beneficial impacts from providing permits (and opportunities) to large groups, but long-term, adverse impacts from increased likelihood of resource degradation and loss of recreation values. Same as Alternative B.

Riparian

Long-term, adverse impacts on recreation from continued degradation of riparian areas that would reduce opportunities to enjoy riparian areas.

Long-term, beneficial impacts to Same as Alternative B. recreation experiences and opportunities from improved riparian areas through livestock grazing controls and limits on recreational use of these areas. Long-term, adverse impacts from reduced OHV opportunities from riparian area protection.

Soils/Watershed

Negligible impacts on recreation Long-term, beneficial impacts Same as Alternative B. resources or resource users. from maintained scenic quality in Castle Valley from reducing surface disturbances in the watershed, and from restrictions on steep slopes.

Impacts same as Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, because Castle Valley surface disturbance-restricting stipulations would not be applied.

2-77

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Special Designations, ACECs

Alternative A (No Action)
Long-term, adverse impacts from lack of prescriptions to protect recreation resource values in areas proposed as ACECs under other alternatives. Continued longterm, beneficial impacts on motorized OHV users within Ten Mile Wash and White Wash.

Alternative B
Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources within 610,086 acres designated as ACECs from NSO protection from minerals development, and from restrictions on motorized use. Long-term, adverse impacts on specialized, motorized, and mountain biking users from reduced recreational opportunities in some areas. Long-term, beneficial impacts on scenic, mountain biking, and non-mechanized users from expanded opportunities in some areas. Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources and on all user groups along 287.5 miles of river corridor determined to be suitable for recommendation as Wild and Scenic.

PROPOSED PLAN
Impacts similar to Alternative B in 63,232 acres proposed as ACECs (11% of Alternative B area) and areas not proposed as ACECs, except for longterm, adverse impacts to all recreation users within Canyon Rims, and long-term, beneficial impacts from expanded opportunities for motorized OHV users in White Wash.

Alternative D
Long-term, adverse impacts on all users and recreation resources from lack of protection to scenic resources because no ACECs would be designated.

Special Designations, Wild Negligible impacts to recreation and Scenic Rivers along 46 miles of eligible river segments of the Colorado and Dolores Rivers. Impacts on recreation along the remaining MPA river segments would be adverse in the short-term and long-term from lack of protection from intensifying use, user conflicts, and potential surface disturbances. Special Designations, WSAs Beneficial, long-term impacts to recreation because WSAs have been and would continue to be managed to protect their wilderness values. Adverse impacts from managing OHV as limited to inventoried routes.

Long-term beneficial impacts as compared to Alternative B, because 127.3 river miles would be suitable for recommendation.

Impacts similar to Alternative A, except no river segments would be suitable for recommendation, with adverse impacts on resources and river-related recreation.

Same as Alternative A, except for adverse, minor impacts to motorized OHV users from use limited to designated routes.

Same as Alternative B.

Same as Alternative B.

2-78

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Special Status Species

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A.

Long-term, beneficial impacts Same as Alternative A. on opportunities from continued protection of wildlife and plants for recreational sightseeing and nature study. Long-term, adverse impacts to recreation from intensifying user conflicts and displacement, noise, from surface disturbances, and destruction of recreation-related cultural resources. Long-term, beneficial impacts to motorized OHV opportunities from unrestricted cross-country travel on 620,212 acres. Long-term, beneficial impacts to non-motorized users and resources from OHV route designation and elimination of all cross-country travel. Beneficial impacts from reduced user conflicts. Long-term, adverse impacts to motorized OHV users from travel opportunities limited to designated routes within 1,475,074 acres and 3,278 miles of B and D class routes. Long-term, beneficial impacts from 75 new miles of routes managed for mountain biking recreation, by increasing opportunities, and reducing conflicts and displacement. Long-term, beneficial impacts from 25 new miles of routes managed for non-mechanized recreation, by increasing opportunities, and reducing conflicts and displacement.

Travel Management, OHV

Impacts on resources and user groups would be similar to Alternative B, except that the adverse impacts to motorized users would be reduced by limiting OHV travel to designated routes within 1,481,334 acres and along 3,653 miles of B and D class routes, 123 miles of single-track routes, with 1,866 acres open to cross-country travel. Impacts similar to Alternative B, except 150 new miles would be designated for mountain biking recreation.

Long-term, beneficial impacts on motorized OHV users from opportunities along designated routes. Impacts on resources similar to Alternative B, except that OHV travel limited to designated routes would be permitted on 1,762,083 acres, 3,805 miles of B and D class routes, 219 miles of single-track routes, with 3,064 acres open to cross-country travel. Impacts similar to Alternative B, except 300 new miles would be designated for mountain biking recreation.

Travel Management, Mountain Biking

Long-term, adverse impacts to mountain biking recreation from inadequate management to address increasing user conflicts, increasing user demand, and user displacement. Long-term, adverse impacts to non-mechanized recreation from inadequate management to address increasing user conflicts, increasing user demand, and user displacement.

Travel Management, NonMechanized

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except 50 new miles would be designated for non-mechanized recreation.

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except 100 new miles would be designated for non-mechanized recreation.

2-79

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Vegetation

Alternative A (No Action)
Short-term, adverse impacts on recreation from surface disturbances, scenic quality degradation, and loss of vegetation. Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources from enhanced wildlife habitat and improved scenic quality. Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources and all user groups because Alternative A would attempt to manage recreation-related scenic quality as determined by the VRM inventory.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D
Same as Alternative B.

Same as Alternative A, except Same as Alternative B. that drought management would have short-term, adverse impacts on motorized and mountain biking opportunities.

Visual

Long-term, beneficial impacts to all recreational users and resources from managing more acres than determined by the VRM inventory for VRM I.

Long-term, adverse impacts to recreational users and resources from fewer acres managed for high scenic quality than determined by the VRM inventory.

Adverse impacts similar to the Proposed Plan, but to a greater degree, from fewer acres managed for high scenic quality than determined by the VRM inventory.

Non-WSA Lands with Long-term, adverse impacts to Wilderness Characteristics motorized and non-motorized users from lack of management to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas. Wildlife and Fisheries Short-term, adverse impacts on opportunities for motorized, mountain biking, and specialized users in the PotashConfluence HMP (42,500 acres) from actions to protect wildlife.

Long-term, beneficial impacts on resources and on motorized and non-motorized users from maintained opportunities within 266,485 acres of non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics.

Impact similar to Alternative B, Same as Alternative A. but to a lesser degree, from management of 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands for wilderness characteristics (20% of the area under Alternative B). Similar impacts as Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, from more opportunities for dispersed camping in bighorn sheep habitat.

Long-term, adverse impacts on Same as Alternative B. dispersed camping opportunities in riparian areas to protect habitat, and in Shafer Basin and Long Canyon (13,500 acres) to protect bighorn sheep habitat.

RIPARIAN RESOURCES
Fire Management Long-term, beneficial impacts Same as Alternative A. due to reduction in catastrophic fire risk. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

2-80

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Lands and Realty

Alternative A (No Action)
No impacts unless exceptions are granted in which case they would be mitigated. Beneficial impacts from excluding grazing on 9% of MPA's riparian areas. No impacts unless exceptions are granted in which case they would be mitigated. Adverse impacts in the form of disturbance of vegetation and soils; introduction of weeds; and potential for fire due to 2,100 acres of riparian areas being open to OHVs. Beneficial impact from managed recreation use on 141,234 acres of SRMA. Adverse impacts (forms described above) due to high number of river users and few limitations on camping. Under all alternatives, beneficial impacts from maintenance of PFC; guidance on pipeline crossings; No Surface Occupancy stipulations in riparian and floodplain areas; prohibition of public wood gathering; and weed control measures. Beneficial impacts from excluding grazing on 9% of MPA's riparian areas.

Alternative B
Same as Alternative A.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing

Beneficial impacts from excluding grazing on 34% of MPA's riparian areas. Same as Alternative A.

Beneficial impacts from excluding grazing on 12% of MPA's riparian areas. Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Mineral Resources

Same as Alternative A.

Recreation and Travel

Beneficial impacts from reductions in vegetation and soil disturbance and introduction of weeds; reduced fire potential from closing all riparian areas to OHVs or limiting travel. Beneficial impact from managed recreation use on 976,173 acres of SRMA. Reduced disturbance by river users relative to Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus beneficial impacts from excluding grazing on 17% of MPA's riparian areas and prioritization of 17 watersheds for Watershed Management Plans (WMP).

OHV impacts the same as Alternative B. Beneficial impact from managed recreation use on 658,642 acres of SRMA. Impacts from river users less than Alternative A and more than Alternative B.

OHV impacts the same as Alternative B. Beneficial impact from managed recreation use on 277,471 acres of SRMA. Impacts from river users less than Alternative A and more than Alternatives B and C.

Riparian Resources

Same as Alternative A, plus Same as Alternative A. beneficial impacts from excluding grazing on 12% of MPA's riparian areas and prioritization of 8 watersheds for Watershed Management Plans (WMP).

2-81

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Soil and Water

Alternative A (No Action)
Beneficial impacts due to a controlled surface use stipulation restricting surface disturbing activities in 100-year floodplains, under all alternatives. No impacts from WMPs. Beneficial protection from designation of Negro Bill ONA. WSR eligible sections would be managed to protect ORVs which may offer indirect protections to riparian resources. Beneficial enhancement (or reduction of degradation) of riparian areas designated for recovery of Special Status Species.

Alternative B
Same as Alternative A, plus beneficial impacts to riparian management from prioritizing 17 watersheds for WMPs.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Same as Alternative A, plus Same as Alternative A. beneficial impacts to riparian management from prioritizing 8 watersheds for WMPs.

Special Designations

Greatest beneficial protection from designation of 12 ACECs. Beneficial protection of riparian resources by declaring 71,300 acres suitable for some level of WSR designation. Same as Alternative A.

Second greatest beneficial protection from designations of 5 ACECs. Beneficial protection of riparian resources by declaring 41,236 acres suitable for some level of WSR designation. Same as Alternative A.

No ACEC s designated, thus no riparian benefit. Adverse impacts to riparian resources from listing all eligible river segments (except Salt Wash) as "not suitable" for WSR designation. Same as Alternative A.

Special Status Species

Vegetation

Beneficial enhancement of Same as Alternative A. riparian health through removal of invasive species and replacement with native species. Beneficial protection from the prohibition of surface disturbance, off road travel, and new ROWs on 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics.

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Non-WSA Lands with No specific management of Wilderness Characteristics non-WSA lands with lands with wilderness characteristics is proposed; so no direct impacts to riparian resources would occur.

Beneficial protection from the prohibition of surface disturbance, off road travel, and new ROWs on 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics.

No non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics, so adverse impacts to riparian resources would be possible.

2-82

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Wildlife

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A.

Benefits from reduced livestock Same as Alternative A. impacts due to exclosures under Dolores Triangle Habitat Management Plan (Appendix N). Beneficial reduction of vegetation and soil disturbance and reduced spread of weeds due to camping restrictions in riparian wildlife habitats. Beneficial improvement in riparian habitat for migratory bird management. Beneficial reduction in disturbance due to prohibition on public fuelwood gathering under all alternatives. Same as Alternative A.

Woodlands

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
Cultural Socioeconomic impacts resulting from cultural resource management decisions would continue. Long-term beneficial social and economic impacts related to cultural resource visitation and subsequent revenue generation would be greatest because the identification, preservation, and restoration of sites would be highest under this alternative. About 318,709 acres (outside WSAs) would be rights-of-way exclusion areas, resulting in potential adverse economic impacts. The additional 26,890 acres unavailable for grazing would not alter socioeconomic impacts compared to Alternative A. Similar to Alternative B with slightly fewer prioritizations that would reduce adverse impacts to cultural sites. With the fewest amount of prioritizations and greatest opportunity for surface disturbing activities, adverse impacts to social and economic conditions resulting from cultural resources would be greatest under this alternative. Socioeconomic impacts would remain similar to current conditions.

Lands and Realty

Socioeconomic impacts would remain similar to current conditions.

About 25,306 acres (outside WSAs) would be rights-of-way exclusion areas, resulting in potential adverse economic impacts. The additional 12, 673 acres unavailable for grazing would not alter socioeconomic impacts compared to Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing

Socioeconomic impacts would remain similar to current conditions.

Similar to Alternative A. The additional 74,693 acres available for grazing would not alter socioeconomic impacts compared to Alternative A.

2-83

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Minerals

Alternative A (No Action)
Economic benefits (taxes, royalties, bonus payments and annual rent payments) from minerals development would be long-term and beneficial to local communities. Estimated annual royalty revenue: oil – $200, 980, gas – $1,624,244 Employment would remain similar to current conditions with minor beneficial impacts to the local economy. Long-term production jobs would likely continue at current rates.

Alternative B
Long-term economic benefits from minerals development would be slightly less under this Alternative, thus having a negligible to minor impact in comparison to the other Alternatives. Estimated annual royalty revenue: oil – $100,490, gas – $937,050. Estimated annual property tax benefit from oil and gas production - $321,440

PROPOSED PLAN
Long-term beneficial socioeconomic impacts slightly less than Alternative A, but greater than Alternative B. Estimated annual royalty revenue: oil – $200,980, gas – $1,561,750 Estimated annual property tax benefit from oil and gas production - $551,000

Alternative D
Long-term beneficial socioeconomic impacts same as Alternative A, but greater than Alternatives B and C. Estimated annual royalty revenue: oil – $200, 980, gas – $1,624,244 Estimated annual property tax benefit from oil and gas production - $574,000 Estimated annual severance tax benefits to State from oil and gas production in the Moab Planning Area would be similar to A, since estimate production would be similar to A.

Estimated annual severance tax benefits to State from oil and Estimated annual severance tax gas production in the Moab Estimated annual property tax benefits to State from oil and Planning Area would be similar benefit from oil and gas gas production in the Moab to A, since estimated production production - $574,000 Planning Area is likely to be would be only slightly less than about 45% less than A, due to A. Estimated annual severance tax decreased production opportunities. benefits to State from oil and gas production in the Moab Planning Area - $1,356,000, based on relative share of total State production (State of Utah data, February, 2008.)

2-84

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Recreation and Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)
Long-term beneficial impacts from tourist-related spending (approx. $2 million in sales tax revenue annually) and employment (2000 jobs) would continue. With no designation of focus areas and 3 SRMAs, user conflicts are likely to escalate and adversely impact visitor experience. Economic contributions from OHV users would be similar to current conditions. There could be a potential decrease in social well-being and contribution to the local economy from recreationists seeking non-motorized opportunities. There could be possible degradation of other resources that could adversely impact recreation opportunities and visitation in the long term.

Alternative B
Slight decrease in revenue generation and tourist-related employment due to emphasis on non-motorized recreation. With 11 SRMAs and 22 focus areas, user conflicts would likely decrease, having long-term beneficial impacts on visitor experience. Decreased OHV user satisfaction due to emphasis on non-motorized users. Potential decrease in OHV visitation with corresponding potential increase in nonmotorized recreation. Adverse economic impacts to businesses focusing on OHV use, but positive economic benefits to businesses focusing on non-motorized recreation. Potential increase in second home and retirement relocation, with corresponding benefits to businesses involved in this market. Potential adverse impact to local residents from increases in housing costs and changes to local customs and culture.

PROPOSED PLAN
Emphasis on a balance of recreational uses could lead to greatest opportunity for revenue generation and a range of employment opportunities in the region. Socioeconomic impacts would be long-term and beneficial. With 10 SRMAs and 30 focus areas, the greatest opportunity for reduction in user conflicts and satisfactory visitor experiences for all recreation types is emphasized under this Alternative.

Alternative D
Slight decrease in revenue generation and tourist-related employment due to emphasis on motorized recreation. With 6 SRMAs and 10 focus areas, user conflicts may decrease, having long-term beneficial impacts on visitor experience. Decreased nonmotorized user satisfaction due to emphasis on motorized users.

Social and economic benefits to OHV users and associated businesses higher than under Greatest potential for social and the Proposed Plan, but less economic benefits to the extent than under current conditions. that user conflicts are reduced, Social and economic benefits to and that sufficient opportunities non-motorized recreationists exist for both motorized and less than under the Proposed non-motorized recreation. Plan, but greater than under current conditions.

2-85

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Special Designations

Alternative A (No Action)
Opportunities for adverse socioeconomic impacts resulting from the designation of ACECs would be negligible as no ACECs are designated. With 63 river miles designated as eligible for WSR status, socioeconomic impacts would be negligible.

Alternative B
Opportunities for adverse impacts to socioeconomics resulting from the designation of ACECs would be minor, as 92,056 acres would be excluded from oil and development. WSR designation on 340 river miles could have long-term beneficial economic impacts related to tourism-related revenues.

PROPOSED PLAN
Opportunities for adverse socioeconomic impacts resulting from the designation of ACECs are likely to be minor as 29,205 acres of ACECs would have major restrictions on oil and gas development. An additional 34,027 acres of ACECs are excluded from development due to their WSA status. WSR designation would have most of the beneficial impacts of tourism-related revenue in comparison to Alternative B, as the major recreational rivers are included (Colorado, Dolores and Green).

Alternative D
Similar to Alternative A. Potential adverse and/or beneficial impacts of WSR designation are negligible as no miles are designated.

Visual

Negligible to minor impacts due Slightly greater VRM restrictions Slightly less VRM restrictions on Slightly less VRM restrictions on to VRM restrictions on minerals on minerals development than minerals development than minerals development than development. Alternative A. Alternative A. Alternative A, but greater than the Proposed Plan. Adverse economic impacts from reduction in oil and gas development on 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Possible increases in revenues from primitive recreation opportunities. Negligible adverse economic No impacts, as no non-WSA impacts from reduction in oil lands would be managed for and gas development on 47,761 wilderness characteristics. acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Possible increases in revenues from primitive recreation.

Non-WSA Lands with No impacts, as no non-WSA Wilderness Characteristics lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics.

SOIL AND WATER
Cultural Resources No new impacts on soil and water resources. Beneficial removal of grazing from 42 miles of perennial stream. Same as Alternative B. Beneficial removal of grazing from 28 miles of perennial stream.

2-86

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Fire Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A.

Short term adverse increased Same as Alternative A. sedimentation and runoff. Longterm beneficial reduction of catastrophic fire risk, reduced frequency/number of highintensity fires, fewer hydrophobic soils, increased infiltration, decreased flood magnitude, less erosion and sedimentation. Beneficial long-term reduction Same as Alternative A. of water quality-related threats to public health and/or the environment where Abandoned Mine Lands (AMLs) are rehabilitated. Utility corridors have the potential to adversely impact soils on up to 32,502 acres. Reduced saline soil erosion due to 84,949 acres of sensitive soils being unavailable for grazing. Alternative A would provide more protection for sensitive soils than Alternatives C and D but less than Alternative B. Potential for adverse disturbance of up to 41% of sensitive soils by mineral resource development. Utility corridors have the potential to adversely impact soils on up to 65,865. Reduced saline soil erosion due to 106,752 acres of sensitive soils being unavailable for grazing. Alternative B represents the greatest, shortand long-term, beneficial impacts to soil and water resources. Potential for adverse disturbance of up to 26% of sensitive soils by mineral resource development.

Human Health and Safety

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Lands and Realty

Utility corridors have the potential to adversely impact soils on up to 173,099 acres. Reduced saline soil erosion due to 80,178 acres of sensitive soils being unavailable for grazing.

Utility corridors have the potential to adversely impact soils on up to 204,168 acres. Reduced saline soil erosion due to 43,999 acres of sensitive soils being unavailable for grazing. Least protective of sensitive soils of all the alternatives.

Livestock Grazing

Minerals

Potential for adverse disturbance of up to 38% of sensitive soils by mineral resource development.

Potential for adverse disturbance of up to 40% of sensitive soils by mineral resource development.

2-87

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Recreation

Alternative A (No Action)
Adverse impacts to 620,212 acres of soils open to cross country OHV travel and associated surface disturbance. Greatest adverse impacts to soil and water resources due to lowest level of recreation management (141,234 acres of SRMA). Least beneficial impacts from least protective riparian management.

Alternative B
No soils open to cross-country OHV use. Beneficial impacts from the greatest level recreation management (976,173 acres of SRMA).

PROPOSED PLAN
Adverse impacts to 1,866 acres of soils open to cross country OHV travel and associated surface disturbance. Management of recreation impacts would be less than Alternative B and more than Alternatives A and D (658,642 acres of SRMA).

Alternative D
Adverse impacts to 3,096 acres of soils open to cross country OHV travel and associated surface disturbance. Management of recreation impacts would be less than Alternatives B and C and more than Alternative A (277,471 acres of SRMA).

Riparian

Greatest beneficial impacts from development and implementation of WMPs in the greatest number of watersheds, management of livestock grazing on most acres, and grazing exclusion on portions of nine allotments protecting 28 miles of perennial stream. Beneficial impacts due to closure of Castle Valley and Mill Creek municipal watersheds for mineral resource development and other surface-disturbing activities. Beneficial impacts over 330,142 acres of saline soils and 487,917 acres of highlimitations soils closed to surface disturbance. Greatest beneficial protection of soil and water with all 14 proposed areas managed as ACECs, limits on surface disturbance over at least 40,800 acres of sensitive soils due to WSR designation.

Fewer benefits from WMPs than Same as Alternative A. under Alternative B, but more than Alternatives A and D. Fewer benefits from livestock grazing management than Alternative B, but more than Alternatives A and D.

Soils/Water Resources

Adverse impacts due to oil and gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities in the Castle Valley or the Mill Creek watersheds. Beneficial impacts over 313,800 acres of saline soils and 823,094 acres of highlimitations soils closed to surface disturbance. Minor beneficial impacts from protective management of 5,400 acres of sensitive soils are within 1/4 mile of two currently eligible WSR segments.

Same as Alternative B, except areas within the municipal watersheds would be no surface occupancy for surface disturbing activities, and 330,142 acres of saline soils and 710,129 acres of highlimitations soils would be closed to surface disturbance.

Impacts regarding the Castle Valley r and the Mill Creek municipal watersheds would be the same as under Alternative A. Beneficial impacts over 487,917 acres of high-limitations soils closed to surface disturbance.

Special Designations

Moderate beneficial protection No beneficial impacts to with 5 of the 14 proposed areas sensitive soils. managed as ACECs, limits on surface disturbance over at least 25,900 acres of sensitive soils due to WSR designation.

2-88

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
All Potential ACECs (613,077 acres) None of the 14 Potential ACECs would be designated, with the exception of the existing 1,375 acre Negro Bill Outstanding Natural Area, which would continue to be protected. Relevant and important values, resources, and natural systems in the 13 potential ACECs that would not be designated could be at risk of irreparable damage due to the potential for adverse impacts except for those portions of potential ACECs that are in existing WSAs (approximately 306,000 acres), which would continue to be protected. All of the 14 Potential ACECs would be designated. Special management provisions would be applied to 613,077 acres and relevant and important values, resources, and natural systems would be protected, and hazards addressed. Five of the Potential ACECs would be designated. Special management provisions would be applied to 63,232 acres, and the relevant and important values, resources, and natural systems in these areas would be protected (and hazards addressed). In most cases the relevant and important values in 9 potential ACECs would be protected from long-term adverse impacts by other proposed management actions. None of the 14 Potential ACECs would be designated. Some of the relevant and important values, resources and natural systems in the potential ACECs could be at risk of irreparable damage due to the potential for adverse impacts.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

2-89

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
ACEC, Behind the Rocks

Alternative A (No Action)
Not designated. Relevant and important values within the Behind the Rocks WSA (12,635 acres) would be protected. Of the 5,201 acres outside the WSA: About 2,549 acres are closed to oil and gas leasing thereby providing protection to relevant and important values; About 1,958 acres are NSO for oil and gas leasing thereby providing protection to relevant and important values; and About 694 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, resulting in about 7.3 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. These acres would also be open to cross country OHV use thereby impacting relevant and important values.

Alternative B
About 17,836 acres designated, including 12,635 acres within the WSA. All relevant and important values would be protected by managing as either closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, 17,836 acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values.

PROPOSED PLAN
About 5,201 acres (outside the WSA) would be designated. The ACEC would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, the 5,201acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values.

Alternative D
Not designated. Relevant and important values within the Behind the Rocks WSA (12,635 acres) would be protected. About 5,201 acres outside the WSA would be open to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would result in about 7.0 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. However, there would be beneficial impacts to relevant and important values from limiting OHV travel to designated routes.

2-90

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
ACEC, Book Cliffs

Alternative A (No Action)
Not designated. Relevant and important values within Book Cliffs WSAs (250,207 acres) would be protected. Of the 54,045 acres outside the WSAs: All 54,045 acres are open to oil and gas leasing, with adverse impacts to relevant and important values possible from oil and gas development. There is a projected disturbance of 841 acres. There would be additional adverse impacts on these 54,045 acres from woodland harvest, open OHV use, and ROWs.

Alternative B
About 304,252 acres designated, including 250,207 acres within the WSAs. All relevant and important values would be protected by managing as either closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, the entire 304,252 acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest, managed as an SRMA, and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. About 23,400 acres designated. The area would be closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Not designated. Relevant and Same as the Proposed Plan. important values within the WSAs (250,207 acres) would be protected. About 54,045 acres outside the WSAs would be open to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would result in about 806 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. There would be a beneficial impact by limiting OHV use to designated routes.

ACEC, Canyon Rims

Not designated. About 23,400 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 33 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development.

Not designated. About 23,400 Same as the Proposed Plan acres would be open to oil and except mineral leasing gas leasing with a controlled disturbance would be 32 acres. surface use stipulation, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 24 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development.

2-91

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action)
Additional adverse impacts from surface disturbance associated with ROWs could occur. The 23,400 acres would also limit OHV travel to existing routes, benefiting relevant and important values, but to a lesser degree than would limit travel to designated routes. Beneficial impacts would result from SRMA and VRM II management. Least protective of all the alternatives. ACEC, Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex Not designated. About 117,481 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 1,249 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Least protective of all alternatives.

Alternative B
Additional adverse impacts from surface disturbance associated with ROWs could occur. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes and from SRMA and VRM II management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative.

PROPOSED PLAN
Additional adverse impacts to view shed from VRM III management in portions of the area. Additional adverse impacts from surface disturbance associated with ROWs could occur. Beneficial impacts from SRMA management and from limiting OHV travel to designated routes.

Alternative D

About 117,481acres designated. The area would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial protections from management of livestock grazing to maximize seed production and from limiting OHV travel to designated routes. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative.

Same as Alternative A except there would be beneficial impacts from requirements for a 660- foot buffer around known active prairie dog colonies and changes in livestock use (except for seasons of use) to maximize seed production. Additional beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to designated routes.

Same as the Proposed Plan except for adverse impacts from not managing livestock grazing to maximize seed production.

2-92

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
ACEC, Colorado River Corridor

Alternative A (No Action)
Not designated. Relevant and important values within the Negro Bill WSA (7,280 acres) would be protected. Of the 43,203 acres outside the WSA, about 31,276 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, resulting in about 35 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. These acres would also be open to cross country OHV use thereby impacting relevant and important values. The Three Rivers withdrawal for locatable minerals would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Least protection of relevant and important values under this alternative.

Alternative B
About 50,483 acres designated, including 7,280 acres within the WSA. All relevant and important values would be protected by managing as either closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, the 50,483 acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest, managed as an SRMA, and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Additional beneficial impacts from VRM I and SRMA management and from the Three Rivers withdrawal for locatable minerals. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative.

PROPOSED PLAN
Not designated. Relevant and important values within the Negro Bill WSA (7,280 acres) would be protected. Of the acreage outside the WSA, the majority would be managed as closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities, providing beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. The northwest corner of the Potential ACEC would be open to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would result in about 26 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Restrictions on river-based camping, limiting OHV travel to designated routes. SRMA management, VRM II management, and the Three Rivers withdrawal for locatable minerals, would also have beneficial impacts.

Alternative D
Same as the Proposed Plan except that more of the acreage is open to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities, resulting in greater impacts to relevant and important values.

2-93

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
ACEC, CottonwoodDiamond Watershed

Alternative A (No Action)
Not designated. Relevant and important values within the Book Cliffs (Coal, Flume, and Spruce) WSAs (34,004 acres) would be protected. The 1,825 acres outside the WSAs are open to oil and gas leasing, with adverse impacts to relevant and important values possible from oil and gas development projected at about 1 acre of surface disturbance.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A except beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to designated routes.

About 35,830 acres designated, Same as Alternative B. including 34,004 acres within the WSAs. All relevant and important values would be protected by managing as either closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, the 35,830 acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest, livestock grazing would be excluded, and SRPs would be withheld until the area is rehabilitated. The area would be managed as an SRMA, and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative.

2-94

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
ACEC, Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon

Alternative A (No Action)
Not designated. About 11,466 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 19 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. There would be beneficial impacts from NSO management for oil and gas leasing on 2,034 acres. Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to existing routes but not as protective as limiting OHV travel to designated routes. Not designated. About 8,528 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 12 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to existing routes but not as protective as limiting OHV travel to designated routes. This alternative would offer the least beneficial protection to relevant and important values.

Alternative B
About 13,500 acres designated. The area would be closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes, and from SRMA and VRM I management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative B except that area would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities, and the area would be managed as VRM II. There would be virtually no difference in impacts as compared to Alternative B.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A except the area would be managed as VRM III resulting in slightly greater protections than under Alternative A.

ACEC, Labyrinth Canyon

About 8,528 acres designated. The area would be closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes, and from SRMA and VRM I management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative.

Same as Alternative A except the area would be managed as VRM II and OHV travel would be limited to designated routes rather than existing routes, thereby offering slight more beneficial protections.

Same as the Proposed Plan.

2-95

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
ACEC, Mill Creek Canyon

Alternative A (No Action)
Not designated. Relevant and important values within the Mill Creek WSA (9,780 acres) would be protected. The 3,721 acres outside the WSA would be open to oil and gas leasing, resulting in about 3 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV use to existing routes but not as protective as and limiting OHV travel to designated routes. This alternative would offer the least beneficial protection to relevant and important values.

Alternative B
About 13,501 acres designated, including 9,780 acres within the WSA. All relevant and important values would be protected by managing as either closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. The 13,501 acres would be managed as VRM I, closed to woodlands harvest and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Additional beneficial impacts from limiting grazing, maintaining a 3 cfs flow in the South Fork of Mill Creek, and recreation restrictions such as closures to vehicle based camping. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. Not designated.

PROPOSED PLAN
About 3,721 acres (outside the WSA) would be designated. The ACEC would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, the 3,721 acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Same impacts as Alternative B but for a lesser area and less beneficial impacts from VRM II management rather than VRM I.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A with greater beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to designated routes, managing as VRM II, and only allowing grazing in Mill Canyon allotment.

ACEC, Negro Bill ONA

The 1,375-acre ONA was designated in the Grand RMP.

Not designated.

Not designated.

2-96

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
ACEC, Ten Mile Wash

Alternative A (No Action)
Not designated. About 4,980 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 7 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to existing routes but not as protective as limiting OHV travel to designated routes. This alternative would offer the least beneficial protection to relevant and important values. Not designated. About 11,529 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 19 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to existing routes but not as protective as limiting OHV travel to designated routes. This alternative would offer the least beneficial protection to relevant and important values.

Alternative B
About 4,980 acres designated. The area would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from eliminating motorized travel in the canyon, closing it to woodland harvest, and SRMA and VRM II management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values.

PROPOSED PLAN
About 4,980 acres designated. Same as Alternative B except motorized travel in the canyon would be allowed on designated routes instead of being closed. This would offer less beneficial protections than Alternative B.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A except slightly greater beneficial impacts from limiting motorized travel to designated routes and not allowing campfires outside of designated sites.

ACEC, Upper Courthouse

About 11,529 acres designated. The area would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes, closing it to woodland harvest, and SRMA and VRM II management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values.

Not designated. The majority of the Potential ACEC would be open to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would result in about 11 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. The relict plant mesa tops would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities, protecting some relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts from limiting motorized travel to designated routes, closures to woodland harvest, and SRMA management.

Same as the Proposed Plan except mesa tops would not be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities, and there would be no SRMA management.

2-97

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B
About 5,069 acres designated. Same beneficial impacts as Alternative A with additional benefits from limiting OHV use to designated routes. Greatest beneficial impacts to the relevant and important values.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

ACEC, Westwater Canyon Not designated. Relevant and important values within Westwater WSA (5,069 acres) would be protected. The existing Westwater Withdrawal would protect relevant and important values. Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to existing routes but not as protective as limiting OHV travel to designated routes. ACEC, White Wash Not designated. About 2,988 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 11 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Adverse impacts from open OHV travel. Least beneficial protections of all the alternatives.

Same as Alternative A, but OHV Same as Alternative A, but OHV travel limited to designated travel limited to designated routes. routes.

About 2,988 acres designated. The area would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes, restrictions on vehicle based camping, and from SRMA management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative.

Not designated. Same impacts as Alternative A except additional beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to designated routes in portions of the ACEC (1,122 acres), and closing the area to woodland product use. Adverse impacts from managing the area as VRM III and from about 1,866 acres open to cross country OHV use.

Not designated. Same impacts as Alternative A except additional adverse impacts from VRM III management.

2-98

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
ACEC, Wilson Arch

Alternative A (No Action)
Not designated. About 3,700 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 26 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Beneficial impacts from SRMA management and limiting OHV travel to designated routes. Least beneficial protections of all the alternatives.

Alternative B
About 3,700 acres designated. The area would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes, closing the area to woodland harvest, restrictions on vehicle based camping, and from SRMA and VRM I management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Not designated. Same as the Not designated. Proposed Plan. The majority of the Potential ACEC would be open to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would result in about 26 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Beneficial impacts from limiting motorized travel to designated routes, closures to woodland harvest, and SRMA management.

2-99

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B
All of the 13 eligible rivers would be found suitable for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System. All segments on BLM lands would be directly and indirectly managed in such a manner the outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification of these rivers would be sustained and enhanced.

PROPOSED PLAN
The Green, Dolores, and Colorado Rivers would be found suitable for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System. BLM lands along these rivers would be directly and indirectly managed in such a manner that the free- flowing nature, ORVs, and tentative classifications of these rivers would be sustained and enhanced. Ten rivers would be found not suitable. No direct protections would be afforded any of these eligible rivers. Any protections to the ORVs or tentative classification would be indirect, resulting from management associated with other resource programs. Because no direct protections would be afforded, there is potential that to the free-flowing nature, ORVs and tentative classification of these rivers could be severe enough to preclude these rivers from any future opportunities for W&SR consideration. However, the restrictions from other resource programs would afford greater protection to these rivers than does Alternative D.

Alternative D
None of the 13 eligible rivers would be found suitable for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System. No direct protections would be afforded any eligible rivers. Any protections to the free-flowing nature, ORVs and tentative classifications of these rivers would be indirect, resulting from management associated with other resource programs. Because no direct protections would be afforded, there is a potential that impacts to the free-flowing nature, ORVs and tentative classification of these rivers could occur and be severe enough to preclude the rivers from any future opportunities for W&SR consideration. None of the 13 eligible rivers would be found suitable for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System. No direct protections would be afforded any eligible rivers. Any protections to ORVs or tentative designations would be indirect resulting from management associated with other resource programs. Because no direct protections would be afforded, there is a potential that impacts could occur on ORVs and tentative designations that could be severe enough to preclude them from any future opportunities for WSR consideration.

All eligible Wild and Scenic Continued case-by-case River (WSR) segments protection of all 13 eligible rivers involving BLM lands would result in the sustaining of the free-flowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs), and tentative classifications of these rivers until suitability determinations are made.

2-100

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
WSR, Beaver Creek

Alternative A (No Action)
About 7.7 miles and 2,268 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

Alternative B
About 7.7 miles and 2,268 acres would be managed to preserve Wild (Segment 1) and Scenic (Segment 2) qualities.

PROPOSED PLAN
Although found not suitable, 7.7 miles and 2,268 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing to preserve nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative classification would be minimal. About 68.1 miles and 23,763 acres would be managed to preserve Scenic (Segments 3a and 6), Wild (Segment 2), and Recreational (Segments 3b, 4 and 5) qualities. About 1.2 miles and 525 acres would be found not suitable. However, these lands would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing and withdrawn from locatable minerals, thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration.

Alternative D
Not suitable. Some areas of Beaver Creek could be impacted by surface disturbing activities. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative classification could occur.

WSR, Colorado River

About 69.3 miles and 24,288 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

About 69.3 miles and 24,288 acres would be managed to preserve Scenic (Segments 1, 3 and 5), Wild (Segments 2 and 6), and Recreational (Segment 4) qualities.

Although found not suitable, 69.3 miles and 24,288 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing and withdrawn from locatable minerals, thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration.

WSR, Cottonwood Canyon About 10.4 miles and 2,938 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

About 10.4 miles and 2,938 acres would be managed to preserve Scenic qualities.

Although found not suitable, Same as the Proposed Plan. 10.4 miles and 2,938 acres would be managed for protection of riparian resources and the WSA's on either side of the river would protect the ORVs, free flowing nature, and tentative designation.

2-101

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
WSR, Dolores River

Alternative A (No Action)
About 22.1 miles and 6,823 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

Alternative B
About 22.1 miles and 6,823 acres would be managed to preserve Scenic (Segments 1 and 3) and Wild (Segment 2) qualities.

PROPOSED PLAN
About 22.1 miles and 6,823 acres would be managed preserve Recreational (Segments 1 and 3) and Scenic (Segment 2) qualities.

Alternative D
Although found not suitable, 22.1 miles and 6,823 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing and withdrawn from locatable minerals, thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration. Although found not suitable, 75.3 miles and 13,393 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing and withdrawn from locatable minerals, thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration.

WSR, Green River

About 75.3 miles and 13,393 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

About 75.3 miles and 13,393 acres would be managed to preserve Scenic (Segment 4) Wild (Segments 1 and 5) and Recreational (Segments 2 and 3) qualities.

About 64.8 miles and 10,976 acres would be managed to preserve Wild (Segment 1), Recreation (Segment 2), and Scenic (Segment 4a) qualities. About 10.5 miles and 2,417 acres would be found not suitable. However, the lands along the river would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing and withdrawn from locatable minerals, thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration.

WSR, Mill Creek

About 6.0 miles and 1,864 acres of would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

About 6.0 miles and 1,864 acres would be managed to preserve Recreational (Segment 1) and Scenic (Segment 2) qualities.

Although found not suitable, 4.6 Same as the Proposed Plan. miles and 1,292 acres are within the WSA, providing protection for eligibility for WSR consideration. An additional 1.4 miles and 572 acres not within the WSA would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing, thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration.

2-102

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
WSR, Negro Bill Canyon

Alternative A (No Action)
About 7.4 miles and 1,949 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

Alternative B
About 7.4 miles and 1,949 acres would be managed to preserve Recreational (Segment 2) and Wild (Segment 1) qualities.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Although found not suitable, 7.2 Same as the Proposed Plan. miles and 1,687 acres are within the WSA, providing protection for eligibility for WSR consideration. An additional 0.2 miles and 262 acres not within the WSA would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration. Although found not suitable, 11.2 miles and 1,687 acres are within the WSA, thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration. Although found not suitable, 12.5 miles and 3,146 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative designation would be minimal. Although found not suitable, 7.3 miles and 1,936 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing to preserve nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative designation would be minimal. Although found not suitable, 31.6 miles and 8,371 acres are within the WSA thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration. Same as the Proposed Plan.

WSR, North Fork Mill Creek

About 11.2 miles and 3,027 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

About 11.2 miles and 3,027 acres of the waterway on BLM lands would be managed to preserve Wild qualities. About 12.5 miles and 3,146 acres would be managed to preserve Recreational (Segment 2) and Wild (Segment 1) qualities.

WSR, Onion Creek

About 12.5 miles and 3,146 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

Not suitable. Some areas of Onion Creek could be impacted by surface disturbing activities. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative designation could occur.

WSR, Professor Creek

About 7.3 miles and 1,936 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

About 7.3 miles and 1,936 acres would be managed to preserve Wild qualities.

Not suitable. Some areas of Professor Creek could be impacted by surface disturbing activities. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative designation could occur.

WSR, Rattlesnake Canyon About 31.6 miles and 8,371 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

About 31.6 miles and 8,371 acres would be managed to preserve Wild qualities.

Same as the Proposed Plan.

2-103

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
WSR, Salt Wash

Alternative A (No Action)
About 0.3 miles and 96 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D
Same as Alternative B.

About 0.3 miles and 96 acres Same as Alternative B. would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing, protecting ORVs. The suitability decision would be deferred until the NPS makes a suitability determination on the portion in Arches National Park. About 5.5 miles and 1,620 acres would be managed to preserve Wild qualities. Although found not suitable, 5.5 miles and 1,620 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing to preserve nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative designation would be minimal. See A.

WSR, Thompson Canyon

About 5.5 miles and 1,620 acres of would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration.

Not suitable. Some areas of Thompson Canyon could be impacted by surface disturbing activities. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative designation could occur.

WSAs

There would be beneficial See A. impacts to WSAs under all alternatives from management under the IMP. There would be potential for adverse impacts in areas where there are valid existing rights. VRM Class I would apply to all WSAs under all alternatives. 82.5 0

See A.

WSAs, Miles of designated way/route

3.1

16

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Fire Management Long term beneficial impacts from reduced weedy and invasive species. Short term adverse effects from surface disturbance, trampling, and crushing. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

2-104

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Health and Safety Decisions

Alternative A (No Action)
Potentially adverse loss of bat habitat. Benefits to fish species due to reduced threat of groundwater contamination. Adverse removal of individual plants, surface disturbance, and habitat degradation due to construction within ROWs and utility corridors. Alternative A, would have the second largest total area excluded from grazing. This alternative would have the second most beneficial effects on Special Status species. Possible adverse impacts include direct mortality, surface disturbance, habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation due to mineral development and exploration. This alternative has the highest risk of adverse impacts.

Alternative B
Same as Alternative A.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A.

Lands and Realty

Same as Alternative A, but more adverse impacts from utility corridors, and less adverse impacts from other ROWs. Alternative B provides the largest area (riparian and total) excluded from grazing, which would have long-term, beneficial effects on native vegetation in excluded areas. Same as Alternative A, except that less mineral development and exploration would occur. This alternative would have the lowest risk of adverse impacts.

Same as Alternative B, but with more acreage available for utility corridors (and therefore greater impacts). The Proposed Plan provides the third largest area (riparian and total) excluded from grazing, which would have longterm, beneficial effects on native vegetation in excluded areas. Same as Alternative A, except that less mineral development and exploration would occur. This alternative would have the second lowest risk of adverse impacts.

Same as Alternative B, but Alternative D would have the greatest impacts due to the greatest acreage available for utility corridors. Alternative D would have the smallest area excluded from grazing among all alternatives. It would make Cottonwood and Diamond watersheds available for grazing. Same as Alternative A, except that less mineral development and exploration would occur. This alternative would have the second highest risk of adverse impacts.

Livestock Grazing

Minerals

Non-WSA Lands with No acres managed as NonWilderness Characteristics WSA lands with wilderness characteristics.

Beneficial impacts from managing 266,485 acres to maintain naturalness, providing habitat protection for Special Status species. Least adverse impacts to habitat due to greatest management of recreation and focus on non-motorized uses.

Beneficial impacts from No acres managed as Non managing 47,761 acres to WSA lands with wilderness maintain naturalness, providing characteristics. habitat protection for Special Status species. Slightly less adverse impacts than Alternative B due to slightly less focus on non-motorized recreation. Less adverse effects on SS species that Alternative A, but more than Alternatives B and C due to management of recreation and motorized uses.

Recreation

Adverse impacts to habitat quantity and quality from the greatest amount of mechanized recreational use and the least restriction on recreational use.

2-105

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Riparian

Alternative A (No Action)
Vegetation treatments would result in long-term beneficial reductions of weed populations and restoration of native vegetation, as well as Shortterm adverse crushing and removal of native vegetation during the treatment process. Adverse impacts from OHV use and grazing in riparian areas. Greatest potential for adverse effects on steep-slope vegetation located in disturbance areas.

Alternative B
Same as Alternative A, expect that riparian areas would be closed to livestock grazing or subject to seasonal restrictions, lessening adverse surface disturbance. This alternative would be more beneficial than Alternatives A and D.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A, except the riparian acres excluded would be less than under Alternative B.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A.

Soils/Watershed

Least potential for adverse effects due to restriction of surface-disturbing activities on slopes greater than 30% and closure of the Castle Valley watershed to oil and gas leasing. Beneficial management of 85,825 acres of federally listed SS species habitat as ACECs, and 44,227 acres of federally listed Special Status species habitat as WSRs. Alternative B would provide the most acres of protected habitat for the Gunnison and greater sage-grouse and for the whitetailed and Gunnison prairie dog in the MPA. This would indirectly provide protection for other Special Status species utilizing similar habitats.

Same as Alternative B except Same as Alternative A. that the Castle Valley watershed would have an NSO stipulation applied to oil and gas leasing (instead of being closed). Beneficial management of Same as Alternative A. 16,345 acres of federally listed SS species habitat within the designated ACECs, and 79,910 acres of federally listed Special Status species habitat within the WSRs. The Proposed Plan would provide the second least acres of protected habitat for Special Status species. Alternative D would provide the fewest number of acres of surface disturbance restrictions in Special Status species habitat, which would result in a greater potential for adverse effects on other species utilizing these habitats.

Special Designations

No ACECs or WSRs would be designated, so no beneficial protection would occur.

Special Status Species

Alternative A would not manage for the Gunnison and greater sage-grouse or for the whitetailed and Gunnison prairie dog beyond what is required by law. This alternative would be the most detrimental for these species and other Special Status species utilizing these habitats.

2-106

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)
Greatest adverse impact from surface disturbance and humancaused disturbance due to closure of the least (7,558 acres) federally listed SS species habitat to OHVs. Negligible adverse disturbance from seed gathering and plant collection. Beneficial wildlife habitat improvement from treatment of tamarisk and Russian olive. Greatest adverse surface disturbance due to the smallest area subject to VRM Class I and II restrictions, and the second smallest area subject to VRM Class III and IV restrictions. Least beneficial impacts from special conditions placed on 257,228 acres of wildlife habitat. (Note: some acreage may overlap). Short-term, adverse disturbance and long-term habitat degradation over 1,243,743 acres of pinyon-juniper habitat open to woodland harvest.

Alternative B
Least adverse impact from surface disturbance and human-caused disturbance due to closure of the most (22,946 acres) federally listed SS species habitat to OHVs. Same as Alternative A except for additional long term beneficial effects from replacing lost sagebrush steppe habitat deemed essential to wildlife. Least adverse surface disturbance due to the largest area subject to VRM Class I and II restrictions and the smallest area subject to VRM Class III and IV restrictions. Greatest beneficial impacts from special conditions placed on 2,004,942 acres of wildlife habitat (Note: some acreage may overlap). Short-term, adverse disturbance and long-term habitat degradation over 1,071,335 acres of pinyon-juniper habitat open to woodland harvest.

PROPOSED PLAN
Second least adverse impact from surface disturbance and human-caused disturbance due to closure of the second most (17,666 acres) federally listed SS species habitat to OHVs.

Alternative D
Second greatest adverse impact from surface disturbance and human-caused disturbance due to closure of the second least (10,627 acres) federally listed SS species habitat to OHVs.

Vegetation

Same as Alternative A except Same as the Proposed Plan. for additional long term beneficial effects from replacing lost sagebrush steppe habitat deemed essential to wildlife. Second least adverse surface disturbance due to the second largest area subject to VRM Class I and II restrictions and the second largest area subject to VRM Class III and IV restrictions. Second greatest beneficial impacts from special conditions placed on 1,041,055 acres of wildlife habitat. (Note: some acreage may overlap). Second greatest adverse surface disturbance due to the second smallest area subject to VRM Class I and II restrictions and the largest area subject to VRM Class III and IV restrictions. Second least beneficial impacts from special conditions placed on 875,825 acres of wildlife habitat. (Note: some acreage may overlap).

Visual Resources

Wildlife

Woodlands

Short-term, adverse disturbance Same as Alternative A. and long-term habitat degradation over 1,212,886 acres of pinyon-juniper habitat open to woodland harvest.

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
Air Quality Short-term, adverse travel delays or detours during dust abatement or road maintenance. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

2-107

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Cultural

Alternative A (No Action)
No prescriptions address travel opportunities under this alternative. Minor long-term beneficial increase in travel opportunities along minerals access roads. Negligible to minor reduction of travel opportunities in these areas.

Alternative B
Short- and long-term adverse impacts from reduced or prohibited access to closed cultural sites. Same as Alternative A.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative B.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative B.

Minerals

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

ACECs/Wild and Scenic Rivers WSAs/Wilderness Areas

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Long-term adverse impacts Long-term adverse impacts from closure of 29,654 acres of from closure of 354,015 acres of WSAs to OHVs. WSAs to OHVs. Long-term, adverse impacts from inadequate management to address current conditions and trends. Long-term, beneficial impacts from decreased conflicts between mountain bikers and motorized users, and from 75 miles of additional proposed routes bike routes and 25 miles of proposed non-mechanized routes. Long-term adverse impacts from 347,424 acres closed to OHV use. Long-term, adverse impacts from route closures, with travel designated along 2,144 miles of D-Class roads. Minor short-term adverse impacts from area closures under drought management plan.

Long-term adverse impacts from closure of 279,110 acres of WSAs to OHVs. Same as Alternative B, except that 150 additional miles of bike routes and 50 additional miles of non-mechanized routes would be proposed.

Long-term beneficial impacts from OHV access to all WSAs. Same as Alternative B, except that 300 additional miles of bike routes and 100 additional miles of non-mechanized routes would be proposed.

Travel Management and Recreation, Mountain Biking and Nonmechanized travel

Travel Management and Recreation, Motorized (OHV) Travel Management and Recreation, Road

Negligible to minor impacts on motorized travel. Long-term, beneficial impacts from unimpeded travel along 4,673 miles of D-Class roads. No impacts to travel from vegetation decisions.

Less adverse impacts than Slightly less adverse impacts than Alternative B, with 339,298 Alternatives B or C, with 57,351 acres closed to OHV use. acres closed to OHV use. Impacts similar to Alternative B, except that 2,519 miles of routes would be designated along D-Class roads. Same as Alternative B. Impacts similar to C, except that 2,671 miles of routes would be designated along D-Class roads. Same as Alternative B.

Vegetation

2-108

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B VEGETATION RESOURCES
Fire Management Long-term, beneficial reduction Same as Alternative A. of invasive species. Short-term, adverse trampling and loss of vegetation from treatments. Beneficial, long-term impacts from minerals withdrawals. Long-term, adverse impacts from energy facility development, 32,502 acres within utility corridors, and ROWs. Same as Alternative A, except greater adverse impacts in ROWs and utility corridors (65,865 acres). Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative D

Lands and Realty

Same as Alternative A, except greater adverse impacts in ROWs and utility corridors (173,099 acres).

Same as Alternative A, except greater adverse impacts in ROWs and utility corridors (204,168 acres).

Livestock Grazing

Long-term, beneficial impacts Similar impacts to Alternative A. Similar impacts to Alternative A. Similar impacts to Alternative A. from vegetation treatments to expand forage for livestock and wildlife. Direct, adverse, long-term impacts from minerals exploration and development. 10,184 acres of disturbance projected) which could eliminate vegetation on these acres. Same as Alternative A, but with fewer acres of disturbance projected (6,382 acres) which could eliminate vegetation on these acres. Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced vegetation disturbance on 266,485 acres. Same as Alternative A, except additional beneficial restrictions on cross-country OHV impacts and dispersed camping impacts within 982,399 acres of SRMA. Same as Alternative A , but with fewer acres of disturbance projected (9,750 acres) which could eliminate vegetation on these acres. Same as Alternative B, except to a lesser degree, from protection on 47,761 acres. Same as Alternative B, except reduced beneficial restrictions on cross-country OHV impacts, and reduced dispersed camping impacts within only 982,399 acres of SRMA. Same as Alternative A , but with fewer acres of disturbance projected (10,083 acres) which could eliminate vegetation on these acres. Same as Alternative A.

Minerals

Non-WSA with Wilderness Long-term, adverse impacts to Characteristics vegetation from permitted surface disturbances. Recreation Minor short- and long-term, adverse impacts from motorized and non-motorized travel. Beneficial limitations on camping sites within 132,832 acres of SRMA. Compliance with the BLM National Riparian Policy would result in long-term, beneficial impacts to riparian vegetation.

Same as Alternative A except for increased acreage open to motorized travel and OHV cross-country use. Decreased impacts on 272,522 acres of SRMA Same as Alternative B.

Riparian

Same as Alternative A, but with Same as Alternative B. greater benefits from the application of CSU stipulations within 100 meters of riparian areas.

2-109

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Soils/Watershed

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A, except greater impacts due to lack of timing restrictions.

Indirect, beneficial impacts from Same as Alternative A. reduced soil erosion and subsequent impacts to plant communities, and reduced invasive weed establishment.

Special Designations

Beneficial reduction of surface Long-term beneficial reduction Same as Alternative B except disturbance in 1,375-acre Negro of surface disturbing activities in 63,232 acres would be designated as ACECs. ACECs (613,077 acres). Bill ONA. Long-term, beneficial impacts from sensitive species habitat protection, which would preserve vegetation. Long-term adverse loss of vegetation and productivity, and spread of weeds. 620,212 acres open to cross country travel. None specified. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

No acreage designated as ACEC, so no beneficial impacts. Same as Alternative A.

Special Status Species

Travel Management

Greatly reduced impacts from OHV use compared to Alternative A, with zero acres open to cross country travel. Long-term, beneficial impacts to vegetation resources through conservation and reclamation measures. Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative B, except 1,086 acres open to cross country travel. Same as Alternative B except for fewer acres of sagebrushsteppe habitat that would be reclaimed. Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative B, except 3,045 acres open to cross country travel. Same as Alternative B except for fewer acres of sagebrushsteppe habitat that would be reclaimed. Same as Alternative A.

Vegetation

Wildlife

Long-term, beneficial surfacedisturbance activities and vegetation-altering projects. Short-term, adverse trampling of understory vegetation and long-term adverse introduction of weed species.

Woodland

Same as Alternative A, except lesser impacts (107,321 fewer acres open to woodland harvest).

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative B, expect slightly more acres open to woodland harvest.

VISUAL RESOURCES
Class I Class II Class III Class IV 349,110 acres 401,015 acres 800,782 acres 271,356 acres 453,462 acres 373,647 acres 784,246 acres 210,532 acres 358,911 acres 365,566 acres 829,158 acres 268,133 acres 349,617 acres 245,773 acres 956,724 acres 269,641 acres

2-110

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Scenic Quality/Viewshed, Canyon Rims

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B

PROPOSED PLAN
Impacts similar to Alternative B but to a lesser degree, because more area (68 more acres than Alternative A) would be subject to disturbance under VRM III than determined by the VRM inventory. Approximately 73% of area subject to minerals disturbance. Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Impacts similar to Alternative A, as 95% of the area could be subject to minerals disturbances.

Scenic quality protection from Short-term and long-term minerals-related degradation of additional 6,867 acres of VRM scenic quality in VRM III areas. II; Approximately 41% of area subject to minerals disturbance.

Scenic Quality/Viewshed, Onion Creek

No scenic quality degradation Same as Alternative A, except because of management under management under VRM I VRM II. would provide more visual resource protection. Potentially adverse impacts to Arches NP viewshed from minerals activities. Potentially adverse impacts to Arches NP viewshed from minerals activities. Mitigation would reduce fugitive dust impacts to viewshed to minor levels.

Same as Alternative A.

Scenic Quality/Viewshed, Richardson Amphitheater/Fisher Towers Scenic Quality/Viewshed, Colorado Riverway/Highway 128

Impacts similar to Alternative A, Impacts similar to Alternative B, Same as the Proposed Plan. except greater visual resource but to a lesser degree, from no protection from proposed VRM I VRM I management. objectives. Long-term, beneficial impacts to visual resources from increased protection under VRM I and VRM II Management Classes. Same as Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, because fewer acres managed under VRM I and II. Impacts similar to Alternative B but to a lesser degree because fewer acres managed under VRM I and II.

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES
Fire Management Short-term adverse impacts due Same as Alternative A. to habitat disturbance and stream sedimentation. Longterm beneficial impacts due to reduced fuel loading, reduced fire risk, and diversified habitat. Adverse displacement and habitat reduction of bats. Reclamation would benefit aquatic species by improving water quality. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Health and Safety

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

2-111

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Lands and Realty

Alternative A (No Action)
Under all alternatives, wildlife would benefit from continued mineral withdrawals on 78,333 acres.

Alternative B
Same as Alternative A.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A.

Utility corridors would disturb up Utility corridors would disturb up Utility corridors would disturb up Utility corridors would disturb up to 32,183 acres of desert shrub to 64,539 acres of desert shrub to 170,996 acres of desert to 201,656 acres of desert wildlife habitat. wildlife habitat. shrub wildlife habitat. shrub wildlife habitat. Livestock Grazing Management under Utah Same as Alternative A. Standards for Rangeland Health would benefit wildlife, particularly in riparian and aquatic habitats. Grazing in riparian areas would increase salinity and sedimentation. Beneficial exclusion of livestock grazing and increased forage on 126,907 acres. Cottonwood, Diamond and Bogart allotments not available for grazing, with beneficial impacts for deer and/or elk. Same as Alternative A, but livestock exclusion from 153,797 acres. Cottonwood, Diamond and Bogart allotments not available for grazing, with beneficial impacts for deer and/or elk. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A, but livestock exclusion from 114,234 acres. Cottonwood, Diamond and Bogart allotments not available for grazing with beneficial impacts for deer and/or elk.

Same as Alternative A, but livestock exclusion from 52,214 acres. Cottonwood, Diamond and Bogart allotments available for grazing with adverse impacts for deer and/or elk in crucial winter range. Could reduce herd sizes and viability.

Short-term adverse and longSame as A, but vegetation term beneficial impacts from treatments would occur on vegetation treatments on 67,125 46,307 acres. acres. Minerals Adverse impacts include direct mortality, surface disturbance, habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation due to mineral development and exploration. This alternative has the highest disturbance and adverse impacts. Same as Alternative A, except that less mineral development and exploration would occur. This alternative would have the lowest adverse impacts.

Vegetation treatments would be Vegetation treatments would e the same as under Alternative are the same as under B. Alternative B. Same as Alternative A, except that less mineral development and exploration would occur. This alternative would have the second lowest adverse impacts. Same as Alternative A, except that less mineral development and exploration would occur. This alternative would have the second highest adverse impacts.

2-112

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B
Beneficial closure to surface disturbing activities, and new ROWs over 266,485 acres to maintain wilderness characteristics on non-WSA lands. Same as Alternative A. Least adverse impacts to habitat due to greatest management of recreation and focus on non-motorized uses.

PROPOSED PLAN
Same as Alternative B, except over 47,761 acres and with an NSO stipulation for all surface disturbing activities.

Alternative D
No non-WSA lands would be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics, so no beneficial impacts to wildlife would occur. Same as Alternative A. Less adverse effects on wildlife species than Alternative A, but more than Alternatives B and C due to management of recreation and motorized uses.

Non-WSA Lands with Alternative A would not Wilderness Characteristics implement any specific nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, so no beneficial impacts to wildlife would occur. Recreation Adverse impacts including noise, vehicle traffic, trampling of vegetation, habitat fragmentation, and other human-related disturbances. Greatest impacts due to greatest amount of mechanized recreational use and the least restriction on recreational use. Vegetation treatments would result in long-term beneficial reductions of weed populations and restoration of native vegetation, as well as Shortterm adverse crushing and removal of native vegetation during the treatment process. Adverse impacts from OHV use and improper grazing in riparian areas. Benefit impacts from compliance with Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and NSO stipulations applied within 100year floodplains and within 100 feet of natural springs or public water reserves.

Same as Alternative A. Slightly less adverse impacts than Alternative B due to slightly less focus on nonmotorized recreation.

Riparian

Same as Alternative A, expect that some riparian areas would be unavailable for livestock grazing, lessening adverse surface disturbance. This alternative would be more beneficial than Alternatives A and D.

Same as Alternative B.

Same as Alternative A.

Soils/Watershed

Same as Alternative A, except reduced impacts to aquatic by prohibiting surface-disturbing activities on slopes greater than 30 percent and closing the Castle Valley and Mill Creek watersheds to oil and gas leasing.

Same as Alternative B, except Same as the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan would apply an NSO stipulation to the Castle Valley and Mill Creek watersheds. More beneficial than Alternative A, but less beneficial than Alternative B.

2-113

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action
Special Designations

Alternative A (No Action)
Beneficial habitat protection in 1,375 acres in Negro Bill ONA, and short-term protection along eligible WSR segments managed to preserve their wild and scenic qualities. No impacts beyond special status species decisions required by law that would affect wildlife. Beneficial closure of 5,060 acres to OHV use, which is more than Alternative D, but fewer than Alternatives B or C.

Alternative B
Beneficial habitat protections in 613,005 acres designated as ACECs and the most river segments found suitable as WSRs; most beneficial to wildlife. Beneficial wildlife habitat protection over 469,162 acres managed as special status species habitat. Beneficial closure of 346,812 acres to OHV use, which is the most of any alternative.

PROPOSED PLAN
Beneficial habitat protections in 63,232 acres designated as ACECs and the second most river segments found suitable as WSRs; second most beneficial to wildlife. Beneficial wildlife habitat protection over 306,976 acres managed as special status species habitat. Beneficial closure of 338,847 acres to OHV use, which is more than Alternatives A and D, but fewer than Alternative B. Wildlife would be adversely impacted on 1,866 acres open to cross-country OHV use. About 3,693 miles of road to be designated; 282 for motorcycle use, potentially fragmenting more habitat than Alternative B but less than Alternatives A and D. Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D
Alternative D would not designate any ACECs or find any WSRs suitable, and would therefore not benefit wildlife.

Special Status Species

Beneficial wildlife habitat protection over 74,792 acres managed as special status species habitat. Beneficial closure of 56,970 acres to OHV use, which is more than Alternative A, but fewer than Alternatives B and C. Wildlife would be adversely impacted on 3,064 acres open to cross-country OHV use. About 3,855 miles of road to be designated; 340 for motorcycle use, potentially fragmenting more habitat than Alternatives B or C, but less than Alternative D. Same as Alternative A.

Travel Management

Adverse disturbance on No areas would be open to 620,212 acres open to crosscross-country OHV use. country OHV use, which is more than any other alternative. About 6,199 miles of road would be utilized, potentially fragmenting the most wildlife habitat. About 3,328 miles of road to be designated; 122 miles for motorcycle use; potentially fragmenting the least wildlife habitat

Vegetation

Under all alternatives, seed Same as Alternative A. gathering and plant collection could have short-term, direct, adverse impacts on wildlife species and habitat. Restoration of riparian areas would have short-term, adverse effects on wildlife, but would have longterm, beneficial impacts.

2-114

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action)
Not Applicable-wasn't addressed. Visual Resources Reduction of habitat/surface disturbance over 750,125 acres designated as VRM Class I or II; second most beneficial. Wildlife would benefit from the removal of grazing from 124,512 acres. Least acres managed with development restrictions to benefit wildlife, providing the least benefit to wildlife and fisheries resources.

Alternative B
Beneficial maintenance of sagebrush wildlife habitat by reclaiming sagebrush. Reduction of habitat/surface disturbance over 827,093 acres designated as VRM Class I or II; most beneficial. Beneficial impacts from the removal of grazing from 134,491 acres. Beneficial impacts to pronghorn, bighorn sheep, deer, elk, and raptors from specific habitat and cooperative management. Greatest number of acres managed with development restrictions to benefit wildlife, providing the greatest benefit to wildlife and fisheries. Beneficial reduction of human disturbance and habitat degradation over 863,227 acres closed to woodland harvest; most beneficial.

PROPOSED PLAN
Beneficial maintenance of sagebrush wildlife habitat by reclaiming sagebrush. Reduction of habitat/surface disturbance over 724,587 acres designated as VRM Class I or II; second least beneficial. Beneficial impacts from the removal of grazing from 109,903 acres. Second greatest number of acres managed with development restrictions to benefit wildlife, benefiting wildlife more than Alternatives A and D, but less than Alternative B.

Alternative D
Same as the Proposed Plan.

Reduction of habitat/surface disturbance over 595,390 acres designated as VRM Class I or II; least beneficial. Beneficial impacts from the removal of grazing from 51,179 acres. Adverse impacts could result from grazing Cottonwood, Diamond and Bogart allotments Second least number of acres managed with development restrictions to benefit wildlife, benefiting wildlife more than Alternative A, but less than Alternatives B and C.

Wildlife

Woodland

Beneficial reduction of human disturbance and habitat degradation over 601,146 acres closed to woodland harvest; least beneficial.

Beneficial reduction of human Same as Alternative A. disturbance and habitat degradation over 646,694 acres closed to woodland harvest; second most beneficial.

WOODLANDS RESOURCES
Fire Management Short-term and long-term, Same as Alternative A. adverse impacts to woodland productivity from soil erosion, invasive species from surface disturbances. Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced wildland fire risks. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

2-115

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives Table 2.2 Impacts Summary Table

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table
Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D
Non-WSA Lands with No impacts on woodland Wilderness Characteristics harvesting because non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas are unspecified. Recreation Long-term, adverse impacts to woodland harvesting from harvesting restrictions on 180,657acres in SRMAs. WSAs – long-term, adverse impacts from harvesting prohibitions within WSAs and designated wilderness areas. ACECs – negligible impacts on woodland harvesting. Long-term, beneficial impacts from selective harvesting and salvage to reduce wildland fire risks, and improve woodland ecological conditions on 1,243,734 acres. Long-term, adverse impacts on Impacts similar to Alternative B, Same as Alternative A. woodland harvesting but greatly reduced, from opportunities from closure of closure of 15,478 acres. 224,125 acres to woodland harvest (not closed by other decisions). Similar to Alternative A, from harvesting prohibitions on 234,590 acres in SRMAs. WSAs – same impacts as Alternative A. ACECs – long-term, adverse impacts from harvesting prohibitions on 55,050 acres within ACECs. Impacts similar to Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, because fewer acres would be open to woodland harvesting and salvage 958,124 acres). Longterm adverse and beneficial impacts to harvesting from protection of riparian resources and other sensitive resources: adverse impacts from harvesting restrictions, but beneficial impacts to sustainable use of the resource. Impacts similar to Alternative B Impacts similar to Alternative B from harvesting prohibitions on from harvesting prohibitions on 255,555acres in SRMAs. 180,657acres in SRMAs. WSAs – same impacts as Alternative A. ACECs – long-term, adverse, impacts from harvesting prohibitions on 15,478 acres within ACECs. Impacts similar to Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, because fewer acres would be open to woodland harvesting and salvage (1,168,988 acres). Impacts from harvesting restrictions within sensitive resource areas similar to Alternative B. WSAs – same impacts as Alternative A. ACECs – No designation of ACECs under this alternative.

Special Designations

Woodlands

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A because impacted acreages would be the same. Impacts from harvesting restrictions within sensitive resource areas similar to Alternative B.

2-116

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM ANALYSIS
2.3.1 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ADJUSTMENTS ALTERNATIVE
During scoping and comment on the Draft EIS it was suggested that BLM consider adjustments to livestock numbers, livestock management practices, and the kind of livestock grazed on allotments within the Moab Field Office to benefit wildlife and protect and promote land health including soils, hydrologic cycles and biotic integrity. BLM policy regarding adjustments to the levels of livestock use authorized is to monitor and inventory range conditions under existing stocking levels and make adjustments to livestock use as indicated by this data to help assure that Rangeland Health Standards (RHS) and resource objectives are met. Regulations at 43 CFR 4130.3 require that the terms and conditions under which livestock are authorized "ensure conformance with the provisions of subpart 4180" (Standards for Rangeland Health) and further that "livestock grazing use shall not exceed the livestock carrying capacity of the allotment". It would be inappropriate and unfeasible to estimate and allocate the available forage, design specific management practices and determine if changes to the kind of livestock are necessary for each allotment in the Moab Field Office or in the area as a whole in the RMP/EIS. Such changes would not be supportable considering the type and amount of data required and the analysis necessary to make such changes. According to BLM policy decisions regarding authorized livestock use levels and the terms and conditions under which they are managed is an implementation decision (H-1610-1, Appendix C, Page 15). BLM assesses RHS, conducts monitoring and inventories, and evaluates this data on a periodic basis, normally on an allotment and/or watershed basis. After NEPA analysis, necessary changes to livestock management and implementation of Utah's Guidelines for Rangeland Management are implemented through a proposed decision in accordance with 43CFR 4160. These decisions determine the exact levels of use by livestock in conformance with the LUP and to meet resource objectives and maintain or enhancing land health. For these reasons this alternative has been dismissed from further consideration in this land-use plan revision.

2.3.2 NO GRAZING ALTERNATIVE
An alternative that proposes to make the entire planning area unavailable for grazing would not meet the purpose and need of this RMP/Draft EIS. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that agencies study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. No issues or conflicts have been identified during this land-use planning effort which requires the complete elimination of grazing within the planning area for their resolution. Where appropriate, removal of livestock and adjustments to livestock use have been incorporated into the alternatives on an allotment or area basis to address issues identified in this planning effort. Since the BLM has considerable discretion through its grazing regulations to determine and adjust stocking levels, seasons-of-use, and grazing management activities, and to allocate forage to uses of the public lands in RMPs, the analysis of an alternative to entirely eliminate grazing is not needed. An alternative that proposes to make the entire planning area unavailable for grazing would also be inconsistent with the intent of the Taylor Grazing Act, which directs the BLM to provide for

2-117

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis

livestock use of BLM lands, to adequately safeguard grazing privileges, to provide for the orderly use, improvement, and development of the range, and to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that public lands be managed on a "multiple use and sustained yield basis" (FLPMA Sec. 302(a) and Sec. 102(7)) and includes livestock grazing as a principal or major use of public lands. While multiple use does not require that all lands be used for livestock grazing, complete removal of livestock grazing on the entire planning area would be arbitrary and would not meet the principle of multiple use and sustained yield. Livestock grazing is and has been an important use of the public lands in the planning area for many years and is a continuing government program. Although the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines for compliance with NEPA require that agencies analyze the No Action Alternative in all EISs, for purposes of this NEPA analysis, the No Action Alternative is to continue the status quo, which includes livestock grazing (CEQ Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 3). For this reason and those stated above, a no grazing alternative for the entire planning area has been dismissed from further consideration in this RMP/EIS.

2.3.3 NO LEASING ALTERNATIVE
During scoping and/or the comment period for the DRMP/EIS, it was suggested that BLM should address a "No-Leasing Alternative" because the "No-Leasing Alternative" is the equivalent of the "No Action Alternative" that must be analyzed in all EISs. The "No-Leasing Alternative" in an RMP revision is actually an action alternative because where lands have already been leased, the no-action for NEPA purposes continues to allow for (honor) valid existing rights. Proposing a "No-Leasing Alternative" would require revisiting existing leases and either buying them back from the 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 principle use of the public lands in the Moab Field Office Area. Leasing of the public lands for oil and gas exploration and production is required by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and BLM's current policy is to apply the least restrictive management constraints to the principal uses of the public lands necessary to achieve resource goals and objectives. A field office-wide "No-Leasing Alternative" would be an unnecessarily restrictive alternative for mineral exploration and production on the public lands. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA Section 102 (E)) requires that agencies "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning 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 Rel. 1-1693), Appendix C. item H. requires that land-use plans identify areas as open or unavailable for leasing.

2-118

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis

Given the potential range of decisions available in the DRMP/DEIS, the analyzed alternatives include no leasing for certain areas; but a field office-wide "No-Leasing Alternative" is not necessary in order to resolve issues and protect other resource values and uses. As mentioned 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 (USDI, 1973). The proposed action was to lease Federal lands for production of oil and natural gas resources. Alternatives included the No Action Alternative, which at initiation of the program was "No Leasing". To supplement that EIS, BLM prepared a series of Environmental Assessments (then titled "Environmental Analysis Records or EARs") including the Grand Resource Area Oil and Gas Program Environmental Analysis Record (EAR), 1988 which addressed oil and gas leasing for the public lands in the Moab Field Office area. Alternatives again included the No Action or "No Leasing" alternative. The outcome was a category system for leasing which categorized all public and Forest Service lands into four groups: 1) open to leasing with standard lease stipulations, 2) Special Stipulations to address special concerns, 3) No surface occupancy and 4) No Leasing. Since completion of the EAR in 1988 oil and gas leasing in the Moab Field Office Area has been an ongoing federal program under the established categories. The Council on Environmental Quality (Section 1502.14(d) of NEPA) requires the alternatives analysis in an EIS to "include the alternative of no action", but explains that there are two distinct interpretations of "no action" that must be considered, depending on the nature of the proposal being evaluated. "The first situation might involve an action such as updating a land management plan where ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations will continue, even as new plans are developed. In these cases "no action" is "no change" from current management direction or level of management intensity. To construct an alternative that is based on no management at all would be a useless academic exercise. Therefore, the "no action" alternative may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed." (CEQ Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 3). Therefore, for the MFO DRMP/DEIS, the "No-Action Alternative" is to continue the status quo which is to lease under the oil and gas stipulations (formerly categories) established in the Grand Resource Area RMP.

2.3.4 THE RED ROCK HERITAGE TRAVEL PLAN ALTERNATIVE
An alternative that proposes to remove all travel routes from all areas proposed for wilderness by external groups from the Travel Plan that would accompany this RMP would not meet the purpose and need of this RMP/Draft EIS. NEPA requires that agencies study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. On September 7, 2004, BLM received a Travel Plan alternative from Red Rock Heritage (RRH). The narrative explains the philosophy and objectives underlying its plan and offers rationale for not designating specific routes for motorized travel within the BLM Travel Plan. RRH emphasizes that the primary objective of its plan is a "fair allocation of recreational opportunities" between motorized and non-motorized uses. RRH specifically states that the best practical alternative for comparing travel plans on this dimension is by "measuring the

2-119

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis

percentage of the field office area within various distances of the nearest motorized trail." RRH suggests that the appropriate percentage to achieve this goal is approximately 25%. Near the end of their narrative, RRH provides data with such computations at varying distances from motorized routes, contrasting its plan with the BLM-verified Grand County inventory. It is important to note that the Grand County Travel Plan was approved unanimously by the Grand County Council. This plan recommends elimination of approximately 2,000 miles of inventoried "D" roads from motorized travel. BLM feels that the Grand County Travel Plan is a better basis of comparison to the RRH plan, and not the County inventory. BLM agrees with RRH that an equitable allocation between non-motorized and motorized recreation is a desirable outcome of the BLM Travel Plan. BLM believes, however, that the RRH plan is not a viable alternative, for several reasons: 1. The RRH plan's roadless polygons match almost identically with wilderness proposals submitted by SUWA and/or other citizens' groups. To achieve this roadlessness, RRH has recommended for closure virtually all roads within these proposed wilderness polygons, without specific mention or regard for purpose and need. 1 This results in several hundred miles of County "B" roads being recommended for closure. BLM has determined that these roads, which are constructed, regularly maintained by mechanical means, and serve specific purposes and needs, need to be included in all alternatives of the BLM Travel Plan. 2. RRH includes SITLA lands in all its analyses. BLM cannot mange travel on SITLA lands, and BLM confines its analysis to public lands managed by the MFO. 3. RRH focuses their analyses on lands south of I-70, which leaves out those portions of the MPA where opportunities for non-motorized recreation are most available. BLM believes this division is arbitrary, and will focus its analyses on the entire MPA. 4. RRH analyses are done only in comparison to the Grand County route inventory. BLM's analyses will encompass the travel plans carried forward under the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS. 5. RRH states that any travel plan presented as an alternative to its plan should "achieve the same degree of balance (i.e., 25% of the MPA more than a mile from a road, 12% more than two miles, etc.)." BLM agrees that an equitable allocation between motorized and nonmotorized use is a desirable outcome of the BLM travel plan. However, the BLM cannot justify using an unsubstantiated percentage to achieve this goal. 6. RRH uses only a portion of what is commonly referred to as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). RRH limits its ROS analysis to physical separation, but ROS also looks at such facets as topography and social interactions (e.g., likelihood of meeting others) within the broader analysis. The MFO chose not to use ROS as a management tool for decision making in this RMP because the varied topography of the MPA results in ROS analysis, using physical separation only, misrepresenting opportunities for primitive, non-motorized recreation. The RRH Travel Plan mirrors the Red Rock Wilderness proposal, which encompasses over 46% of public lands in the MPA. RRH assumes that lands without access would be eligible to be considered for the protection of their wilderness characteristics. This is a false assumption; for instance, within close proximity to the city of Moab, primitive
1

Per BLM Instruction Memorandum 275, Change 1 (9/29/03), BLM is prohibited from establishing new wilderness areas. BLM may choose to manage certain areas to protect wilderness characteristics, but is not required to do so.

2-120

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis

recreation opportunities are available in 3 WSAs and within Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. 7. In its narrative, RRH discusses numerous specific routes, as well as areas, that it recommends that BLM not designate as available for motorized travel. Rather than discuss each route or area individually, several general comments are appropriate: • Almost all of these routes and areas lie within RRH wilderness proposals. In its comments, there is repeated emphasis on the need to set aside areas for non-motorized recreation and, if necessary, to "create a rare remote and wild area." Current BLM policy prohibits the creation of new wilderness study areas, although it does allow managing areas to protect wilderness characteristics. Several of the areas cited in RRH's proposal were found by BLM in 1999 to lack wilderness character. Many of the specific routes identified by RRH were either described as roads in the BLM 1999 inventory or described as roads at the time of the establishment of the original WSAs. Roads, by definition, are an impact on wilderness characteristics. • Other resource concerns are usually mentioned (e.g., wildlife, sensitive soils, riparian), but no specific data is presented to support the contention (unstated) that a particular existing route is causing the problem cited. • Several of the routes specified are county B roads, which are constructed and maintained and receive regular use. For the reasons outlined above, the RRH Travel Plan in total is eliminated from further analysis.

2-121

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2-122

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter presents the existing or baseline environment for the Moab Resource Management Plan (RMP). This chapter focuses on specific areas where there is new information or analysis relevant to the decision to be made. As such, it addresses environmental conditions that may have changed since the last RMP was completed as well as key findings and new information identified in the Analysis of Management Situation for the Moab Field Office (MFO; 2004d).

3.1 PROJECT AREA OVERVIEW
3.1.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
The Moab planning area (MPA) is located in the Colorado Plateau physiographic province (BLM 2002a), which is located in southeastern Utah, and is bounded by the East Tavaputs Plateau and Book Cliffs to the north, the Colorado border to the east, Harts Draw and Lisbon Valley to the south, and the Green River to the west. Elevations within the MPA range from 3,871 near the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers to 12,721 feet at the summit of Mount Peale (located in the Manti LaSal National Forest).

3.1.2 CLIMATE
Like most of the MPA, the southeastern section experiences wide temperature variations between seasons and climate varies widely with altitude (World Climate 2003). The average annual precipitation is 13.9 inches. In the higher elevations, precipitation comes in the form of snow, with large accumulations in the late fall and winter. Snowmelt in the higher elevations is generally complete by mid to late June. Afternoon thunderstorms, often resulting in flash flooding, are common from late spring through early fall. Summer high temperatures in the upper elevations often reach 85 °F, with lows in the 50s. Lower elevation high temperatures can reach over 100 °F. Winters are cold, with highs averaging 30 °F to 50 °F, and lows averaging 0 °F to 20 °F. The average annual precipitation of the northern section of the MPA is 9.2 inches, most of which comes in the form of late spring rains and fall thunderstorms. Dry air, high elevations (4,000 to 6,000 feet), and winter snowfall combine to create a cold desert climate. Maximum summer temperatures hover in the high 90s, cooling off to the low 60s at night. Winter high temperatures are generally in the high 30s, with nighttime temperatures dipping into the low teens. The western section of the MPA receives an average of 9.2 inches of precipitation a year. Most of this moisture comes in the form of melting winter snows. Dry air, high elevations (4,000 to 6,000 feet) and winter snowfall combine to create a cold desert climate. Most precipitation falls in late summer and early autumn thunderstorms. Maximum summer temperatures in the higher elevations range from 85 °F to 90 °F; low elevation maximum summer temperatures can reach over 100 °F. Winters are cold and relatively dry, with highs around 40 °F and lows in the low to mid teens.

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.1 Project Area Overview

The middle section of the MPA (near Moab) receives an average of 9.0 inches of precipitation per year, most of which comes in the form of late spring rains and fall and winter snows. Maximum summer temperatures average 95 °F. Winter high temperatures average 50 °F, and lows average 21 °F. Across the planning area, summer precipitation is often in the form of short, intermittent thunderstorms, while winter precipitation results in accumulated snow pack that infiltrates the soil and recharges the aquifers. Air temperature and precipitation data collected from 1889 through 2003 for three locations in the MPA are displayed in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 (WRCC 2004). Peak elevation temperature and precipitation information was not available. The planning area has been experiencing drought for much of the last five years, with extreme low water conditions occurring during the summer of 2002, when the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) reached near-record severity based on the last 100 years of instrumental data (NCDC 2004). The low water conditions have resulted in an increase of wind-blown dust and associated particulates in the MPA and adjacent areas. The effects of the drought on the affected environment are discussed in Section 3.2 – Air Quality and Section 3.17 – Vegetation. Table 3.1. Temperature and Precipitation Data Available for Three Locations in the Moab Planning Area (MPA; WRCC 2004)
Temperature (°F) Station Thompson Moab La Sal General Elevation Location (feet) Northern Middle Southern 6,100 4,025 7,125 Summer Means High 90.1 95.3 83.5 Low 60.8 59.9 51.1 Winter Means High 41.0 45.9 38.5 Low 18.3 20.9 14.4 Extremes High 108. 0 114. 0 101. 0 Low -23.0 -24.0 -25.0

Precipitation (inches) Station Winter Thompson Moab La Sal 1.9 2.0 2.5 Spring 2.5 2.4 3.0 Mean Summer 2.1 2.1 3.8 Fall 2.7 2.6 4.7 Mean 9.2 9.0 13.9 Annual High 14.8 16.4 20.1 Low 2.0 4.3 6.5

3-2

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.1 Project Area Overview

- Max. Temp. is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000. - Ave. Temp. is the average of all daily average temperatures recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000. - Min. Temp. is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000. - Precipitation is the average of all daily total precipitation recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000.

Figure 3.1. Thirty-year precipitation and air temperature plots for Moab, Utah (WRCC 2004).

3.2 AIR QUALITY
3.2.1 INTRODUCTION
Meteorological and topographical characteristics within the MPA and the surrounding lands affect the transport, deposition and dispersion of emissions within the planning area and region. The effects of both emissions and management decisions within the area influences air quality throughout the area, not just within the boundaries of the planning area. The MPA has been experiencing drought for much of the last five years, with extreme low water conditions manifest during the summer of 2002, when the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) reached near-record severity based on the last 100 years of instrumental data (NCDC 2004). The low water conditions have resulted in an increase of wind-blown dust and associated particulates in the MPA and adjacent areas. When the air temperature near the ground is lower than the air temperature above, a phenomenon called an inversion occurs. Inversions may occur in winter when snow accumulation on the ground combines with short daylight hours to impede the sun's ability to warm the lower atmosphere. In most areas of the planning area, inversions are a fairly typical winter occurrence,

3-3

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.2 Air Quality

but usually inversions dissipate rapidly when early morning sunlight warms the air near the ground surface. In areas where the local topography acts to pool and trap cold air (deep valleys surrounded by steep mountains) however, cold temperatures associated with stationary or slow moving high pressure systems can last for days or (rarely) even weeks and create inversions that result in poor air quality due to a lack of circulation. Inversions can hinder air pollutant dispersion by preventing emissions from mixing with the ambient air in the vertical direction. The mixing height of the atmosphere is the height above the surface through which free vertical mixing occurs. Mixing height is often bounded by an inversion layer in the atmosphere. The dispersion of air pollutants is generally confined within the mixing height of the atmosphere. High mixing heights promote emissions dispersion and result in low ground level pollutant concentration. On the other hand, low mixing heights often trap emissions and result in high ground level concentrations. Areas such as Moab (located in a lower valley) can experience inversions during the winter season. Air pollutant dispersion is also dependent on the wind. The pollutant path is determined by the wind direction, and the speed of transport is determined by the wind speed. Wind direction in the MPA is highly influenced by the local terrain. For example, the winds along the Interstate 70 (I70) corridor in Grand County tend to blow from the west and the northwest in the spring and blow from the east and the southeast in other seasons (1996 mesoscale model [MM5] data as processed in the CALMET model, Trinity and Nicholls 2006). The city of Moab is located on the flanks of the La Sal Mountains. The winds in Moab predominately blow from the south or southwest. Figure 3.2 presents the windroses for two cities in the planning area. Windroses are graphical representations of wind magnitude, frequency, and direction for a given location. As can be seen from the seasonal windroses, the wind patterns in the area vary widely by seasons and local terrain. Therefore, dispersion and transport of pollutants are also variable in this region depending on the locations. 3.2.1.1 EXISTING AIR QUALITY The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in Title 40 of CFR, Part 50 (40 CFR 50). The purpose of primary NAAQS is to protect the welfare of the most sensitive people such as elderly and asthmatic individuals (with a margin of safety), while the purpose of secondary NAAQS is to protect vegetation, soil, etc. An area that does not meet the NAAQS is designated as a non-attainment area on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The MPA is located in an area designated as attainment or unclassified for all pollutants (EPA 2003a). Table 3.2 presents the existing ambient air quality in the MPA (EPA 2003b). The NAAQS apply to six pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), and particulates whose diameter are smaller than 10 µm (microns; PM10) or smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5).

3-4

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.2 Air Quality

Winter

Spring

Summer

Fall

Thompso n (I-70 Corridor)

Moab

Data Source: 1996 Mesoscale Model (MM5) data processed using the CALMET meteorological model. The observed data from various meteorological stations are used to generate the CALMET windfield. Meteorological stations include Grand Junction, Montrose County Airport, Price/Carbon, etc.

Figure 3.2. Seasonal windroses in the MPA. Table 3.2. Ambient Air Quality Data for the MPA
Pollutant CO Averaging Period a 1-hour 8-hour NO2 Annual
b

NAAQS 35.0 ppm 9.00 ppm

Monitored Concentration 2.8 ppm
n

Monitored Location (City, County, State) Grand Junction, Mesa Co., CO Grand Junction, Mesa Co., CO La Plata Co., CO Bloomfield, San Juan Co., NM Shiprock, San Juan Co., NM Shiprock, San Juan Co., NM Shiprock, San Juan Co., NM La Plata County, CO Mesa Verde NP, Montezuma Co., CO Island-in-the-Sky, Canyonlands NP, UT

b

1.8 ppm n 0.003 ppm k 0.016 ppm
k

0.053 ppm

SO2

3-hour 24-hour Annual

b,c

0.50 ppm

0.082 ppm i 0.013 ppm i 0.002 ppm k 0.086 ppm i 0.077 ppm i 0.082 ppm i

0.14 ppm b 0.03 ppm

b

Ozone

1-hour

d

0.12 ppm

3-5

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.2 Air Quality

Table 3.2. Ambient Air Quality Data for the MPA
Pollutant Averaging Period a 8-hour
e

NAAQS 0.075 ppm

Monitored Concentration 0.055 ppm j 0.073 ppm j 0.070 ppm j

Monitored Location (City, County, State) La Plata County, CO Mesa Verde NP, Montezuma Co., CO Island-in-the-Sky, Canyonlands NP, UT Grand Junction, Mesa Co., CO Grand Junction, Mesa Co., CO Grand Junction, Mesa Co., CO Grand Junction, Mesa Co., CO

PM10

24-hour Annual

f

150 µg/m³ 50 µg/m³

118 µg/m³ o 37 µg/m³ k 22 µg/m³ m 9.5 µg/m³ k

PM2.5

24-hour Annual

35 µg/m³ g 15 µg/m³ h

The concentration values listed in this table are based on the monitored concentrations in 2007 provided by the EPA AirData database (URL: http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/).
b c

a

Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

SO2 3-hour standard is a secondary NAAQS that sets limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is < 1. As of June 15, 2005 EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas. The 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective May 27, 2008)
f g e d

Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years.

To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 µg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006). To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m3.
i j h

Concentration is the maximum values detected at the monitored location in 2007 according to the EPA AirData database.
th

Concentration is the 3 year average of 4 maxima detected at the monitored location in 2005, 2006, and 2007 according to the EPA AirData database.
k m

Concentration is the arithmetic mean at the monitored location in 2007 according to the EPA AirData database.
th

Concentration is the 3-year average of the 98 percentile of the 24-hour values collected in 2005, 2006, and 2007 according to the EPA AirData database.
n o

Concentration is the 2 maximum value detected at the monitored location in 2007 according to the EPA AirData database.
nd

nd

Concentration is the 3-year average of the 2 maxima detected at the monitored location in 2005, 2006 and 2007 according to the EPA AirData database.

Applicable air quality criteria also include the criteria for prevention of significant deterioration, known as PSD increments. A PSD increment is the maximum increase in ambient concentrations of a certain pollutant that is allowed to occur above a base-year concentration for that pollutant. Federal Mandatory Class I areas with pristine air quality, such as wilderness areas and national parks, are accorded the strictest protection. Only very small incremental increases in concentration are allowed to maintain the very clean air quality in these areas.

3-6

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.2 Air Quality

In Utah, five areas have been designated as PSD Class I areas; all are national parks and are under the administration of the National Park Service (NPS). These areas are Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, and Zion National Park. PSD Class II areas are essentially all areas that are not designated Class I, and moderate incremental increases in concentration are allowed, although the concentrations are not allowed to reach the concentrations set by Federal standards (NAAQS). Air quality data for Class I areas within the planning area are also included, where available. The data listed are the most recent available data for each pollutant. If there is no monitor located within the boundary of the MPA, the data from the nearest representative monitor(s) were chosen. Most of the available monitoring stations are located east or southeast of the planning area. As outlined in Table 3.2 of this chapter, the air quality in and near the MPA meets the NAAQS by a large margin with the exception of ozone which is just under the 8-hour NAAQS at Canyonlands National Park. A recent assessment of air quality in National Parks around the country found that ozone concentrations and ammonium deposition increased significantly at Canyonlands National Park between 1995 and 2004 (GPRA 2005). The same report, however, found improvements in nitrate and sulfate deposition, although these improvements were not found to be statistically significant (GPRA 2005). In 2005, Canyonlands National Park did not meet a National Park Service internal air quality goal (called Ia3), which incorporates visibility, atmospheric deposition, and ozone concentration targets. 3.2.1.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE On-going scientific research has identified the potential impacts of climate changing pollutants on global climate. These pollutants are commonly called "greenhouse gases" and include carbon dioxide, CO2; methane; nitrous oxide; water vapor; and several trace gas emissions. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these emissions cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by the Earth back into space. Although climate changing pollutant levels have varied for millennia (along with corresponding variations in climatic conditions), recent industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2 concentrations to increase dramatically, and are likely to contribute to overall climatic changes, typically referred to as global warming. Increasing CO2 concentrations also lead to preferential fertilization and growth of specific plant species. Global mean surface temperatures have increased nearly 1.0°C (1.8°F) from 1890 to 2006 (Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2007). However, observations and predictive models indicate that average temperature changes are likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere. Figure 3.3 demonstrates that northern latitudes (above 24° N ) have exhibited temperature increases of nearly 1.2°C (2.1°F) since 1900, with nearly a 1.0°C (1.8°F) increase since 1970. Without additional meteorological monitoring systems, it is difficult to determine the spatial and temporal variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing concentrations of these "greenhouse gases" are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently completed a comprehensive report assessing the current state of knowledge on climate change, its potential

3-7

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.2 Air Quality

impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. At printing of this PRMP/FEIS, this assessment is available on the IPCC web site at http://www.ipcc.ch/. According to this report, global climate change may ultimately contribute to a rise in sea level, destruction of estuaries and coastal wetlands, and changes in regional temperature and rainfall patterns, with major implications to agricultural and coastal communities. The IPCC has suggested that the average global surface temperature could rise 1 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the next 50 years, with significant regional variation. The National Academy of Sciences (2006) has confirmed these findings, but also indicated that there are uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect different regions. Computer models indicate that such increases in temperature will not be equally distributed globally, but are likely to be accentuated at higher latitudes, such as in the Arctic, where the temperature increase may be more than double the global average (BLM 2007). Also, warming during the winter months is expected to be greater than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum temperatures is more likely than increases in daily maximum temperatures. Vulnerabilities to climate change depend considerably on specific geographic and social contexts. BLM recognizes the importance of climate change and the potential effects it may have on the natural environment. Several activities occur within the planning area that may generate emissions of climate changing pollutants. For example, oil and gas development, large fires, and recreation using combustion engines, can potentially generate CO2 and methane. Wind erosion from disturbed areas and fugitive dust from roads along with entrained atmospheric dust has the potential to darken glacial surfaces and snow packs resulting in faster snowmelt. Other activities may help sequester carbon, such as managing vegetation to favor perennial grasses and increase vegetative cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as "carbon sinks".

Figure 3.3. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Northern Latitudes (24–90° N).

3-8

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.2 Air Quality

3.2.1.3 VISIBILITY IN CLASS I AREAS Visibility is "the clarity with which distant objects are perceived" (EPA 2001a) and is affected by pollutant concentrations, plume impairment, regional haze, relative humidity, sunlight, and cloud characteristics. A natural visual range without any man-made air pollutants would be 140 miles in the western states (EPA 2001a). Aerosols (small particles made of solid and/or liquid molecules dispersed in the air) are the pollutants that most often affect visibility in the Class I areas. Five key contributors to visibility impairments are sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and crustal materials. Their contributions to visibility impacts in the Canyonlands National Park, a Class I area within the MPA, are summarized in Table 3.3 (EPA 2001a). The 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) included legislation to prevent future and remedy existing visibility impairment in Class I areas. In 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a collaborative monitoring program called the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) to monitor visibility in Class I areas. The IMPROVE network has operated a monitor in the Canyonlands National Park, located near the western boundary of the MPA since 1988. The most-impaired days in Canyonlands National Park exhibit visual distances between 61 and 80 miles and show improvements over the decade of 1988 to 1997 of approximately 35%. The mid-range days have visual distances of 78 to 109 miles and show no significant change. The least-impaired days have visibility ranges from 107 to 144 and also demonstrate improvements over the decade of approximately 25% (EPA 2003c). The visibility trend from 1990 to 2004 in the Canyonlands National Park is summarized in Figure 3.4. A more recent assessment of visibility in the Canyonlands National Park indicates that the improvement trend in visibility has continued through 2004, although the trend was measured in different units and was not found to be statistically significant (GPRA 2005). Table 3.3. Summary of Visibility Impairment Pollutants Measured in the Canyonlands National Park a
Pollutant Sulfate Crustal Material Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Nitrate
a

Contribution b 34% 27% 22% 10% 7%

Emission Sources Fossil fuel combustion and forest fires. Fugitive dust from roads, agricultural and forestry operations, and wind erosion. Wood burning, open burning, vehicle exhaust, and wildfires and prescribed burning. Vehicle exhaust, wood burning, and wildfires and prescribed burning. Motor vehicle exhaust. Secondary sources include fossil fuel combustion and prescribed burning.

Data source: U.S. EPA. 2001a. Visibility in Mandatory Federal Class I Areas (1994-1998)- A Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
b

Contributions are calculated by pollutant concentrations regularly measured in the Canyonlands National Park. Light extinction coefficients and visibility indices are then calculated from these values.

3-9

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.2 Air Quality

Figure 3.4. Trend in air pollution impacts on visibility observed in Canyonlands National Park, Utah, 1990 through 2004 (EPA 2003c).

3.2.2 STATUS OF EMISSIONS
The MPA encompasses all of Grand County and the northern portion of San Juan County. These lands are included in the MPA boundary. Currently, emission sources within the MPA consist mostly of oil and gas development facilities and some mineral processing facilities as identified in Table 3.4. Table 3.4. 2005 Emissions Inventory for Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah.
2005 Emissions (tpy) County Source CO
Grand County Area source Non-road mobile

NOxb

PM10

PM2.5

SOxc

VOCd

HAPse

206.1 2,962.00

15.6 175.7

429.7 36.6

87.6 30

3 7.6

285.3 904.5

3-10

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.2 Air Quality

Table 3.4. 2005 Emissions Inventory for Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah.
2005 Emissions (tpy) County Source CO
On-road mobile Point source Biogenics Total Grand County San Juan County Area source Non-road mobile On-road mobile Total San Juan County Regiona l Total
a

NOxb

PM10

PM2.5

SOxc

VOCd

HAPse

8,118.10 224.5 6,596.10

1,042.00 377.8 -

380.8 4.2 -

78.2 4.2 -

16.4 0.3 -

572.1 68.7 34,972.80

18,106.80

1,611.20

851.3

199.9

27.3

36,803.40

18.8

517.2 1,868.30 6,656.80

35.4 59.2 1,057.90

1,108.60 21.3 398.7

223.9 19.6 88.9

34.7 11 21.3

516.8 546.1 470.4

9,042.20 27,149.10

1,152.50 2,763.70

1,528.60 2,379.80

332.4 532.3

67 94.3

1,533.30 38,336.70

9.9 28.7

Emission inventory data from 2005 State Summary of Emissions by Source. URL: www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2005_State/05/State_List.htm b Nitrogen oxides - one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground-level ozone. c Sulfur oxides - contribute to respiratory illness, atmospheric deposition, and the formation of atmospheric particles that can cause visibility impairment. d VOC (volatile organic compounds) refers to any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. Also a precursor to ozone. e HAPs (hazardous air pollutants) are generally defined as those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause serious health problems. Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act identifies a list of 188 pollutants as HAPs. The emissions inventory for HAPs available from the State of Utah only includes those reported by stationary industrial sources.

The 2005 emissions inventory available from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) was used to characterize base-year emissions in San Juan and Grand County. Emissions are summarized by source type for criteria pollutants including area source, non-road mobile, on-road mobile, point sources, and biogenics. The emission inventory for hazardous air pollutants only includes emissions from stationary industrial sources. 3.2.2.1 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF EMISSIONS The seasonal windroses presented in Figure 3.2 for the I-70 corridor and Moab (in the MPA) show that prevailing wind speeds rarely exceed 5 m per sec., and vary seasonally in direction. Due to prevailing wind direction in the planning area, emission sources located in Price, Utah represent a very minor potential for air quality impacts to the northern portion of the planning

3-11

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.2 Air Quality

area in the spring only; emission sources in Page, Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada represent essentially no potential for air quality impacts to the planning area as they are located downwind nearly year-round. As stated previously, current air quality in the MPA is, with the exception of ozone, consistently below the NAAQS by a large margin, as shown in Table 3.2. Observed ozone concentrations in the vicinity of the MPA are less than, but near the NAAQS. The UDEQ indicated that ozone concentrations in Class I areas of the western states have shown significant increases in the past decade and are approaching the NAAQS level (Personal communication between Brock LeBaron, UDEQ, and Trinity Consultants, August 8, 2003). Although the exact sources contributing to the high ozone concentrations have not been verified at this time, studies indicate that oil and gas development activities contribute to the rise in ozone concentrations in production areas (Katzenstein et al. 2003). Additional, short-term air quality impacts have been observed over the last two years along I-70 and U.S. Highway 191 (U.S. 191) in southeastern Utah due to severe wind blown dust ("blowout") conditions. Blowout refers to the dusty conditions due to wind picking up dust in significant quantities, creating the brown-out conditions along the roadways for stretches of up to several miles long. There have been increasing numbers of highway closures and accidents related to the blowout from the Mancos Shale landscapes adjacent to I-70 and U.S. 191. The dust problem has resulted in multiple car pile-ups and will likely result in fatalities in the future (Jackson 2003). A preliminary study conducted by BLM indicated that possible causes of the increasing blowout conditions are: loss of vegetation; wind erosion; natural sand particles; topography; and human disturbance related activities such as road construction, off highway recreational vehicles, pipeline and power transmission development, livestock concentration areas, fires, and arroyo cutting (Jackson 2003). BLM has initiated a process to identify areas of concern and determine appropriate management actions. Additional concerns focus on mobile source emissions specific to visitation and traffic within the MPA. Current Easter weekend visitation in the Moab area is greater than 20,000 visitors. Most recreational visitors engage in motorized activities that represent emission sources in addition to the highway vehicles utilized for transportation. There are more than two million visitors annually to the planning area. Prescribed fire and naturally caused fires also present a concern to air quality. Prescribed burning is a useful tool for resource management and may be used to achieve a variety of objectives such as restoring a fire-dependent ecosystem, enhancing forage for cattle, improving wildlife habitat, preparing sites for reforestation, or reducing hazardous fuel loads. Fire, for any of these reasons, will produce smoke and other air pollutants. Some short-term air pollutant releases are necessary to achieve the many benefits of prescribed burning. Short-term effects on air quality from prescribed burns include a general increase in particulate matter, CO2 and ozone precursor emissions. Land managers recognize that smoke management is critical to avoid air quality intrusions over sensitive areas or visibility problems. Vegetation management is an active part of fire management techniques and long-term effects of prescribed burning include a reduction in particulate matter, CO2 and ozone precursor emissions specific to wildfire in unmanaged areas.

3-12

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.2 Air Quality

As a result of careful management, there is usually less smoke from a prescribed fire than from a wildfire burning over the same area.

3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.3.1 INTRODUCTION
Cultural resources are defined as those fragile and nonrenewable remains of human activity, occupation, or endeavor (including both prehistoric and historic remains) representing a part of the continuum of events from the earliest evidence of people to the present day. These resources consist of 1) physical human-made artifacts, features, structures and sites; 2) areas where significant events occurred (although evidence of the event may no longer remain); and 3) the environment immediately surrounding the actual resource. The MPA has a wide variety of environmental settings and resources and has long been used by humans. The planning area encompasses a large and diverse assemblage of prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites and localities, and locations of traditional religious and cultural importance to various Indian tribes. For BLM management purposes, these remains take the form of sites, artifacts, buildings, structures, ruins, features, and natural landscapes with particular cultural importance. With a few exceptions, these remains must be at least 50 years old. In the case of natural landscapes, the period of traditional use of that landscape must also be at least 50 years old. Because cultural resources have intrinsic values (e.g., scientific, traditional, or public interpretation values) that must be managed, planning and implementing management practices related to cultural resources involves a multiple resources approach. NEPA, NHPA (as amended), and other Federal legislation require that the BLM assess the impacts of a proposed action to cultural resources. In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, this review includes Records Searches and Class III inventories. In the MPA, records searches, reviewing contractor generated cultural resource inventory reports and site forms, and conducting in-house Class III cultural resource inventories compose the vast majority of the workload. Records searches, which focus on compiling all known cultural resource management information about certain parcels of land, are completed for all projects. Class II and III inventories are completed for any proposals that have the potential to disturb surface soils. These two inventories have provided the majority of information regarding cultural resources present in the planning area.

3.3.2 RESOURCE OVERVIEW
3.3.2.1 CULTURE HISTORY OF THE MOAB PLANNING AREA Occupation of southeastern Utah is divided into several distinct and temporally bounded time periods. The creation of distinct time periods has, in large part, been driven by differences in artifact assemblages through time. In many instances, this type of fine-scale division is informative. As new sites and artifacts are routinely being discovered, however, these divisions

3-13

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.3 Cultural Resources

are susceptible to significant revision. The dates provided here serve only as general time-frame markers; any new dating technology advances or new discoveries will likely alter these date ranges. Nevertheless, five broad time periods will serve as temporal foundations for explaining human behavior in this area. An outline of these five periods and their associated behavioral trends is detailed below. These periods are defined temporally, behaviorally, and technologically. For additional information, a detailed overview of the prehistory and history of the region included in the MPA is presented in Grand Resource Area Class I Cultural Resource Inventory (Horn et al. 1994). The basic periods include the Paleoindian, Archaic, Formative, and Late Prehistoric Stages, and the Historic period. The Historic period is further subdivided into Indian/White Interaction, Spanish Exploration, Fur Trade and Early Indian Trade, U.S. Government Exploration and Survey Expeditions, Initial Euroamerican Settlements, Ranching, Farming, Transportation, Communication, Towns and Settlements, Mining, Water Control, Speculative Ventures, Civilian Conservation Corps, Military, Federal Land Management, Antisocial Activities, and Ethnic Diversity themes. 3.3.2.1.1 PREHISTORIC CULTURE HISTORY 3.3.2.1.1.1 Paleoindian Stage The Paleoindian Stage (ca. 10,000 to 7,800 B.C.) is the earliest stage of culture history evident in the region and represents the adaptation to late Pleistocene environments. It is characterized by small groups of relatively mobile hunting and gathering peoples who used most sites only briefly. The Paleoindian tool kit typically included large, lanceolate (Clovis, Folsom, and Plano) projectile points (Schroedl 1991), spurred end scrapers, gravers and borers, and crescents (Frison 1978:78; Schroedl 1991). This stage is further split into three traditions including the Clovis (10,000 to 9,000 B.C.), Folsom (9,000 to 8,300 B.C.), and Plano (8,300 to 7,800 B.C.). 3.3.2.1.1.2 Archaic Stage Late in the Pleistocene Epoch, the climate became warmer and drier which resulted in the expansion of desert vegetation zones and a concurrent retreat of cooler and moister vegetation zones to higher elevations. Changes in the climate caused a reduction in the distribution of Pleistocene wildlife, in some cases to the extinction of animals that were typically adapted to the cooler, moist climates. With changing climates came the expansion and modification of artifact assemblages as people adapted to a wider, more dispersed wildlife and plant resource base. The artifact assemblage associated with the Archaic Stage (7,800 B.C. to 500 B.C.) is typified as including large projectile points with side and corner notching and stemmed points (Humboldt Concave Base, Pinto series, McKean, Northern Side-notched, Sudden Side-notched, Mallory Side-notched, Gatecliff Contracting-stem, and possibly San Rafael Stemmed varieties) (Holmer 1978), as well as basketry, cordage, netting, matting, fur clothing, tumplines as carrying devices, sandals, and atlatl darts.

3-14

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.3 Cultural Resources

3.3.2.1.1.3 Formative Stage The Formative Stage (500 B.C. to ca. A.D. 1200) is characterized by the reliance on domesticated corn and squash, an increasing tendency for people to establish long-term village sites rather than continually moving about the landscape, substantial habitation structures, ceramics, and bow and arrow technology in the latter traditions. Two major traditions occur in the region: the Fremont tradition north of the Colorado River, the Anasazi tradition to the south of the Colorado River. A third—the Gateway Tradition—has been used by a few archaeologists to identify archaeological sites that contain both Fremont and Anasazi manifestations (Horn et al. 1994:123). The Fremont adapted to the changing environment by using hunting and gathering subsistence styles of survival along with some horticultural farming. The variability of Fremont sites have caused archaeologists to classify Fremont manifestations as regional variants characterized by differing settlement and subsistence strategies. Those variants associated with the MPA include the Uinta Basin and San Rafael. Generally, the artifact assemblage associated with the Fremont includes gray, coiled pottery types distinguished by specific temper materials and decorative styles (Madsen 1977), one-rod-and-bundle basketry, leather moccasins constructed from the hock of a deer or mountain sheep, and ornate clay figurines with trapezoidal bodies (Horn et al. 1994:213). The Anasazi people, whose homeland centered in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest, have been identified as a sedentary, horticultural based group whose focus on corn, beans, and squash encompassed the later period. The Anasazi tradition has been subdivided into periods (from earliest to most recent): Basketmaker II, Basketmaker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II, and Pueblo III. The Basketmaker II period marked the transition from a hunting and gathering lifestyle to a more sedentary occupation of regional areas. In the MPA, sites associated with the Basketmaker II tradition have been documented as well as sites linked to the Puebloan traditions. Numerous storage cists, masonry structures, pit structures with storage features, and lookout structures have been recorded plus a range of pottery types indicative of the Anasazi time period; however, the documented artifacts do not provide a continuous spectrum of use. The lack of artifact assemblage continuity and lack of documented kilns, may be more indicative of trading networks than of actual occupation by Anasazi groups. 3.3.2.1.1.4 Late Prehistoric Stage During the Late Prehistoric Stage, it is commonly believed that the Utes were the primary occupants of eastern Utah and western Colorado (Horn et al. 1994:130). Linguistic and archaeological evidence (especially ceramics) indicate that the Utes immigrated to the region by approximately A.D. 1100. Other evidence characteristic of Ute occupation includes sparse lithic scatters with low quantities of crude brownware ceramics, rock art, and occasional wickiups. In addition to the fingertip-impressed brownware ceramics, other diagnostic artifacts include locally designated Uncompahgre Brown Water and Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood triangular projectile points (Buckles 1971). As Utes interacted more with local Europeans during the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, varying quantities of Euroamerican artifacts such as sheet metal cone tinklers, tin cans, metal and glass projectile points, weaponry, and equestrian tack

3-15

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.3 Cultural Resources

become part of the artifact assemblage. Sites containing diagnostic Ute artifacts have been reported in all parts of the MPA. The Navajo homeland is located south of the MPA, in the southeastern corner of Utah, northeastern Arizona, and in northwestern New Mexico (Brugge 1983). Although the Navajo homeland lies south of the planning area, historic records mention Navajo inhabitants farming parts of Spanish Valley in 1855. Based on additional references, these farmers may have resided in Spanish Valley until the 1870s. The Hopi Tribe also claims traditional affiliation with the planning area. Small amounts of yellow ware pottery have been found at three sites in the planning area. In addition to ceramics, Hopi elders have identified rock art panels that contain Puebloan motifs. Although there is a paucity of Hopi-related ceramics, the tribe maintains ancestral ties to the planning area. 3.3.2.1.2 HISTORIC CULTURE HISTORY TO CA. 1950 Historic cultural resources in the MPA can be classified into one or more themes: Indian/White Interactions, Spanish Exploration, Fur Trade and Early Indian Themes, U.S. Government Exploration and Survey Expeditions, Initial Euroamerican Settlement, Ranching, Farming, Transportation/Railroads, Communication, Towns and Settlements, Mining, Mineral Exploration, Mineral Processing, Water Control, Speculative Ventures, Civilian Conservation Corps, Military, Federal Land Management, Antisocial Activities, and Ethnic Diversity (Horn et al. 1994). For a comprehensive discussion of the historic period in the region, see Horn et al. (1994). Numic-speaking Utes primarily occupied the MPA during the time of European contact. Contacts with Spaniards increased during the late 1700s and the early 1800s. Use of the Old Spanish Trail started decades before this as Indian thoroughfares and the Spanish capitalized on this existing route. The Old Spanish Trail connected missions in southern California to the New Mexico trade centers of Taos and Santa Fe on the east. As cultural interactions with traders and travelers increased, changes occurred with Native American populations. The influx of Euroamericans into the MPA eventually fostered conflicts with long-time Indian inhabitants that resulted in the creation of reservations and the movement of traditional peoples off their ancestral lands. Nonetheless, seasonal aboriginal uses of what are now Federal lands continued through the 1930s as groups continued to exploit resources in the canyons and adjacent mountains. Many sites that are Native American in origin may include various historic artifacts, in particular food cans. A thorough investigation of the artifacts and their use/reuse may provide insights as to who left the artifacts. Exploration of the MPA is first mentioned in the 1765 accounts of Juan Maria Antonio de Rivera who led an expedition through what is now Grand County. Although traders and early travelers probably traversed through the MPA, very few left lasting records and the Robidoux and Denis Julien inscriptions remain the only lasting links between modern times and the fur trapper/trader era. U.S. government-sponsored exploration and survey expeditions in the middle to late nineteenth century and continued use of the Old Spanish Trail eventually resulted in Euroamerican settlement of the area by Mormon settlers in 1855. As population increased,

3-16

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.3 Cultural Resources

homesteads occupied locations where perennial springs promised consistent water for crops, livestock, and household uses. Camps, homestead remains, corrals, cellars, dugouts, privies and transportation routes in the form of trails may provide insights into early occupation and use of the land encompassed by the planning area. Euroamericans, dependent upon ranching and farming, continued to expand and settle in various places in the planning area. Numerous towns sprang up throughout the planning area. Physical remains dating from early town-building and isolated settlement activities dot the landscape and provide the planning area with a rich historical archaeological record. The economic backbone of the planning area in the mid-nineteenth century focused on livestock ranching with cattle dominating the industry until the 1890s when sheep became a viable option. The remains of sheep camps, line camps, and stock driveways all indicate the pervasiveness of the livestock industry in Grand County. The naturally warm climate fostered the growth of fruit orchards, and by 1910, Moab was renowned for its fruit, especially peaches. The need to control water—the essential component of survival in southeastern Utah—became critical. The pleas to protect farm lands from seasonal floods were addressed during the 1930s when the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) spent many man-hours building flood control contour dams throughout the Grand and Spanish valleys. Remnants of CCC camps, and numerous water control structures as well as farmer-constructed irrigation systems can be found throughout the MPA. In addition to ranching, mining has continued to have significant impacts to the region and its landscape as the twentieth century dawned, oil exploration created quite a stir. Likewise, the coal industry boomed briefly in the Book Cliffs region during the early 1900s, causing the construction of a narrow-gauge spur that connected the town and mill at Sego to the Denver and Rio Grande railroad at Thompson Springs. The search for minerals has left a legacy of exploratory mines as well as two-tracks and roads that support and foster recreational use of Federal lands. By the twenty-first century, mining generated routes added several thousand miles to the transportation network covering the MPA. In between the boom and bust cycles of the mining industry, ranching and farming sustained those who weathered the extractive industrial rollercoaster. 3.3.2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL RESOURCES For a detailed description of available sources, see the Analysis of Management Situation for the Moab Field Office (BLM 2004d). 3.3.2.3 NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED CULTURAL RESOURCES Generally, formal listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) occurs for a small portion of the total sites in any given state or county. Table 3.5 summarizes these sites for the MPA, and is based on the data that was collected. Of the known sites within the planning area, three are listed on the NRHP as either individual sites or part of a larger archaeological district (www.historicdistricts.com/UT.html).

3-17

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.3 Cultural Resources

Table 3.5. National Register-listed Sites, Buildings, and Districts Located on BLM Lands within the MPA
Year 1968 1980 Name Desolation Canyon Thompson Wash Rock Art District (Sego Canyon) Julien, Denis: Inscription Trinomial NA 42GR275-277 Type Site District Vicinity Green River Thompson County Grand Grand NR # 68000057 80003909

1991

42GR0111

Site

Mouth of Hell Roaring Canyon

Grand

91000617

3.3.2.4 PLACES OF TRADITIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL IMPORTANCE Places that may be of traditional cultural importance to Native American people include, but are not limited to: • • • • • • • locations associated with the traditional beliefs concerning tribal origins, cultural history, or the nature of the world; locations where religious practitioners go, either in the past or the present, to perform ceremonial activities based on traditional cultural rules of practice; ancestral habitation sites; trails; burial sites; springs, perennial water sources; and places from which plants, animals, minerals, and waters possessing healing powers or used for other subsistence purposes, may be taken (Ferguson et al. 1993:30; Hopi Cultural Preservation Office 1995:2; Parker and King 1989:1).

Additionally, some of these locations may be considered sacred (as opposed to "traditional") to particular Native American individuals or tribes. Under the auspices of the NHPA of 1966, as amended; American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA); Executive Order 13007– Indian Sacred Sites, dated May 24, 1996; and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), as amended, the BLM must take into account the effects of Federally linked projects or land uses on these types of locations. 3.3.2.4.1 TRIBAL CONSULTATION LIST The MFO has historically consulted with Ute, Navajo, and Puebloan groups concerning cultural resource issues, including the identification of Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) (Table 3.6).

3-18

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.3 Cultural Resources

Table 3.6. Native American Organizations Historically Consulted by the MFO
Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe Southern Ute Tribe White Mesa Utes Pueblo of Acoma Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Navajo Nation Navajo Utah Commission Hopi Tribe Pueblo of Zuni Pueblo of Santa Clara Pueblo of Laguna Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah

3.3.2.4.2 POTENTIAL TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES (TCPS) As mentioned earlier, there are several site types, both archaeological and non-archaeological, that could potentially be identified by Native American groups as TCPs. An ethnographic study is currently being prepared for the MFO that will focus on the ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological record to determine which groups ascribe cultural values to lands managed by the MFO and to identify existing and potential TCPs within the planning area. Meetings, field visits, and oral interviews with tribal elders may also be included as part of this study. The following is a general discussion about some of the archaeological and non-archaeological site types that may be identified as TCPs on lands managed by the MFO. 3.3.2.4.2.1 Archaeological Sites Many Native American groups claim affiliation with prehistoric archaeological sites such as rock art, burials, and village sites. The Hopi Tribe, for example, claims that often the exact locations of some of these places, such as ancestral archaeological sites and burials, are unknown to tribes until these sites are identified by Hopi cultural experts during ethnographic or ethnohistoric investigations, or by archaeologists during archaeological investigations of a given study area. Not only do the Hopi consider these sites to be TCPs, they also believe that they are historic properties eligible to the National Register under Criteria A, B, C, and D for the following reasons (Ferguson 1997; Hopi Cultural Preservation Office 1995): • • • Criterion A because they are associated with the Hopi clan migrations, which have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Hopi history. Criterion B because they are "associated directly with Ma'saw and the Hopis' covenant to leave their footprints across the land." Criterion C because "ancestral archaeological sites, that may be individually anonymous, are identified as part of the great clan migration that are central to all that is Hopi."
3-19

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.3 Cultural Resources

•

Criterion D because they have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to Hopi prehistory.

Other tribes also consider ancient Native American archaeological sites as places of traditional importance. For example, the Zuni have identified all "ancestral" archaeological sites as places of traditional importance, as well as being eligible to the National Register (Anyon 1995; Hart 1993:40). They say that these sites meet Criteria A and B (as outlined in National Register Bulletin 15) because of their association with the Zuni ancestors and their oral migration histories. The Utes also consider some of these sites to be culturally significant and sacred and maintain that the spirit of their ancestors dwell at archaeological sites and will remain as long as the sites are not disturbed (Newton 1999; Perlman 1998). Recently, a spiritual leader of the Uintah and Ouray Ute Tribe has stated that the disturbance of significant archaeological sites is leading to the destruction of Ute religion and diminishing the power of the spirits that remain at these sites (Molenaar 2003a). 3.3.2.4.2.2 Rock Art Sites Many tribes have strong spiritual convictions regarding petroglyphs and pictographs and usually request that these sites not be disturbed, especially if the site was created with the intention of connecting with a spiritual or natural power. Many Ute and Puebloan groups also believe that rock art created by their ancestors retains the spirits of their ancestors. The Hopi Cultural Preservation Office has ascribed cultural values to Fremont rock art panels as far north as Nine Mile and Desolation Canyons (Molenaar 2003b; Blaine Miller personal communication 2003). Rock art panels are also seen by tribes as physical evidence for Native American land use indicating territorial boundaries, hunting and camping sites, and trail or migration markers. Some panels depict tribal stories and legends, but can only be interpreted by those with the specialized knowledge to understand their meaning. In the past, Utes have derived spiritual powers and authority from special petroglyph panels for their Bear Dances (Spangler 1995:775). The Uintah and Ouray Ute Tribes often request one-half mile buffers around rock art panels, if possible, during Section 106 consultations (Molenaar 2003b). 3.3.2.4.2.3 Rock Shelters Rock shelters and cave sites located within the planning area can potentially be identified as TCPs. These locations include overhangs, crevices and cave sites and are significant to Native Americans as ancestral dwellings. These site types are also potential ancestral grave sites for the Ute Tribe (Pettit 1990). These sites may also be identified as places where Native Americans communicated with the supernatural world by means of prayers, offerings, and vision quest sites (Molenaar 2003a). 3.3.2.4.2.4 Non-Archaeological Site Types Non-archaeological site types are distinguished from archaeological site types in order to discuss places that are not necessarily associated with prehistoric or historic artifact assemblages and collections. These sites are typically identified by tribal representatives during the government-

3-20

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.3 Cultural Resources

to-government consultation process that is required of Federal agencies. Some common site types are lakes and springs, land features, and traditional gathering or collection areas. Lakes, Rivers, Perennial Streams, and Springs Native Americans often claim places of water as places of traditional importance and have traditional stories about mythical beings, or water spirits that live in lakes, springs, and rivers. The Colorado River and its tributaries have sacred significance to the Navajo. The Colorado, Green and Price Rivers have been identified as sacred to the Navajo because they come from natural spring water. According to the Navajo, when the Green River is impacted, the cultural integrity of the spring water is affected, which in turn affects traditional procurement use values (Molenaar 2003c). Traditional Gathering or Collection Areas Traditional plant or other resource gathering areas may be places of traditional importance to Native American groups. These areas are generally places where Native Americans go to collect resources such as medicinal plants used and minerals to be used in ceremonies and are often in current use when identified. Land Features Large geographic regions, such as deserts, mountain ranges, and valleys are often identified as TCPs but few have been formally documented as such. Examples in the vicinity of the planning area include Sleeping Ute, the Henry Mountains, and Rainbow Bridge (listed on the National Register as a TCP). 3.3.2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION IN THE MPA The number, nature, and location of cultural resources present within any given area of the MFO varies depending on numerous factors. Through extensive study of archaeological sites throughout the West, archaeologists have identified several key factors that influence site locations and types including such factors as elevation, slope, aspect, distance to permanent and/or intermittent water, and presence or absence of resources of interest (e.g., food or medicinal resources, valuable minerals, etc.). The degree to which these factors influence the type and density of cultural resource sites in a given area also varies depending on the time period (prehistoric or historic) considered. For instance, technological advances during the historic period made it possible for people to live and work in areas that would have been less desirable during the prehistoric period. Long-term settlements or habitation sites, particularly during the prehistoric period, were typically located in areas with permanent water sources, so long as the area is at an appropriate elevation that doesn't experience too harsh of a winter or that contains or is close proximity to other areas that contain needed subsistence resources. Short-term camps, on the other hand, could be located in all types of environments and were typically focused on the exploitation of a specific resource during a specific time of year. Thus, in the high desert environment of the MPA, which experiences snow at higher elevations, short-term camps to gather plant or animal resources tend to be located on

3-21

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.3 Cultural Resources

the higher plateaus and upper slopes of mountain ranges, and long-term settlements tend to be located at lower elevations, along permanent rivers and streams. As archaeological sites, shortterm camps tend to have small numbers of artifacts, such as projectile points for hunting, that are typically associated with acquiring a specific resource and they generally lack permanent features such as living or storage structures. Long-term settlements frequently contain large numbers of artifacts and a wider diversity of artifact types, including items for processing rather than simply obtaining resources, and at least some evidence of structures. Many of these longer term sites in the MPA are associated with caves, alcoves, and rock shelters. Rock art sites, a common site type in the MPA, may be found in association with any environmental location, so long as rock appropriate for pecking, grinding, or painting exists. A limited percentage of lands within the MPA have been physically inspected for the presence of cultural resources, and such an effort is cost-prohibitive as part of preparing the RMP. Therefore, the relative site density potential for areas within the MFO was estimated using environmental factors known to influence site location and type. All area of the MFO were then ranked as having either high, medium, or low potential for containing cultural sites. Table 3.7 summarizes the acreage of the three site probability categories estimated within the MPA. A detailed description of the factors considered and methodology used to assess site probability is provided in Section 4.3.2.1. Table 3.7. Estimated Acreage within the MFO with High, Medium, and Low Probability to Contain Cultural Resource Sites
Site Probability High Medium Low Estimated Acreage 302,914 625,903 895,450 % of Lands in the MFO 17% 34% 49%

3.3.2.5.1 ADVERSE IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts to archaeological sites from recreational uses (especially off-road travel) and energyrelated exploration and development activities have increased dramatically in the last ten years. Many cultural resource sites may be "at-risk" and their NRHP eligibility threatened. Inventory and evaluation will provide BLM with a better understanding about the extent of individual atrisk resources and their NRHP eligibility. Site monitoring will reveal changes to at-risk condition over time.

3-22

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.4 Fire Management

In order to protect the integrity of cultural resource sites, activities that contribute to site degradation may have to be limited. Limitations will diminish adverse effects to "at-risk" sites but will also curtail some peoples' recreational and transportation pursuits. Activities that would be restricted from locations of at-risk resources, on a case-by-case basis, may include but not be limited to use of mechanized and motorized vehicles, rock climbing, horseback riding, dispersed camping, target shooting, and livestock grazing. Cultural resources are being adversely impacted by various uses ranging from recreational, energy-related exploration and development, and range-related activities. The BLM must be better able to quantify these impacts from various uses in order to develop adequate mitigation measures that protect eligible cultural resource sites. Once the BLM has a better understanding of exactly what the cost of the various land uses is in terms of data loss or cultural distress (for Native American tribes and other heritage groups), it can better effect solutions to either preventing the impacts or focusing the impacts in specific locations. As a result of these measurements, certain areas may be deemed too vulnerable to allow full access but they may be appropriate for restricted use. Conflicting policies applicable to cultural resource management with regards to the issuance of OHV permits and construction of single-tracks are in direct conflict with each other. Under the revised federal NHPA regulations, issuance of OHV permits by the BLM is considered an undertaking and is subject to review under Section 106 process, thus it is necessary for the BLM to formally take into account the effect that issuing OHV permits will have on cultural resources within the Moab FO. However, the statewide protocol established between BLM and the Utah SHPO, as well as existing Utah BLM handbooks, indicate that issuance of permits is exempt from Section 106 review. This discrepancy provides unclear direction to Moab FO resource specialists in the practical application of their management prescriptions. OHV use in open areas are adversely impacting cultural resources—surface use stipulations for ground disturbing activities are needed to prevent adverse impacts from occurring. Designating routes and preventative fencing would help address the current user impacts to cultural resources. Potential areas of high site density or significant site types may need to be closed to vehicular travel.

3.4 FIRE MANAGEMENT
3.4.1 INTRODUCTION AND RESOURCE OVERVIEW
The Moab Fire District consists of approximately 6.5 million acres of public land in the Price, Moab and Monticello field offices interspersed with state, private, and other Federally regulated lands within Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan Counties. The divergent elevations throughout the area support a wide range of vegetation and soil types including riparian areas, forested high mountain watersheds, grasslands and shrublands, and sparse, arid desert sands. During a normal fire year the district averages 100 wildfires resulting in 10,000 to 16,000 acres each year of disturbed and potentially damaged land. Most fire activity occurs in the eastern half of the district, although fires can occur in almost all areas of each field office. In the twenty-five year period between 1980 and 2005, approximately 74% of wildland fires occurring in the Moab Fire

3-23

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.4 Fire Management

District were lightning-caused. Prior to 1995, an average of 100 fires per year burned an average of 10,000 acres per year. The past decade has shown a trend of increasing wildland fire, with an average of 130 fires each year burning an average of 16,000 acres each year. The occurrence of wildland fire varies from year-to-year depending on weather, climatic, and other conditions. Fire occurrence and size can depend on a range of factors including elevation, vegetative community, fuel moisture, precipitation and/or a lack of precipitation, the ability of fire to carry in specific types of vegetation, and other climate dynamics such as dry summer weather following a wet spring or extended periods of drought. Human-caused fires in the MPA commonly occur near roads, from vehicle and railroad ignitions along I-70, as well as those associated with illegal camping outside designated campgrounds, especially along the Colorado River. Resource values threatened by fire include recreation sites, oil/gas sites, cultural sites, and wildland-urban interface areas. High intensity fires that cover large acreages have occurred in almost all areas, although ninety percent of the wildland fires in the Moab Fire District are less than ten acres. Depending on climatic conditions, a typical fire season stretches from March through October with the peak occurring in the lightning-prone period from mid-June to midAugust. The Moab Fire District has a wide variety of types including grassland mixes, sagebrush and sage/grass, brushland/grass, pinyon/juniper, ponderosa pine, mountain brush, mixed conifer, and invasive species such as cheatgrass, tamarisk and others. The effects of wildland fire or the absence of fire in these vegetative communities is closely tied to other public lands resources such as watersheds, soils, wildlife, and livestock grazing. Fire has historically been an essential part of ecosystem health, providing the needed regeneration of some species and promoting diversity of other species in riparian areas, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. The exclusion of fire and fire suppression over the past century has compromised the health of many vegetative communities. Two of the predominant issues in the MPA are the loss of shrubland and grassland communities to pinyon/juniper encroachment, and the proliferation of invasive species. Communities surrounded by these compromised ecosystems are becoming increasingly susceptible to wildland fire with an accompanying threat to lives and property. Communities in need of management action to reduce the threat from wildland fire on adjacent public lands are identified as wildland-urban interface areas (WUIs). WUIs presently recognized within the MPA include the communities of Brown's Hole, Castle Valley, Dewey, La Sal and Old La Sal, Moab/Spanish Valley, Pack Creek, Thompson Springs, Willow Basin, and Wilson Arch. Current fire management direction encourages use of wildland fire as well as both fire and nonfire fuel reduction treatments to restore natural fire regimes and to promote the overall ecological health of public lands. The operational role of the Moab Fire District is multi-faceted and comprises wildland fire control and suppression activities, hazardous fuels reduction, wildland fire prevention and education, and collaboration with other agencies in suppression activities as well as in both WUI and non-WUI fuels reduction projects. The MFO Manager authorizes management response to wildland fires within the MPA, approves decisions for prescribed fire and non-fire fuels reduction treatments, and issues restrictions and closures within the planning area during periods of high fire activity.

3-24

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.4 Fire Management

3.4.2 FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan (FMP) acts as the primary strategic document for fire management in the MPA. The FMP integrates RMP direction, goals and objectives for resources influenced by wildland fire, suppression actions, fuels treatment activities, and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR). The overlying goal of the FMP is to describe specific actions authorized on the public lands within the Moab Fire District to protect life and ensure public safety, target resource goals and objectives, reduce fuel loads, and to achieve and maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems.

3.4.3 DESIRED WILDLAND FIRE CONDITION (DWFC)
DWFC, as described in the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management, incorporates both condition class and fire regime in the development of fire management strategies. The condition class of a vegetative community is defined in terms of its departure from the historic fire regime; determined by current vegetative composition including alterations and disturbances, and also by the length of fire return intervals within that particular community. Along with one of three possible condition classes, five combinations of fire frequency intervals or "fire regimes" are considered in assigning attributes to categorize a vegetative community's current condition. The combination of both of these measurements gives a vegetative community a fire regime/condition class rating or "FRCC." As the FRCC is an index of ecosystem at-risk conditions, DWFC is the description of the desired condition of a vegetative community as it relates to susceptibility from severe fire effects (e.g., the loss of key ecosystem components soil, vegetation structure, species; or alteration of key ecosystem processes - nutrient cycles, hydrologic regimes). For example, a healthy ecosystem at low risk of losing key ecosystem components following wildland fire would be considered at optimum DWFC. A lengthy description of fire regime, condition class analyses and historic fire return intervals can be found in Appendix D of the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management.

3.4.4 LANDSCAPE LEVEL MANAGEMENT
Fire management actions authorized for wildland fire activities, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments, and ESR are based on DWFC. The Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management addresses specific fire management objectives for each major vegetation group, designed to result in progress toward DWFC of public lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM. Specific actions designed to meet DWFC are detailed in Table 2.1 of the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management. Vegetation groups and fire management objectives are briefly summarized below. 3.4.4.1 SALT DESERT SCRUB Salt desert scrub occurs over approximately 500,000 acres in the MPA. DWFC for this community is native, open salt desert scrub with little invasive species and fire exclusion because of the historical infrequent fire return interval. Management objectives include wildland fire suppression; no wildland fire use; a wide array of fuels treatments; aggressive seeding in ESR treatments.

3-25

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.4 Fire Management

3.4.4.2 PINYON AND JUNIPER WOODLAND Pinyon/juniper woodlands cover a large portion of the MPA, with estimates averaging over 820,000 acres. Objectives are separated between those areas where pinyon and juniper did and did not occur historically. DWFC in historic pinyon/juniper areas is open stands with grass and shrub understory. These areas historically experienced a 15-50 year fire return interval, which prevented movement of pinyon/juniper into other vegetative communities. DWFC in nonhistoric pinyon/juniper areas is the restoration of the vegetative community previous to pinyon/juniper encroachment. Management objectives include minimal suppression where possible to mimic natural fire return interval; wildland fire use where feasible; a wide array of fuel treatments including biomass utilization; and aggressive seeding in ESR treatments. 3.4.4.3 SAGEBRUSH Healthy sagebrush stands have declined throughout the MPA, with an estimated 140,000 acres remaining. DWFC is diverse age class with grass and forbs understory. Management objectives involve a balance between invasive species concerns, wildlife habitat, and restoration of historic fire return interval. Objectives include wildland fire use when appropriate; full spectrum fuel treatment; aggressive seeding in ESR. 3.4.4.4 GRASSLAND Grasslands occur over approximately 50,000 acres of the MPA. In historic native grassland areas, DWFC is native grass/forbs community. Dependent upon other resource objectives, DWFC in non-native grasslands is native grassland or shrub community. Management objectives consider historic fire return interval of 15-50 years and may include wildland fire use; prescribed fire, mechanical and chemical fuel treatments to reduce invasive grasses and encroachment by other trees/shrubs; aggressively seed following wildland fire. 3.4.4.5 BLACKBRUSH Blackbrush communities in Utah are thought to have poor regeneration following wildland fire. These communities cover approximately 185,000 acres of the MPA, and management objectives exclude wildland fire and most prescribed fire and non-fire fuels treatments. 3.4.4.6 MOUNTAIN SHRUB In the MPA, mountain shrub areas cover approximately 45,000 acres. DWFC in mountain shrub would be differing age classes in mosaic patterns with the exception of WUI areas. When possible, management objectives allow wildland fire to mimic historic fire return intervals. Fuels treatment of all types is encouraged to decrease the potential for high-severity fire. 3.4.4.7 MIXED CONIFER/DOUGLAS FIR/ASPEN Mixed conifer/Douglas fir and aspen woodlands cover approximately 38,000 acres in specific areas within the MPA. Healthy forests would include a grass/brush understory as well as differing age classes of trees. To achieve this, management objectives include allowing wildland fire where it is possible without high-severity fire. Management objectives encourage fuels

3-26

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.4 Fire Management

treatments (including biomass utilization) to retain age diversity, remove ladder fuels, and to reduce fuels where WUI values are at risk. Preferred ESR treatments include tree planting to promote forest regeneration. 3.4.4.8 PONDEROSA PINE There are approximately 800 acres of ponderosa pine forest in the MPA, most of which is considered condition class three in need of treatment. The DWFC of a healthy ponderosa stand would be open stands with grass/forb understory and a diversity of age classes. Management objectives include allowing fire to play a natural role when possible, restoring fire, conducting mechanical fuels treatments, and consideration of seeding in ESR treatments. 3.4.4.9 RIPARIAN WETLAND Although this vegetative type covers less than one percent of the total acreage in the MPA, it is a vital component of the overall region. DWFC of riparian wetland focuses on the reduction of invasives and the retention or restoration of the historic vegetative composition appropriate to the site. Management objectives allow low-intensity fire in most riparian areas and encourage prescribed fire and mechanical treatment to restore native riparian and wetland species. Active as opposed to passive restoration would be the primary focus of ESR treatments in riparian wetland areas.

3.4.5 FIRE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Protection of human life, including the lives of firefighters committed to an incident, is the mandated priority for fire management activities. This priority overrides other strategies, actions, and RMP resource goals and objectives. The protection of human communities and infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources is based on human health and safety, the values to be protected, and the costs of protection. Balancing priorities in fire management decisions consider the protection of WUI areas, the maintenance of existing healthy ecosystems, the protection of high priority sub-basins or watersheds (HUC 4 or HUC 5), special status species, and/or cultural resources and landscapes.

3.4.6 FIRE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES TO MEET DWFC
All BLM field offices were given national direction to establish general landscape level goals and objectives for fire management. Landscape level management goals incorporated into the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management that apply to the MPA include: 1. Establishing firefighter and public safety as the primary goal in all fire management decisions and actions. 2. Using wildland fire to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and when possible allowing fire to assume a natural ecological role. 3. Reducing hazardous fuels to protect human, natural and cultural resources as well as to restore ecosystems and protect communities. 4. Suppressing fires according to resource objectives and with consideration for firefighter/public safety and other benefits and values to be protected.
3-27

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.4 Fire Management

5. Providing a consistent, safe, and cost-effective fire management program through appropriate management of planning, staffing, training, and equipment. 6. Establishing fire management units (FMUs) for acreages with burnable vegetation on all BLM-administered lands. 7. Providing emergency stabilization, rehabilitation and restoration to protect and sustain resources, and to safeguard public health and safety as well as community infrastructure. 8. Working with partners and other affected groups to reduce risks to communities and to restore healthy ecosystems. More specific resource objectives are incorporated in Fire Management Plans for individual field offices. To ascertain the most effective methods for achieving DWFC goals in each of the vegetative communities in Utah, fire management activities listed below were discussed and authorized in the decision record for the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management. 3.4.6.1 SUPPRESSION A wildland fire requires an appropriate management response (AMR). The AMR can range from full suppression to managing fire for resource benefit (wildland fire use). AMR is guided by the resource strategies, goals and objectives of the RMP with an emphasis on firefighter and public safety, benefits and values to be protected, and suppression costs. FMU objectives as described in the FMP would provide further guidance for an AMR. 3.4.6.2 WILDLAND FIRE USE FOR RESOURCE BENEFIT Wildland fire use may be an AMR to a naturally ignited wildland fire to accomplish specific resource management objectives in predefined designated areas. Operational management of wildland fire use for resource benefit is detailed in a Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP). Due to resource condition (FRCC) and proximity to values at risk, wildland fire for resource benefits is not acceptable on all BLM lands within the MPA. As the DWFC of resources move from a higher FRCC to a lower FRCC, wildland fire use for resource benefits in some FMUs may become more practicable. FMUs will be periodically reassessed by fire and fuels staff as well as by resource staff to ascertain changes in vegetation and potential for wildland fire use as a resource tool. 3.4.6.3 PRESCRIBED FIRE AND NON-FIRE FUELS TREATMENTS Prescribed fire and non-fire treatments are utilized for hazardous fuels reduction and for community protection from wildland fire. Treatments are also implemented to accomplish resource goals and objectives such as wildlife and range improvements. Treatment projects and acreages are determined through RMP goals and objectives. Approximately 90% of all non-fire treatment acres are mechanical and/or seedings. Chemical and biological treatments comprise less than 10% of the total non-fire treatment acreages. Limitations in applying prescribed fire to meet fuels reduction targets include the condition of vegetation (i.e., aggressive non-native species invasion, or extended periods of drought), air

3-28

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.4 Fire Management

quality restrictions, budget allocations, personnel capabilities, risk, policy and guidance, and social acceptability. 3.4.6.4 EMERGENCY STABILIZATION AND REHABILITATION Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR) actions following wildland fire may be implemented to protect and sustain resources, and to safeguard public health and safety as well as community infrastructure. All ESR activities following wildland fire in the MPA would be implemented following BLM ESR Handbook H-1742-1 and treatments would be designed according to the Normal Year Fire Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan (NFRP) for the Moab Fire District. 3.4.6.5 MONITORING Monitoring actions would quantify results from fire management decisions and activities. Monitoring conclusions could be used to determine the need for additional or different activities, revisions to the FMP and/or NFRP, or amendments to the RMP.

3.4.7 SUMMARY
National fire management policy has changed and advanced over the past several years in response to increased fatalities, property loss, local economic disruptions and the risk to ecosystems associated with severe wildland fire seasons and increasing WUI conflicts. Because it was imperative to immediately incorporate national and interagency direction into BLM fire management, the Utah BLM amended several BLM land-use plans to include fire management direction and current scientific understanding regarding the nature of fire in the ecosystem. The Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels is a lengthy document with an accompanying biological opinion from the USFWS. Although it remains a separate document, fire and fuels management direction contained within the amendment is considered to be included in this RMP in its entirety, along with all appendices, tables, and attachments. Also incorporated into this RMP are the resource protection measures (RPMs) identified through the LUP Amendment process that were determined necessary to protect natural or cultural resource values in the implementation of fire management practices. Fire management direction, activities, and objectives that affect the resources within the MPA are summarized above. Specific goals and objectives for resources within the planning area that are determined in this RMP and that may alter or augment the current direction of fire and fuels management as dictated by the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management will be analyzed in Chapter 4 of this document.

3.5 HEALTH AND SAFETY
3.5.1 INTRODUCTION
A major priority in land management for the MFO is ensuring health and human safety on its public lands. The BLM's goals are to effectively manage hazardous materials and safety hazards

3-29

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.5 Health and Safety

on the public lands to protect the health and safety of public land uses protect the natural and environmental resources, minimize future hazardous and related risks, costs and liabilities, and to mitigate physical hazards in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The BLM follows its national, state, and local contingency plans as they apply to emergency responses. These plans are also consistent with Federal and state laws and regulations.

3.5.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous materials are generally defined as a usable product or substance that may cause harm to humans, natural resources, or the environment when spilled, released, or contacted. Hazardous materials are used in every day activities and may be in the form of a solid, liquid, or gas. Regardless of their physical state, hazardous materials may be toxic, flammable, combustible, reactive, and/or corrosive. These can include, but are not limited to, abandoned mine sites, abandoned structures, dams, discarded chemicals, chemical spills, discarded wasted, etc. Hazardous materials problems within the MPA can result from programs conducted by state and local governments, by local businesses and industries, and/or by illegal dumping of hazardous materials on lands administered by the BLM. There are no approved hazardous materials dumps or repositories within the MPA. 3.5.2.1 POTENTIAL HAZARDS The various producers of hazardous waste pose a potential impact to the health and safety of area residents, visitors, and to the physical environment itself. Both commercial and illegal activities can lead to the creation of hazardous waste sites. Spills, illegal dumping, and the discovery of abandoned hazardous materials are likely to occur within the MPA. Contaminants from these sites can pose an imminent threat to public safety and negatively impact the environment by impacting soils, ground water flows, air, and water quality. Potential hazardous material generators within the MPA include the following: oil and gas drilling operations, natural gas pipelines, mining operations, uranium tailings, storage tanks, landfills, illegal dumps, and the Utah Launch Complex of the White Sands Missile Range near Green River, Utah. 3.5.2.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT The MFO Hazardous Materials Program is responsible for hazardous materials handling, storage, transport, and emergency response. Several state and Federal mandates, authorities, and handbooks provide the BLM with management guidelines, objectives and actions pertaining to hazardous materials management. The Federal and state prescribed mandates ensure MFO's compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

3.5.3 ABANDONED MINES
The early mining practices in Grand County were subject to minimal environmental regulations and in mining districts throughout the West. During this time, Federal land management agencies had no requirements for reclamation of abandoned mines on public lands. Mine closures were often inadequate or non-existent. While many abandoned mines are small and their waste is inert, some abandoned mines are a threat to human health and the environment. Public safety hazards associated with abandoned mines can also be a concern on public lands.

3-30

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.5 Health and Safety

The BLM, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the National Park Service (NPS) have conducted inventories of abandoned mine sites and some remediation, such as stabilizing sites, closing mine openings, and/or reclaiming mine-related land disturbances. In the MPA, the highest concentrations of mine sites that have been inventoried but not yet reclaimed are on the mesas and plateaus that surround the LaSal Mountains. Areas where abandoned mine inventories have not yet been conducted are predominantly on BLM and USFS administered public lands. The Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM) Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program (AMRP) has identified Lisbon Valley as a high priority area for abandoned mine hazards inventory (UDOGM 2002). Additionally, the MFO has identified the Browns Hole, Klondike, and Sevenmile areas as priority areas for abandoned mine hazards inventory and remediation. 3.5.3.1 POTENTIAL HAZARDS Abandoned mine sites may pose hazards to human health, the environment, and physical safety. Threats to health and the environment include: acid drainage, heavy metal contamination, metal contaminated tailings impoundments, stored chemicals, and leaking containers. Changes in the chemical composition or soil loss near AML sites can result in alterations or loss of natural habitat for native wildlife. Abandoned mines may also impact ground water flows and water quality. The impacts to water quality are generally the result of contaminated sediments or metal salts that can affect human health, fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation. Air pollution from contaminated dust can occur on tailings impoundments and waste rock piles near abandoned mill sites. There may also be releases or potential releases of hazardous substances from waste materials and acid drainage beyond AML sites. Open mines are unstable; mine adits (horizontal openings or tunnels) may collapse, internal supports may fail, and mine shafts (vertical openings) and winzes (vertical connections between adits) may be obstructed or unseen. Oxygen can be at lethally low concentrations and toxic gases can be at high concentrations or capable of displacing oxygen. Exposure to radiation in the mine atmosphere, particularly radon gas, can be a hazard, especially in abandoned uranium mines. Many abandoned mines in southern Utah are potential sources of radiation. Water can be a hazard in flooded mines; shallow water can conceal winzes and sharp objects. Hazardous wastes, such as boxes or containers of explosives, and chemicals used in milling or drilling operations could be present. Illegal dumping of hazardous wastes within abandoned mines is also a possibility. 3.5.3.2 ABANDONED MINE MANAGEMENT/RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES BLM has recently developed the Abandoned Mine Lands program (AML) that addresses the environmental and safety hazards associated with AML sites on public lands. Once the site are identified, they are prioritized, and appropriate actions are taken on those historic mine sites that pose health and safety risks. The BLM's priority for reclamation of environmentally contaminated sites is based on risk assessments that address threats to human health and the environment. For example, abandoned mine land sites that impact water quality are usually a greater concern and receive a higher priority for reclamation than those that do not impact water quality. See the Chapter 2 Alternative Matrix for AML program priorities.

3-31

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.6 Lands and Realty

3.6 LANDS AND REALTY
3.6.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW
As provided by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM has the responsibility to plan for and manage public lands. As defined by FLPMA, public lands are those Federally owned lands, and any interest in lands (e.g., Federally owned mineral estate and easements across non-Federal lands), that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior, specifically through the BLM. The land surface and mineral ownerships within the MPA are varied and intermingled. The MPA contains approximately 2.75 million acres, of which approximately 1.82 million acres, or 66%, are public lands managed by the BLM (See Map 1-1, Moab Planning Area 1.1). Generally, the lands are located in large, contiguous tracts that provide for effective and efficient management. In addition, the BLM MFO manages the subsurface of 29,678 acres of split estate lands, and 141,241 acres of National Forest lands.

3.6.2 MFO LANDS AND REALTY PROGRAM
Management of ownership and access to lands within the MPA falls under a variety of categories related to whether the BLM is retaining lands, acquiring lands or interests in lands, relinquishing control of lands (e.g., sales, exchanges, etc.), granting rights-of-way, easements, or other access, withdrawing lands for certain uses, or otherwise determining the disposition of specific tracts of land. The various categories of lands and realty management within the planning area are discussed in the following sections. The overall goals of the BLM lands and realty program are to: • • • • Manage the public lands to support goals and objectives of other resource programs; Respond to public requests or applications for land-use authorizations; and Acquire administrative and public access where necessary to enhance the resource management objectives of the BLM. Throughout much of Utah, the state owns and manages four isolated sections in each 36section township. These are generally sections 2, 16, 32, and 36, and are ordinarily one mile square (640 acres). They are primarily administered by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) for the purpose of economic support of the state's public schools and institutional trust funds. Activities on state land generally are not substantially different from those on the surrounding land administered by BLM. Many of the SITLA lands generate funds through grazing permits, right-of-way easements and permits, and hydrocarbon or other mineral leases. Many BLM lands with management restrictions, such as WSAs, have state lands that are adjacent to or within their boundaries. State lands that are completely or almost entirely surrounded by BLM lands with management restrictions, or are in conjunction with administratively endorsed National Park Service lands, are termed state inholdings. Existing access to inheld state lands varies. Some of the parcels have direct access through cherry-stemmed or boundary roads of WSAs. Inheld parcels may or may not currently have access, depending upon whether or not existing vehicle routes lead to them. BLM policy, as
3-32

•

•

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.6 Lands and Realty

required by the Cotter decision, is that "the state must be allowed access to the state school trust lands so that those lands can be developed in a manner that will provide funds for the common school..." This decision confined the issue of access to situations directly involving economic revenues generated for the school trust. For example, if a holder of a state oil and gas lease on a parcel of state land that is completely surrounded by a WSA requires access to develop that lease, BLM must grant the leaseholder reasonable access with consideration given to minimize impacts to wilderness character. 3.6.2.1 LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENTS As mandated by Section 102(a)(1) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701), public lands are retained in Federal ownership, the exception being those public lands that have future potential for disposal (i.e., sale and exchange), as described under Section 203(a) and Section 206 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1713; 1716). Public lands have potential for disposal when they are isolated, difficult to manage, or are needed to fulfill state selections. Lands identified for disposal must meet public objectives, such as community expansion and economic development. The preferred method of disposal is land exchange (discussed in Section 3.6.2.3). Other lands can be considered for disposal on a case-by-case basis. Disposal actions are usually in response to public request or application that results in a title transfer, wherein the lands leave the public domain. Lands identified for disposal in the MPA are listed in Appendix D – Lands Identified for Disposal. Criteria for land tenure adjustments are outlined in Appendix A – Land Tenure Adjustment and Withdrawal Criteria. 3.6.2.1.1 SALES Public sales of BLM lands are managed under the disposal criteria set forth in Section 203 of FLPMA. Public lands determined suitable for sale shall be offered on the initiative of the BLM and sold at not less than fair market value. Public lands classified, withdrawn, reserved, or otherwise designated as not available or subject to sale are unavailable. In the current RMP (1985a), lands were identified that met the criteria of Section 203 of FLPMA for consideration for disposal by sale. Consequently, those lands identified in the plan are isolated parcels that are difficult for the BLM to manage as part of the public lands (I), lands that the city of Moab and Grand County thought should be available for community expansion (C), and lands that were nominated by private individuals (P). The list of lands identified for disposal was revised to include parcels that were added through amendments to the 1985 RMP and to delete parcels that are no longer in BLM ownership (see Appendix D – Lands Identified for Disposal). As of 2003, 12,415 acres were identified for disposal. 3.6.2.1.2 EXCHANGES AND ACQUISITIONS Exchanges are initiated in direct response to non-agency proposals or by the BLM, to improve management of the public lands. Lands considered for exchange must be determined suitable for disposal and acquisition, and the exchange package must be shown to be in the public interest. The specific planning criteria for land tenure adjustments and exchanges are described in a February 1989 amendment to the existing RMP (1985a) under which the MFO operates its lands and realty program. This 1989 amendment includes measures for acquisitions and disposals to

3-33

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.6 Lands and Realty

determine if a proposed exchange is in conformance with the land-use plan and would be in the public interest, and is hereby incorporated by reference (BLM 1989b). Two land acquisitions, from private parties, have taken place in the history of the MFO. In 1977, the BLM acquired 6.28 acres for the Westwater Ranger Station. In 1992, 158.54 acres were purchased for the Cisco Take-out. 3.6.2.1.3 RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSES ACT (R&PP) The R&PP Act was established by Congress as a means for state and local governments as well as non-profit organizations to acquire or lease (without patent) public lands at no cost or reduced cost for public or recreational purposes. Many Western governmental entities have taken advantage of this Act in order to provide the public with much-needed local services and locations for recreational activities. 3.6.2.2 PARTIAL INTEREST ACQUISITIONS Public land cannot be effectively administered without both legal and physical access. Methods used to acquire legal rights that meet resource management needs include negotiated purchase, donation, and exchange. Acquisition alternatives include purchase of fee or less-than-fee interest above, on, and below the surface, as well as perpetual exclusive and permanent or temporary nonexclusive easements. Acquisitions of road or trail easements are probably the most frequently encountered access needs. Types of easements include: • • • • • • road easements; sign locations; stream clearance projects; utility easements; hunting and fishing easements; and range improvements.

Acquisition of access rights are meant to support one or more of these resources: lands, minerals, forestry, range, wildlife, recreation, or watershed. Additionally, access may be closed or restricted, where necessary, to protect public health and safety and to protect significant resource values. Forty-five easements were on file in the MFO as of 2003. Easements acquired from the 1930s through the 1970s were primarily related to range management (e.g., fences, roads, spring developments). Easements acquired since the Grand RMP was approved in 1985 are primarily related to recreation. Eighty-nine percent of the easements have been acquired from State of Utah Trust Lands. Easements can be acquired when there is a need, as happened in 1994 when the Kokopelli's Trail was "created" by connecting existing roads and trails from Loma, Colorado, to the Moab Slickrock Bike Trail.

3-34

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.6 Lands and Realty

3.6.2.3 WITHDRAWALS/CLASSIFICATIONS Withdrawals are formal actions that set aside, withhold, or reserve Federal land by statute or administrative order for public purposes. A withdrawal may remove areas from the public lands to be managed under the authority of another Federal agency or department, but the land does not leave Federal ownership. Criteria for withdrawals are outlined in Appendix A – Land Tenure Adjustment and Withdrawal Criteria. Withdrawals accomplish one or more of the following: • • • Transfer total or partial jurisdiction of Federal land between Federal agencies; Close (segregate) Federal land to operation of all or some of the public land laws and/or mineral laws; Dedicate Federal land to a specific purpose.

Withdrawals are used to preserve sensitive environmental values, protect major Federal investments in facilities or other improvements, support national security, and/or provide for public health and safety. Withdrawals may segregate a particular portion of public land from operation of any, some, or all of the public land laws (withdraw from settlement, location, or entry), and/or prevent disposal (sale or exchange) of public lands or resources. Withdrawals remain in effect until they expire or are specifically revoked or terminated. Withdrawal review is mandated by FLPMA, which requires the BLM to eliminate all unnecessary withdrawals and classifications. The BLM must ensure that withdrawals are supported by a definite show of need and must recommend revocation of withdrawals that lack sufficient justification. Before recommending a withdrawal continuation, alternatives such as rights-of-way (ROWs) and interagency agreements must be explored. Four withdrawals existed within the MFO as of 2005 (see Map 2-1, Existing Withdrawals from Mineral Entry). All four withdrawals are Bureau motion actions. Two of the existing withdrawals are in effect in the Westwater Canyon section of the Colorado River (Table 3.8). The first withdrawal protects the river bottom and lands one-quarter mile from the edge of the river. The second withdrawal expands protection to the corridor from canyon rim to canyon rim, and to side drainages. The third withdrawal (Three Rivers) protects the remaining river corridors in the MPA. These three areas are withdrawn from mineral entry. In general terms, the withdrawals protect the corridors of the Colorado, Green , and Dolores Rivers from new mining claims subject to valid existing rights. The fourth withdrawal in the MFO reserves lands for the disposal of uranium mill tailings to be removed from the Atlas Mill Site in Moab.

Table 3.8. Withdrawals in the MPA
Serial Number UTU-71781 Name of Withdrawal Westwater Canyon Effective Date 03/30/1995 Expiration Date 03/29/2045 Acres 4,710

3-35

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.6 Lands and Realty

Table 3.8. Withdrawals in the MPA
Serial Number UTU-74247 UTU-75392 UTU-80808 Name of Withdrawal Westwater Canyon Withdrawal Expansion Three Rivers: Colorado, Dolores, Green Moab Mill Site Remediation Project Effective Date 06/02/1998 10/06/2004 11/15/2005 Expiration Date 06/01/2018 (renewable) 10/05/2024 (renewable) 11/15/2010 (renewable) Acres 3,386 65,037 in MFO 2,300

There are 11 Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission (FERC) Power Site Reserves/Classifications within the three river corridors administered by the MFO. The lands were opened to the operation of the mining laws in 1955; therefore, they remain withdrawn from disposal actions. Rights-of-way can be granted on these lands with a FERC stipulation in the grant. Disposal actions require partial revocation of the withdrawal. 3.6.2.4 UTILITY/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 3.6.2.4.1 RIGHTS-OF-WAY A right-of-way (ROW) is an authorization to place facilities over, on, under, or through public lands for construction, operation, maintenance, or termination of a project. Public lands are made available throughout the planning area for ROWs and corridors. With the exception of defined avoidance and exclusion areas, the planning area is subject to the authorization of ROWs. Avoidance areas are areas where special environmental and/or management considerations exist. Rights-of-way either will not be granted in these areas or, if granted, will be subject to stringent terms and conditions. Rights-of-way avoidance areas were established under the 1985 RMP for crucial habitat for deer (Westwater Canyon) and bighorn sheep (canyons east of the Green River and Shafer Basin). Exclusion areas prohibit ROWs. No exclusion areas were identified in the 1985 RMP. Rights-of-way are granted on a case-by-case basis. The majority of ROWs granted between 1998 and 2003 were for non-energy-related activities. Only 17% of new ROWs during this time were for oil and gas gathering systems or roads. In the same five-year period, 407 case files were assigned (ownership transferred). Of these, 93% were energy related and 7% were not. There is nothing to indicate that this trend will change in the next 10 years, especially in light of the resurgence of the energy market after 2003. Historically, pipeline ROWs granted within the MPA have been small surface pipelines, because they have been determined to be the least environmentally damaging. Large-diameter (10 inches and over) pipelines were buried. 3.6.2.4.2 UTILITY CORRIDORS The 1985 RMP Management Action Decision for Utility Corridors established electrical utility corridors along I-70, U.S. Highway 191 (U.S. 191), the MAPCO pipeline route between I-70 and U.S. 191, and the Pacific Corporation transmission line route between U.S. 191 and the Green River. The portion of the U.S. 191 utility corridor that runs through Moab Canyon has since

3-36

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.6 Lands and Realty

reached maximum capacity. In 1999, the Western Regional Corridor Study Committee (Western Utility Group) recommended that utility corridors within the MPA continue to be designated alongside the I-70 and U.S. 191 roadway corridors. All corridors identified in the previous plan remain designated at present. The Western Utility Group (WUG) is currently working to identify additional corridors throughout the region, and has put forth one additional utility corridor in the MPA following the Questar, Williams et al. pipeline route through East Canyon (BLM 2001c). As additional or future corridors are identified, the BLM would strive to consolidate utility corridors to the extent possible. 3.6.2.4.3 COMMUNICATION SITE RIGHTS-OF-WAY Within the MPA, there are 11 designated communication sites along I-70 and U.S. 191, six of which were granted between 1998 and 2003. The rapid growth of wireless networking in the U.S. indicates that the public expects to be able to make cell phone contact most of the time. This trend is expected to continue, with increasing demands placed on the existing 11 sites. Cleartalk is currently in the process of creating a cellular communication network along I-70 (completed) and U.S. 191 (not complete). There is a proposed or existing tower every 10 to 12 miles along these two major highways. Each of the Cleartalk communication sites would be built to house four users. The Geyser, Klondike, and Black Ridge areas have room for additional facilities. 3.6.2.5 LEASES AND PERMITS Section 302 of FLPMA authorizes the use, occupancy, and development of public lands, through leases and permits, for uses not authorized through other authorities. Applicants can be state and local governments and private individuals. These uses of public lands include agricultural development, residential use (under certain conditions), commercial use, advertising, and National Guard use. Leases are long-term authorizations that usually require a significant economic investment in the land. Permits are usually short-term authorizations not to exceed three years. The MFO issues an average of 50 permits each year, primarily for filming projects. During calendar years 1998 through 2002, the MFO issued 182 film permits. Approximately 75 commonly used filming locations have been identified. Filming is an important part of the Grand County economy. The annual report of the Moab to Monument Valley Film Commission, on the economic impact of on-location production, gives a figure of $4,862,000 for the reporting period from July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002. This number represents the money that filming companies spent in Grand County, with no additional factoring. 3.6.2.6 TRESPASS The BLM is responsible for realty trespass abatement, which includes prevention, detection, and resolution. Land authorizations, such as leases and permits, have typically been issued to resolve agriculture and occupancy trespass. Locations in the planning area where trespass is likely to occur are along drainages, in oil fields, and in areas where private lands border public lands. Approximately 90 cases of alleged trespass have been formally identified within the MPA. None of these situations poses a problem if it is not immediately resolved. Twenty trespass cases were

3-37

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.6 Lands and Realty

resolved during FY 2003. The remaining cases are expected to be resolved on an estimated timetable of 10 cases per year. Willful trespass is dealt with immediately, especially if resources are threatened. 3.6.2.7 PLANNING-BASED PROTECTION ZONES Protection zones were incorporated into the existing Grand RMP (1985a) through "Plan Changes" for an airport runway undeveloped area and for protection of drinking water sources. The airport runway protection zone was added to the plan on May 5, 1995. Ninety acres are included in the protection zone, which restricts construction of residences or places of public assembly (churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings, shopping centers, and other uses with similar concentrations of persons.) Automobile parking is also discouraged within the area. The location of the protection zone is: T24S, R19E, Sec. 1, S½ of S½ of SE¼ of SE¼; Sec. 12, N½ of NE¼ The BLM has entered into three land-use agreements to not allow potential contamination sources, as defined in R309-113-6(1)(u) of the Utah Administrative Code, within a drinking water protection zone. The protection zones are not necessarily ROW avoidance areas. Examples of possible pollution sources include, but are not limited to, storage facilities that store the liquid forms of extremely hazardous substances, septic tanks, drain fields, Class V underground injection wells, landfills, open dumps, landfilling of sludge and septage, manure piles, salt piles, pit privies, drain lines, and animal feeding operations with more than 10 animal units. BLM has responded to requests for agreements from one private entity, the Thompson Springs Water Conservancy District, and one state agency, the Utah Department of Transportation. The size of the protection zone has varied by the source of water and the hydrology of the area. The protection zones have been documented in the existing RMP amendment and are displayed on the appropriate master title plats 3.6.2.8 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES A national trend is using public lands to develop renewable energy sources such as wind power, solar power, biomass, and hydropower. National organizations are looking at public land to help provide power sources for an ever-increasing population, without creating air pollution problems. In the future, BLM-administered lands will play an increasing role in providing clean energy sources. The February 2003 publication, "Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands" prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) assessed the potential for the following renewable energy sources on public lands in the 11 western states by planning area: solar, biomass, geothermal, water, and wind. Tables were created for each resource listing the 25 planning areas with top potential for development of these energy sources. At this time, the DOE data show that most of the MPA has been identified as possessing a low potential for all of the

3-38

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.7 Livestock Grazing

resources studied. There are, however, a few isolated areas, on the western side of the MPA (e.g., along a ridge on the west side of U.S. 191 between Moab and Crescent Junction), where there are small pockets of medium and high wind resource potential. The MFO can expect to have these sites investigated more closely in the future due to the projected increase in demand for renewable energy.

3.7 LIVESTOCK GRAZING
3.7.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW
Livestock grazing allotments occur on approximately 95% of all lands located within the MPA boundary. Areas not within the boundaries of a grazing allotment include lands around Moab, the surface areas of the Colorado and Dolores Rivers, I-70, and the Pear Park and Spring Creek areas. Of the lands within grazing allotments, 1,794,798 acres (77%) are BLM lands within the State of Utah; 375,299 acres (16%) are State of Utah lands; 83,640 acres (4%) are private; 1,632 acres (less than 1%) are military; 1,146 acres (less than 1%) are United States Forest Service lands; and 73,395 acres (3%) occur within the State of Colorado (Figure 3.5). The following subsections provide a summary of the number of permitted allotments, amount and condition of riparian areas, allotment management categories, and ecological status for the allotments. Information on each allotment can be found in the Analysis of Management Situation for the MFO (Chapter 7: Grazing and Domestic Livestock).

1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 BLM State of Utah Private Military Forest Service Colorado (all lands)

Acres

Figure 3.5. Acres within grazing allotments of the MPA. 3.7.1.1 ALLOTMENT STATUS A total of 84 allotments occur within the boundaries of the MPA. Of these allotments, 74 are administered by the MFO, four are administered by the Vernal Field Office, and six are

3-39

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.7 Livestock Grazing

administered by the Grand Junction, Colorado, Field Office. Seventy-seven of the allotments are available for use by domestic livestock, and seven allotments were made unavailable for grazing by domestic livestock in 1995 and 1996. These seven allotments were made unavailable for the following reasons: enhancement of wildlife habitat, improvement of riparian vegetation, watershed benefits, and recreation values. 3.7.1.2 RIPARIAN AREAS A total of 26,085 acres of riparian have been inventoried within the grazing allotments. Of this total, 14,020 acres (54%) have been identified as being in "proper functioning condition;" 8,962 acres (34%) as "functioning-at risk;" 2,947 acres (11%) as "not functioning;" 120 acres (0.5%) as "reservoir or well;" and 35 acres (0.1%) as "dikes." 3.7.1.3 ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES Each permitted allotment has been evaluated and designated into one of three management categories: maintain (M), improve (I), or custodial (C). Allotments in category M are in generally good condition and have no serious resource conflicts under present management. They may have some potential for a positive return on investments. Category I allotments have serious resource conflicts or unsatisfactory range condition or may be producing below their potential under present management, and/or climatic conditions (drought related). These allotments have potential to improve or have conflicts that can be resolved through changes in grazing management or investments in range improvement projects. Allotments in category C have low productivity potential, limited resource conflicts, and limited opportunity for a positive return on public investments (Table 3.9). A more detailed and specific list of criteria used for categorizing each allotment is found in the Analysis of Management Situation for the Moab RMP. Table 3.9. Current Number of Grazing Allotments in Each Management Category
Category M (Maintain) 25 allotments (32%) Category I (Improve) 37 allotments (48%) Category C (Custodial) 15 allotments (20%)

3.7.1.4 ECOLOGICAL STATUS The ecological status of BLM acres within the MPA (excluding acres within Colorado) was estimated as part of the 1985 Grand RMP process. Since the ecological status estimates were made on a MPA-wide basis, the ecological status for each allotment is not known. Four classes are used to express the degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants in a biotic community reflected the potential natural community (PNC). These classes are PNC, Late-Seral, Mid-Seral, and Early-Seral (Table 3.10). Table 3.10. Current Acreages of Plants that Are Similar to Potential Natural Community (PNC)
Class PNC % Similarity to PNC 76-100% Acreage (% of Total Area) 461,156 acres (26%)

3-40

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.7 Livestock Grazing

Late-Seral Mid-Seral Early-Seral

51-75% 26-50% 0- 25%

661,502 acres (38%) 520,802 acres (30%) 108,009 acres (6%)

BLM Manual H-1601-1 (BLM 2005a) states that vegetation management decisions, including grazing, must be based on desired future conditions (DFC). The DFC are those conditions on a landscape scale that are meeting management objectives, incorporating ecological, social, and economic considerations; and does not necessarily assume vegetation should, or will, reach PNC. It is usually expressed as ecological or management status of vegetation (species composition, habitat diversity, age and size classes of species) and desired soil qualities (conditions of soil cover, erosion, compaction, loss of soil productivity). 3.7.1.5 RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS Rangeland improvements, including fencing, cattle guards, water pipelines, well development, spring development, and stock ponds, are used to assist in livestock and wildlife distribution. Fire management practices are often used to achieve ecological conversion and/or reduce catastrophic fuel loads. Rangeland manipulation can be used to rehabilitate or restore a particular ecological community with respect to plant composition and structure. General impacts associated with rangeland improvements tier to the Vegetation EIS (BLM 1991a), which analyzes and recommends treatment methods to be used on BLM-administered lands. Methods include manual and mechanical treatments, biological treatments, prescribed burning, chemical applications, and use of livestock. The current RMP (1985a) identifies rangeland manipulation actions that were to be accomplished within various allotments. These actions are shown on pages 18, 19, 30 and A-29 of the Grand RMP.

3.7.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Of the 77 allotments that are permitted for use by domestic livestock, 64 allotments are grazed by cattle, three are grazed by cattle and horses, two are grazed by cattle and sheep, six are grazed by sheep, one is grazed by sheep and horses, and one is grazed by horses. Twenty-five (25) of the permitted allotments have allotment management plans (AMPs), while the remaining 52 allotments do not. Livestock use of these allotments, as well as those managed through AMPs, is authorized through grazing permits which contain terms and conditions controlling the numbers, timing, and duration of use as wells as other restrictions to livestock use. Allotment Management Plans have been (and will be) developed where appropriate, since all allotments do not need to have AMPs. Please refer to the Analysis of Management Situation prepared for the Moab RMP (2004d). Authorized livestock use is typically expressed in animal unit months (AUMs), which is the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of 1 cow, 1 horse, or 5 sheep for a period of one month. A total of 107,931 animal unit months (AUMs) are currently authorized (active) within

3-41

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.7 Livestock Grazing

boundaries of the MPA. Of the total authorized AUMs, 87,097 (81%) are used by cattle, 18,466 (17%) are used by sheep, and 485 (less than 1%) are used by horses. 1,883 AUMs (2%) are, through agreement with the permittee(s), held in temporary suspension to maintain improved resource conditions. An additional 25,972 AUMs are allowed through exchange of use (other ownership). Table 3.11 shows the grazing management systems currently in use for the 77 permitted allotments. Management actions accomplished since the 1985 Grand RMP have affected current livestock resources. These accomplishments include: developing the Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) for the resource area; changes in the season of use on 54,380 acres to (a) provide for growth requirements of perennial plants, (b) restrict use of spring forbs by livestock in crucial wildlife areas, and (c) protect soils in critical watershed areas; changes in the class of livestock on the Buckhorn Allotment to reduce competition between livestock and wildlife; land treatments to increase available forage and increased use by livestock and wildlife. Table 3.11. Current Number of Permitted Allotments under Each Grazing Management System
Grazing Management System Season-long grazing* Deferred rotation grazing Rest rotation grazing Holistic grazing Number of Allotments 52 21 1 3

* The lengths of season under season-long grazing systems generally vary from 1 month to 8 months, with the majority being 4-5 months. One allotment is grazed year-long. The majority of grazing systems include both dormant season and growing season use. However, 11 allotments are grazed only during the dormant season, and three allotments are grazed only during the growing season.

3.7.3 SPECIFIC ALLOTMENTS OF CONCERN
Specific concerns have been raised concerning twelve entire allotments as well as well as portions of four other allotments. South Sand Flats, North Sand Flats, Between the Creeks, Bogart, Cottonwood, Diamond and Arth's Pasture allotments were analyzed in a Plan Amendment to the 1985 Grand RMP (EA #068-94-047). Pear Park, Spring Creek and Castle Valley allotments were made unavailable for grazing in the Grand RMP itself. The allotments of concern and the conflict identified in each area are summarized below: North Sand Flats: This allotment covers approximately half of the Sand Flats Recreation Area (home of the Slickrock Bike Trail and the Hell's Revenge and Fins and Things Jeep Routes), as well as popular recreation areas along the Colorado River such as Negro Bill Canyon. Due to the large number of recreational users, conflicts between people and cattle are a concern. Watershed, cultural, and riparian values (especially in Negro Bill Canyon) are also identified as a concern. In addition, the entire allotment is crucial deer winter range. South Sand Flats: This allotment covers approximately half of the Sand Flats Recreation Area, and is also heavily visited by recreational users. This allotment also contains a portion of the Mill
3-42

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.7 Livestock Grazing

Creek watershed, which is the municipal watershed for Spanish Valley and the city of Moab. Watershed, cultural, and riparian values (especially in Mill Creek Canyon and its tributaries, such as Rill Creek and Burkholder Draw) are also identified as a concern. In addition, the entire allotment is crucial deer winter range. Between the Creeks: This allotment contains a portion of the Mill Creek watershed, which is the municipal watershed for Spanish Valley and the city of Moab. Watershed, cultural, and riparian values (especially in Mill Creek Canyon and its tributaries) are also identified as a concern. In addition, the entire allotment is crucial deer winter range, and competition between deer and livestock for both forage and space occurs in this allotment. Bogart: This allotment is within the Bookcliffs. The area is unfragmented, high quality crucial deer and/or elk winter range, and contains riparian habitat (especially along Nash Wash) and watershed values. The 1985 Grand RMP identified the need to control accelerated erosion, stream channel downcutting, braiding, bank destabilization and salinity discharge from Greater Sagers Wash Watershed. Wildlife values include mule deer, elk and pronghorn, as well as potential Mexican spotted owl habitat, sensitive raptors and bald eagle. Much of the allotment experienced a catastrophic fire in 2002. There is limited accessibility to this allotment. Diamond: This allotment is within the Bookcliffs. The area is unfragmented, high quality crucial deer and/or elk winter range, and contains riparian habitat (especially along Diamond Creek) and watershed values. The 1985 Grand RMP identified the need to control accelerated erosion, stream channel downcutting, braiding, and bank destabilization. Wildlife values include mule deer, elk and pronghorn, as well as potential Mexican spotted owl habitat, sensitive raptors and bald eagle. Much of the allotment experienced a catastrophic fire in 2002. There is limited accessibility to this allotment. Cottonwood: This allotment is within the Bookcliffs. The area is unfragmented, high quality crucial deer and/or elk winter range, and contains riparian habitat (especially along Diamond Creek) as well as watershed values. The 1985 Grand RMP identified the need to control accelerated erosion, stream channel downcutting, braiding, and bank destabilization. Wildlife values include mule deer, elk and pronghorn, as well as potential Mexican spotted owl habitat, sensitive raptors and bald eagle. Much of the allotment experienced a catastrophic fire in 2002. There is limited accessibility to this allotment. Pear Park: This allotment is within the Bookcliffs. The area is unfragmented, high quality crucial deer and/or elk winter range. Wildlife values include mule deer, elk and pronghorn, as well as potential Mexican spotted owl habitat, sensitive raptors and bald eagle. There is very limited accessibility to this allotment, and no water or potential access to water. Spring Creek: This allotment is within the Dolores Triangle, and is high quality crucial mule deer and/or elk winter range. There are also sensitive raptors, potential Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, and potential MSO habitat. Mill Creek: this allotment is in the South Fork of Mill Creek, a perennial stream. The area covered by the allotment is rich in cultural and riparian resources. The density and types of

3-43

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.7 Livestock Grazing

cultural resources in this area are critical to advance professional knowledge on the prehistoric use of perennial streams in the desert environment of southeast Utah. Mill Creek is especially known for the density of its rock art. This rock art is found in alcoves, which are also favored by cattle. Cattle clustering in these alcoves create an adverse chemical mix from body wastes that is detrimental to the rock art. The Mill Creek allotment receives high recreation use from four wheel drive enthusiasts, hikers and bicyclists. The riparian area of Mill Creek is one of the richest in the entire MPA. Professor Valley: This allotment is along Utah Highway 128, which has over 300,000 vehicles per year, mostly out-of-town visitors. There are many recreation sites within the allotment, which results in conflicts between people and livestock, especially along the highway itself. In addition, the allotment is habitat for desert bighorn sheep (lambing), bald eagle winter range, Southwestern willow flycatcher, the threatened and endangered fish of the Colorado River, peregrine falcon and other sensitive raptors. River: This allotment is along Utah Highway 128, which has over 300,000 vehicles per year, mostly out-of-town visitors. There are many recreation sites within the allotment, which results in conflicts between people and livestock, especially along the highway itself. In addition, the allotment is habitat for desert bighorn sheep (lambing), bald eagle winter range, Southwestern willow flycatcher, the threatened and endangered fish of the Colorado River, peregrine falcon and other sensitive raptors. Ida Gulch: This allotment is along Utah Highway 128, which has over 300,000 vehicles per year, mostly out-of-town visitors. There are many recreation sites within the allotment, which results in conflicts between people and livestock, especially along the highway itself. In addition, the allotment is habitat for bald eagle winter range, Southwestern willow flycatcher, the threatened and endangered fish of the Colorado River, peregrine falcon and other sensitive raptors. Castle Valley: This allotment is within the Castle Valley sole source aquifer. It is also in Mexican spotted owl habitat, and within crucial mule deer winter range. In addition, portions of the following allotments have been identified as allotments of concern: A portion of Arth's Pasture: This allotment is on Poison Spider Mesa, a popular recreation destination for bicycling and four wheel driving. In addition, there is competition for forage, space and water between livestock and desert bighorn sheep. In addition, the area is habitat for sensitive raptors and is Mexican spotted owl habitat. A portion of Beaver Creek (1,351 acres in the upper part of Beaver Creek canyon): The upper portions of Beaver Creek have riparian habitat. The watershed contains Colorado cutthroat trout (a sensitive species). The area is also crucial winter habitat for mule deer and/or elk, as well as bald eagle wintering habitat. A portion of the Kane Springs allotment (558 acres along the road from the Colorado River to SITLA land in Grand County: This area along a busy county road (175,000 vehicles per year)

3-44

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.7 Livestock Grazing

receives heavy recreational traffic. The corridor is confined, making recreation-livestock traffic encounters likely. In addition, it is Mexican spotted owl critical habitat. A portion of the Professor Valley allotment (400 acres along Highway 128 between Hittle and Dewey Campgrounds: This area is a narrow strip of land between the Colorado River and Utah Highway 128 (which receives 300,000 vehicles per year). There are traffic issues along this stretch of the highway; the Utah Department of Transportation has put cattle guards along this portion of the highway in order to reduce livestock-vehicle collisions. In addition, the area is habitat for the threatened and endangered fish of the Colorado River, as well as bald eagle wintering, Southwestern willow flycatcher and sensitive raptor habitat.

3.7.4 RESOURCE DEMAND
The resource demand is considered to be the amount of grazing by both domestic livestock and wildlife. However, for the purposes of the grazing section, the resource demand discussed will be limited to grazing by domestic livestock. • The resource demand by domestic livestock can be considered the sum total of permitted active use (currently 107,931 AUMs) and suspended livestock use (currently 28,896 AUMs). This amounts to a current total resource demand by domestic livestock of 136,827 AUMs. The total AUMs of active use listed in the 1982 Analysis of Management Situation was 112,140. This compares to the current active use of 107,931 AUMs (a 4% reduction; BLM 1982). A dramatic shift from sheep use to cattle has occurred since the 1982 Analysis of Management Situation was written. In 1982, the active sheep and cattle use was 49,338 AUMs (44%) and 62,802 AUMs (56%) respectively. This compares to the current active sheep and cattle use of 18,466 AUMs (17%) and 87,097 AUMs (81%), respectively.

•

•

3.8 MINERALS
The MPA is known to have significant occurrences of mineral resources, as noted in a variety of studies. In 2000, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directed the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, to conduct an inventory of oil and gas resources beneath Federal lands. The inventory was intended to 1) identify reserve estimates (prepared by the USGS) of oil and gas resources underlying these lands, and 2) identify the extent and nature of any restrictions or impediments to the development of such resources. As a result, in 2003 a multi-agency effort produced a "Scientific Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands' Oil and Gas Resource and Reserves and the Extent and Nature of Restrictions or Impediments to their Development." The information in this report was utilized in assessing the oil and gas resources within the MPA. In addition to the EPCA study, which is a very large-scale portrayal of oil and gas information, the BLM further assessed the oil and gas resources of the planning area based on more sitespecific data. These data included geologic reports, oil and gas plays, historic exploration and

3-45

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

development, and well records. Numerous data sources were utilized, such as the USGS, the Utah Geological Survey (UGS), the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM), BLM reports and information, and industry records. All the data used to assess the oil and gas resources of the planning area are compiled in the Mineral Potential Report for the MFO (BLM 2005e). The Mineral Potential Report (BLM 2005e) provides an assessment of all the mineral resources within the MPA. It provides a description of the geology and the mineral resource, a summary of exploration and development, a classification of the occurrence and development potential of each resource, and a projection of future development. The occurrence potential of each mineral resource is classified using the ratings system provided in BLM Manual 3031 (BLM 1985e), as shown in Table 3.12. The development potential specified for each mineral resource is based on considerations such as mineral occurrence potential; historical development; and the commodity price supply, demand, and other market factors. Table 3.12. Ratings for Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential and Certainty
Rating Description Level of Potential Ratings O L M The geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, and the lack of mineral occurrences do not indicate potential for the accumulation of mineral resources. The geologic environment and the inferred geologic processes indicate low potential of accumulation of mineral resources. The geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, and the reported mineral occurrences or valid geochemical/geophysical anomaly, and the known mines or deposits indicate moderate potential for accumulation of mineral resources. The geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, and the reported mineral occurrences or valid geochemical/geophysical anomaly, and the known mines or deposits indicate high potential for accumulation of mineral resources. The known mines and deposits do not have to be within the area that is being classified, but have to be within the same type of geologic environment. Mineral potential not determined due to lack of useful data. Level of Certainty Ratings A B C D The available data are insufficient and/or cannot be considered as direct or indirect evidence to support or refute the possible existence of mineral resources within the respective area. The available data provide indirect evidence to support or refute the possible existence of mineral resources. The available data provide direct evidence but are quantitatively minimal to support or refute the possible existence of mineral resources. The available data provide abundant direct and indirect evidence to support or refute the possible existence of mineral resources.

H

ND

3.8.1 LEASABLE MINERALS
The exploration and development of leasable minerals is accomplished in several stages of activity. The first stage (land categorization) involves determining which public domain lands

3-46

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

should be leased and under what conditions. The second stage is leasing. The third stage includes exploration, development, and production operations. The BLM has developed four allocations (i.e., categories) to be applied to all public lands to indicate availability for oil and gas leasing. The first three allocations contain stipulations that pertain to how oil and gas activities would be conducted. The fourth allocation precludes oil and gas leasing altogether. These allocations also apply, where appropriate and practical, to other surface-disturbing activities and occupancy associated with land-use authorizations. The allocations are described as follows: • • Standard Stipulations – Areas identified with Standard Stipulations are open to exploration and development subject to standard lease terms and conditions. Timing Limitations and Controlled Surface Use (minor constraints) – Areas identified with these stipulations are open to exploration and development with relatively minor constraints. A Timing Limitation would preclude activities during specified timeframes to protect resource values such as wildlife species. A Controlled Surface Use stipulation would require proposals for oil and gas activities to be authorized according to only the controls or constraints specified. No Surface Occupancy (major constraint) – Areas identified as No Surface Occupancy are open to exploration and development, but with the major constraint of precluding oil and gas activities that utilize the surface of the land. Closed – Areas identified as Closed are not available for oil and gas leasing.

•

•

3.8.1.1 OIL AND GAS 3.8.1.1.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW As described in the 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources (Gautier et al. 1996), the USGS has delineated oil and gas plays in the Uinta-Piceance and Paradox Basins, which fall within the northern one-third and southern two-thirds of the MPA, respectively. The 1995 assessment represents the latest delineation of oil and gas plays in the basins performed by the USGS (BLM 2005e). In 2003, the USGS published the results of a more recent assessment of the petroleum systems of the Uinta-Piceance Basin that was conducted pursuant to the EPCA and was based on the total petroleum system rather than the plays concept (USGS 2003). However, because no similar assessment has been conducted for the Paradox Basin, to maintain consistency in describing oil and gas resources throughout the MPA, the 1995 data are used. 3.8.1.1.1.1 Paradox Basin Three USGS plays of the Paradox Basin occur in the MPA: the Buried Fault Block Play (USGS Play 2101), the Fractured Interbed Play (USGS Play 2103), and the Salt Anticline Flank Play (USGS Play 2105). Each of these plays has producing oil and gas fields from its individual reservoirs in the MPA (Morgan 1993; Gautier et al. 1996; Huffman 1996a, 1996b).

3-47

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

The largest of the six oil and gas accumulations in Buried Fault Block Play in the MPA is the Lisbon field, which has produced approximately 43 million barrels of oil and 250 billion cubic feet of gas. Within the Fractured Interbed Play, the Pennsylvanian shales and mudstones, the Cane Creek Shale reservoirs, and other organic-rich shales in the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation like the Chimney Rock, Gothic, and Hovenweep Shales are targets for development (BLM 2005e). The Salt Anticline Flank Play occurs along the flanks of the northwest-trending salt anticlines. This play has been confirmed with the development of wells targeting the Honaker Trail Formation of the Hermosa Group at the Big Indian field and sands of the Cutler Group in southwestern Colorado. 3.8.1.1.1.2 Uinta-Piceance Basin Three Uinta-Piceance Basin plays delineated by the USGS (Gautier et al. 1996) occur in the northern portion of the MPA: the Cretaceous Conventional Play (USGS Play 2003), the Cretaceous Dakota to Jurassic Play (USGS Play 2004), and the hypothetical Sego Coalbed Methane Play (USGS Play 2051; discussed in Section 3.8.1.2, Coalbed Methane). The Cretaceous Conventional Play includes sandstone reservoirs in the Mancos Shale and the Mesaverde Group strata in the northern part of the MPA (Gautier et al. 1996). The Cretaceous Dakota to Triassic Play has been modified from the one defined by Gautier and others (1996) and now includes new reservoirs defined in the 2003 USGS reassessment of the Uinta Basin petroleum systems (Johnson 2003). The play reservoirs have been expanded to include Lower Jurassic and Triassic sandstones not included in the 1995 assessment. The play primarily yields gas in conventional reservoirs; however, oil is also present, particularly in the Morrison Formation (Johnson 2003). 3.8.1.1.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION The MPA has had a long history of oil and gas exploration. Records from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM 2004) indicate that approximately 2,027 petroleum wells have been drilled in the MPA from 1891 through 2004, of which 292 are currently producing, 265 are inactive but capable of producing, 7 are injection wells, and 1,470 are plugged and abandoned (some of which may have been producers at one time). This amounts to approximately 18 wells drilled per year for the MPA for the period between 1891 and 2004. However, drilling activity between 1991 and 2004 occurred at a slower rate than in the past. Records from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM 2004) for the period from 1991 through 2004 indicate that drilling activity in the MPA ranged from 0 to 12 wells drilled per year and averaged about 5 wells per year. Breaking down the 5 wells per year by drilling result shows that, on average, one of those wells was an oil well, 2 were gas wells, and one was plugged and abandoned as a dry hole. The remaining well was split between those categories.

3-48

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

Recently, the number of wells drilled has increased significantly due to higher energy prices. In 2005 there were 28 wells drilled and in 2006 there were 25 wells drilled (UDOGM). For 2007 the number of wells drilled is projected to be about 50. All but one of the 34 historical and active oil and gas fields throughout the MPA are shown on Map 3-1, Moab Planning Area and Oil and Gas Fields. Discovered in 1925, the Greater Cisco is the oldest field in the MPA. A couple other fields near the Greater Cisco field were also discovered in 1928, but only one field was discovered from 1929 through 1954. Many of the larger fields in the planning area, including Lisbon field, were discovered in the 10-year period between 1955 and 1964, when 15 of the 34 fields in the MPA were located. Development activity in the MPA was minimal from 1965 through 1974, and only one new oil field was discovered during this period. The period from 1975 through 1984 saw modest activity, with a total of 6 new fields discovered. The 10-year period from 1985 through 1994 was another relatively active period for oil and gas in the MPA, and 11 more fields were discovered, mostly during the last five years. From 1995 through 2004, no new fields were discovered in the MPA, although some limited exploration has continued. Lisbon Field, which straddles the BLM Moab-Monticello planning area boundary, is the only large field (50 to 100 million barrels of oil and 0.5 to 1.0 tcf of gas) currently in the MPA. Within the MPA, the average size of an oil field would be classified as tiny (0.1 to 1.0 million barrels), and the average gas field would be classified as very small (0.01 to 0.10 tcf). Disregarding the large Lisbon field and the Greater Cisco field, which is the combination of a number of smaller fields, an average producing field in the MPA consists of 10 wells. The estimated acreage for the existing wells, roads, and pipelines is 8,500 acres, or 15 acres of surface disturbance per well. Table 3.13 presents the cumulative production data for the 34 oil and gas fields—including 20 active fields, 10 inactive fields, and 4 abandoned fields—within the MPA (UDOGM 2004). These data indicate that the MPA has been a petroleum-producing region, accounting for over 14% of the total gas and over 4% of the total oil produced in Utah. Oil and gas production generally has occurred in several distinct regions of the MPA; for convenience, these areas are referred to as the southern, northern, and central MPA. The southern part of the planning area covers a portion of the fold and fault belt of the Paradox Basin and encompasses the Salt Wash, Big Flat-Hatch Point, and Lisbon Valley areas. During the past 15 years, a total of three wells have been drilled in the Salt Wash area, and all of these wells have been plugged and reclaimed (McClure, BLM, personal communication, 2003). A new application for a permit to drill (APD) has been filed for a well sited in Section 9 of T23S, R17E. The Big Flat-Hatch Point area encompasses eleven oil and gas fields that produce from reservoirs from both the Buried Fault Block and the Fractured Interbed Plays. Oil and gas shows have also been noted from the Moenkopi Formation, the Cedar Mesa Sandstone of the Cutler Group, the Honaker Trail Formation, the Ismay and Desert Creek zones of the Paradox Formation, the Pinkerton Trail Formation, and the upper section of the Elbert Formation (Jackson 2000). Four seismic exploration programs have also been completed in the Big FlatHatch Point area over the past 15 years (McClure, BLM, personal communication, 2003).

3-49

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

Petroleum production for the Lisbon Valley area comes mainly from one active (Lisbon) and two inactive (Big Indian [north] and Little Valley) fields tapping Buried Fault Block Play reservoirs. Initial completion at the Lisbon field in the Devonian McCracken Sandstone Member of the Elbert Formation yielded 587 barrels of oil per day (Parker 1981). Later testing in the shallower Mississippian Leadville Limestone resulted in the discovery of a large oil and gas accumulation, which has ultimately resulted in approximately 90% of the oil produced from the Lisbon field.

3-50

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

Table 3.13. Cumulative Oil and Gas Production in the MPA, by Field, as of December 31, 2003
Field Name Bar X Big Flat Big Flat West Big Indian (north) Big Indian (south) Blaze Canyon Book Cliffs Bryson Canyon Bushy Dark Canyon Diamond Ridge East Canyon Greater Cisco Hatch Point Hell Roaring Kane Creek Left Hand Canyon Lion Mesa Lisbon* Little Valley Long Canyon Mancos Flat Middle Canyon Park Road USGS Play Number 2003 2101 2103 2101 2105 2003 2003 2003/04 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2101 2103 2103 2003 2103 2101 2101 2103 2003 2003 2103 Field Type Gas Oil NA Gas Gas Oil Gas Gas Oil Gas Gas Gas Gas Oil Oil Gas Oil Oil Gas Gas Oil Oil Gas Oil Producing Formation Morrison Leadville-Cane Creek Paradox Leadville Honaker Trail Navajo Dakota Dakota, Mesaverde Mancos-Dakota Dakota Dakota-Cedar Mtn Dakota-Morrison Cedar Mtn Leadville Paradox Paradox Entrada Ismay Leadville-McCracken Leadville Paradox Mancos Dakota Paradox Status Active Active Inactive Inactive Inactive Inactive Inactive Active Active Active Abandoned Active Active Inactive Active Abandoned Active Inactive Active Inactive Active Inactive Active Active Discovery Year 1948 1955 1993 1961 1958 1976 1957 1928 1977 1988 1960 1960 1925 1993 1992 1925 1972 1984 1961 1959 1962 1981 1988 1991 Active Wells 40 3 1 1 1 2 2 40 2 2 0 14 260 1 1 0 2 3 23 1 1 1 3 1 Cumulative Oil Production 1,943 843,581 0 194 178,160 36,672 0 6,563 38,528 0 0 7,206 1,902,111 4,607 536,743 1,887 96,640 1,624 51,076,593 137,848 1,114,079 16,733 247 301,233 Cumulative Natural Gas Production 45,498,423 790,210 0 1,995,461 26,420,267 4,470 438,418 23,062,513 3,507 767,003 466,479 2,928,022 24,564,425 10,731 497,672 25,000 557,839 0 761,560,184 17,311,939 1,164,983 0 1,512,016 288,611 Cumulative Water Production 4,622 122,124 0 36,122 98,446 141,442 0 2,659 13,189 16 0 1,576,143 276,172 259 32,744 NA 144,461 8 49,512,009 742,951 451,157 53 0 22,023

3-51

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

Table 3.13. Cumulative Oil and Gas Production in the MPA, by Field, as of December 31, 2003
Field Name Pear Park Salt Wash San Arroyo Shafer Canyon South Pine Ridge Stateline Ten Mile Westwater Wilson Canyon Winter Camp TOTALS
*Partially located in the Monticello Planning Area to the south. Notes: The Gold Bar field was abandoned so long ago that its production is not reflected in recent UDOGM production books or in this table. This table also does not include the production from one small, unnamed Wildcat oil field, which is included with all other fields named Wildcat in UDOGM records.

USGS Play Number 2003 2101 2003 2103 2105 2003 2103 2003/04 2103 2003

Field Type Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Gas Oil Gas Gas Gas

Producing Formation Dakota-Cedar Mtn Leadville Dakota Paradox Hernosa Group? Dakota Paradox Dakota, Mesaverde Paradox Dakota

Status Active Active Active Abandoned Active Active Inactive Active Active Abandoned

Discovery Year 1963 1961 1962 1963 1981 1928 1990 1957 1955 1982

Active Wells 1 8 103 0 1 16 1 27 2 0 564

Cumulative Oil Production 0 1,555,787 181,351 67,554 7,194 10,472 962 617,478 111,248 0 58,855,238

Cumulative Natural Gas Production 325,603 11,746,434 151,472,679 63,805 682,395 12,887,318 0 36,300,009 1,954,793 13,673 1,125,314,882

Cumulative Water Production 0 6,022,091 16,662 1,408 174 3,639 599 299,665 10,334 70 59,531,242

Source: Modified from Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (2004), oil and water production in barrels, gas production in million cubic feet (mcf).

3-52

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

Minor production has also been recorded for Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation reservoirs of the Fractured Interbed Play at the Wilson Canyon field, as well as from Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail Formation reservoirs of the Salt Anticline Flank Play at the Pine Ridge South and Big Indian (south) fields (see Table 3.13). Four seismic exploration programs were completed in the Lisbon Valley area over the past 15 years, and four new wells were drilled but eventually abandoned as dry holes without production (McClure, BLM, personal communication, 2003). Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and helium have also been produced from the Lisbon field from McCracken and Leadville reservoirs (Eric Jones, BLM – MFO, personal communication, July 2003). The northern part of the MPA, within the Uinta Basin region, encompasses the Greater Cisco, Book Cliffs, and Roan Cliffs areas, which produce predominantly gas but some oil from various Jurassic through Cretaceous-age reservoirs of the Dakota-Triassic and Cretaceous Conventional Plays. The Greater Cisco area/field consists of a number of individual fields. Within the Book Cliffs area, 15 oil and gas fields produce primarily from the Dakota Sandstone, or various combinations of that reservoir with reservoirs in the Mancos Shale, Cedar Mountain Formation, Morrison Formation, or the Entrada Sandstone. Recent successful gas completions in these deeper reservoirs of the Cretaceous Dakota to Jurassic Play on Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation lands north of the MPA have stimulated new interest in the potential of this play (Eckels et al. 2005), and gas potential may also exist in the Cretaceous Conventional Play in the northwestern portion of the Book Cliffs area. The central part of the MPA encompasses the Eastern Paradox area, which has seen limited exploration and development activity. Only two fields were producing in this area as of the end of 2003 (UDOGM 2004). One of these is the Blaze Canyon oil field; the other is a wildcat that produced 198 barrels of oil before being shut-in (UDOGM 2004). 3.8.1.1.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The three plays in the southern Paradox Basin portion of the MPA (the Buried Fault Block Play, the Fractured Interbed Play, and the Salt Flank Anticline Play) cover the same area and are rated as having high (H) occurrence potential for oil and gas resources with a certainty level of D. There is a low (L) potential with a C level of certainty for oil and gas occurrence within the Uncompahgre Uplift area and the area around the La Sal Mountains. The Dakota-Triassic Play and the Cretaceous Conventional Play, in the northern Uinta Basin portion of the MPA, have been rated as having an H occurrence potential with a D level of certainty. Based on analysis of various factors, most of the area within the five conventional oil and gas plays in the MPA have been rated as H for oil and gas development potential and development is likely to occur in these areas over the next 15 years. Areas with a L geologic development potential for oil and gas are the Uncompahgre Uplift and the La Sal Mountains. Other areas in the MPA given an L development potential are those areas administratively closed to mineral leasing and disposal, such as WSAs (Map 3-2, Moab Planning Area Composite Oil and Gas Development Potential).

3-53

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

3.8.1.2 COALBED METHANE 3.8.1.2.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW The Uinta Basin Sego Coalbed Methane Play (USGS Play 2051, Gautier et al. 1996) encompasses the Sego coal field in the northern portion of the MPA (Map 3-3, Moab Planning Area Coalbed Methane-Development Potential); it is a hypothetical play, since there has been no production from these coals to-date. The play is mostly untested. The gas content of the Nelsen-Formation coal beds in the Sego coal field is estimated by the UGS to range from 50 to 300 standard cubic feet per ton (scf/ton). Figuring that 100,000 acres of the northern portion of the MPA are underlain by Neslen Formation coal from 1,000 to 5,000 feet deep, and that the average net coal thickness for this area is 12.5 feet, the total coal resource would be 2.25 billion tons (1,800 tons per acre-foot). Using the gas content range listed above, the Neslen coals could contain a coalbed methane resource ranging from 0.11 to 0.68 tcf of gas in place in the MPA portion of the Sego Coalbed Methane Play. The USGS (Gautier et al. 1996) also provided coalbed gas data for the Sego Play (BLM 2005e) and estimated that ultimate recoverable gas reserves would range from 0.08 to 0.60 tcf, or very similar to the UGS estimate. However, it is important to note that gas in place is not the same as recoverable gas reserves. Cumulative data from the UGS and Doelling (1972a, 1979), indicate that coals of the Nelsen Formation at depths of less than 1,000 feet are only moderately gassy. Examination of the coal quality of the near-surface samples (UGS unpublished data) shows that the coals could hold 280– 380 cubic feet of gas per ton and, thus, are undersaturated near the surface. More saturated reserves are anticipated between 1,000 and 5,000 feet. 3.8.1.2.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION Only a few coalbed methane wells have been drilled in the Uinta Basin Sego Coalbed Methane Play through 2004. There have been no wells specifically drilled to test the coalbed gas potential of the MPA to date. Data suggest that coal beds fully saturated with gas (and attractive for development) may exist between 1,000 and 5,000 feet. Some of the Neslen coal deposits prospective for coalbed methane development also occur in an area of existing oil and gas development, which provides nearby pipeline infrastructure to transport any coalbed gas found. CDX Rockies, LLC, a small independent petroleum company, has conducted recent coal coring and desorption tests in Uintah County to the north of the MPA. Although methane content data has not been released, the test results are reported to be encouraging (BLM 2005e). 3.8.1.2.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The hypothetical Uinta Basin Sego Coalbed Methane Play has been subdivided into various levels of occurrence potential. The occurrence potential for coalbed methane is high (H) with a rating of C for certainty in the Neslen Formation of the Sego coal field where the net coal in the formation is more than 8 feet thick, moderate (M) with a C certainty rating where the net coal is 4-8 feet thick, and low (L) with a C certainty rating where the coal is less than 4 feet thick.

3-54

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

The development potential for coalbed methane of the northeastern portion of the Sego coal field, outside the WSAs, is ranked as H because there are thick coal deposits present and existing oil and gas infrastructure present. Development is likely to occur in these areas over the next 15 years. Low (L) development potential is assigned to the portion of the Sego coal field covered by thin coal and WSAs, and to the La Sal coal field. A development potential of M was assigned to areas outside the WSAs with only 4–8 feet of net coal in the Neslen Formation, or small areas between the WSAs that had thicker coal (Map 3-3, Moab Planning Area Coalbed MethaneDevelopment Potential). 3.8.1.3 COAL 3.8.1.3.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW Along the Book Cliffs to the east of the Green River, in what is known as the Sego coal field, coal beds in the Upper Cretaceous Neslen Formation of the Mesaverde Group are exposed along the cliffs. These coal beds generally extend at least ten miles and dip into the subsurface of the Uinta Basin, and their quality is relatively good compared to the coals in the Book Cliffs and Wasatch Plateau fields of central Utah. Four coal zones have been identified in the Neslen Formation in this area: the Palisade, Ballard, Chesterfield, and Carbonera coal zones, in ascending stratigraphic order (Doelling 1972a). The thickest and most extensive coal beds occur in the Carbonera zone in the far northeastern part of the MPA. In 1978, the BLM and USGS collaborated to designate the Thompson Known Recoverable Coal Resource Area (KRCRA), which consists of about 41,325 acres of the Sego coal field located in parts of T20S, R19E, R20E, and R21E, and T21S, R19E and R20E. More recent analysis by the UGS of oil and gas well logs penetrating the Neslen Formation indicates that the Thompson KRCRA only covers the southwestern one-third of the actual recoverable coal-bearing lands of the Sego coal field within the MPA. Doelling (1972a) estimated that there are 294 million short tons of coal in the Sego field, but his resource estimate is mainly limited to the coal in the Thompson KRCRA and only includes about 8 million tons of hypothetical coal resources along the Book Cliffs in the northeast MPA. Notably, some of the most attractive coal deposits in the Sego coal field are located outside the established KRCRA in the northeast portion of the MPA where there is active oil and gas development. The La Sal coal field occurs in the southeast portion of the MPA. Here, the coal is thin and high in ash and sulfur content and, thus, not as attractive for mining (Doelling 1972b; Gloyn et al. 1995). A KRCRA has not been defined for this coal field (Doelling 1972b). 3.8.1.3.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION There has been limited production in the Sego coal field in the MPA occurring since 1898 (Doelling 1972a). Almost 2.7 million tons of coal have been produced from this field, primarily between 1912 and 1954, and primarily from one mine. The remaining small mines have produced only minor amounts of coal, primarily for ranch use (Doelling et al. 1979). There are no currently active coal mines in the MPA, but the relatively low sulfur and ash contents of the coal and the close proximity of the Sego field to roads and railroads make the coal here attractive for mining at some time in the future.
3-55

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

3.8.1.3.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The area where the Cretaceous Mesaverde Group is exposed in the Sego coal field has been rated as high (H) for coal occurrence potential with D rating for certainty. The Dakota Sandstone La Sal coal field is also rated H for occurrence potential with a certainty rating of D. Because of the presence of WSAs and potential conflicts with existing oil and gas developments, the coal deposits of the MPA are rated as having low (L) development potential. The La Sal coal field is rated as having L development potential due to the thin beds and poor quality of its coal deposits. Development is not anticipated in the Sego and La Sal coal fields over the next 15 years (Map 34, Moab Planning Area Coal Deposit-Development Potential). 3.8.1.4 POTASH AND SALT 3.8.1.4.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW Within the Paradox Basin portion of the MPA, potash (potassium-bearing) deposits, comprising primarily salt, sylvite, and carnallite, are hosted by the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation. Saline potash mineralization is limited to an area totaling approximately 2,800 square miles (Dames & Moore 1978) in the northeastern half of the basin. Both sylvite and carnallite occur in varying proportions throughout most potash deposits, but sylvite is dominant in those horizons under economic consideration (Hite 1960; Dames & Moore 1978; Gloyn et al. 1995). Using a cutoff grade of 14% K2O, Patterson (1989) estimates that known resources of K2O potash contain 254 million tons, while inferred resources are estimated at 161 million tons. The recovery of salt in the MPA is exclusively a by-product of potash solution mining. Salt by itself is not considered economic to mine in the MPA because abundant, less expensive sources are available elsewhere. Most of the interest in potash and salt deposits in the Paradox Basin has been concentrated in the fold and fault belt, where continuous potash beds are relatively close to the surface. The only commercial production of potash and by-product salt in the Paradox Basin (Moab Salt Company) has occurred on the Cane Creek anticline. However, other potentially valuable deposits are known to occur in the MPA. These include the Lisbon Valley area, the Seven Mile area, and the Ten Mile area. In 1960, the U.S. Geological Survey classified the Lisbon Valley area, the Seven Mile area, and the Cane Creek area as Known Potash Leasing Areas (KPLAs), or areas where potentially valuable deposits of potash are known to exist. There also appears to be sufficient resource data to define the Ten Mile area as a KPLA (BLM 2005e; Map 2-6, Known Potash Leasing Areas). 3.8.1.4.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION Potash deposits in the Paradox Basin were initially discovered during the exploration for oil and gas between 1924 and 1944. Based on these initial discoveries, further potash exploration concentrated in Cane Creek, Seven Mile, and Lisbon Valley and contributed to the classification of these KPLAs in 1960 (Hite 1960). In the 1960s, underground mining operations were planned in the Lisbon Valley KPLA, but they were never fully developed due to technological and logistical complications (Merrell 1979). Leases within the Seven Mile KPLA have also occurred since designation of the area as a KPLA (Merrell 1979). There are currently 13 prospecting permit applications in the MPA.

3-56

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

Two companies in particular have shown and continue to show some interest in the potash deposits of the MPA. Buttes Resources drilled seven exploratory holes for potash deposits in the Ten Mile area in 1978. In 1984, they expressed interest in developing the area via solution mining based on the 1978 exploration, but the project was abandoned (BLM 2005e). The company then acquired 4 inactive preference right leases and 13 prospecting permit applications for potash in the Ten Mile area. Buttes Resources has recently transferred its holdings in the leases and permit applications to Reunion Resources, which has expressed some interest in conducting a modest amount of exploration and possibly a pilot test plant for solution mining in this area in the unspecified future (Denice Swanke, BLM – MFO, personal communication 2005). Moab Salt LLC's Cane Creek Mine, in the Cane Creek KLPA, is and has been the sole producer of potash and salt in the Paradox Basin since 1964. This solution mining operation is located on both private and state lands on the crest of the Cane Creek anticline. Almost all production has been from a zone of Salt Cycle #5 of the Paradox Formation. Production in 2000 was approximately 60,000 tons of potash per year, with a by-product of 210,000 tons of halite per year (BLM 2005e). 3.8.1.4.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The three KPLAs (Lisbon Valley area, the Seven Mile area, and the Cane Creek area) and the Tenmile area have been classified as high (H) for occurrence potential for potash and salt with a D level of certainty. Development is likely to occur in the Tenmile area within the next 15 years. One area around the La Sal Mountains igneous intrusive has been rated as having low (L) potash and salt occurrence potential, with a C level of certainty. The remainder of the Paradox Basin area has been rated as moderate (M) potash and salt occurrence potential with a C level of certainty (Map 3-5, Moab Planning Area Potash and Salt Deposit-Development Potential).

3.8.2 LOCATABLE MINERALS
Locatable minerals comprise the base and precious metal ores, ferrous metal ores, and certain classes of industrial minerals. Developers of these minerals stake a mining claim (location) over the deposit and then acquire the necessary permits to explore or mine. Operations for locatable minerals are not allowed in areas expressly identified as not available by law (e.g., wilderness areas) or in areas withdrawn from these operations. 3.8.2.1 URANIUM-VANADIUM 3.8.2.1.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW An important locatable commodity in the MPA is sediment-hosted uranium. It is usually found intimately associated with vanadium, and sometimes copper, because of these elements' mutual chemical affinities. Uranium-vanadium deposits in the MPA are generally found in the Moss Back Member of the Triassic Chinle Formation and the Salt Wash Member of the Jurassic Morrison Formation. Deposits in the Salt Wash Member are generally larger reserves, higher

3-57

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

grades, and more closely clustered (Johnson and Thordarson 1959; Chenoweth 1981, 1996). Although the Chinle and Morrison Formations are predominantly composed of shale (lowenergy muds), it is the sandstone and conglomerate units (high-energy fluvial channel deposits) in each that host the uranium-vanadium mineralization. In addition to these Mesozoic deposits, the late Paleozoic Cedar Mesa Sandstone of the Permian Cutler Group contains some minor uranium-vanadium deposits (a result of an unconformity with the Chinle Formation), and some of these have had historical mining production in the MPA. 3.8.2.1.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION Due to the recent rise in uranium prices, there is currently an increased amount of interest in uranium exploration in the MPA. Regionally, an estimated 4.2 million tons of ore reserves remain in the Four Corners region. Approximately 57% of these reserves are hosted in the Morrison, 39% in the Chinle Formation, and 4% in the Cutler Group (Johnson and Thordarson 1959; Gloyn et al. 1995). Although uranium deposits in the MPA had been mined for over 90 years, first for their radium content and then for their vanadium co-product, it was the "Uranium Boom" beginning in the late 1940s that lead to large-scale extraction of mineral in the early 1950s (Chenoweth 1996). Exploration drilling was still being conducted as late as the 1970s to decipher the configuration of existing deposits and delineate new discoveries. However, a national and international trend of declining uranium and vanadium demand and prices and economics brought on by socio-political factors, international oversupply, and competition from lower cost producers began in the 1980s (Chenoweth 1996; BLM 2005e). The MPA's last mines and mills closed in 1990. Historical uranium mining has been conducted over much of the southern half of the MPA. Mines developed in the Chinle Formation produced 92% of the ore between the early 1950s and the mid 1960s. However, by the mid 1970s, production from the Morrison Formation overtook and slightly exceeded that of the Chinle ($500 million vs. $600 million, respectively). Table 3.14 lists the 7 mining districts and 18 mining areas in the MPA and the uranium host deposits for each. Map 3-6, Moab Planning Area Uranium/Vanadium Deposit-Development Potential depicts these mining districts and mining areas. Table 3.15 provides a summary of historical mining production in the MPA. Table 3.14. Historical Locations and Hosts of Uranium and Vanadium Deposits in the MPA, by Mining District
Mining District (Mining Areas) Salt Wash Moss Back Member/ Member/ Morrison Chinle Formation Formation Major Minor Permian Cutler Group Other

Gateway (Buckhorn Mesa-Scharf Mesa, Polar Mesa-Beaver Mesa) Inter-river (Mineral Canyon, Inter-river, Seven Mile Canyon) La Sal (La Sal, La Sal Creek)

Brushy Basin Member/ Morrison Formation (Minor) Minor Moenkopi Formation (Minor)

Major Only

3-58

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

Table 3.14. Historical Locations and Hosts of Uranium and Vanadium Deposits in the MPA, by Mining District
Mining District (Mining Areas) Salt Wash Moss Back Member/ Member/ Morrison Chinle Formation Formation Major Only Permian Cutler Group Minor Other

Lisbon Valley* Moab East (Browns Hole, Brumley Ridge, Upper Cane Creek, Wilson Mesa) Moab West (Indian Creek, Lockhart Canyon, Lower Cane Creek) Thompson (Dewey, Klondike Ridge-Courthouse Wash, Ten Mile Canyon, Yellow Cat) Only

"lower member"/Chinle Formation (Major)

Major

Minor

Sources: Merrell 1979; Chenoweth 1996; Sprinkel 1999; Gloyn, unpublished report 2004. * Also known as Big Indian Wash mining area (Gloyn et al. 1995).

Table 3.15. Historical Uranium Grade and Production in the MPA, by Mining District¹
Mining District Gateway Inter-river² La Sal Lisbon Valley³ Moab East Moab West Thompson
Notes: 1. All information from Chenoweth (1996), unless otherwise noted. 2. Elevatorski 1978; BLM files and records. 3. Also known as Big Indian Wash mining area (Gloyn et al. 1995). 4. Chenoweth 1989.
4

Number of Properties Unknown 31 17 57 5+ 18 93

Average Ore Grade (% U3O8/% V2O5) 0.32 / 1.28 0.30 / 1.20 0.22 / 1.06 0.30 / 0.34 0.28 / 1.52 0.20 / 0.10 0.20 / 1.13

Aggregate Production (million tons) 0.21 0.49 1.24 17.78 0.10 0.07 0.14

3.8.2.1.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Areas of historical uranium and vanadium mining are rated as having high (H) occurrence potential with a D for certainty. Outside these known mining areas, the areal extent of the Jurassic Morrison and Triassic Chinle Formations has been classified as having a moderate (M) occurrence potential with a C for certainty. Where mineralization in the Cutler has occurred in Lisbon Valley mining area, uranium and vanadium has a low (L) occurrence potential;

3-59

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

otherwise, mineralization in the Cutler is not expected. Two past mining areas, the La Sal and Lisbon Valley areas, are rated as H for development potential because they are established land holdings with significant minable reserves of uranium and vanadium and because the recent upsurge in prices makes future development in those areas likely (BLM 2005f). The remaining mining areas, including the Paradox Basin, have been rated as M for development potential, and the host formations outside past mining areas have been rated as L for development potential (Map 3-6, Moab Planning Area Uranium/Vanadium Deposit-Development Potential). 3.8.2.2 COPPER 3.8.2.2.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW For convenience, copper deposits are divided into two types in this section: manto-hosted and redbed-hosted. Manto deposits are generally fault zone-hosted veins and strata-bound, mineralized layers. As their name suggests, redbed copper deposits form in red host rocks, which get their color (essentially rust) from the oxidation of the rock's exposure to the atmosphere. Redbed mineralization can be either volcanic or sedimentary. Sedimentary-hosted deposits, which form in fluvial (river) environments, are the type found in the MPA. Sedimentary redbed deposits are relatively small in comparison to the volcanic redbed deposits and manto-hosted deposits, and few are ever brought into production. Starting in the late 1960s, a series of drilling programs in the Lisbon Valley area culminated in the delineation of several, commercial-sized, sandstone fault and manto-hosted copper deposits in the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone and Burro Canyon Formation. As described by Gloyn and others (1995) and Hahn and Thorson (2002), the three deposits are the Centennial, Sentinel, and GTO ore bodies which, combined, contain 46.5 million tons of ore grading 0.43% copper (Roberts & Schaefer 1996). There may be potential for smaller sandstone-hosted copper deposits and/or copper with less mineralization in two additional stratigraphic intervals: the Entrada Sandstone-Navajo Sandstone, and the Wingate Sandstone (BLM 2005e). Within the MPA, redbed copper is associated with uranium found primarily in the Triassic Chinle Formation, and with other deposits found in the Jurassic Morrison Formation and the Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group (McFaul et al. 2000). Similar, low-grade copper/uranium associations can be found in the Inter-river, Lower Cane Creek, and Lisbon Valley mining areas. The greatest potential for economically viable development of redbed copper appears to be in the northwest part of the Klondike Ridge-Courthouse Wash area on the southwest flank of the Salt Valley anticline, where mineralization is found in the upper sandstones of the Salt Wash Member and, to some degree, the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation (Doelling et al. 1988). 3.8.2.2.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION Copper development in the MPA began in the 1890s with the production of high-grade copperoxide ores, primarily from the Big Indian and Blackbird Mines in the Lisbon Valley area (Hahn and Thorson 2002), which are responsible for the bulk of the copper that has been produced in the MPA. Approximately 155,000 tons of ore, with an average grade of 1.5% copper, were extracted from these mining operations up through 1960 (Gloyn et al. 1995). Numerous other
3-60

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

exploration programs from the 1960s through 1995 resulted in the delineation of commercial copper reserves in the Lisbon Valley area (BLM 2005e). Most redbed-hosted copper occurrences in the MPA are too small and low-grade to be commercially mined, except for the copper occurrences in the Morrison Formation on the southwest flank of the Salt Valley anticline. Dane (1935) also reports several small mines and an old mill in Mill Canyon along the Sevenmile fault, where the Moab Tongue of the Entrada Formation mineralizes. An unreported but large tonnage of low-grade copper has been drilled out in this area (Merrell 1979). A new copper-mining operation is being conducted in the MPA. The Summo Corporation, in a project referred to as the Lisbon Valley Copper Project, prepared to remove ore from the Centennial, Sentinel, and GTO deposits near the southeast end of the Lisbon Valley anticline beginning in 1997. There have been several delays in the development of the mine-mill complex, but presently, full production at the mine began in 2006 (Constellation Copper 2006). The Constellation Copper Corporation (formerly Summo Corporation), through its wholly owned subsidiary, Lisbon Valley Mining Company, currently controls the property, which is located primarily on Federal lands but also on state and private lands. A total of 1,103 acres will be disturbed by the development of facilities and production (BLM 1997b). • Phil Gramlich submitted a drilling proposal to the BLM in November 2004 to drill on the Charlie #2 claim in the Salt Valley anticline area. The purpose of the proposal was to delineate an ore body in the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation identified 20 years ago. This drilling was conducted, but indications are that the results were not favorable (Brent Northrup, BLM, personal communication 2005).

3.8.2.2.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The sites of manto-hosted copper in the Burro Canyon Formation and Dakota Sandstone along the Lisbon fault in the Lisbon Valley area have been classified as high (H) for occurrence potential with a high (D) degree of certainty because of the known deposits of the Centennial, Sentinel, and GTO ore bodies. These ore bodies, as well as the Constellation Copper's Lisbon Valley mine and the Dakota-Burro Canyon-Cedar Mountain trend along the northern flank of the Lisbon Valley anticline, are rated H for development potential. Outside these known sites, the Burro Canyon and Dakota Sandstone hosts are rated moderate (M) for occurrence potential with a C level of certainty. Based on available information, there is a high (H) occurrence potential with a high degree (D) of certainty of redbed copper deposits in the Chinle Formation in the Inter-river and Cane Creek uranium areas; the Morrison Formation in the Moab and Klondike Wash-Courthouse Wash areas; and the Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group and Morrison Formation in the Lisbon Valley area. Other than the Morrison Formation of the Klondike Wash-Courthouse Wash area, which is rated H for development potential, the remaining redbed copper-uranium deposits of the MPA are rated low (L) for development potential (Map 3-7, Moab Planning Area Copper Deposit-Development Potential). The Lisbon Valley Copper Project, involving the Centennial, Sentinel, and GTO copper deposits, has been approved, initial operations have commenced, and copper production began in early 2006. The project includes development of three open pits to access copper ore, three waste dumps, crushing facilities, a pad to leach the ore (266 acre), a processing plan and ponds to

3-61

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

recover the ore, construction of a 10.8-mile power line to the project site, and associated support facilities. The total disturbance area would be 1103 acres over a 10-year period, with reclamation taking an additional 5 years to complete. Additional drilling is occurring about 4 miles southeast of the Lisbon Valley Project in the Flying Diamond target area involving about 5 acres of disturbance. 3.8.2.3 PLACER GOLD 3.8.2.3.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW Placer gold in the MPA occurs primarily along the Colorado River, from the mouth of the Dolores River downstream to Moab, and at a few other places along these two rivers. The gold occurs in alluvial bars and has been found in high-level terraces as much as 200 feet above the present Colorado River. It is commonly distributed uniformly throughout the gravels rather than concentrated along the bedrock contact, but it may occur in slightly higher concentrations on the upstream end of bars and higher terraces (Butler et al. 1920; Chatman 1987). A secondary set of gold placers occurs west and north of the La Sal Mountains, at Miners Basin, Placer Creek, and Wilson and Bald Mesas, in glacial deposits up to 50 feet thick (Johnson 1973). Because of the gold's derivation, the most highly weathered glacial gravels in these areas offer the highest concentrations of gold (Johnson 1973). Pre-Wisconsin glacial gravels on Wilson and Bald Mesas exhibit the higher concentrations of placer gold (Johnson 1973; Merrell 1979; Shubat et al. 1991), and operations on Wilson Mesa have been among the most productive. 3.8.2.3.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION Due to the fine flaky mode of the gold (flakes less than 0.1 mm, average; Butler et al. 1920) and the difficulty in recovering it, most operations have not been commercially successful (Butler et al. 1920; UGMS 1966; Johnson 1973; Chatman 1987). The gold grades of historical placer operations range from 0.03 to 0.05 ounces per cubic yard (Gloyn et al. 1995). After over 100 years of effort, only about 1,500 ounces of gold has been produced from gravels of the Colorado River and other streams in Grand County (Johnson 1973; Shubat et al. 1991). Placer gold was worked almost continuously along the Colorado and Dolores Rivers, as well as in the Miners Basin/Wilson and Bald Mesas area, from the late 1800s until 1942, but only sporadically thereafter (Johnson 1973; Merrell 1979). Since 1998, activity has essentially ceased in the MPA. 3.8.2.3.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Within the MPA, the alluvial deposits along the Colorado and Dolores Rivers and the glacial deposits in the La Sal Mountains, where placer gold has been produced at some locations, are classified as having high (H) gold occurrence potential, with a D certainty level. However, the development potential for placer gold at these locations is rated as low (L), partially because of the low economic potential (Butler et al. 1920; UGMS 1966; Johnson 1973; Chatman 1987), and partially because of the Secretary of the Interior's recent Three Rivers withdrawal (September 2004) of lands covering the river drainages that prevent the location of new mining claims along

3-62

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

the affected river corridors for the next 50 years (BLM 2005f; see also Chapter 2 regarding withdrawals). Development of the placer gold contained in the alluvial deposits along the Colorado and Dolores Rivers is considered unlikely in the next 15 years. 3.8.2.4 LIMESTONE 3.8.2.4.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW High-calcium limestone is rare in the MPA because exposures of Paleozoic carbonate units are limited. Limestone exploration and production has been limited to the southern portion of the mining area, along the southwest flank of the Lisbon Valley anticline. Here, the Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail Formation of the Hermosa Group, which contains limited amounts of relatively high-quality limestone (Gloyn et al. 1995), crops out as a 12- to 15-foot-thick limestone bed. This good-quality, readily minable deposit has about 6 million tons of reserves on state land and an additional 3 million tons on adjacent Federal land (Reed 1996). 3.8.2.4.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION High-calcium limestone (95% calcium carbonate, or CaCO3) has been produced at Cotter Corporation's Lisbon Valley quarry (Papoose Mine; Reed 1996), located on state land at the north end of Lisbon Valley. Between 1994 and 2003, this operation produced approximately 550,000 tons of limestone (UDOGM 2004). One other, small, permitted but inactive limestone quarry occurs in the Lisbon Valley area. Records from UDOGM (2004) for the Lilim Claims quarry list Chris Shumway as the operator. 3.8.2.4.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The identified Honaker Trail limestone deposits in the Lisbon Valley area of the MPA have been rated as having high (H) occurrence potential with a D level of certainty. Elsewhere in the MPA, the Honaker Trail Formation limestone exposures are characterized as having moderate (M) occurrence potential with a C level of certainty. The development potential for the Lisbon Valley limestone deposits in the MPA is rated as H. All other areas of Honaker Trail exposures in the MPA are rated as having M development potential (Map 3-8, Moab Planning Area Limestone Deposit-Development Potential). Limestone production is projected to continue at Cotter Corporation's Lisbon Valley quarry, which is located on state land. Based on the size of the existing reserves and current production rates, any future exploration and development of limestone in the MPA is anticipated to remain on state land in this area for the next 15 years. Therefore, no development of limestone is expected on Federal lands in the MPA over the next 15 years.

3.8.3 SALABLE MINERALS
Salable minerals are commodities disposed of via sales or free use (government agencies and municipalities) by the Federal government and generally comprise common varieties of construction materials and aggregates. The BLM will not dispose of salable minerals in areas not

3-63

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

available by law (e.g., wilderness areas) or in areas identified in land-use plans as not appropriate for disposal. Current management of salable minerals allows their disposal on 7,750 acres within the MPA, and there are currently 12 community pits totaling about 2,693 acres within the MPA. 3.8.3.1 SAND AND GRAVEL 3.8.3.1.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW Sand and gravel development is largely driven by the need to find suitable material for public works projects, including local and state road projects and community development. Sand and gravel operations are widely dispersed across the MPA—and Utah—to facilitate distribution of the materials and keep the costs to consumers low. They are commonly found near population centers and aligned along roadways. Sand and gravel deposits in the MPA consist of unconsolidated Quaternary sediments. Important sand and gravel deposits occur along the major river courses—the Colorado, Dolores, and Green Rivers—as alluvial bars and terraces. The rock fragments in these deposits are especially hard, which makes them suitable for most uses, including concrete aggregate. Other important and widely used sand and gravel deposits surround the La Sal Mountains and occur as pediments and alluvial fill and fans. Less important and lower-quality sand and gravel can be found in the eolian sands derived from the Entrada Sandstone and the Glen Canyon Group; alluvium (not derived from the La Sal Mountains) along tributaries to the major rivers; and glacial moraines. 3.8.3.1.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION In the MPA, most past production has occurred in close proximity to existing roads. The BLM has granted 57 sand/gravel authorizations within the MPA since 1989, and since 1982, approximately 200,000 cubic yards of sand/gravel have been produced from BLM-authorized areas in the MPA (BLM 2005e). The main producers are the Utah Department of Transportation and the Grand County Highway Department. 3.8.3.1.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Sand and gravel deposits are associated with Quaternary sediments. All these deposits are rated as high (H) for occurrence potential, with a C level of certainty; the specific, known sand and gravel sites are elevated to D level of certainty for occurrence potential. Those sand and gravel deposits that lie within three miles of existing roads have been rated as having an H development potential; the areas within the WSAs have been rated as having low (L) development potential, and the remaining areas have been rated moderate (M) development potential. Development of sand and gravel deposits is anticipated to occur over the next 15 years in the areas rated as high development potential (Map 3-9, Moab Planning Area Sand and Gravel Deposit-Development Potential).

3-64

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

3.8.3.2 BUILDING STONE 3.8.3.2.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW Sandstone appropriate for use as a high-quality building stone can be found in the Triassic Moenkopi and Chinle Formations and the Jurassic Kayenta and Morrison Formations (Merrell 1979; Atwood and Doelling 1982; BLM 2005e). The Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone may also be a source of building stone in the MPA, as it is south of the MPA, near Blanding, Utah. The Kayenta Formation, which naturally fractures into useable-sized blocks, appears to be the most favorable source in the MPA for building stone. 3.8.3.2.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION Approximately 700 tons of building stone have been produced from reported BLM-authorized activities in the MPA since 1982 (BLM 2005e; Denice Swanke, BLM – MFO, personal communication June 2003). The four main host formations (i.e., the Moenkopi, Chinle, Kayenta, and Morrison Formations) each contributed to the total yield of building stone during this period. Most disposal of building stone in the MPA consists of small sales (5 tons or less) to individuals in the local area for personal use; 106 small sales of building stone occurred between 1989 and 2004 (BLM 2005e). No permits for any large-scale building stone operations have been authorized in the recent past. 3.8.3.2.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Known sites of building stone production in the MPA are rated as high (H) for occurrence potential with a D level for certainty. Elsewhere in the MPA, the exposed outcrop areas for the formations mentioned above have been classified as moderate (M) for building stone occurrence potential and with a C level of certainty. Development potential is rated as H for the known building stone sites in the MPA and is rated as M elsewhere where favorable formations for building stone occur. Within the existing WSAs, which have been administratively withdrawn, the development potential is rated as low (L). Development of building stone is likely to occur over the next 15 years in the areas rated as high development potential (Map 3-10, Building Stone Deposit-Development Potential). 3.8.3.3 TRAVERTINE 3.8.3.3.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW Travertine is a type of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that is frequently mined and sold as an ornamental stone (BLM 2005e). Travertine deposits are not extensive in the MPA. They occur intermittently as old geyser deposits and vein-filling along faults in a 50- to 100-square-mile area near the Green River that extends south from the town of Green River, Utah). In the MPA, travertine of the geyserite variety is known to occur along faults where thermal springs precipitate calcium carbonate.

3-65

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

3.8.3.3.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION There have been only a few small-scale attempts to produce travertine in the MPA. Since 1982, four authorizations have been issued for travertine exploration/production near the town of Green River (BLM 2005e), and since 1988, quarries in the MPA have yielded only approximately 160 tons of travertine (BLM 2005e). Deloy Shumway operates a small travertine quarry, named the Travertine #8 & 9, which has disturbed less than 5 acres in Section 25 of T22S, R16E. A second small travertine quarry, the Judy #1, is operated by Richard Bedier in Section 35 of T21S, R16E (Bon and Wakefield 2002a, 2002b). 3.8.3.3.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Known travertine sites in this area are characterized as having high (H) occurrence potential with D certainty level. Elsewhere near the town of Green River, travertine faulting is given a moderate (M) occurrence potential with a C level of certainty. Though past production has been limited, the known sites of travertine are rated as H for development potential, and the remainder of the identified travertine area is rated as having M development potential. Development of travertine is considered likely over the next 15 years in the areas rated with high development potential (Map 3-11, Moab Planning Area Travertine Deposit-Development Potential). 3.8.3.4 HUMATE 3.8.3.4.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW Humate is derived from plant debris associated with carbonaceous shales or coals that were deposited in a swampy, continental environment. Its most desirable feature is its humic acid content, which is used to enhance soil productivity (Jackson 1983). Other lesser uses of humate include neutralization of acid wastewater through the formation of insoluble humic acids and the removal of heavy metals by chelation or precipitation in insoluble humate. 3.8.3.4.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION To-date, no commercial humate production has been conducted in the MPA. Limited mapping and surface-sampling have identified potentially minable humate deposits at two locations in the east-central portion of the MPA. Jackson (1983) reports and Ellis and Hopeck (1985) confirm that one humate deposit occurs as a 20- to 30-foot-thick, 15-mile-long, carbonaceous and coaly shale zone in the middle to lower portions of the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone southeast of Harley Dome, outcropping in some places. At least 1.12 million tons of humate-bearing material is present over a 250-acre tract at this location. Limited sampling has shown the humate to contain 45–50% total organics and 25% total humic acids. BLM records (2005g) indicate there have been two proposed operations involving this deposit since 1988, though no development activity has ever occurred. Seal (2002) only generally describes the second humate deposit as being located approximately three miles southeast of Crescent Junction. No details on the amount and grade of humate are reported for this deposit, which occurs on land belonging to the Utah School and Institutional

3-66

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). A notice posted by SITLA on February 12, 2003 states that a humic shale mining and processing operation was proposed on their lands in Section 14 of T22S, R19E. 3.8.3.4.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Known humate resources in the MPA are rated as having a high (H) occurrence potential with D certainty. Elsewhere in the MPA, the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone exposures are rated as having moderate (M) occurrence potential with C certainty. The known sites near Crescent Junction and Harley Dome are rated H for development potential, and most of the rest of the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone outcrops are rated as M for development potential. Some interest in mining the Harley Dome deposit has been expressed and development in this area is considered likely over the next 15 years (Map 3-12, Moab Planning Area Humate DepositDevelopment Potential). 3.8.3.5 CLAY 3.8.3.5.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW Clay deposits are widespread in the MPA but have been little used or tested. Bentonite and bentonitic clays are among the most desirable; they swell when saturated with water and can be used as a natural sealant for reservoirs, stock ponds, ditches, and landfills. According to Merrell (1979), bentonite clay occurs in the upper Chinle Formation, the Monitor Butte Member of the Chinle Formation, and the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation. In the MPA, in Lisbon Valley, clay samples from the Brushy Basin Member have a bentonite content exceeding 90% (Gloyn et al. 1995). The Morrison Formation has been the focus of most clay exploration and development in the MPA. 3.8.3.5.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION Exploration and production of clay within the past 20 years has been as follows. Within the MPA, the Grand County Water Conservancy District has periodically mined bentonitic clay from the Brushy Basin at the Spanish Valley Pit (Section 18 of T27S, R23E) in northernmost San Juan County (Gloyn et al 1995). Reported production includes 400 cubic yards of bentonitic clay in 1989 and 1,872 cubic yards of the same material in 1992. The host is presumed to be the Morrison Formation (Gloyn et al. 1995). Since 1989, approximately 4,250 cubic yards of clay have also been reportedly produced in the MPA under two separate BLM authorizations (BLM 2005e). The source of these clays is also presumed to be the Morrison. New disturbance for these authorizations totaled 16,500 cubic yards (BLM 2005e).

3-67

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.8 Minerals

3.8.3.5.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Given the available information, known clay sites occurring in the Morrison Formation in the MPA have been classified as high (H) for occurrence potential with a D level of certainty, and have also been classified as H for development potential. Elsewhere in the MPA, the Morrison Formation has been classified as having moderate (M) potential and C certainty for the occurrence of bentonite in the MPA and has been classified as having M development potential. Development of clay is considered likely over the next 15 years in the areas rated as high development potential (Map 3-13, Moab Planning Area Clay Deposit- Development Potential).

3.9 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS
3.9.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW
Since wilderness study areas (WSAs) were established in the 1980s, designation and protection of wilderness in Utah has become a prominent national issue. For more than 20 years, the public has debated which lands have wilderness characteristics and should be considered by Congress for wilderness designation. As a result of the debate (and a significant passage of time since BLM's original inventories), in 1996 the Secretary of the Interior directed BLM to take another look at some of the lands in question. In response to the direction of the Secretary, BLM inventoried these lands and approximately 2.6 million acres of public land statewide (outside of existing WSAs) were found to have wilderness characteristics (1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory). In September 2005, the BLM and the State of Utah, the Utah School and Institutional Trust Land Administration (SITLA), and the Utah Association of Counties (collectively "Utah") reached an agreement negotiated to settle a lawsuit originally brought in 1996 by Utah, challenging the BLM's authority to conduct new wilderness inventories. The settlement stipulated that the BLM's authority to designate new WSAs expired no later than October 21, 1993. The BLM, however, does have the authority to conduct inventories for characteristics associated with the concept of wilderness and to consider management of these values in its land-use planning process. The BLM's Land-use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) states that decisions on whether or not to protect wilderness characteristics are to be considered during planning. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are those that have the appearance of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are areas having 5,000 acres, or areas less than 5,000 acres that are contiguous to designated wilderness, WSAs, or other administratively endorsed for wilderness management lands; or, in accordance with the Wilderness Act's language, areas "of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in and unimpaired condition." BLM used the same criteria for determining wilderness characteristics as in the 1979 wilderness inventory. The 5,000-acre value was helpful to BLM in making preliminary judgments, but it was not considered a limiting factor. Please refer to Appendix P, "Identification of Wilderness Characteristics on Non-WSA Lands Managed by the Moab BLM" for more information.

3-68

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Detailed information about non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics is part of the administrative record for this RMP/EIS. The following records are available for public review at the Moab Field Office: 1)1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory; 2) 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory Revision Document for the Moab Field Office; 3) 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory Case Files for the Moab Field Office; 4) Reasonable Probability Determinations for the Moab Field Office; and 5) Documentation of Wilderness Characteristics Review for the Moab Field Office. 3.9.1.1 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE 1999 UTAH WILDERNESS INVENTORY Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics include areas inventoried by BLM in the 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory. Based on subsequent public comments and after conducting additional field checks, the BLM revised the inventory in 2003. The revised inventory identified 22 wilderness inventory areas (WIAs) totaling 190,432 acres under MFO jurisdiction possessing wilderness characteristics. The revised inventory also identified portions of the WIAs totaling 108,733 acres that do not have wilderness characteristics. The inventory findings for lands administered by the MFO are summarized in Table 3.16 and depicted in Map 2-24-B. These lands are currently managed according to the existing Grand Resource Management Plan (RMP). Table 3.16. Non-WSA Lands Inventoried in the 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory (revised 2003), Total Acreage and Acreage with and without Wilderness Characteristics
Name Beaver Creek *Behind the Rocks *Coal Canyon *Desolation Canyon Fisher Towers *Floy Canyon *Flume Canyon Goldbar Gooseneck Granite Creek Harts Point (MFO)¹ Hatch Wash Hunter Canyon Labyrinth Canyon *Lost Spring Canyon Mary Jane Canyon *Mill Creek Canyon *Negro Bill Canyon Shafer Canyon Total Acreage 33,357 7,961 15,229 10,690 17,095 12,228 5,344 12,876 5,540 5,328 NA 24,096 4,492 68,717 12,661 25,158 6,684 13,724 3,045 Acreage with Wilderness Characteristics (WC) 25,722 3,381 13,850 10,498 16,668 9,983 3,563 6,106 1,040 ³ 4,528 1,568 10,979 4,462 24,300 11,456 24,748 3,394 2,324 1,845 Acreage without Wilderness Characteristics (NWC) 7,635 4,580 1,379 192 427 2,245 1,781 6,770 4,500 800 NA 13,117 30 38,969 1,205 410 3,290 11,400 1,200

3-69

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Table 3.16. Non-WSA Lands Inventoried in the 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory (revised 2003), Total Acreage and Acreage with and without Wilderness Characteristics
Name *Spruce Canyon *Westwater Canyon Westwater Creek Total Total Acreage 2,213 2,073 9,100 299,939 Acreage with Wilderness Characteristics (WC) 1,131 1,193 8,701 190,440 Acreage without Wilderness Characteristics (NWC) 1,082 770 399 108,733

Areas marked with an asterisk [*] are contiguous with a WSA of the same name. ¹The majority of the Harts Point unit is in the Monticello Field Office. Acreage with wilderness characteristics is within the MPA only.

3.9.1.2 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS FROM WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS REVIEW In addition to the lands that were inventoried in the 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory as described above, additional lands in the MPA have been reviewed for wilderness characteristics by BLM. These are lands currently proposed for wilderness as part of S.1170, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2007, and are neither WSAs nor WIAs. (Note: The Act has been introduced in this year's Congress as S.1170.) Table 3.17 identifies the areas considered and summarizes the determinations made by the BLM regarding each non-WSA area's wilderness characteristics. The wilderness characteristics review process involved use of a BLM interdisciplinary team that reviewed available information and followed up with field trips where necessary. Refer to Appendix P - Identification of Wilderness Characteristics on Non-WSA Lands Managed by the Moab BLM for more information. Map 2-24B shows non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (WC) within the MPA, including findings made in the 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory and findings made through the wilderness characteristics review process. The process used by the BLM to determine the non-WSA acreage with wilderness characteristics consisted of several steps. BLM used a combination of field visits, data layers including roads, vegetative treatments, (especially chaining), range improvements, and rights-of-way, aerial photography interpretation, and interdisciplinary review to reach a conclusion on those acreages that have wilderness characteristics. Setbacks from 3 to 91 meters were placed on all routes, depending upon the type of route.

3.9.2 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS
Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are managed in accordance with existing landuse plans. Refer to the no action alternative discussion in Chapter 2 for how non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are currently managed.

3-70

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Table 3.17. Non-WSA Lands with and without Wilderness Characteristics (WC and NWC, Respectively) from Wilderness Characteristics Review
Name Arches Adjacent Beaver Creek Behind the Rocks Big Triangle Coyote Wash Dead Horse Cliffs Diamond Canyon* Dome Plateau Duma Point Fisher Towers Goldbar Canyon Gooseneck Hatch/Lockhart Hells Hole Hideout Canyon Horsethief Point Labyrinth Canyon Mary Jane Canyon Mexico Point Mill Creek Canyon Morning Glory** Porcupine Rim** Renegade Point Survey Point Westwater Canyon Total Acres¹ 11,410 9294 286 20,542 28,069 2,346 15,467 25,818 14,698 1,740 435 53 46,729 2,540 12,269 14,172 21,189 86 12,837 1,028 96 67 6,635 10 4,509 Acres Acres with WC with NWC 6,396 0 262 5,200 0 796 7,759 14,206 0 556 329 38 2,679 2,538 11,607 8,358 550 31 12,837 0 6 3 0 0 758 5,014 9294 26 15,342 28,069 1,550 7,708 11,612 14,368 1,184 106 15 44,050 2 662 5,814 20,639 55 0 1,028 87 64 6,635 10 3,751 Majority of unit in Vernal FO. Adjacent to WIA/WC or WSA. Adjacent to WIA/WC or WSA. Adjacent to WIA/WC. Adjacent to WIA/WC or Canyonlands NP/AE. Adjacent to WIA/WC. Adjacent to WIA/WC. Adjacent to WIA/WC. Adjacent to WC in Monticello FO. Adjacent to WC in Vernal FO. Adjacent to WIA/WC or Canyonlands NP/AE. Adjacent to WIA/WC or WSA. Comments² Adjacent to Arches NP/AE. Adjacent to Beaver Creek WIA/WC. Adjacent to Behind the Rocks WIA/WC or WSA.

3-71

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Table 3.17. Non-WSA Lands with and without Wilderness Characteristics (WC and NWC, Respectively) from Wilderness Characteristics Review
Name Yellow Bird Total Total Acres¹ 2,212 254,017 Acres Acres with WC with NWC 358 75,279 1,854 178,561 Comments² Adjacent to WIA/WC or Arches NP/AE.

¹ Public lands managed by MFO. Excludes acreage encompassed by state lands, Wilderness Study Areas, and lands inventoried by BLM in 1999 (both with and without wilderness characteristics). ² FO = Field Office * Joined with Non-WSA Lands with WC in Coal Canyon for purposes of analysis. ** Joined with Non-WSA Lands with WC in Negro Bill Canyon for purposes of analysis.

3.10 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.10.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW
Paleontology is a biological and geological scientific discipline involving the study of fossil materials. Paleontological resources, or fossils, include the body remains, traces, or imprints of plants or animals that have been preserved in the earth's crust since some past geologic time. Among paleontologists, fossils are generally considered to be scientifically significant if they are unique, unusual, rare, diagnostically or stratigraphically important, or add to the existing body of knowledge in a specific area of the science. The BLM considers all vertebrate fossils to be scientifically significant. Invertebrate and plant fossils may be determined to be significant on a case-by-case basis. Petrified wood is treated as a mineral material and may be collected or purchased under the Material Sales Act of 1947 (as amended) but cannot be obtained under the General Mining Law of 1872. The types of fossils preserved in a sedimentary rock sequence depend on the geologic age of the rocks in which they occur and the environment in which the sediments that comprise the rocks accumulated. The types of rocks that crop out (are exposed) at the surface of an area and can potentially yield fossils is the result of geologic (depositional, structural, and erosional) history. Geologic formations and sediments exposed at the surface of the MPA, range from Precambrian to Recent in age (See Map 3-14, Generalized Geology of the Planning Area). Fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks range in age from Pennsylvanian to Quaternary in age and include parts of the three great periods of earth history during the Phanerozoic (phaneros, meaning visible, zoic, meaning life), the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic. Fossils preserved in these deposits include invertebrate, vertebrate, and plant fossils. Vertebrate fossils include the body remains of fish, amphibians, reptiles (including dinosaurs), mammals, and birds, as well as their tracks and traces. These fossils occur in rocks of Pennsylvanian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary age and include specimens unique to this area. A search of the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) fossil database in Salt Lake City revealed a total of 246 fossil localities in the MPA (Hayden 2003). Of the 246 fossil localities identified: 22 are vertebrate localities; 24 are invertebrate localities; 23 are plant localities; and 8 are known to be

3-72

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.10 Paleontological Resources

trace fossil localities. Details are lacking about the fossils identified for the other 177 known localities. Information from this database, supplemented by publications and personal experience, document that vertebrate fossils (which the BLM considers of scientific significance) are known from at least 20 geologic units that crop out in the planning area. Additionally, a portion of the Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric National Byway runs through the planning area. The Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Byway is a 512-mile driving route through Colorado and Utah that has educational kiosks and displays of dinosaur tracks and remains. Some sites have reconstructed skeletons and fleshed out recreations of dinosaurs. The portion in the planning area runs south from I-70 on Highway 191 to Moab and returns to I-70 via Highway 128. The BLM favors the development of museum exhibits and informational kiosks or similar developments at roadside turnouts over the interpretation of areas where fossils remain in the ground. These projects provide opportunities for learning and enjoyment. There may be substantial risk of damage or unauthorized collecting of fossils by the public in interpretive areas that are not staffed.

3.10.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The BLM has identified four objectives for the management of fossil resources on lands it administers. They are: 1) locating, evaluating, managing, and protecting fossil resources; 2) facilitating appropriate scientific, educational and recreational uses of fossils; 3) ensuring that proposed land uses do not inadvertently damage or destroy important fossil resources; and 4) fostering public awareness of the Nation's rich paleontological heritage (BLM 1998b:01). Uniform procedural guidance for management of paleontological resources on BLM lands is provided by Paleontological Resources Handbook 8270-I. Collection of fossils from BLM lands in the MPA is allowed with some restrictions, depending on the significance of the fossils. Under existing regulations, hobby collection of common invertebrate or plant fossils by the public is allowed in reasonable quantities using hand tools. The public is also allowed to collect petrified wood without a permit for personal noncommercial purposes. People can collect up to 25 pounds plus one piece per person per day, with a maximum of 250 pounds in one calendar year. Current regulations do not allow any commercial collecting of paleontological resources. Collection of significant fossils, which includes all vertebrate and any so designated plant or invertebrate fossils can only be done by obtaining a permit that is issued to qualified researchers. Vertebrate fossils are the remains or traces of fish, turtles, dinosaurs, mammals, reptiles, and birds, and include material such as fossil bones, teeth, tracks, coprolites, and burrows. Significant plant and invertebrate fossils are determined on a case-by-case basis and must be identified in decision documents. Two types of paleontological use permits are issued. The basic permit is a survey and limited collection permit, issued for reconnaissance work and collection of surface finds, with a one square meter limit on surface disturbance. If disturbance during the paleontological work will

3-73

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.10 Paleontological Resources

exceed one square meter, or will require mechanized equipment, the researcher must apply for an excavation permit. Prior to authorization of an excavation permit, BLM must prepare an environmental assessment of the proposed location. All fossils collected under a permit remain public property, must be placed in an approved repository, and can never be sold. Annual reports of findings including locality and specimen information are required to be submitted to the BLM. Researchers may have multiple active permits.

3.10.3 RESOURCE DEMAND AND ANALYSIS
Recreational fossil collecting of common invertebrates, plants and petrified wood is appropriate on most lands administered by the BLM, except in developed recreation areas and other special management areas, such as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) or where otherwise posted. Recreational collecting of vertebrate fossils, as well as noteworthy fossil invertebrates and plants is prohibited on all BLM administered lands. Professional paleontologists conducting research or assessment and mitigation are regulated through the permit process. The BLM issues about a half-dozen permits a year specifically for the MPA (L. Bryant, personal communication 2003). There are also about 12 statewide research permits allowing surface collecting/reconnaissance that include the planning area. The BLM also issues about 8 consulting permits annually in Utah and all of these are statewide and thus include the planning area. Amateur fossil collectors and hobbyists may collect reasonable amounts of common invertebrate and plant fossils on public lands. The number of people involved in this activity is unknown. The MFO deals with about 10 inquiries a year regarding fossil collection. Further interest in fossil collection is demonstrated by the existence of a local rock-hounding club known as Points and Pebbles. In addition, hikers, mountain bikers, and other outdoor enthusiasts sometimes accidentally discover fossil remains. Some of these discoveries are passed on to the appropriate agencies, but some are not. Certainly many important paleontological discoveries have been and will continue to be made by amateur or accidental paleontologists, but the number of such discoveries is also unknown.

3.10.4 ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Fossil theft and vandalism occur with some regularity throughout the MPA. Increased access results in increased theft and vandalism. Only a small number of these occurrences are ever prosecuted. Escalating commercial values of fossils also mean that fossils on Federal lands are increasingly subject to theft and vandalism. These crimes reduce scientific and public access to scientifically significant and instructive fossils and destroy the contextual information critical for interpreting the fossils. Within the planning area, illegal casting of dinosaur tracks is particularly a problem.

3.10.5 RESOURCE CAPABILITY AND CONDITION
Occurrences of paleontological resources are closely related to the geologic units that contain them. The potential for finding important paleontological resources can therefore be broadly

3-74

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.10 Paleontological Resources

predicted by the presence of the pertinent geologic units at or near the surface. Therefore, geologic mapping can be used as a proxy for assessing the potential for the occurrence of important paleontological resources. The Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system was originally developed by the U.S. Forest Service's Paleontology Center of Excellence and the Region 2 (USFS) Paleo Initiative (1996). It is in the process of being formally adopted by the BLM to promote consistency between agencies and throughout the BLM. The PFYC is appropriate for land-use planning efforts and for the preliminary assessment of potential impacts and mitigation needs for specific projects. Under the PFYC system, geologic units are classified based on the relative abundance of vertebrate fossils or uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts, with a higher class number indicating a higher potential. This classification is best applied at the geologic formation or member level. It is not intended to be an assessment of whether important fossils are known to occur occasionally in these units (i.e. a few important fossils or localities widely scattered throughout a formation does not necessarily indicate a higher class), nor is it intended to be applied to specific sites or areas. The classification system is intended to provide baseline guidance to assessing and mitigating impacts to paleontological resources. In many situations, the classification should be an intermediate step in the analysis, and should be used to assess additional mitigation needs. PFYC classes are defined in detail below: Class 1: Geologic units that are unlikely to contain recognizable fossil remains. This includes units that are igneous or metamorphic in origin (but excludes tuffs), as well as units that are Precambrian in age or older. Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 1 units is negligible or not applicable. No assessment or mitigation is needed except in very rare circumstances. The occurrence of significant fossils in Class 1 units is non-existent or extremely rare. Class 2: Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils. This includes units in which vertebrate or significant nonvertebrate fossils are unknown or very rare, units that are younger than 10,000 years before present, units that are aeolian in origin, and units which exhibit significant diagenetic alteration (physical changes in rock which occur over time such as compaction, cementation, mineral replacement). The potential for impacting vertebrate fossils or uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils is low. Management concern for paleontological resources is low, and management actions are not likely to be needed. Localities containing important resources may exist, but would be rare and would not influence the classification. Class 3: Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential. These units are often marine in origin with sporadic known occurrences of vertebrate fossils. Vertebrate fossils and uncommon nonvertebrate fossils are known to occur inconsistently, and predictability is known to be low. Class 3 includes units that are poorly studied and/or poorly documented, so that the potential yield cannot be assigned without ground reconnaissance. Management concern for paleontological resources in these units is moderate, or cannot be determined from existing

3-75

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.10 Paleontological Resources

data. Surface-disturbing activities may require field assessment to determine a further course of action. The Class 3 category includes a broad range of potential impacts. Geologic units of unknown potential, as well as units of moderate or infrequent fossil occurrence are included. Assessment and mitigation efforts also include a broad range of options. Surface-disturbing activities will require sufficient assessment to determine whether significant fossil resources occur in the area of a proposed action, and whether the action could affect the paleontological resources. Class 4: These are Class 5 geologic units (see below) that have lowered risks of human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation. They include bedrock units with extensive soil or vegetative cover, bedrock exposures that are limited or not expected to be impacted, units with areas of exposed outcrop that are smaller than two contiguous acres, units in which outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts are minimized by topographic effects, and units where other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability of both known and unidentified fossil localities. The potential for impacting significant fossils is moderate to high, and is dependent on the proposed action. The bedrock unit is Class 5, but a protective layer of soil, thin alluvial material, or other mitigating circumstances may lessen or prevent potential impacts to the bedrock resulting from the activity. Mitigation efforts must include assessment of the disturbance, such as removal or penetration of protective surface alluvium or soils, potential for future accelerated erosion, or increased ease of access resulting in greater looting potential. If impacts to significant fossils are anticipated, on-the-ground surveys prior to authorizing the surface-disturbing action will usually be necessary. On-site monitoring may also be necessary during construction activities. Management prescriptions for resource preservation and conservation through controlled access or special management designation should be considered. Class 4 and Class 5 units are often combined as Class 5 for general application, such as planning efforts or preliminary assessments, as Class 4 is determined from local mitigating conditions and the impacts of the planned action. Class 5: Highly fossiliferous geologic units that regularly and predictably produce vertebrate fossils or uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils, and that are at risk of human-caused adverse impacts or natural degradation. These include units in which vertebrate fossils or uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils are known and documented to occur consistently, predictably, or abundantly. Class 5 pertains to highly sensitive units that are well exposed with little or no soil or vegetative cover, units in which outcrop areas are extensive, and exposed bedrock areas that are larger than two contiguous acres. Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 5 units/areas is high, because the potential for impacting significant fossils is high. Vertebrate fossils or uncommon nonvertebrate fossils are known from the impacted area, or can reasonably be expected to occur in the impacted area. Assessment by a qualified paleontologist is required in advance of surface-disturbing activities or land tenure adjustments, and mitigation will often be necessary before and/or during surface-disturbing actions. Field surveys prior to authorizing any surface-disturbing activities

3-76

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

will usually be necessary. On-site monitoring may also be necessary during construction activities. Designation of areas of special interest and concern may be appropriate.

3.11 RECREATION
3.11.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW
The MPA is an internationally recognized recreation destination. The proximity of two national parks (Arches and Canyonlands), the extraordinarily scenic and diverse landscape, the accessibility of two major river systems (the Colorado and Green Rivers), the presence of interesting cultural and paleontological resources, and the opportunities for a wide range of recreational activities have made the MPA very popular for those seeking outdoor experiences. Recreational opportunities range from casual sightseeing and hiking to more intense activities such as mountain biking, rock climbing, and river running. In general, the planning area experiences a high number of seasonal visitors and an intense demand for recreational activities. Busy seasons include both spring and fall, with spring bringing the most visitors to the area. The estimated annual visitation to the MPA is at least 1.6 million visitors. Visitation occurs throughout the year, with the spring season beginning in February and lasting through May, and the fall season running from September through November. Spring and fall visitors engage in the full range of recreation activities, including scenic driving, camping, hiking, jeeping, mountain biking, canoeing and rafting, rock climbing, off-highway vehicle (OHV) and dirt bike riding, and horseback riding. (Note: The BLM defines off-road vehicles (also known as off-highway vehicles, or OHVs) to include all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-highway motorcycles, and snowmobiles.) Summer visitation is mainly associated with touring the nearby National Parks (Arches and Canyonlands) and with river-related activities. However, the summer season also brings large numbers of visitors, who engage in sightseeing activities such as driving through the public lands and viewing the landscape from scenic overlooks, and some hiking and biking. The current RMP (approved in 1985) did not anticipate the subsequent rapid growth in and demand for recreational opportunities and activities. Since the approval of the current RMP, there have been increases in the demand for recreational opportunities and in the growth of the recreation industry within the planning area. As a result, demand-driven recreation management and planning in the years following the approval of the current RMP has been completed in a piecemeal fashion, and there has been an attempt to document and accommodate the rapid rise in and high demand for recreational opportunities. A fundamental concept in the management of BLM recreation resources is the designation of Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and an Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). These areas within the MPA are discussed below. An outcome of the rapid growth in recreation opportunities and activities in the MPA has also created the need for the development of specific Recreation Area Management Plans (RAMPs) to assist in recreation management within areas that are experiencing intense recreational activity. Five RAMPs (Colorado Riverway, Mill Creek, Sand Flats, Cameo Cliffs and Canyon Rims) have been completed to-date. Three of these plans (the Colorado Riverway, Mill Creek and Sand Flats Plans) have been accompanied by Federal Register Notices that instituted rules and regulations associated with some or all of these plans. These regulations are temporary,

3-77

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

subject to completion and approval of the proposed RMP. The Cameo Cliffs and Canyon Rims RAMPs were Plan Amendments to the Grand RMP. These plan amendments limited travel to designated and/or existing roads and created SRMAs for the planning areas. 3.11.1.1 SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMAS) Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) are those areas where a commitment has been made to provide specific recreational activities and recreational opportunities, and where public recreation issues or management concerns occur. Special or more intensive types of management are typically needed in these areas. Detailed recreation planning is required in SRMAs and a large managerial investment is usually needed. Also, SRMAs usually require stricter rules and guidelines to manage the intensive recreational use within the area. Areas hosting large numbers of visitors are usually those that are designated as SRMAs. However, in the MPA, at present, the SRMAs are not the areas that receive the greatest visitation. Three areas have been formally established as SRMAs within the MPA: Canyon Rims Recreation Area, Cameo Cliffs Recreation Area and the Colorado River Recreation Area. 3.11.1.1.1 CANYON RIMS SRMA Canyon Rims was established on 100,273 acres south of Moab. Two campgrounds and four overlooks are within the SRMA, as well as the Trough Springs Hiking trailhead. Major activities include hiking, backpacking, and sightseeing. The primary roads within Canyon Rims, which were constructed by the BLM and include several scenic turnouts, are Utah Scenic Backways. The Canyon Rims Recreation Area is managed under the Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP), completed in 2003. An amendment to the 1985 RMP accompanied this RAMP. The overall objective for the Canyon Rims Recreation Area RAMP (BLM 2003b) is to protect, manage and improve the natural and visual resources of the area while allowing for responsible recreation. The goal is to manage the Canyon Rims Recreation Area for recreation activities such as camping, vehicle touring on the primary road system, touring the secondary road system by motorized vehicle and mountain bike, and hiking and backpacking within the canyons. Interpretive and educational opportunities will be used to fulfill the potential of the Canyon Rims Recreation Area. Recreation management will give special consideration to protecting the visual resources of Canyon Rims. 3.11.1.1.2 CAMEO CLIFFS SRMA The Cameo Cliffs SRMA consists of 15,597 acres east of U.S. Highway 191, south of the town of LaSal and north of the Lisbon Valley Industrial Area. Off-highway vehicle riding, horseback riding and some limited hiking and mountain biking are the primary recreational activities. A Plan Amendment to the Grand RMP (1985a) established the SRMA and designated the roads within it. The purpose of the Cameo Cliffs planning effort is to provide opportunities for motorized recreation, primarily ATV riding.

3-78

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

3.11.1.1.3 COLORADO RIVER SRMA This SRMA extends along the Colorado River from the Colorado State Line to Castle Creek (near the Castle Valley turnoff on Utah Highway 128), and along the Dolores River from the Colorado State line to its confluence with the Colorado River. The SRMA includes Westwater Canyon of the Colorado River, and includes the extensive facilities surrounding the Westwater Ranger Station. It also includes the upper portion the area bordering the River along Utah Highway 128 (from Dewey Bridge to Castle Creek). The size of this SRMA is 24,124 acres. Major activities include boating and camping. Note that this area is not the same as the Colorado Riverway, discussed below as an ERMA. 3.11.1.2 GRAND EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA (ERMA) The ERMAs are areas where dispersed recreation is encouraged and where visitors have recreational freedom-of-choice with minimal regulatory constraint. They are usually areas that receive very little recreation use. These areas could include developed and primitive recreation sites with minimal facilities. Public recreation issues or management concerns are limited, and minimal management suffices in these areas. Detailed planning is not usually required for these areas; however, in the MPA, the areas with the greatest numbers of visitors and those that are in the greatest need of special management are currently within the Grand ERMA. All areas within the MPA that are not part of a SRMA are included within the Grand ERMA. Popular recreation sites within the ERMA are briefly described below. 3.11.1.2.1 THE COLORADO RIVERWAY The Colorado Riverway includes the public lands managed by the BLM in the following areas: • Along the Colorado River and Utah Highway 128 from Dewey Bridge to U.S. 191, including Negro Bill Canyon Trailhead, Onion Creek, Castleton Tower (Castle Rock) and Fisher Towers. Utah Highway 128 is a State Scenic Byway, and is also a portion of the Prehistoric Highway National Scenic Byway. Along the Colorado River and Utah Highway 279 from Moab Valley to Canyonlands National Park, including Wall Street, Poison Spider Trailhead and Shafer Basin. Utah Highway 279 is a State Scenic Byway Along Kane Creek Road from Moab Valley to the block of state land south of Hunter Canyon, including Amasa Back.

•

•

A very small portion of this area (Dewey Bridge to Castle Creek) is within the Colorado River SRMA, with the great majority of the Riverway lying within the Grand ERMA. The Riverway is the most popular destination of MPA visitors, with recent visitation estimated at approximately 1.04 million people. Visitors engage in camping, hiking, four-wheel driving, scenic auto touring, mountain biking, bouldering, BASE (Building, Antennae, Span, Earth) jumping, rock art viewing, dinosaur track viewing, rock climbing, and rafting and boating within the Colorado Riverway. Based on observation and casual interviews, users of the Colorado Riverway can be divided into several categories:

3-79

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

• • • • •

Day and overnight campers using sites along the Riverway to mountain bike, drive and ride OHVs, hike or participate in a special event; Campers displaced from Arches National Park's campground; Campers using sites because they provide a relatively inexpensive place to camp; Motorists taking scenic drives along routes described on the Moab Auto Tour brochure or taking an alternate route to Grand Junction; and Rafting and paddling groups, fishermen, climbers, mountain bikers, hikers, OHV users, BASE jumpers, and other day users.

Recreation management within the Riverway includes providing information at recreation sites, managing developed recreation sites, protecting visual quality and health and human safety by limiting the areas where visitors can camp and drive, and managing commercial uses in accordance with the Riverway Plan (BLM 1992a, 2001a). While many of the resource use problems within the Colorado Riverway have been addressed and corrected since 1992 by the actions taken through the Colorado Riverway RAMP, there are still some remaining problem areas. Cross-country OHV travel and camping restrictions are addressed only through a Federal Register Notice (July 1992), which is in effect only until the completion and approval of the proposed RMP. Some undeveloped camping areas still remain, which are causing resource use problems. 3.11.1.2.2 SAND FLATS RECREATION AREA Sand Flats, part of the Grand ERMA, is located between the Negro Bill Canyon and Mill Creek Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Sand Flats Recreation Area encompasses 7,240 acres, and is managed as a self-funding site in partnership between Grand County and the MFO. Major activities include camping and mountain biking, especially on the Slickrock Trail, which was designated as a National Recreation Trail. The Recreation Area provides access to popular mountain bike and OHV trails, including the Slickrock Trail, Porcupine Rim Bike and Jeep Trail, Fins and Things Jeep Trail, and Hell's Revenge Jeep Trail. A RAMP was completed in 1994 (see below) for the Sand Flats Recreation Area, and the area is managed according to this Plan. In addition, there is a Cooperative Management Agreement between Grand County and the BLM, MFO to provide guidance in administering the area. Camping restrictions and off-road vehicle designations are addressed only through a Federal Register Notice (July 1992), which is in effect until the proposed RMP is approved. The Sand Flats Management Plan identifies the following management objectives: • • • • To provide for a recreational "mix" of opportunities necessary to meet a variety of visitor expectations, while maintaining the relative natural characteristics of the area; To maintain wilderness values in adjacent Wilderness Study Areas; To prevent degradation of the natural values in the planning area and provide for restoration of areas where vegetation and soils have been damaged by recreational use; and To provide for public health and safety.

3-80

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

3.11.1.2.3 EAST OF HIGHWAY 191 The area south of I-70 and east of U.S. Highway 191 borders Arches National Park. This area of public land includes the Klondike Bluffs Trail, the Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway and the Bar M Loop Bike Trail. Cross-country OHV travel is prohibited in most of this area through a Federal Register notice. In the portion of this eastern area that is south of Utah Highway 313, camping is limited to designated sites. This camping restriction is in effect until the completion of the proposed RMP. 3.11.1.2.4 WEST OF HIGHWAY 191 This area includes scenic driving and several motorized and non-motorized trailheads. U.S. Highway 191 from I-70 to its intersection with Utah Highway 128 is part of the National Prehistoric Highway National Scenic Byway. A substantial amount of unrestricted camping occurs in this area, especially around Bartlett Wash and Mill Canyon, and has led to sanitation problems and resource damage. Although off-road driving is prohibited by Federal Register notice, substantial cross-country OHV travel is occurring. This off-road damage includes hill climbs, alternate route choice, play areas around campsites and other forms of damage. The current vehicle designation ("Limited to Existing Roads and Trails") is in effect until the approval of the proposed RMP. The area west of 191, south of I-70 and east of the Green River has seen explosive growth in recreation since the time of the 1985 RMP. Additionally, this recreation growth has included both motorized and non-motorized recreation, often vying for the same locations. Motorized recreation includes jeeping and OHV use; non-motorized recreation includes mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, and BASE jumping. The area west of Highway 191 has seen the largest growth in recreation user conflict in the MPA. 3.11.1.2.5 UTAH HIGHWAY 313 Utah Highway 313 is also the Dead Horse Mesa Scenic Byway (a State Scenic Byway), providing access to Canyonlands National Park, access to Dead Horse Point State Park, access to Seven Mile Canyon and to two dispersed camping areas as well as to one BLM campground. The camping areas provide overflow and destination camping for the two parks. Utah Highway 313 also provides access to Labyrinth Canyon of the Green River, the rims and mesas above the Green River (Labyrinth Rims), upper Long Canyon and the upper portion of the Gemini Bridges Route. Camping and off-road vehicle restrictions have been implemented by Federal Register notice for this area, and are in effect until the completion of the proposed RMP. Resource damage is currently occurring in this area from both camping and OHV travel. 3.11.1.2.6 KOKOPELLI'S TRAIL Kokopelli's Trail is a 140-mile multiple use trail connecting Loma, Colorado and Moab, Utah. Mountain bikers use this route heavily, although most portions are also suitable for OHVs and full-sized four-wheel drive vehicles. The route passes through lands administered by the MFO, the BLM Grand Junction Field Office, and the USDA Forest Service (Manti-LaSal National

3-81

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

Forest). Kokopelli's Trail was established for multi-day bike trips. Small, primitive campsites are located along the trail. Three of these campsites (Bitter Creek, Cowskin and Rock Castle) are managed and maintained by the MFO. Kokopelli's Trail is a Millennium Trail, designated in 2000 by the White House Millennium Council. 3.11.1.2.7 WHITE WASH SAND DUNES/TEN MILE CANYON The only dune area in the MPA, White Wash Sand Dunes are located east of the Green River and south of I-70, about 25 miles from the city of Green River, Utah. White Wash is very popular with OHV users, especially on spring and fall weekends. Off-Highway Vehicle riders also visit other sites in this area, including Ten Mile Canyon, Crystal Geyser, Red Wash, Rainbow Rocks, and Duma Point. Currently, the area has no facilities other than an informational bulletin board. Off Highway Vehicle use categories in this area are mixed. The current RMP has designated the northern part of the area as Limited to existing roads and trails. The southern portion of the area is limited to existing roads and trails through a Federal Register Notice (January 2001) and is in effect until the proposed RMP is approved. A middle portion of the area is Open to cross-country travel. Extensive resource damage is occurring from camping activities and especially from unrestricted vehicle travel. Resource damage from OHV use includes damage to soils, scenic quality, vegetation, cultural, and paleontological resource degradation as well as to damage to riparian resources. 3.11.1.2.8 KEN'S LAKE Ken's Lake is a reservoir 10 miles south of Moab, within Spanish Valley. Jointly managed by the MFO and by the Spanish Valley Water Conservancy District, Ken's Lake has a 31-site campground, as well as a day use area and beach. Hiking, biking, fishing, non-motorized boating, OHV and horseback riding opportunities are within or adjacent to the recreation area. Vehicle and camping restrictions are the result of a Federal Register Notice (November 1996) that is in effect until the proposed RMP is approved. 3.11.1.2.9 KANE CREEK CROSSING The area where the Hurrah Pass road crosses Kane Creek has become very popular for dispersed camping especially among OHV enthusiasts. Off-Highway Vehicle play at camp is the major threat to the scenic values of the area, as well as to water quality within Kane Creek. Both dispersed camping and OHV use have led to sanitation problems and resource deterioration due to these unrestricted recreational activities. Cross-country vehicle travel has been restricted by a Federal Register Notice (January 2001), but much of this type of activity still occurs. The OHV restrictions are in effect until the proposed RMP is approved. Camping is limited to designated sites through a Federal Register Notice (2005) and is in effect until the proposed RMP is approved.

3-82

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

3.11.1.2.10 MILL CREEK CANYON Mill Creek Canyon is located directly east of Moab. This perennial stream is the "backyard" for those Grand County residents who live on the east side of Spanish Valley. An extraordinarily scenic canyon, it is popular for hiking, swimming, and viewing rock art. Some horseback riding also occurs in the canyon. Recreational use of Mill Creek Canyon is guided by a 2001 management plan (BLM 2001b). Management is made more difficult by the split ownership of the canyon: public lands are interspersed with School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) and private lands. A well-known off-road vehicle challenge hill, Potato Salad Hill, is located at the entrance to Mill Creek Canyon. The Mill Creek Canyon RAMP was signed in February 2001. The RAMP affects the Mill Creek Planning Area, which includes all BLM lands along the south fork of Mill Creek Canyon from the town of Moab to the USFS boundary. The overall goal for the area is to protect, manage and improve natural and cultural resources through effective use of minimum tools. 3.11.1.2.11 GREEN RIVER CORRIDOR The Green River is the western border of the MPA, and management of the Green River is shared with the Price Field Office. Three popular float sections are shared between the two BLM field offices. These three float trips are: Desolation Canyon, Gray Canyon (which constitutes the last day of the Desolation trip and is also the Green River "Daily"), and Labyrinth Canyon. Facilities along the Green River include a campground, toilets and a boat ramp along the Green River Daily, and a seasonal contact station and toilet at Mineral Bottom, the termination of the Labyrinth Float trip. The launch point for the Labyrinth Canyon trip is at Green River State Park; the riverbed of Labyrinth is state sovereign land, with most of the shoreline managed by the BLM. Both the BLM and Utah State Sovereign lands share management of the area via a formal agreement. 3.11.1.2.12 THE BOOK CLIFFS The Book Cliffs are a large area in the northern portion of the MPA. Within this lightly used and relatively unknown area, which stretches from the Green River to the Colorado State line north of I-70, are five Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Recreation seekers use the Book Cliffs for big game hunting, scenic drives, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, backpacking and some limited vehicle camping. There are ample opportunities for solitude and primitive, dispersed recreation in the Book Cliffs. The Sego Canyon Rock Art site is located on the southern edge of the Book Cliffs. 3.11.1.2.13 UTAH RIMS The Utah Rims area consists of 15,400-acres immediately west of the Colorado border and south of I-70. This area is primarily used for day use by western Colorado residents. Dirt biking is the primary recreational activity but the area is also popular with mountain bikers and horseback riders. Currently, resource damage is occurring as a result of OHV travel.

3-83

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

3.11.1.2.14 OTHER AREAS In addition to the areas listed above, areas such as Entrada Bluffs and Kane Creek Canyon Rim receive substantial visitation. Some areas, such as Yellow Cat and Black Ridge receive moderate visitation. Other areas, such as the Dolores Triangle, East LaSal Creek, the Cisco Desert, and Beaver Creek are less visited, but can be very popular at certain times. As many areas within the MPA become more visited and more crowded, visitors are increasingly seeking out less traveled areas. Much of the former backcountry in the planning area is now receiving heavy to moderate recreational use; the majority of the areas have the potential for substantial recreational use. 3.11.1.2.15 CAMPGROUNDS The MFO manages 22 developed fee area campgrounds, with 313 individual fee campsites and 11 group sites. In addition, the Sand Flats Recreation Area has a total of 120 campsites. Although located in the MPA, the Price Field Office manages the 10-site campground at Swasey's Boat Ramp on the Green River Daily. 3.11.1.2.16 VEHICULAR ROUTES The MFO marks 277 miles of road. The MFO also maintains the main entrance roads in the Canyon Rims Recreation Area (the Needles Overlook and Anticline Overlook Roads, both of which are State Scenic Backways). Other routes, which are primarily used for vehicular recreation, are those that are marked by the MFO, often in conjunction with user groups. Additionally, many other motorized routes within the MPA are used for recreational purposes. The most popular motorized routes include any of the 785 miles of the Jeep Safari Route system (this figure includes dirt roads within the planning area that are permitted for Jeep Safari use). This network of backcountry routes has been popularized in guidebooks and on maps as well as by club use. "Rockcrawling," an extreme type of jeep recreation, is currently popular in the Black Ridge area, though much of this route is on state and private lands. There are no routes solely dedicated to OHV use. These activities take place on the same routes as used by four-wheel drive vehicles, and often occur on Jeep Safari routes. There is an informal, user-made network of motorcycle routes in the White Wash Dunes area. 3.11.1.2.17 POPULAR MOUNTAIN BIKE ROUTES Mountain bike use occurs on many of the Jeep Safari routes as well as on other routes. Popular mountain bike routes include Gemini Bridges, Porcupine Rim, the Slickrock Bike Trail, Amasa Back, Flat Pass, Klondike Bluffs, Kokopelli's Trail, Poison Spider, Lower Monitor and Merrimac, Bartlett Wash, Moab Rim, Kane Creek Canyon Rim, Bar M, Hurrah Pass and Onion Creek. A survey conducted by the Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism (IORT 2002) discussed mountain bike use. Although this survey is not indicative of the entire mountain biking community, it does shed light on attitudes and perceptions of mountain bikers, particularly

3-84

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

tourists, visiting the area. Attitudes concerning issues and management were mixed. When asked about the physical impacts resulting from outdoor recreation in the Slickrock/Sand Flats area, 37% of respondents thought the impacts were moderately or extremely high, while the remainder thought they were low or at an acceptable level. Respondents felt that vehicle travel off designated routes and human waste and garbage disposal were more pressing management problems then resource impacts. Visitors felt that there should be more of a focus on resource protection than on the development of visitor services. Most mountain bikers support the use of fees to help fund Slickrock Trail management, which possibly could be extrapolated to the rest of the mountain biking population as well. Respondents were willing to support modest fees for trail use (IORT 2002). 3.11.1.2.18 POPULAR HIKING TRAILS The following trails are reserved for hiking use only: Hunter Canyon, Fisher Towers, Corona Arch, Amphitheater Loop, Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway Interpretive Trail, Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trail, Negro Bill Canyon, the Ken's Lake hiking trail system, Trough Springs Trail and the Windwhistle Nature Trail. These routes are marked and maintained by the MFO. While the Hidden Valley Trail and the Portal Trail are marked and maintained as hiking trails, bicycle use is also allowed. Hikers also extensively use the Moab Rim Route. Hiking also occurs elsewhere in the MPA, particularly in canyon systems. Hiking is allowed anywhere within the planning area, and general areas that are popular for hiking include the Sand Flats area, the entire Mill Creek area, Richardson Amphitheater, Spring Canyon, Behind the Rocks, and the area above Potash Road (Goldhor-Wilcock). Hiking is a popular activity and there is a demand for additional non-motorized activities, such as marked hiking routes. 3.11.1.3 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES Recreational opportunities in the MPA are extensive. The following list of activities shown in Table 3.18 is categorized by use level. Table 3.18. Activities in the MPA, by Use Level
High Use Driving for pleasure (sight-seeing) Mountain biking Hiking Jeeping Camping River activities (rafting and paddling) Nature study/cultural study Medium Use OHV riding (including ATV, dirt biking) Rock climbing (sport, traditional, bouldering, canyoneering) Special events Road cycling Low Use BASE jumping Backpacking Hot air ballooning Hunting Fishing Swimming Canyoneering Rock crawling

Source: Personal communication between Katie Stevens, Russ von Koch, Brent Northrup, Alex Van Hemert, and Bill Stevens, BLM MFO, on May 5, 2003.

3-85

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

3.11.1.4 RIVER RECREATION USE The MPA provides year-round rafting and boating experiences. All commercial use is under Special Recreation Permit (SRP) with limited permit availability outside of Labyrinth Canyon. Nine sections of the Colorado and Green Rivers are floated extensively. These sections are described below. 3.11.1.4.1 WESTWATER CANYON OF THE COLORADO RIVER This is a whitewater segment, and is managed under a limited use permit system, with limitations on the numbers of people allowed to launch. Westwater Canyon is considered one of the finest whitewater float trips in the country. Westwater Canyon is entirely within the Colorado River SRMA. Extensive facilities are maintained at Westwater to help manage the area, including a full service ranger station, employee housing, a water system, boat ramps, parking lots and a campground. Private as well as commercial boaters benefit from this intensive management. 3.11.1.4.2 THE COLORADO RIVER DAILY (FROM HITTLE BOTTOM TO BLM TAKEOUT ALONG UTAH HIGHWAY 128) This section has several mild rapids. Private boaters are not required to obtain a permit, and there are no limitations on the numbers of boaters allowed. The Colorado River Daily is within the Grand ERMA below Castle Creek (shoreline only). The Colorado River upstream from Castle Creek (river as well as shoreline) is located within the Colorado River SRMA. 3.11.1.4.3 THE COLORADO RIVER ALONG UTAH HIGHWAY 279 This 20-mile flatwater section is usually canoed. There are no permits or use limitations. It is within the Grand ERMA. 3.11.1.4.4 THE COLORADO RIVER FROM THE COLORADO STATE LINE TO WESTWATER The section of the Colorado River from Loma, Colorado to Westwater, Utah is called Ruby/Horsethief. This popular flatwater float trip is administered by the BLM, Grand Junction, Colorado Field Office, with four miles of the trip located within the MPA. As the takeout is at Westwater, heavy use along Ruby/Horsethief can lead to parking overflow problems at the Westwater Ranger Station. 3.11.1.4.5 GREEN RIVER – DESOLATION CANYON (FROM SAND WASH TO NEFERTITI RAPID) This 76-mile section of the Green River is called the Desolation Canyon float trip. There are fifty ripples and rapids in this section. Private permits are required for Desolation Canyon, and are issued by the BLM Price Field Office. The lower segments on the east side of Desolation Canyon are within the Grand ERMA.

3-86

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

3.11.1.4.6 THE GREEN RIVER DAILY (FROM NEFERTITI RAPID TO SWASEY'S BEACH, 10 MILES NORTH OF GREEN RIVER, UTAH) This is the last 10 miles of the Desolation Canyon float trip. There are several mild rapids along this stretch. Permits are not required for this Daily portion. It is within the Grand ERMA. 3.11.1.4.7 GREEN RIVER – LABYRINTH CANYON (FROM THE CITY OF GREEN RIVER TO MINERAL BOTTOM) This 60-mile section of the Green River is one of the premier flatwater canoe and float trips within the U.S. Permits are required for Labyrinth Canyon, although the numbers of boaters are not limited. Labyrinth Canyon is within the Grand ERMA, and it is managed by agreement with Utah Sovereign Lands with assistance from Utah State Parks. 3.11.1.4.8 COLORADO RIVER – CISCO TO DEWEY BRIDGE AND THE DOLORES RIVER CONFLUENCE The flatwater section of the Colorado River from Cisco to Dewey Bridge is growing in popularity. Both private and commercial users float this 20-mile section of the river. There is no private permitting process for this section of the river. In addition, the Dolores River from the Colorado/Utah state line to its confluence with the Colorado River is floated in the springtime by a limited number of people (free permits are required). Limited flows on the Dolores restrict its use for much of the year. 3.11.1.4.9 RIVER RECREATION USE AND DEMAND Visitor counts for boaters are based on permit data and observations and illustrate the current demand for river recreation on four river segments in the MPA (Table 3.19). In general, satisfaction of river users is high, with the average satisfaction of approximately 95% on both the Green and Colorado Rivers (Reiter and Blahna 2001). Table 3.19. River Recreation Use in the MPA
Green River Labyrinth Number of Boaters Segment Length (Miles) Rapid Classes Average Trip Length (Days)
Source: IORT 2001.

Green River Daily 11,000 8 II-III 1

Colorado River Daily 59,000 13 I-III 1

Colorado River Westwater 14,000 17 III-IV 2

8,000 70 I 5

3-87

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

3.11.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
3.11.2.1 THE GRAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RMP) The current (Grand) RMP provides the framework for planning in the area. As mentioned above, the 1985 Grand RMP was completed prior to the rapid expansion of recreational use on public lands in the MPA. The RMP specifically addresses the Colorado and the Dolores Rivers, and the issuance of recreation permits as well as a few routes; however, most of the issues and locations that are now important to the BLM Recreation Program are not addressed. The guidance given in the 1985 RMP to the recreation program lacks the specificity needed to manage the current burgeoning use of recreation resources. The 1985 RMP also made the following OHV decisions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Designate 1,183,660 acres as open to OHV use; Designate 596,234 acres limited to existing roads and trails; Designate 24,454 acres as closed to OHV use; Designate 15,206 acres as in Mill Creek and East Mill Creek as limited to designated roads and trails.

3.11.2.2 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV) MANAGEMENT Since the approval of the current RMP, there have been substantial changes in visitation in the MPA: the numbers of visitors have increased, and the numbers of visitors engaging in motorized recreation have also increased. These changes forced alterations in the OHV designations in order to protect visual, cultural, soil, and vegetation resources. The current RMP outlined OHV designations; however subsequent Federal Register Notices have instituted rules that remain in place until the proposed RMP is approved. They are shown in Table 3.20 below. In addition, wilderness has been designated in Utah as part of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area Bill. The Black Ridge Wilderness Area is closed to OHV use. Table 3.20. Comparison of 1985 RMP OHV Designations and Present OHV Designations
Grand RMP (acres) Open to cross country travel Limited to Existing Roads and Trails Limited to Designated Roads and Trails Limited to Inventoried Roads Closed to OHV Use 1,183,660 596,234 15,206 309,749 24,454 After Additional Restrictions and Designations (acres) 725,370 734,074 48,169 309,749 33,819

The management of OHV activities within the planning area includes monitoring and maintaining trails, maintaining and adding to a database of monitoring use, installing fencing to protect vegetation on certain trails, coordination with local officials and other agencies, WSA

3-88

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

monitoring, ongoing training on OHV related issues, and issuing citations and written warnings for OHV violations. The Utah Division of State Parks and Recreation monitors OHV registration through the Department of Motor Vehicles. The following data show a dramatic increase in OHV ownership in the State of Utah (Table 3.21). Table 3.21. Utah OHV Registrations*, 1998 Compared with 2002
1998 Statewide Grand County 77,361 238 2002 160,583 726 % Increase 207% 305%

*OHV registrations include ATVs, non-street legal motorbikes, snowmobiles, and dune buggies. Vehicles that are street legal, such as jeeps and trucks, are licensed, and are not considered OHVs for registration purposes.

It is important to note that the majority of OHV and dirt bike users in the MPA are residents of Colorado. In addition, users come from the Wasatch Front of Utah, other western states, and from all over the country to dirt bike and ride OHVs on public lands within the MPA. The planning area has been featured in national OHV publications (four-wheelers, dirt bike, and fourwheel driving), and has become nationally known as an OHV destination. OHV demand is highest within the following areas: • • • • Near Dead Horse Point State Park including Arth's Rim, Poison Spider Mesa, Gold Bar Rim, and Golden Spike; The area just east and south of Moab including Porcupine Rim, Hell's Revenge, Fins & Things, and Steel Bender; Near Kane Creek, including Cliff Hanger, Kane Creek Canyon Road, Moab Rim, Hurrah Pass, Pritchett Canyon, Behind the Rocks and Flat Iron Mesa; and Northwest of Arches National Park including Wipeout Hill, Seven Mile Rim, Hey Joe Canyon, Ten Mile, Secret Spire, 3D and Crystal Geyser (Reiter et al. 1998).

Demand for OHV activities is expected to continue to increase in the MPA. This will place demands on the MFO to provide for and monitor motorized users. This anticipated increase in demand also has implications for OHV designations and for route marking. 3.11.2.3 SPECIAL RECREATION PERMITS (SRPS) FOR SPECIAL EVENTS Due to recent increases in recreational use in the MPA that exceed monitoring capability and available space, priority for authorization of new SRPs for land-based commercial and competitive events is given (where conflicts exist) to applicants proposing uses that: • • • • Do not duplicate existing uses; Take place outside the months of March, April, May and October; Use lands and facilities off public lands for overnight accommodation of guests; Display and communicate the Canyon Country Minimum Impact Practices; and

3-89

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

•

Focus visitation on sites and areas capable of withstanding repeated use.

The great number of visitors to public lands during peak periods led to the promulgation of these rules in order to protect resources and to disperse visitation. Other factors are also considered including the public demand for the proposed use, the capability of the applicant to carry out the proposed use, projected government revenues, and past performance. 3.11.2.4 SPECIAL AREA RIVER RECREATION PERMITS In addition to commercial permit requirements, permits for private boaters are required for three river stretches within the MPA: Westwater Canyon of the Colorado River; the Dolores River from Gateway to the confluence with the Colorado River; and interagency river trip permits (joint jurisdiction of the BLM and Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands) for the Labyrinth section of the Green River (noncommercial trips between Green River State Park and the northern boundary of Canyonlands). All permittees are required to follow standard river use stipulations. 3.11.2.5 DEMAND FOR FACILITY DEVELOPMENT In the past 15 years, the MFO has constructed and maintained a variety of recreation infrastructure. However, the present level of facility development is still not sufficient to meet the needs of the recreating public, nor is it sufficient to protect resources from the recreating public. Areas within the Grand ERMA that are receiving heavy visitation and camping use will require facilities such as camping areas, toilets, information kiosks, marked routes and parking areas in the very near future. These areas include the Utah 313 corridor, the area northwest of Moab known as Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges (including Ten Mile Canyon and White Wash Sand Dunes), the Bartlett Wash/Mill/Tusher Canyon areas, Klondike Bluffs, Bar M, areas south of Moab, Utah Rims, and Kane Creek Crossing area. It is reasonable to expect that, in the next 15 years, recreation facilities construction will continue to be needed, although the pace of construction is expected to lessen. With visitation to BLMadministered public lands around Moab continuing to increase (and with the need for additional facilities already extant with the present visitation), facilities to provide for these visitors must keep pace in order to protect the land and to provide for human sanitation. Current use levels continue to produce degradation of resources, and additional facilities are needed to accommodate visitation and stabilize resource values. Examples of demand-driven development include: 1) providing camping facilities where dispersed camping activity exceeds capacity, or 2) providing marked OHV or bike routes when numbers and types of users change so that route marking can maintain public safety and protect resources. In addition, providing for vehicular users often requires building parking lots, trailheads and toilet facilities. 3.11.2.6 USER CONFLICT AND DISPLACEMENT As recreational use has increased throughout the MPA, recreationists have moved into areas historically used by other resource users, such as ranchers and the oil and gas industry. Sometimes, conflicts have developed among these user groups, as long-term users resent encroachment of recreationists on the public lands. In turn, some recreation users see their use of

3-90

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

the public land as the highest and best use, and feel that the established users have a lesser claim to that land. There has also been a displacement of certain recreation groups from some areas due to conflicts with other recreation user groups. For instance, the growing popularity of Gemini Bridges for OHVs has led to fewer numbers of mountain bikers, as they have been displaced by the faster moving and louder modes of transportation. Another source of tension is among various recreation user groups. When recreational use reaches a certain threshold, user groups start to resent the multi-use nature of public lands. For example, some hikers resent mountain bikers and motorized users on shared trails, while mountain bikers may seek some trails free from motorized use. The multi-use concept becomes strained when use levels reach a threshold. Specific areas in which BLM staff have had reports of user conflict and displacement include: • • • • • • • • • Monitor and Merrimac Trail – conflicts between motorcycle users and mountain bikers Bartlett Wash – conflict between grazing and recreation uses and between motorized and non-motorized use Kokopelli's Trail – conflict between OHVs and mountain bikers Hurrah Pass/Kane Creek Crossing – conflict between OHVs and mountain bikers Slickrock Trail – conflict between dirt bikes and mountain bikers Gemini Bridges – conflict between OHVs and mountain bikers Moab Rim – conflict between OHVs, hikers, and mountain bikers Seven Mile Canyon –conflict between OHVs and horseback riders Poison Spider Trail – conflict between OHVs and mountain bikers

3.11.2.7 RESOURCE CONFLICTS/IMPACTS Various recreation activities impact other resources, such as riparian areas, cultural resources, vegetation, wildlife, soils, grazing, and oil and gas. Resource conflicts occur when two uses compete for the same resource, such as recreation and wildlife competing for land. Specific areas where resource conflict is occurring include: • • • • • • Moab Canyon – conflict between recreation users and vehicular traffic Gemini Bridges and Long Canyon Roads/Shafer Canyon – conflict between recreation and wildlife (bighorn sheep) Bartlett Wash – impact of camping and OHV use on riparian area; impacts to cultural resource sites White Wash area– impact of OHV use on visual quality, riparian resources, cultural resources, and oil and gas and ranching operations Crystal Geyser/White Wash area – impact of OHV use on visual quality, riparian resources, cultural resources, and oil and gas and ranching operations Wall Street – conflict between climbing activities and vehicular traffic

3-91

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Castle Rock – conflict between residents' wishes and current recreation use Tenmile Canyon – motorized use in stream conflicts with wildlife, cultural, and riparian resources Duma Point – motorized use conflicts with bighorn sheep escape habitat Kane Creek Crossing– impact of motorized vehicle use and camping on riparian area Tusher Canyon – motorized vehicle use in the stream is impacting the riparian area Seven Mile Canyon – conflict between motorized vehicle use and cultural resources Mill Creek Canyon – hiker and horse use conflicts with cultural resources Mill Canyon – motorized vehicle and mountain bike use conflicts with riparian resources, visual quality, cultural resources, and vegetation Upper Courthouse Wash – motorized vehicle traffic conflicts with visual quality, vegetation, riparian, and cultural resources Pritchett Canyon – conflicts between vehicle use and wilderness values in the Wilderness Study Area and visual quality Klondike Bluffs – motorized vehicle and mountain bike use conflict with paleontological resources Westwater Canyon – OHV use on the rims of Westwater Canyon conflicts with wilderness values of the Wilderness Study Area and with river visitors' experience along the Colorado River Along highway corridors – as OHV trails are created parallel to paved highways, conflict with the visual quality that drivers on the highways wish to experience

•

3.11.2.7.1 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES (OHV) The increase in the use of OHVs has created several issues for the MPA. First, the speed and increasing capability of OHVs allows easier access to remote parts of the MPA, making management of this activity more difficult, and increasing the potential range of impacts. Second, the popularity of this activity continues to grow, both in private use and in more special events taking place. Planning for areas in which OHVs can be used continues to receive national and local attention. Cross-country OHV use, both legal and illegal, is creating additional resource damage and is a real and important issue in the MPA. In addition, the issue of conflicting recreational use, primarily between OHV and other users, both recreational and resource users, continues to grow. The ability of OHV users to penetrate the backcountry where patrols are difficult may lead to secondary impacts to cultural resources from increased vandalism and theft. 3.11.2.7.2 INADEQUATE FACILITIES/PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY The availability of facilities is directly related to public health. Inadequate numbers of organized campgrounds and restroom facilities contribute to unhealthy levels of human waste in some areas, posing a health risk to visitors. At present, many of the problem areas (especially those close to the city of Moab) are on non-public (state and private) lands. While the BLM has

3-92

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.11 Recreation

provided restroom facilities (90 in total), the number is still inadequate for the number of visitors to BLM lands. Funding for maintenance of existing and needed facilities is also a serious issue. There is a need for more staff presence in the Colorado Riverway, given the level of visitation. Backcountry areas of the Riverway, such as Shafer Basin, areas of Onion Creek, and Castle Rock, are currently devoid of facilities; this may not be adequate for the numbers of visitors these areas are receiving. A substantial amount of unrestricted camping occurs in the area north of U.S. Highway 191, especially around Bartlett Wash and Mill Canyon, near the Kane Creek Crossing on the way to Hurrah Pass, and in the White Wash/Ten Mile Area; this has led to sanitation problems and resource damage.

3.12 RIPARIAN
3.12.1 INTRODUCTION
Riparian and wetland areas are sensitive vegetative or physical ecosystems that develop in association with surface or subsurface water (Leonard et al. 1992). Riparian and wetland ecological systems comprise less than 1% of the 22 million acres of public lands administered by BLM in Utah, but are among the most important, productive, and diverse ecosystems on the landscape. Benefits from riparian/wetland ecosystems are essential to both human and wildlife values and include: • • • • • • • Maintaining clean renewable water supplies; Supporting various life stages for diverse flora and fauna, including special status species and fisheries; Importance in cultural and historic values; Economic value derived from sustainable uses (open space, hunting, livestock grazing; commercial recreation); Greenbelt associated recreation and scenic values; Thermal/shade protection for both humans and wildlife, which is especially important within the arid Southwest; Flood attenuation.

Riparian/wetland habitats are fragile resources and are often among the first landscape features to reflect impacts from management activities. These habitats are used as indicators of overall land health and watershed condition. Healthy riparian systems filter and purify water, reduce sediment loads and enhance soil stability, reduce destructive energies associated with flood events, provide physical and thermal micro-climates in contrast to surrounding uplands, and contribute to groundwater recharge and base flow (BLM 1991b).

3-93

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.12 Riparian

3.12.2 RESOURCE OVERVIEW
BLM administers 32,800 acres (1.8% of BLM-administered lands) of riparian and wetland resources on public lands within the MPA. The majority of these resources are riparian areas located along the Colorado River, Green River, Dolores River, and their associated tributary drainages including Mill Creek, Kane Creek, Onion Creek, Tenmile Wash and many others. Riparian and wetland areas include, but are not limited to, areas adjacent to waterways (whether waters are surface, subsurface, or ephemeral), springs, potholes, wet meadows, sloughs, marshes, swamps, bogs, floodplains, lakes, and reservoirs. Riparian areas are recognized as "a form of wetland transition" between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas (Leonard et al. 1992), and for BLM purposes, riparian and wetland areas are referred to synonymously unless specifically discerned. Riparian and wetland ecosystems are classified by type based on hydrologic, geomorphologic, and biological factors (Cowardin et al. 1979). Within most riparian/wetland systems in the arid southwest, the potential of a riparian/wetland ecosystem is strongly dependent upon the availability of water. The amount, timing, duration and source of water availability, among other physical factors, is commonly referred to in terms of perennial (yearlong), interrupted (perennial flow discontinuous in space), intermittent (seasonal), or ephemeral (storm) water sources. The BLM specifically manages and monitors riparian/wetland resources in terms of lotic and lentic ecosystems. Lotic riparian areas are those ecosystems associated with running waters, streams, springs or drainages, while lentic riparian areas are those associated with standing water ecosystems, such as marshes, swamps, lakes, springs, seeps, low velocity backwater areas or areas where permanent soil moisture is available. Ecological evaluations based on ecosystem attributes and processes differ between lotic and lentic systems, with current condition and activities in planning area reported annually to Congress. FY 2003 summaries regarding lotic and lentic systems indicate over 96% (31,700 acres) of riparian/wetland resources in the planning area are lotic riparian systems, with less than 4% (1,102 acres) in lentic wetland systems.

3.12.3 RIPARIAN/WETLAND STATUS
Regardless of the type of riparian or wetland ecosystem, Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is assessed for each stream or varying segments (Table 3.22). Functioning condition is rated by category to reflect ecosystem health as affected by management practices. Definitions follow below (BLM 1998c): Properly Functioning Condition (PFC): currently 18,584 acres (57%) of riparian/wetland areas are in PFC when adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris is present to: • • • • Dissipate high-energy water flow; Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks;

3-94

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.12 Riparian

• •

Develop diverse fluvial geomorphology (pool and channel complexes) to provide habitat for wildlife; and Support greater biodiversity.

Functioning at Risk (FAR): currently 11,192 acres (34%) of riparian-wetland areas are in functional condition, but at least one soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation following high flow events. Non-Functioning (NF): currently 2,973 acres (9%) of riparian-wetland areas that are clearly not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large wood debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc. Table 3.22. 2003 Condition Status of Riparian Areas by Watershed within the MPA
Stream System Colorado Headwaters– Plateau Colorado River, Cottonwood Canyon Upper Colorado-Dolores–Westwater Agate Wash, Bitter Creek, Cisco Wash, Coates Creek, Colorado River, Cotttonwood Canyon, Cottonwood Wash, Danish Wash, Diamond Ck, Dolores River, Dry Gulch, East Canyon, Hay Canyon, Jones Canyon, Little Dolores, Marble Canyon, Nash Wash, Pinto Wash Renegade Ck, Ryan Ck, Sagers Wash, Star Cyn, Sulphur Canyon, Westwater Creek Upper Colorado-Dolores –Upper Dolores East Coyote Wash, La Sal Creek (Upper Colorado-Dolores – Lower Dolores) Beaver Ck, Colorado River, Dolores River, Fisher Ck, Granite Ck Upper Colorado-Dolores – Kane Springs Castle Creek, Bartlett Wash, Buck, Bull Canyon, Colorado River, Courthouse Wash, Day Canyon, Dolores River, Dripping Spring, Dry Oak Spring, Fish Seep Wash, Gold Bar Canyon, Hatch Wash, Hunters Canyon, Ice Box, Jackass Canyon, Kane Springs Ck, Little Canyon, Little Valley, Lockhart, Mill Canyon, Mill Creek, Muleshoe, Negro Bill Canyon, Onion Creek, Pritchett Canyon, Professor Creek, Rill Creek, Sagers Wash, Salt Valley, Salt Wash, Sevenmile, Shafer Basin, Trough Springs, Trout Water, Tusher Wash, West Coyote Wash, Yellow Jacket Lower Green – Desolation Canyon Coal Creek, Green River, Rattlesnake PFC (acres/%) 178.34 100% 6,753.21 62% 1,502.91 14% 2,692.47 25% 10,948.59 FAR (acres/%) 0 NF (acres/%) 0 Total Riparian (acres) 178.34

559.19 82% 1,247.36 53% 7,035.90 78%

122.89 18% 1,134.60 48% 1,923.16 21%

0 0

682.08 2,381.96

26.47 1%

8,985.53

1,133.97 61%

677.63 37%

43.93 2%

1,855.53

3-95

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.12 Riparian

Table 3.22. 2003 Condition Status of Riparian Areas by Watershed within the MPA
Stream System Lower Green – Willow Moon Ridge, Willow Creek Lower Green – Lower Green Tenmile Wash, Browns Wash, Crescent Wash, Dubinky, Floy Creek, Green River, Hell Roaring, Little Grand Wash, Mineral Bottom, Rattlesnake, Red Wash, Salt Valley, Salt Wash, Spring Canyon, Thompson Wash, Tusher Canyon, White Wash Total PFC (acres/%) 30.51 100% 1,646.50 21% 5,831.29 76% 210.61 3% 7,688.40 FAR (acres/%) 0 NF (acres/%) 0 Total Riparian (acres) 30.51

18,584.98

11,192.48

2,973.48

32,750.94

3.12.4 INVASIVE AND/OR NON-NATIVE SPECIES
While functional ratings can indicate the health of an ecosystem and be used as management tools, they do not in themselves reflect the degree of ecosystem diversity relative to invasive, exotic or noxious plant species. This factor has severely altered the majority of native riparian and wetland ecosystems throughout the west (see Table 3.23 for a list of native and non-native plant species). Under this condition, a system can be severely altered and still function to a lesser degree than its desired or potential condition. Riparian areas are naturally dynamic zones driven by disturbance. Natural disturbance within riparian ecosystems associated with water amount, timing, duration and source supports the establishment of native vegetation but can also lead to encroachment by invasive and/or non-native plant communities if these seed sources are present. Table 3.23. Common Riparian Plant Species Occurring in the MPA
Species Type Common Name Native Riparian Species Fremont cottonwood Narrowleaf cottonwood Gooding willow (black willow) Coyote willow Yellow willow Water birch Box elder Bulrushes Rushes Spike-rushes Cattail Populus fremontii Populus angustifolia Salix goodingii Salix exigua Salix lutea Betula occidentalis Acer negundo Scirpus spp. Juncus spp. Eleocharis spp. Typha spp. Scientific Name

3-96

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.12 Riparian

Table 3.23. Common Riparian Plant Species Occurring in the MPA
Species Type Common Name Invasive/Exotic Species Russian olive Tamarisk Chinese elm Ravenna grass Clematis Phragmites Russian knapweed Purple loosestrife Spotted knapweed Bermudagrass Bindweed Broad-leaved peppergrass (tall whitetop) Canada thistle Diffuse knapweed Perennial sorghum (including Johnson grass) Musk thistle Quackgrass Scotch thistle Squarrose knapweed Whitetop Elaeagnus angustifolia Tamarix spp. Ulmus parvifolia Erianthus ravennae Clematis spp. Phragmites spp. Noxious Species Acroptilon repens Lythrum salicaria Centaurea maculosa Cynodon dactylon Convolvulus spp. Lepidium latifolium Cirsium arvense Centaurea diffusa Sorghum spp. Carduus nutans Elytrigia repens Onopordium acanthium Centaurea squarrosa Cardaria spp. Scientific Name

Exotic and noxious species (namely tamarisk, Russian olive, and Russian knapweed) are now common within most riparian/wetland ecosystems along major riverways in the planning area. Possibly the most devastating aspect of invasive exotic species is their contribution to making healthy riparian ecosystems unhealthy. The individual riparian functions or processes that exotic species can alter include: • • Exotics often dewater riparian sites since they have deeper tap roots to out-compete natives for availability of water in arid environments; Tamarisk secretes salt and increases soil and water salinity, resulting in reduced seed establishment of native species, and reduced downstream water quality. This has severe economic impacts; Exotics compete for sun and space in narrow available habitats; Exotics have large numbers of seeds and long seed establishment periods (very prolific in comparison to native species);

• •

3-97

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.12 Riparian

• •

Exotic communities typically reduce biodiversity (significant decreases in numbers and types of associated biotic species, including birds, bats, insects, amphibians, etc.); and Exotic or invasive communities (e.g., Typha spp. and Phragmites australis) because of root and stem densities can armor stream banks promoting entrenched systems with highly destructive flooding energies which remain undissipated within deep channels, resulting in high bank loss downstream, sedimentation, and salinization.

3.12.5 RIPARIAN/WETLAND IMPROVEMENT AND RESTORATION
3.12.5.1 IMPACTS TO RIPARIAN AREAS BY WATERSHED Improvements and restoration efforts are conducted to ensure proper management of riparian/wetland ecosystems based on monitoring and on evaluations of individual resources, resource objectives or in response to activity plans (Table 3.24). Improvements are actions such as protective fencing or adjustments in management uses, while restoration refers to the repair of ecological functions of a riparian/wetland system. Table 3.24. Watersheds and Issues Receiving Corrective Restoration Action
Watershed Negro Bill Canyon Kane Springs Creek Ten-mile Wash (and tributaries) Seven-mile Wash Hunters Canyon Lost Spring Hay Canyon Westwater Canyon Cottonwood Creek Diamond Creek Onion Creek Bartlett Wash Moonflower Canyon Granite Canyon Dolores River Mill Creek Canyon Issues Receiving Corrective Action Exotics, trail realignment Exotics, OHV route delineation OHV route delineation, camping control, exotics, livestock OHV route delineation, exotics, livestock control Exotics, camping Exotics Livestock control, exotics Livestock control Fire, stream restoration Fire, stream restoration OHV route delineation, stream restoration OHV route delineation, camping control, road maintenance Trail erosion Fish habitat improvement Exotics/weeds, livestock control Trail realignment, exotics, road control, stream restoration

3.12.5.2 CURRENT RIPARIAN/WETLAND CONDITION STATUS The 2003 status of riparian/wetland ecosystems in the planning area reflect that approximately 57% of lotic riparian systems are in PFC, while only 30% of lentic wetlands are in PFC. These findings followed a 2002 catastrophic wildfire within Cottonwood and Diamond Creeks which degraded 35% (450 acres) of the total wetlands within the MFO planning area (refer to riparian/wetland status at the beginning of this chapter).

3-98

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.12 Riparian

Changes in riparian/wetland functioning condition generally occur dramatically rather than gradually, and often in response to cumulative impacts that cause failure following high flood events when functioning processes are most critical to dissipate destructive flows. However, in assessing the 1990 priority of riparian/wetlands in the planning area, very few changes in management priority are reflected, indicating that similar issues or conditions have been maintained over the last few years. Some notable differences in riparian/wetland condition and priorities have occurred in areas with popular OHV use (and associated dispersed camping), reoccurring livestock grazing, and increased use of county access roads. Riparian/wetland ecosystems prioritized for restoration (1- high to 4- low) within MFO are listed in Table 3.25. Recent revisions of riparian/wetland priorities are based on the protection of important riparian/wetland resources or the need for additional management in response to impacts resulting in Functioning-At-Risk conditions or declining trends. Table 3.25. Priority Riparian/Wetland Ecosystems in the MPA, 2004 vs. 1990
Priority Status 1 2004 Priority Colorado River (including Day Canyon) Green River Dolores River 2 Mill Creek Canyon Onion Creek Ten Mile Wash Kane Spring Canyon Negro Bill Canyon Cottonwood and Diamond Creeks 3 Seven Mile Creek Bartlett/Tusher/Mill/Courthouse Rattlesnake Canyon 4 Westwater Creek Hatch Wash Floy Creek Flat Nose George Canyon East Coyote Wash Fisher/Beaver/Granite Creeks Seven-Mile Creek Courthouse Wash Westwater Creek Cottonwood Creek Hatch Wash Rattlesnake Canyon Flat Nose George Canyon Dolores River Green River (Rattlesnake to GR City) Negro Bill Mill Creek Canyon Kane Springs Canyon 1990 Priority Colorado River (Colorado - Utah Stateline to Potash)

High priority management is also given to special riparian/wetland ecosystems or conditions including: • • Isolated riparian/wetland areas where exotic/noxious encroachment is low; Arid or remote regions where riparian/wetlands are especially critical to wildlife and susceptible to impacts from grazing and recreation uses;

3-99

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.12 Riparian

•

Riparian/wetlands which contain unique, rare or diverse functions or values, such as rare hanging garden ecosystems, rare plant or wildlife species, or health indicator species including amphibians, arthropods, bats, etc; Perennial streams, springs, or seeps that develop and support diverse and developed biotic or aquatic ecosystems including fish; Sites containing native riparian/wetland species. Of particular importance are ecosystems containing Fremont cottonwood due to its current recruitment history and susceptibility to fire, grazing and beavers; willows (especially Gooding willow) due to their sparseness from overgrazing; and any wetland/lentic systems, sites or species due to their importance in stabilizing soils and water recharge.

• •

In fall of 2005 the biological control agent, Diorhabda elongata or tamarisk leaf beetle, was released on private lands along a stretch of the Colorado River adjacent to the Potash Road north of Moab. This population established successfully and in 2006 spread many miles up and downstream (and into several side canyons) with several miles of significant defoliation near the original release site. The beetle has established itself and is defoliating trees on BLM managed lands near the original release site. Repeated defoliation and spread of the beetle is expected to continue at a rapid pace in the next several years. Eventual death is expected for many of the trees after 4-5 years of continual defoliation, however that is still an estimate based on results of releases in other states or in slightly different ecosystems, it may differ slightly at this location. There will likely be standing dead skeletons, release of other suppressed weed species such as knapweed. Potentially some recovery of willow and other native species may occur, especially in headwaters or areas with less dense tamarisk infestations; however due to salinization of soils from dense tamarisk stands or hydrologic controls which may affect flooding and potential for cottonwood establishment, natural revegetation may not readily occur and more active restoration techniques may be necessary to prevent erosion or degradation of riparian resources.

3.13 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
3.13.1 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The socioeconomic context of this RMP/EIS refers to the social, cultural and economic settings of communities impacted by the implementation of the BLM's management actions. The following section provides a summary of the planning area's social history and current demographic and economic trend information as well as a description of the key industries that are may be affected by management action implementation. The southern third of the MPA is in San Juan County, Utah. The full socioeconomic context for San Juan County is presented in the Monticello Resource Management Plan Revision, currently in progress. Relevant portions of the San Juan County socioeconomic report are contained in this chapter. For a full report on the social and economic conditions in San Juan County, see the Monticello RMP.

3-100

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

3.13.1.1 GRAND COUNTY OVERVIEW Grand County is situated in the eastern part of Utah, bordered by Emery County to the west, Uintah County to the north, San Juan County to the south, and the state of Colorado to the east. The county comprises 2,284,117 acres (3,689 square miles), with approximately 2.3 persons per square mile; Grand County has one of the lowest population densities in the state, (27.2 persons per square mile is the statewide average) (Grand County 2004). The Federal government administers 71% of the land in Grand County. The BLM manages the majority of the Federal land within the county, with jurisdiction over 66% of the land (1,559,814 acres). With just over 95% of the land being managed by Federal, state, and tribal governments, only 4.3% of the land is privately owned. Table 3.26 shows the land composition of Grand County. Table 3.26. Land Jurisdiction in Grand County
Total Acres Federal Lands BLM Lands USFS National Park State Lands Private American Indian Total Acres Within the County
Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004

% of County 71.0 66.0 1.2 3.2 15.5 4.3 8.4 100.0

1,694,128 1,559,814 27,321 75,362 365,255 100,763 198,090 2,363,594

The large tracts of privately owned land in the county are located in Spanish and Castle valleys, along the Colorado River northeast of Moab, and along the Green River, north of the city of Green River. Because of the concentration of private land in the Spanish Valley, the availability of potable water, proximity to the National Parks, and the lack of infrastructure in other areas, the majority of the county's population resides in the city of Moab or in the unincorporated area of Spanish Valley (Grand County 2004). The natural landscape in Grand County draws over two million visitors per year and provides a scenic backdrop for a community that values a high quality of life. With the Book Cliffs in the northernmost part of the county, the Manti-La Sal National Forest to the south, the Colorado River running through the county, Arches and Canyonlands National Park, and thousands of acres of BLM Recreation Area, Grand County hosts visitors from all over the world. The remarkable red rock landscape has allowed local residents to develop a strong connection to the area and create a sense of place, identity, and community character unique to Utah. 3.13.1.2 SAN JUAN COUNTY OVERVIEW An approximately 300,000-acre portion of San Juan County falls under the jurisdiction of the MFO. The Monticello Field Office is concurrently preparing a RMP/EIS for the San Juan County area and was consulted regarding the socioeconomic analysis of San Juan County and the characteristics of the tract of land administered by the MFO. Because the northeast third of San

3-101

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

Juan County is within BLM, MFO jurisdiction, the land management decisions out of the MFO could have a potential impact on socioeconomics of San Juan County. Therefore, social and economic conditions in San Juan County will be mentioned as appropriate throughout this section. 3.13.1.3 HISTORICAL SOCIAL CONTEXT The MPA is an area rich in cultural and natural history. Past settlements and uses in the planning area by a variety of peoples has been as important as the ecological processes that have created and shaped the place that the BLM manages today. A brief review of the social and cultural history in the area will provide background information on the present-day social setting. Archeological evidence suggests that Grand County and the larger Four Corners area was inhabited by Native Americans, called Anasazi, between the years 1 and 1300 AD, with some evidence dating back as early as 1500 BC (BLM 2005h). The Anasazi, or Ancestral Puebloan People as they are often referred to today, successfully farmed the Four Corners Area for over a thousand years but evidence suggests they left the region by A.D. 1300. Other Native Americans occupied the Grand County area after the Anasazi, including the Utes. These Native American residents used the crossing of the Colorado River at the edge of the Spanish Valley. Remains of Native American dwellings and rock art around the MPA provide glimpses into the history of the cultures that once inhabited the region. The first white people to enter into the area were Spanish explorers who developed a trade route through the Spanish Valley. It was not until the late 1870s and early 1880s that the Moab area was permanently settled by a few Mormon families. Throughout the 1880s and 1890s the settlement grew slowly and its economy was based on farming, ranching, and fruit growing. In the 1890s, as mining efforts began along the Colorado River and in the LaSal Mountains, construction of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad between Denver and Salt Lake City was completed, bringing a railroad connection within 35 miles of the Moab Valley. 3.13.1.4 RECENT REGIONAL HISTORY Farming and ranching continued to be the primary way of life in the Moab Valley until the uranium boom of the early 1950s. The population of the Moab area grew significantly in the 1950s as scores of prospectors, miners, and workers hoped to benefit from the uranium boom. In 1956 the nation's second largest uranium processing mill was completed just outside of Moab, employing more than 200 workers (Bearnson 1994). As the demand for uranium began to decrease in the 1960s, potash, salt mining and milling operations contributed to the economy. But by the early 1980s milling and most mining operations in the Moab area ceased given the lack of demand. In the later half of the twentieth century the Moab area saw the benefits of utilizing its natural resources in other ways: recreation and tourism. Arches National Monument was established in 1929 and declared a National Park in 1971. Canyonlands National Park was established in 1964. The National Parks in the area drew numerous visitors to the area each year and Moab began serving as the gateway to these unique places (Grand County 2004). After World War II, riverrunning became a popular form of recreation and by the 1970s it contributed significantly to Moab's economy as people would come to Moab to run sections of the Colorado River. During the 1970s and 1980s, Moab continued to grow as a tourist destination as mountain bikers and

3-102

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

motorized vehicle users discovered the recreation potential in the slickrock hills surrounding the Moab Valley. 3.13.1.5 CURRENT SOCIAL CONTEXT Today, Grand County is an area that has historically been known for its rural character and, according to local residents, preservation of this character is a priority. While the term "rural character" means different things to different people, residents concluded that it meant the following: affordable, modest, low density housing, open space with farmlands and fields, protected viewsheds, and low population, crime, and traffic levels (Grand County 2004). The above characteristics illustrate the community's desire to maintain and preserve the quality of life currently enjoyed by its residents. The residents also acknowledge that the public lands in Grand County are the foundation of the county's economic prosperity. Residents in the Moab area define their community as one based on recreation and tourism. The economic benefit is derived from the management of public lands for multiple use, including livestock grazing, tourism, mineral extraction, recreation, watershed protection, hunting, and the film industry. Grand County's goal is to achieve a stable economic base while minimizing degradation of the economic, social, ecological and cultural resources of the public lands (Grand County 2004). Within the Grand County area, there are a variety of social communities that interact with each other and with the BLM. The majority of these groups are concentrated in and around the city of Moab, as it serves as the social and political center for the county. The social communities maintain diverse views on many issues, including public land management, but they do share the common connection to the unique landscape that surrounds their community. Many of the sociocultural groups within the Moab area define themselves through the physical proximity to the area and their interactions within it, their trade, shared worldview, common interests and experiences. Although community groups within the Moab area are quite difficult to define and quantify, groups in the area could be listed as: tourists, motorized and non-motorized recreationists, ranchers/farmers, tourism business community, non-tourism business community, and relative newcomers. A statewide social survey was conducted by Utah State University (USU) in 2007 to assess the ways in which Utah residents use and value public land resources and their views about public lands management. A complete analysis of the results had not been completed as of February, 2008. "Public lands", as described in the study, consist of all federal and state managed lands, and not only BLM. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of residents of all 29 Utah counties. According to the authors, the study and sample sizes are designed to produce results generalizable at the state-wide level, with generalization increasingly risky as the sample area diminishes. For example, the data may lose much of its generalizability at the individual county level, but increase as additional counties are aggregated into the sample. (Grand County, for example, has 6902 residents 18 years of age or older, which normally would require a random sample of 364 individuals, considerably more than the USU study, to have a reasonable degree of generalizability). The areas sampled do not necessarily coincide with field office planning area boundaries, as that was not the focus of the study. Nonetheless, the study provides current and interesting results not available elsewhere, and shows the dependence of local communities on public lands for a variety of economic and recreational pursuits. Appendix T contains initial summary results for Grand and San Juan Counties lying within the Moab Field office. Where

3-103

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

appropriate, study results are incorporated within the discussion of individual resources in Chapter 4. There is nothing in the preliminary USU results that affect the formulation of alternatives in Chapter 2 or the analysis of impacts in Chapter 4. 3.13.1.6 ECONOMIC CONTEXT This section describes existing economic conditions surrounding the MPA and provides a baseline for assessing the potential impacts of the RMP alternatives. Based on the implementation of a particular alternative, the BLM can affect (directly or indirectly) the local economic conditions of the nearby communities. For example, local employment and income levels can be directly impacted by changing the way it manages natural resources or grazing allotments. The construction of new recreation trails or facilities, road maintenance, and other activities can also influence local socioeconomic conditions described in this section. The BLM can also indirectly influence local economic conditions by pursuing new management strategies that alter visitation levels, thus affecting total future spending by recreationists and other tourists (BLM 2004e). Demographic information and selected economic indicators of social well-being (poverty, unemployment, and per capita household income) are also presented in this section to help provide context and put local conditions in perspective relative to statewide conditions. 3.13.1.6.1 POPULATION Grand County's population data is illustrative of an area that is driven by booms in the local economy. The county's recent history illustrates this trend. As the county's economy plummeted with the decreased need for uranium and other minerals in the 1980s, people quickly left the county in search of jobs and opportunities elsewhere. The county's population was at its height in 1981 with 8,400 residents but net out migration left the county with 6,620 residents in 1990 (Table 3.27). As the tourism industry in Grand County began to take root, the number of county residents began to rise. Between 1990 and 2000 the population grew by 28% which was only slightly less than the state's 30% increase (UDWS 2005). Table 3.27. Population by Category in Grand County, 1990 and 2000
1990 Population Male Female Under 20 years 65 years or over 6,620 3,214 3,406 2,250 826 49% 51% 34% 12% % of Total 2000 8,485 4,163 4,322 2,496 1,061 49% 51% 29% 13% % of Total % Chg 1990–2000 28% 30% 27% 11% 28% % Chg per Year 1990–2000* 2.50% 2.66% 2.42% 0.96% 2.50%

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003 and *BLM staff.

In 2000, the U.S. Census reported a population of 8,485 in Grand County (see Table 3.27; U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The population has grown only slightly since then with a total of 8,611 in 2004 and it is forecasted the growth within the county will continue in the near future but at a much slower pace than in the 1990s (UDWS 2005). The annual population growth rate of Grand

3-104

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

County is slower than that of the state of Utah: approximately 1.9% annual growth in the county, versus 2.3% annual growth in the state. The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget for the state of Utah projects that population in Grand County will reach 10,288 by 2030. The greatest concentration of people living in Grand County is in the city of Moab, where the population is 4,779. Unincorporated areas account for 3,357 people, most of whom live immediately south of Moab. Castle Valley, approximately 20 miles from Moab, is another unincorporated area within the county that has a significant residential community with a population of 354. Grand County's population is older than the Utah state average. The median age for the county is 35.6, whereas the state's median age is 27.5. Median age rose by 4% between 1990 and 2000, showing that the community is aging. Another indicator of an aging population is the continuing decline of school-aged children since 1995 (Grand County 2004). Population Migration While the population of Grand County has steadily grown over the last 30 years, the migration patterns have experienced slight dips and peaks. In the mid 1970s, the population increased dramatically as a result of the energy boom. Throughout the 1980s, out-migration of the population occurred as the energy market fell. The population continued to decline until the early 1990s, when the tourist economy began to emerge in Grand County. The current influx of migrants can be illustrated by data from the 2000 Census that report 53.3% of Grand County residents were born in a different state and of that percentage, 4.0% were born outside of the U.S. (Sonoran Institute 2005). San Juan County Population The 2004 population estimate data shows San Juan County has a total of 14,353 residents, slightly below 14,413 residents reported in the 2000 Census data (UDWS 2005). In San Juan County the American Indian/Alaskan population is more than half of the total population at 55.7%, but makes up only 1.33% of the Utah population (UDWS 2005). Population on the Navajo Nation has grown steadily over the last two decades. In 1980 population on the reservation was 4,554, 5,252 in 1990 and 6,280 in 2000. The only town within the MFO jurisdiction in San Juan County is La Sal, Utah. La Sal borders the Manti-La Sal National Forest and is 30 miles north from Monticello. Because it is a "densely settled concentration of population that is not within an incorporated place," it is declared a Census Designated Place according to the Census Bureau (GOPB 2001). According to the 2000 Census, the population of La Sal is 339. 3.13.1.6.2 UNEMPLOYMENT Unemployment levels are frequently used as an indicator for economic strength of the local economy and social well being of its population. Table 3.28 presents the size of the labor force

3-105

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

and average annual unemployment rates in Grand County. State of Utah unemployment information is given for comparative purposes. Table 3.28. Unemployment Rates
1990
Labor Force Unemployment Rate Labor Force

2000
Unemployment Rate

2004 (projected)
Labor Force Unemployment rate

Grand County San Juan County State of Utah

3,249 4,032 814,0 00

6.4% 7.4% 4.3%

5,362 4,754 1,143,2 00

6.5% 9.2% 3.3%

5,936 4,682 1,208,4 00

6.9% 11.0% 4.7%

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services 2005

Unemployment in Grand County is higher than the state or national average. In 2004 the unemployment rate in Grand County was 6.9%, compared to 4.7% for the state and 5.3% for the nation (UDWS 2005). The unemployment rates in Grand County are consistently nearly twice the state average and this is attributed to the seasonality of employment in the county. Unemployment in San Juan County has also been consistently above the state or national average. In 2004, San Juan County had the highest unemployment in the state at 11% (UDWS 2005). In the summer months, unemployment in Grand County matches the state average more closely, while in winter, unemployment is extremely high, reaching over 15% in recent years (Figure 3.6). Members of the community cite seasonality of employment as one reason for this trend. Since tourism is a major factor in the job base, and tourism is highest from spring through fall, jobs are more abundant during these times. According to community input, lifestyle choice may be a second reason for a high unemployment rate in Grand County. Residents may be intentionally choosing jobs or careers that are seasonal in nature. The figure below shows the seasonality of employment in Grand County, with unemployment rates highest in the winter months for 1999, 2000 and 2001.

3-106

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic Unemployment Rate (%, Annual Average, Unadjusted)

18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0
Ma y r Au g No v Ap r Fe b Oc t n n Ma Ju l p De Ju Ja Se c

1999

2000

2001

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003.

Figure 3.6. Seasonal unemployment in Grand County, 1999–2001.

3.13.1.6.3 PER-CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME Personal income 1 is another indicator of social wellbeing. Table 3.29 shows per capita personal income (i.e., total personal income divided by population) in Grand and San Juan Counties and in Utah. Per-capita personal income in Grand County was higher than the state average in 1980. The elevated income is attributed to the mining and mineral extraction jobs (which often pay higher than average wages) that were available at the time. As mineral extraction jobs became virtually non-existent, personal income levels have decreased to below the state average (see Table 3.29). Per-capita personal income has remained well below the state average for San Juan County. In 2003 San Juan County had the lowest per capita income in the state. Table 3.29. Per-Capita Personal Income
Area Grand County San Juan County State of Utah
Source: BEA 2005.

1980 $9,991 $5,841 $8,510

1990 $12,464 $8,995 $14,913

2000 $20,181 $12,881 $23,878

2003 $20,634 $14,363 $25,407

1

Personal income is the income that is received by persons from all sources. It is calculated as the sum of wage and salary disbursements, supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors' income with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments, rental income of persons with capital consumption adjustment, personal dividend income, personal interest income, and personal current transfer receipts, less contributions for government social insurance. This measure of income is calculated as the personal income of the residents of a given area divided by the resident population of the area. In computing per capita personal income, BEA uses the Census Bureau's annual midyear population estimates. (BEA 2005)

3-107

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

3.13.1.6.4 POVERTY The poverty rate of an area is an estimate of the percentage of the area's total population living at or below the poverty threshold established by the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 3.30 presents poverty rates in Grand and San Juan Counties, with statewide figures included for comparative purposes. Table 3.30. Poverty Rates
Area Grand County San Juan County State of Utah
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2005

1989 19.3% 36.4% 11.8%

2003 13.9% 22.6% 10.0%

Poverty rates for Grand County decreased 5.4% in absolute value between 1989 and 2003 and San Juan's decreased 13.8%. Statewide poverty levels also decreased over time by 1.8%, but not to the extent that Grand and San Juan Counties did. Through recent decades, both counties' poverty rates have been significantly higher than the state average. The most recent data shows poverty levels in San Juan County are more than double the state's rate at 22.6%. Poverty rates on the Navajo Nation Reservation (located in the southernmost portion San Juan County) in 2000 were significantly higher than county or state rates at 49.7% (GOPB 2002). 3.13.1.6.5 HOUSING According to the 2000 Census, Grand County has a total of 4,062 housing units, 84.5% of which are occupied. Of these units, 6.8% are for seasonal and recreational use, and 29% are renteroccupied. Average household size is 2.5 residents, lower than the state's average. The median housing price in 1999 was $120,000, up from $105,000 in 1997. Table 3.31 shows that seasonal housing is much more than the state average, at 6.8% (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Yet another indicator of economic strength is the amount of new residential building permits granted for a particular area. An increase or decrease in the amount of building permits granted reflects the growth of a community and allows planners and local governments to plan for the amount of necessary infrastructure (i.e., roads, water, sewer, and power). Residential buildings permits for Grand County peaked in 1996 at 187 and have dropped sharply since. In 2002, in response to a national recession, the amount of building permits issued was the lowest in recent decades at 36 (Grand County 2004). The amount of permits sharply increased in 2003 to 106 and has leveled off in 2004. Residential construction in the unincorporated areas of Grand County has consistently exceeded that within the city of Moab. For example, in 2004, 31 permits were issued for dwelling units in Moab, and 75 permits were issued for unincorporated areas in the county (UDWS 2005).

3-108

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

Table 3.31. Population by Household Type in Grand County, 2000
County % of Total State % of Total

Total Housing Units Occupied Housing Units Vacant Housing Units For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occ. Use Homeowner Vacancy Rate (%) Rental Vacancy Rate (%) Housing Tenure Total Occupied Housing Units Owner-occupied Housing Units Renter-occupied Housing Units Avg Household Size - Owner Occupied Avg Household Size - Renter Occupied
Source: Sonoran Institute 2003.

4,062 3,434 628 276 2.0% 13.4% 3,434 2,437 997 2.5 2.4 71.0% 29.0% 84.5% 15.5% 6.8%

768,594 701,281 67,313 29,685 2.1% 6.5% 701,281 501,547 199,734 3.3 2.8 71.5% 28.5% 91.2% 8.8% 3.9%

One recent and difficult to measure trend in the Moab area is the increase in construction of second homes. The challenge is to track the percentage and valuation of new second home permit versus permits for new houses for full-time residents. According to a 2003 BLM MFO study, 13% of all homes in Grand County are second homes and the trend is expected to increase (Goldhor-Wilcock and Stevens 2003). According to the Grand County Assessor's office, nearly 40% of new housing construction permits in 2005 were for non-resident owned housing. The second homes currently being built are often larger and more expensive than those of local residents and this leads to an increase in property taxes and cost of living for residents. This can be problematic for full-time residents as personal income in Grand County is consistently less than the state average. It is likely that the owners of the second homes are choosing to build in Moab because of the scenic beauty and recreation potential. This would be consistent with a recent study of second home ownership sponsored by local county governments in central Colorado. This study found that scenery was cited by 95% of second home owners, and recreation opportunities (where hiking and skiing were the most mentioned activities) by 91% as being important amenities driving the choice of locale (Venturoniet al. 2005). These two qualities, recreation opportunities and scenery, are clearly abundant in lands managed by MFO, making it reasonable to assume that these factors are driving second home ownership trends in Grand County, as well. This may conflict with the full-time residents desire to diversify their economic base, become less-dependant on tourism, and meet the basic needs of the community with respect to affordable housing and education (Grand County 2004). While the trend to build new second homes in the area appears initially beneficial to the county, it may be somewhat problematic given the cost of living increases and conflicts over public land use. A recent study assessed the impact of second homes on the economies of four central Colorado counties. Using IMPLAN software, the study came up with several conclusions that might be applicable to Grand County:

3-109

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

•

Second home construction and subsequent spending by owners for goods and services accounted for over 38% of all jobs in the counties studied. Although the Colorado counties have a higher percentage of second home properties (over 60% of all housing units), the study clearly indicates there are economic benefits to local communities from second homes. Resident spending of non-local income (dividends, interest, rent) accounted for about 16% of all jobs in the four counties studied. This type of income is closely linked to the type of wealthy households that tend to retire in amenity-rich, resort type communities. Again, Grand County may be moving in this direction (Lloyd Levy Consulting 2004).

•

There is, however, a potential downside to the above. As demand for second homes increase, especially in areas with relatively little land available for development (such as in Grand County), housing prices can rise dramatically. This phenomenon decreases the supply of affordable housing for both full-time residents and for workers needed to support the second home economy (Venturoni et al. 2005). 3.13.1.6.6 EMPLOYMENT Local and regional employment levels could be affected directly or indirectly by the implementation of the updated RMP. The following information reflects trends in employment since the 1970s. Jobs are typically classified with two systems: the Standard Industrial Classification System (SIC) and the National American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). Each system categorizes jobs differently. Historically, SIC codes have been used to describe employment, but they are limited in their scope. The more recent NAICS codes provide more detail but fail to show historic patterns. Both systems were used in this analysis. In 2000, the Grand County economy supported 5,692 jobs with most employment (70.4%) in the Services and Professional sector. Government jobs account for 14.9% of all jobs in the county. The remainders of jobs are in farm and agricultural services, mining, manufacturing, and construction. Note that the services sector includes services, retail trade, finance industries, transportation and public utilities, and wholesale trade, essentially everything that is not farming, mining, or government. Of these subcategories, services provide 32% of total employment, and retail trade accounts for 29% of total employment. The prominence of the Services and Professional sector, as a percentage of total employment in the county, has grown over time, from 47.3% in 1970 to 70.4% in 2000. The significant growth within this industry sector highlights the county's shift towards a service-based economy. Table 3.32 presents absolute levels of employment between 1970 and 2000 for Grand County. Table 3.32. Employment by Industry in Grand County
1970 % of Total 2000 % of Total New % of New Employment Employment

Total Employment Wage and Salary Employment Proprietors' Employment

2,724 2,320 404 85.2% 14.8%

5,692 4,424 1,268 77.7% 22.3%

2,968 2,104 864 70.9% 29.1%

3-110

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

Table 3.32. Employment by Industry in Grand County
1970 % of Total 2000 % of Total New % of New Employment Employment

Farm and Agricultural Services Farm Ag. Services Mining Manufacturing (incl. forest products) Services and Professional Transportation and Public Utilities Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Services (Health, Legal, Business, Others) Construction Government

84 78 6 549 88 1,289 183 55 425 115

3.1% 2.9% 0.2% 20.2% 3.2% 47.3% 6.7% 2.0% 15.6% 4.2%

146 93 53 120 138 4,009 147 107 1,628 315

2.6% 1.6% 0.9% 2.1% 2.4% 70.4% 2.6% 1.9% 28.6% 5.5%

62 15 47 -429 50 2,720 -36 52 1,203 200

2.1% 0.5% 1.6% NA 1.7% 91.6% NA 1.8% 40.5% 6.7%

511 211 503

18.8% 7.7% 18.5%

1,812 433 846

31.8% 7.6% 14.9%

1,301 222 343

43.8% 7.5% 11.6%

Agricultural Services include soil preparation services, crop services, etc. It also includes forestry services, such as reforestation services, and fishing, hunting, and trapping. Manufacturing includes paper, lumber and wood products manufacturing. Source: Sonoran Institute 2003.

Shift in Regional Economic Activity For over 20 years Grand County has been facing a decline in its traditional resource-based economy while other economic sectors have become more dominant (Figure 3.7). The agricultural industry, which was once the primary way of life for the county's residents, has become virtually non-existent as a revenue generator for the county. As mentioned earlier, the bottom fell out of the mining industry by the early 1980s and the county's largest industrial boom came to an abrupt end. By the mid-1980s it was clear that tourism was taking over as Grand County's primary source of revenue and this trend has continued into the twenty-first century. According to the Grand County General Plan, it is likely that tourism will remain important to the county for the foreseeable future. Table 3.33 shows the trends in Grand County Employment over the last 20 years. Both community perceptions and the data shown below suggest that most jobs in the county are either indirectly or directly related to the tourist industry. Many of the area residents currently feel that the county's economy is too dependent on service jobs related to the tourism industry, which almost always offers lower wages and less stability. Employment data collected by local and national agencies does not include "recreation" specifically as an employment category; "leisure and hospitality" comes closest to this. In Grand County, the average annual earnings in this

3-111

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

sector were $13,615, considerably lower than the Grand County private sector annual average earnings of $21,449. This disparity is likely offset somewhat by earnings in other sectors which likely have a recreation influence. For example, construction in 2005 accounted for 7 per cent of private sector employment in Grand County, with average annual earnings of $27,760. The second home phenomenon in the County is driven, in large part, by the recreation opportunities the area provides. Hence, some of the residents are interested in diversifying the economy and bringing in higher-paying year-round employment to the county. As discussed above, there may be potential for job diversification resulting from the second home phenomenon, as in construction and other second home spending on goods and services in the local economy.
1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 Jobs 800 600 400 200 0 1980 Agriculture Construction TCPU FIRE Government

1990 Mining Manufacturing Trade Services Non-Farm Proprietors

2000

SIC= Standard Industrial Classification System used to categorize employment trends over time TCUP=Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities FIRE=Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Source: Sonoran Institute 2003.

Figure 3.7. Changes in the Grand County economy (by SIC code), 1980–2000. Table 3.33. Trends in Employment (SIC code), Grand County, 1980, 1990, and 2000
Industry Mining Construction Manufacturing TCPU (Trans./Comm./Public Util.) Trade FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) Services 1980 18% 9% 2% 6% 20% 2% 10% 1990 5% 2% 2% 4% 26% 2% 15% 2000 1% 6% 1% 2% 27% 2% 21% % Change from 1980 -94% -33% -50% -67% 35% 0% 110%

3-112

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

Table 3.33. Trends in Employment (SIC code), Grand County, 1980, 1990, and 2000
Industry Government 1980 14% 1990 17% 2000 15% % Change from 1980 7%

SIC= Standard Industrial Classification System used to categorize employment trends over time Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services with calculations for % change completed by MFO.

The shift in economic activity has been similar in San Juan County over the past several decades. As jobs were lost in mining in the late 1970s and early 1980s, jobs in trade and services increased dramatically. Today, the trade and service sector employees a large amount of people to support the tourism industry around Lake Powell; however, many of these jobs are seasonal in nature, with most lasting from April to mid October. Direct BLM Contributions to Area Economic Activity Under the Federal Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) Program, payments from the BLM and other Federal agencies assist in financing the operations of local governments containing taxexempt public lands. The annual PILT payments serve as a subsidy to the local governments because, unlike privately owned lands, taxes are not collected from Federal lands. Payment amounts are based on a complex formula that considers among other things revenue sharing from the previous year, county population, and acreage of a county in Federal ownership. The PILT payments may be used for any governmental purpose including improving schools, road, water, and other infrastructure systems. Nearly 72% of Grand County is Federally owned land; therefore PILT payments are an important economic contribution to the area. PILT payments to Grand County have continually increased in recent years. Table 3.34 shows PILT Payments to Grand County between FY 2001 and FY 2005. Table 3.34. PILT Payments to Grand County
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Source: USDI 2005.

Total PILT Payment $492,256 $516,376 $622,831 $640,349 $653,761

3.13.1.6.7 LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AFFECTED BY BLM MANAGEMENT Recreation and Tourism The MFO hosts a variety of recreation enthusiasts to its 1.8 million acres of public lands. Persons visiting the planning area are involved in a multitude of outdoor activities, including mountain biking, hiking, boating, camping, climbing, off-highway vehicle (OHV) driving and general

3-113

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

recreation. These activities occur in this area because of the large expanses of vast and relatively undeveloped lands and because of the unique geologic and scenic beauty the area has to offer. A BLM, MFO study indicates there were approximately 1.6 million recreational visitors to BLM lands in the MPA in 2004 (personal communication between Bill Stevens, BLM – MFO and Laura Burch, SWCA on January 6, 2006). This number exceeds visitation to Arches and Canyonlands National Parks and local state parks combined. More information on recreational visitation can be found in Section 3.10 – Recreation. Visitation and related recreation activities on Grand County's public lands generates positive income and employment effects in the local economy as visitors spend money on gasoline, lodging, and various supplies including food and equipment. These expenditures generate earning for local proprietors and support local employment. As mentioned in the Updated Grand County General Plan, tourism is the most important economic resource for the county today. As discussed above, the second home phenomenon and the demand of their owners for access to visual resources and recreation opportunities may also contribute positively to Grand County's economy. Given patterns in the rest of the West, as well as the recent trend in Grand County, there is no reason to believe that this sector of the economy will not grow in importance. Trends in traveler spending follow trends shown in other measures of the economy. As it became clear in the early 1990s that mining would not be the main contributor to the economy, tourism spending contributed just over $60 million to the county's economy. Throughout the 1990s traveler spending continued to grow to over $100 million in 1998 (Figure 3.8). The recession and the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 caused a slight decrease in tourist spending but the tourist contribution to the Grand County economy continues to remain around $100 million per year. In 2003, recreation and tourism generated $100.1 million out of $163.64 million in taxable sales of goods and services in Grand County. Thus, Moab's economy for 2003 was 61% tourism based. Although Grand County ranks seventh in the state for spending by travelers, taxable sales actually decreased 8.4% from 2002 (UDTD 2004). Travel and tourism-related employment has increased steadily since 1990s, with tourism spending levels in Grand County supporting 1,999 jobs in 2003.

3-114

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

Spending by Travelers (Current Dollars)
Millions $120.0

$100.9
$100.0

$93.4 $86.5 $80.6

$95.4

$98.7

$101.3

$99.2

$96.5

$99.7

$103.9

$80.0

$68.1
$60.0

$40.0

$20.0

$0.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001(o) 2001 (n) 2002 {r} 2003

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004.

Figure 3.8. Tourist spending in millions, Grand County, 1993–2003. Local sales tax revenue from tourist related services has also risen steadily since the early 1990s. Similar to gross taxable sales, sales tax revenue decreased somewhat in 2001, quickly increased in 2002 and dropped slightly in 2003. In 2003 estimated local tax revenue was estimated at $2 million, 8.4% less than 2002. Other tourism related tax revenue, such as gross taxable room rents, transient room tax, restaurant tax, and car rental tax, declined in 2001 and 2003. Despite recent rises and falls in traveler spending and sales tax revenue, the tourism-related revenues appeared to have leveled off and are not expected to make significant gains in the near future. Table 3.35 shows the contribution of tourism to the local economy. Table 3.35. Tourism-Related Tax Trends in Grand County
County Indicator Spending by Traveler (millions) Travel and Tourism Related Employment (jobs) Local Tax Revenue from Traveler Spending Gross Taxable Room Rents Transient Room Tax Restaurant Tax Car Rental Tax Gross Taxable Retail Sales (millions)
Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004.

1997 Spending and Employment $100.9 1,853

2000 $99.2 1,878

2003 $100.1 1,999

Tourism Tax Revenues (000s) $2,098 $25,557 $754.8 $29.3 $2.9 $136.7 $2,063. 0 $26,674 $800.2 $205.8 $25.1 $162.9 $2,095 $25,148 $754.4 $222.4 $14.2 $163.6

3-115

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

It is important to note that on January 1, 2003, Grand County relinquished its portion of the city of Green River to Emery County. The annexation led to the loss of tourist revenue and tourism related employment because Green River serves as an important thoroughfare, with gasoline stations and lodging, for people traveling along I-70. Visitation data can also be used to illustrate tourism and recreation trends in the Grand County area. According to a BLM, MFO report, the BLM hosted at least 1.6 million visitors to its public lands (Goldhor-Wilcock and Stevens 2003). The most recent data out of the MFO suggests that visitors to BLM lands have increased and in 2004 visitation to the area is estimated at 2 million (personal communication between Bill Stevens, BLM – MFO and Laura Burch, SWCA on January 6, 2006). Visitation to the Grand County area, outside of BLM lands, follows the traveler-spending trend, as it increased throughout the 1990s and has leveled off in the new century. The following table shows visitation numbers for several locations in Grand County that can be used as indicators for visitation to the area. Table 3.36. Visitation Trends
Regional Visitation Counts I-70 UT/CO Traffic Count Thompson Springs Welcome Center Glen Canyon N.R.A. Arches N.P. Canyonlands N.P. Dead Horse Point S.P Green River S.P
Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004.

1997 1,888,875 108,212 2,504,986 856,016 447,527 202,452 110,921

2000 2,314,830 97,896 2,568,111 786,429 401,558 173,680 138,531

2003 2,459,005 93,905 1,842,942 757,781 386,985 161,774 83,951

Budget and Fee Collection for Programs The Moab BLM Recreation Program is important to the local economy. Of the nearly $100 million in sales revenue in Grand County, approximately $45 million is attributable to recreation on public lands. Due to a relatively flat base budget, the MFO has come to rely on user generated fees for needed funds to support intensive public use. Services to the public are provided from these fee monies, such as campground maintenance and expenses related to the Westwater Canyon permit system. Maintenance and operation of facilities is costly and requires a commitment of funds to provide safe and proper facilities. Given the large number of visitors to BLM lands and the lack of Federal funding to support the visitors, the MFO has had to become much more self-sufficient than typical BLM offices in order to provide for public safety and enjoyment. Table 3.37 describes the current (2003) budget and fee programs and their allocations for the MFO.

3-116

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

Table 3.37. Budget and Fee Collections for Programs in the MPA, 2003
Revenue Generated on BLM Lands Base recreation from non-fee accounts Annual recreation fees collected Total recreation budget (base and fees)*
*Excludes Sand Flats Recreation Area Source: BLM 2005i.

YR 2003 $208,000 $512,000 $720,000

Recreation fees on BLM land also provide an economic benefit for Grand County. The county collected $236,498 in 2004 and $236,607 in 2005 for the Sand Flats Recreation Area. The revenue is used by the county to maintain and manage this area and employ local Grand County residents. None of the fees collected in this recreation area go to the MFO. Agriculture and Grazing The agriculture industry has declined dramatically in the last three decades. In 1970, total net income from farming and ranching in Grand County was $901,000. By 1985, that number had dropped to $88,000. In 2000 this number had dropped to $-830,000. Negative income means that expenses outweighed revenue for farming and ranching operations. Most agricultural income (approximately 80%) is from cash receipts from livestock and crops, while the remaining 20% is from government payments. Employment based on farming and agricultural services accounts for only 2.6% of people working in Grand County in 2000 and this percentage has decreased since 1970 when it was 3.6%. The composition of livestock and crops has also shifted in the last decade. In 1970, 73% of gross farm income was from livestock, while 9% was from crops. By 2000, 47% of gross income was from livestock, and 32% from crops. Figure 3.9 below shows trends in agriculture as it relates to farm income since 1970.

3-117

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

7.0 6.0 Personal Income (Millions of 2000 dollars) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 72 70 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90

Gross income Total livestock & products Total crops Imputed income & rent received Government payments
Sonoran Institute 2003

Figure 3.9. Farm income by category. While the income generated from farming and ranching has decreased significantly in past decades, the number of farms has actually increased. In 1982 the number of farms was 59 and in 2002 the number grew to 94. It is important to note that even with the numerical growth of farms, the amount of lands in farms decreased nearly 66% over the twenty-year span from 156,557 in 1982 to 52,729 acres in 2002. The increase in the number of smaller farms may represent the rise in both long-time and new residents in the area who choose to have a farm as a hobby or for land conservation purposes, but who do not solely make their living on the agriculture industry. Table 3.38 shows the agricultural trends in Grand County. Table 3.38. Grand County Agricultural Data
1982 Farms (Number) Land in Farms (Acres) Average Size of Farm Farms by Size 1 to 9 Acres 10 to 49 Acres 50 to 179 Acres 180 to 499 Acres 500 to 999 Acres 1,000 Acres or More 10 17 14 8 2 8 19 26 12 10 5 9 26 26 14 10 4 8 23 22 13 14 2 11 36 20 17 10 5 6 59 156,55 7 2,654 1987 81 169,32 5 2,090 1992 88 63,1 16 717 1997 85 75,801 892 2002 94 52,72 9 561

3-118

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

Table 3.38. Grand County Agricultural Data
1982 Market Value of Ag Products Sold Operators by Principal Occupation-Farming Operators by Principal Occupation-Other
Source: USDA 2002.

1987 1,870 33 48

1992 2,34 7 42 46

1997 2,289 41 44

2002 2,176 51 43

1,183 25 34

The MPA provides livestock grazing opportunities for local ranchers through the administration of livestock grazing on public land allotments. These leases generate local income and employment benefits to ranchers and their employees as well as other economic benefits to the county, including sales, income tax revenue, and indirect expenditures made by ranchers to local service or industry. Changes in MFO grazing practices could potentially affect the local economy. Currently, 71% of the 42 livestock permittees in the planning area live outside of Grand or San Juan Counties. Livestock grazing allotments occur on approximately 95% of all lands located within the MPA. A total of 83 allotments occur within the boundaries of the MPA. Of this total, 77 are permitted for use by domestic livestock, and 6 allotments were unavailable to grazing by domestic livestock in 1995 and 1996. Reasons for closing the 6 allotments to grazing by domestic livestock included enhancement of wildlife, improvement of riparian vegetation, watershed benefits, and recreation values. Of the total 83 allotments within the MPA boundary, 73 are administered by the MFO. The Vernal Field Office administers 4 allotments, and 6 allotments are administered by the Grand Junction, Colorado, Field Office. A total of 107,931 animal unit months (AUMs) are currently active within boundaries of the MPA. Of the total authorized AUMs, 87,097 (81%) are used by cattle, 18,466 (17%) are used by sheep, and 485 (less than 1%) are used by horses. Through agreement with permittees, 1,883 AUMs (2%) are held inactive due to conservation purposes. An additional 25,972 AUMs are allowed through exchange of use other ownership. Grazing is discussed in detail in section 3.5 of this RMP. Mineral Resources In the second half of the twentieth century, mineral extraction served as the foundation for population and economic growth in Grand County. The minerals industry, including uranium, potash, oil, and gas, generated more than 62% of all income received by county residents in 1980. In 2003 that number has fallen to 2% (Grand County 2004). Today, recreation and tourism has replaced resource extraction as the primary revenue and employment generator. According to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, oil production peaked in 1994, but dropped to approximately 200,000 barrels in 2000 (Figure 3.10). Gas production has fallen since 1984, from approximately 10 million cubic feet (mcf) to under 6 million mcf in 2000.
3-119

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

Source: UDOGM,2008

Figure 3.10. Oil (barrels) and gas production (mcf) in Grand County, 1984–2007. Over the last 100 years, a large number of oil and gas wells have been drilled in Grand County. Most of these, however, are no longer producing and have been long since abandoned. The following table (Table 3.39) summarizes the current production situation in Grand County. Table 3.39. Current Oil and Gas Activity on Lands Administered by the MFO
Activity Producing gas wells Producing oil wells Shut-in gas wells Shut-in oil wells Acres under lease (BLM lands only)
Source: BLM 2004e .

Number 244 30 113 51 490,079

3-120

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

The economic benefit to Grand County of oil and gas activities comes primarily in the form of mineral lease payments and royalties from the state of Utah to Grand County. The state of Utah collects payments from a variety of sources, including lease and royalty payments made to the BLM and to the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior. Royalties are based on the sale of oil and gas and increase or decrease based on quantity of production and prices. Approximately one-half of the payments received by these agencies are remitted to the state of Utah, which in turn distributes about one-half to the counties. The state of Utah payments to the counties are based very closely on actual leasing and production activities within each county. In Fiscal Year 2003, Grand County received $312,000 in mineral lease monies from the state of Utah, most of which was the product of oil and gas activities on BLM lands in Grand County. Corresponding figures for FY 2001 and FY 2002 were $373,000 and $647,000, respectively. The decline in recent years has been due primarily to lower production in Grand County, according to the state of Utah. A potential benefit to Grand County from oil and gas production is in the jobs created, both in direct production activities and associated services; however, there are currently relatively few people employed in these areas in Grand County. Most of the current oil and gas activity is in the far eastern part of the county, which provides employment primarily to residents of western Colorado, who are located much closer to the activities. Goods and services are purchased in adjoining towns, including Grand Junction and Green River, by oil field workers. There is some employment provided to Grand County residents who work in the Lisbon Valley area, located south of Moab in San Juan County. There is also some oil and gas production occurring in San Juan County that is currently managed by the MFO. The revenue generated from this activity is difficult for the BLM to track because it goes directly to San Juan County.

3.13.2 TRIBAL INTERESTS
Grand County comprises 198,339 acres (8.4%) of lands owned by Native Americans all of which are located in the northwest corner of the county on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. The Reservation is home to the Ute Indian Tribe and is located in a three-county area in Northeastern Utah, known as the Uintah Basin. The Uintah and Ouray Reservation covers a large potion of western Uintah and eastern Duchesne Counties, and at approximately 4.5 million acres it is the second largest Indian Reservation in the United States. The Reservation is home to the Whiteriver, Uintah, and Uncompahgre bands of Utes (UDTD 2004). According to the U.S. Census there are 19,182 people living on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. Of the people who identified themselves as residents of the Reservation, 2,780 (14%) identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native (GOPB 2002). The majority of people living on the Reservation reside in Uintah and Duchesne Counties. Given the high elevation and rugged terrain of the Reservation in Grand County, it is unlikely that anyone lives on the Reservation in the county. The interaction with Tribes on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and the MFO is minimal. There is no road in Grand County that leads to the Reservation and given that, minimal activity occurs on the Reservation that prompts BLM involvement in Grand County, there is very little

3-121

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

communication between the tribes and the MFO. The Vernal Field Office handles the tribal issues pertaining to the Reservation in Uintah and Duchesne County. According to the 2000 Census, 327 Native Americans live in Grand County and it is assumed that few live in the city of Moab and most live in the unincorporated areas of the county. The Navajo Nation Reservation comprises 1.2 million acres (26%) of San Juan County. The entire Reservation also includes land in Arizona and New Mexico and totals nearly 14 million acres. Population on the Navajo Nation has grown steadily over the last two decades. In 1980 population on the Reservation was 4,554, 5,252 in 1990 and 6,280 in 2000. Interactions between the Navajo Nation and MFO are minimal given that the Reservation is several hundred miles south of the MFO.

3.13.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
3.13.3.1 BACKGROUND AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE "Environmental justice" refers to the fair and equitable treatment of individuals regardless of race ethnicity, or income level, in the development and implementation of environmental management policies and actions. In February 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations." The objective of this EO is to require each Federal agency to "make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of it programs, policies, and activities on minority and low income populations" (EO 12898). Convened under the auspices of the EO, the Interagency Working Group defines Black/African American, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut and other nonwhite persons as minority populations. Low-income populations are defined as persons living below the poverty level based on total income of $13,359 for a family household of four based on the 2000 census. Minority populations are identified as either: (1) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50%, or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate geographic area (BLM 2002c). 3.13.3.2 MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS Minority populations in Grand County have increased slightly since 1990. Of the total population in 1990, 95.8% of residents identified themselves as "White" as did 92.6% in 2000. Grand County is ranked eighth in the state in terms of minority percentage and minorities make up only 10.8% of the county's population compared to 14.7% of the state population as a whole. As mentioned earlier, Grand County poverty levels are higher than the state as a whole (13.9% for Grand County vs. 10.0% for Utah). Table 3.40 illustrates the slight growth in minority populations in Grand County. As mentioned earlier within the context of "poverty" as an economic indicator for the economic well being, persons in Grand County living below the poverty line in 2003 was higher than the

3-122

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.13 Social and Economic

state average (13.9% vs. 10%). While Grand County poverty trends show a decrease over time they remain higher than the state average. The poverty level established by the by the Census Bureau in 2000 for a family of four is $18,244. In 2000 15.2% of Grand County residents were living below the poverty level. Table 3.40. Grand County Population by Race and Ethnicity
1990 Total Population Race White Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Other Two or more races Total 6,341 7 203 19 5 45 NA 6,620 Ethnicity Hispanic Non-Hispanic Total
Source: GOPB 2002.

2000 Percent of Total Total Population Percent of Total

95.8% 0.1% 3.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 100.0%

7,861 21 327 19 4 141 112 8,485

92.6% 0.2% 3.9% 0.2% 0.0% 1.7% 1.3% 100.0%

291 6,329 6,620

4.4% 95.6% 100.0%

471 8,014 8,485

5.6% 94.4% 100.0%

NOTE: Population is broken out by is broken out by both race and ethnicity because Hispanics can be of any race.

San Juan County: Unique to any other Utah county, populations typically known as "minority" comprise more than half of the population in San Juan County. San Juan County ranks first in the state for Native American/Alaskan Native population. San Juan County is home to 27% of the state's Native American population and at 55.7% of the county's total population, Native Americans are not the minority. In Utah, 93.8% of the entire population identify themselves as white and 1.3% of the population identify themselves as Native American/Alaskan Native (GOPB 2002). Therefore, when considered state or region-wide, Native Americans are considered a minority race. Despite the population data that indicates non-minority status within San Juan County, Native Americans are considered a minority group for the purposes of achieving environmental justice during this RMP process. The number of people in San Juan County living below the poverty line in 2003 was higher than the state average (22.6% vs. 10%). While San Juan County poverty trends show a decrease over time they remain higher than the state average. In 2003 the poverty level established by the by the Census Bureau for a family of four was $18,810 and in that year 31% or 4,443 people in San Juan County were living below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). In terms of race, the Native American population has the highest poverty level in the county at 48% or 3,809 individuals.

3-123

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.14 Soil and Water

3.14 SOIL AND WATER
3.14.1 WATERSHEDS
3.14.1.1 DELINEATED WATERSHEDS The USGS has divided and subdivided the United States into successively smaller hydrologic units which are classified into 6 levels: regions (largest), sub-regions, accounting units, subbasins, watersheds and sub-watersheds. Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two to fourteen digits based on the level of classification (UGS 2003. The MPA, located within the Upper Colorado Region, has portions of 8 sub-basins and 39 watersheds in the planning area. 3.14.1.2 CRITICAL WATERSHEDS AND SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS A critical watershed is a planning designation for a watershed with a high percentage of sensitive soils such as highly saline soils and/or highly erodible soils. (See Map 2-13, Moderate to High Saline Soils). These watersheds need special management prescriptions to protect resources at risk. Some critical watersheds were delineated in the 1985 RMP. 3.14.1.3 MUNICIPAL WATERSHEDS The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires protection of underground sources of drinking water. The State of Utah requires owners of drinking water supplies to establish 2 levels of protection zones around their water sources and must obtain an agreement with the landowner if the applicants do not have complete ownership of the watershed or recharge area. Protection Zone 1 is a circle of a 100-foot radius from the well or margin of collection area. Protection Zone 2 has a two-mile radius or is a variable area based on recharge characteristics. This protection zone can extend up to 15 miles above the source and 300 feet from each stream bank. The municipalities of Moab, Castle Valley, Thompson, Crescent Junction, and LaSal have water supplies that are wells and/or springs with recharge areas on adjacent BLM lands. There are several small public water supply systems within the planning area, including Hole 'n the Rock Rest Area, Windwhistle Campground, and Pack Creek Ranch. Thompson, Hole 'n the Rock Rest Area, and Pack Creek Ranch filed water source protection plans with the State of Utah that include adjacent BLM lands. A sole source aquifer designation is a Federal acknowledgement that an aquifer system is the sole source of drinking water available to the community. This acknowledgement supports efforts to keep the aquifers free from contamination. The designation requires that Federally financially assisted projects in the review area of the sole source aquifer undergo an EPA environmental review for compliance with the goals of the regulation.

3-124

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.14 Soil and Water

Both Moab and Castle Valley have filed for sole source aquifer designation. A total of 24,000 acres in and around Castle Valley has been designated as the sole source aquifer recharge area (EPA 2003d). The city of Moab has requested 76,000 acres as its sole source aquifer recharge area.

3.14.2 SOILS
3.14.2.1 GENERAL Soils are the medium for plant growth, and provide nourishment for nearly all terrestrial organisms. They support a wide variety of plant and animal communities within the planning area. Soils have developed in bedrock, sedimentary ocean deposits, materials washed down by rivers and streams, and windblown sands and silts known as loess, residuum, colluvium, alluvium, eolian sands, and loess. They are derived primarily from the sedimentary geologic deposits that occur throughout the planning area. Soil temperature regimes are predominantly vary from mesic (moderate, mean annual soil temperatures are 46 to 59 F) at lower elevations to but may be cryic (cold, mean annual soil temperatures are less than 46 F, and they don't warm significantly in the summer) at higher elevations. Soil moisture ranges from aridic (very dry) to ustic (dry, but with some moisture in the growing season) throughout the MPA, with hydric (wet) soils occurring in riparian and wetland areas. There are a variety of soil types in the planning area, including highly saline and erodible soils. Sensitive soils need special management to protect resources at risk. This includes management of highly saline and/or highly erodible soils, biotic crusts, steep slopes, drought intolerant soils, dust source, and sink areas. Soils that are highly saline, highly erodible, have low water holding capacity (drought intolerant) may be especially vulnerable to impacts and harder to reclaim or restore after disturbance. Certain biological crust communities provide significant protection from wind and water erosion for some soils. Disturbance of soil biological crusts affects most soils, but some more than others, depending on the type of soil and biotic community. 3.14.2.2 SENSITIVE SOILS "Sensitive soils" are those identified as having characteristics that make them extremely susceptible to impacts or they may be more difficult to restore or reclaim after disturbance -characteristics such as high wind or water erosion hazard, moderate to high salinity, low nutrient levels, high runoff, limitations to grazing, or very steep slopes. In this document, a sensitive soils designation refers to highly erodible soils, saline soils, drought intolerant soils, biotic soil crusts, and steep slopes. Sensitive soils are difficult to reclaim or restore. Once they are disturbed, the impact usually is long-lasting (BLM 1993c:11). These soils need special management to protect resources at risk.

3-125

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.14 Soil and Water

3.14.2.2.1 HIGHLY ERODIBLE SOILS There are soils in the planning area that are highly susceptible to wind and water erosion. Although these soils have naturally high rates of erosion, the erosion rates are easily accelerated by surface-disturbing activities. Best management practices to protect soil stability include limiting surface-disturbing activities such as grazing, off road travel, and mineral exploration and development. Wind erosion strips the surface horizon of soil and nutrients necessary for seed germination and plant recruitment. Wind erosion and subsequent deposition can result in the formation and expansion of sand dunes. These soils are especially susceptible to wind erosion when plant cover and/or biological soil crust cover is removed. In the planning area, moderately wind erodible soils occur over 1,303,433 acres based on SSURGO data. Highly wind erodible soils occur on 39,350 acres of BLM-managed lands. Approximately 15,900 acres of soils with high water erosion ratings occur in the MPA. Potential for water erosion is commonly estimated using a combination of slope and k-factor (an erodibility constant or measure of how easily particles detach from one another). Soils considered to have a high potential for water erosion have a slope over 10% and a K-factor (erodibility constant) greater than or equal to 0.37; or a slope greater than 30% and a K-factor between 0.20 and 0.36. Accelerated erosion causes the formation of rills and gullies, and can contribute to excess sedimentation in streams and reservoirs. 3.14.2.2.2 SALINE SOILS Soil salinity can affect erosion levels and reclamation potential. Erosion of saline soils impacts the water quality of downstream watersheds. Highly saline soils are soils with electrical conductivity levels of greater than 16 mmhos/cm. Moderately saline soils fall between 8 and 16 mmhos/cm. The planning area contains approximately 314,901 acres of saline soils, primarily confined to the Mancos lowlands along I-70 are shown in Map 2-13, Moderate to Saline Soils as determined from SSURGO data (BLM 2000). Specifically, The Greater Sagers Wash watershed (153,200 acres) was identified as one of the major salt production watersheds in the planning area (BLM 1993d). Approximately 60% of the watershed has Mancos Shale derived soils, which are naturally high salt producers. In addition to natural geologic processes, land uses that contribute to accelerated erosion include grazing, OHVs, mineral exploration and development, and road building (BLM 1993d). Areas undergoing accelerated erosion make up 64% of the watershed and contribute 29% of the potential salt yield (BLM 1993d:3). 3.14.2.2.3 DROUGHT INTOLERANT SOILS Certain soil types are severely impacted during drought conditions. The Grand County, Central Part Soil Survey (NRCS 1989) identified a number of soil units as drought intolerant. These soils and associated vegetation may be severely affected by drought. Severe drought may adversely affect the production of perennial vegetation.

3-126

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.14 Soil and Water

3.14.2.2.4 BIOTIC SOIL CRUSTS Many of the vegetative communities found in the MPA have evolved with the presence of biological soil crusts. Biotic soil crusts are made up of mats or filaments of cyanobacteria, lichens and mosses. Development of biotic soil crust is strongly influenced by soil texture, soil chemistry and soil depth. Crusts are more developed in shallow, sandy, non-saline soils, but can also be found throughout saline soil areas. They tend to be commonly found associated with soils high in gypsum. Although soil crusts can be found throughout the MPA, there are areas with high density or well-developed crusts or unusual crust components. Biotic soil crusts play a major role in reducing water and wind erosion and in preventing the establishment of invasive annual grasses (BLM 2001d). They fix atmospheric nitrogen and carbon, retain soil moisture, and provide surface cover. Crust composition and level of abundance can be used to determine the ecological history and condition of a site (BLM 2001d). Loss of biotic soil crust leads to reduced soil productivity, decreased plant cover and vigor, and increased wind and water erosion. Severity, size, frequency, and timing of a surface-disturbing activity affect the degree of impacts to biotic soil crusts. Fine-textured soils have faster crust recovery rates than coarse-textured soils (BLM 2001d). Aeolian deposition of sediments can bury and kill biological soil crusts by prohibiting photosynthesis.

3.14.3 SURFACE WATER
There are three large rivers in the planning area: the Colorado, Green and Dolores Rivers. One thousand sixty-two miles of perennial stream flow year-round in at least some reaches. In addition, there are 8,995 miles of intermittent stream systems that flow at least part of the year (more than just storm runoff, UDEQ 2002). Major reservoirs include Ken's Lake. Perennial stream segments in the MPA include all or portions of:
Beaver Creek Burkholder Castle Creek Coates Creek Colorado River Cottonwood (Books) Cottonwood (Black R.) Cowskin Canyon Diamond Creek Dolores River Fisher Creek Floy Creek Granite Creek Green River Hatch Wash Hatch Ranch Wash Hunter Creek Kane Creek La Sal Creek Little Dolores Little Water Mill Creek Muleshoe Creek Nash Wash Negro Bill Creek Onion Creek Pack Creek Poverty Creek Professor Creek Rattlesnake Creek Rill Creek Ryan Creek Salt Wash Seven Mile (north) Spring Creek Ten Mile Thompson Wash Three Mile Wash Trough Springs Creek Tusher (Books) Westwater Creek

3-127

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.14 Soil and Water

3.14.3.1 WATER QUANTITY BLM cannot hold instream flow rights in the state of Utah, but can protect senior water rights as needed. This is an issue in Thompson Wash, as the Thompson Special Service District has diverted most of the flow in Thompson Creek for municipal use. Another area with water quantity issues is Mill Creek. Water from Mill Creek is diverted to Ken's Lake to provide irrigation water to Spanish Valley. The diversion structure is on BLM lands, and is authorized with a Right of Way grant. BLM requires the Right of Way holder to maintain a minimum of 3 cfs in the stream downstream of the diversion. Many perennial streams in the MPA have diversions for agricultural use (Mill Creek, Thompson Wash, Granite Creek, Cottonwood Wash, Beaver Creek, Castle Creek, Buck Hollow, and Pack Creek.) 3.14.3.2 WATER QUALITY 3.14.3.2.1 GENERAL The BLM monitors surface water quality conditions by conducting both water chemistry and macroinvertebrate studies. BLM participates in a cooperative program with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (Utah DEQ) to sample sites for water chemistry. BLM personnel take field measurements and samples. The State of Utah provides lab analysis and data management (including maintaining the STORET database, EPA 2003e). When necessary, BLM uses other EPA certified labs for analysis (i.e., American West Analytical Labs). The Utah DEQ also conducts an intensive sampling program every 5 years. This was conducted from July 2002 through June 2003. Sampling is conducted every 6 weeks on major streams and other requested sites. The next intensive survey will be held in 2007-2008. With sufficient data it can be determined if a stream is meeting state standards. If a problem is documented, that stream segment will be included by the State of Utah on the List of Impaired Waters of Utah (303d list) submitted to the EPA every 2 years. A schedule for a Total Maximum Daily Load study (TMDL) is set. This study determines how to reduce pollutants and restore all beneficial uses. The TMDL also establishes the amount of a pollutant allowed in the water. In 2000, the State of Utah identified Onion Creek, Mill Creek, Castle Creek and Ken's Lake as impaired. The TMDLs were completed in 2002 for Mill Creek, Onion Creek and Ken's Lake. The Castle Creek TMDL was completed in 2004. The Mill Creek TMDL entails an assessment of total dissolved solids (TDS) and stream temperature problems. The TMDL states the main sources of TDS are natural groundwater inflow and irrigation return flow, from the Pack Creek watershed. Impairments to temperature are related to riparian health and stream flow levels. The TMDL recommended riparian improvements and increased stream flow levels to improve temperature impairments.

3-128

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.14 Soil and Water

The Onion Creek TMDL entails an assessment of TDS and stream temperature levels. State standards for TDS may not be achievable due to high TDS input from natural sources. The TMDL also states high stream temperatures are a result of poor riparian conditions. The TMDL recommends better management of vehicle travel, restricting travel in the stream as much as possible. Other recommendations include riparian and floodplain improvements to reduce stream temperature. The Castle Creek TMDL addressed water quality impairments in 2002. The report concluded that impairments were a combination of natural conditions and low stream flows due to irrigation diversions. The Ken's Lake TMDL entails an assessment of water temperature conditions. The report concluded temperature impairment is a result of natural causes, and is not an impairment to the fish habitat. 3.14.3.2.2 SALINITY High salinity levels in water are a surface water quality concern of national significance recognized in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Salinity contributions are from both point sources and nonpoint sources. During low flow periods, salt contribution comes solely from seeps, springs, and groundwater flow. During high flow periods, erosion of saline soils becomes a major contributor to salinity problems. Point sources for salinity include discharge of saline groundwater from natural springs, seeps, flowing wells and gaining streams. The primary nonpoint sources of salinity are the diffuse overland runoff from saline soils and erosion and transport of saline soils during flow events. The Mancos Shale is recognized as the largest contributor of salinity in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Laronne 1977). There are approximately 314,900 acres of Mancos Shale-derived soils in the planning area. Any surface disturbance on these soils increases erosion and associated salinity contribution. 3.14.3.3 GROUNDWATER Groundwater occurs in both consolidated and unconsolidated rock aquifers. The main consolidated rock aquifer is known as the N aquifer, and includes the Wingate and Navajo Sandstones. Water from the N aquifer is generally of good quality and suitable for drinking. Unconsolidated rock aquifers are an important source of groundwater in Spanish Valley and Castle Valley. Recharge is from infiltration of precipitation and stream flow, primarily from the La Sal Mountains. There are five other potential aquifers in the planning area: Entrada, Morrison, Dakota, Wasatch, and Parachute Creek aquifers. These aquifers are not laterally or vertically homogenous (Eisinger and Lowe 1999). Shallow aquifers are better sources as they usually contain higher quality water and are more easily accessible.

3-129

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.14 Soil and Water

Due to evaporite deposits in the Paradox formation underlying much of the planning area, there is a significant occurrence of briny groundwater, with TDS concentrations exceeding 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Groundwater quality below the N aquifer is generally saline. The unconsolidated aquifers have the potential for mixing with high saline groundwater, due to no confining layer in between. Groundwater use in the planning area is not fully documented, due to unreported withdrawal from industry and domestic wells. Groundwater is diverted from both springs and wells. The primary uses of groundwater within the planning area are for potable drinking water supply and industrial supply (UDWRe 2000). In 2002, municipal water suppliers provided approximately 2,850 acre-feet of groundwater for potable supply (includes Moab, Thompson, Grand, and Arches National Park; UDWRi 2003). In 1996, 940 acre-feet of water were used for industrial purposes (UDWRe 2000).

3.15 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
For the purposes of this analysis, Special Designations fall into three categories: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Special designations may be given to areas meeting certain eligibility criteria. Descriptions of each of these areas and the criteria they meet are given below.

3.15.1 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACECS)
3.15.1.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW FLPMA defines an ACEC as an area "within the public lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards." The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) states that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will give priority to the designation and protection of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in the development and revision of land-use plans. With ACECs, there is no one method of management for all areas. Special management is designed specifically for the relevant and important values, and therefore varies from area to area. The one exception is that a mining plan of operation is required for any proposed mining activity that would create surface disturbance greater than casual use within a designated ACEC (43 CFR 3809 Regulations). A total of 35 nominated areas (many of which overlap with each other in area) were evaluated for relevance and importance as part of the Moab land-use planning process. These evaluations have been completed in accordance with guidance provided in BLM regulations at 43 CFR part 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613-Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, which identify relevance and importance criteria that must be met for a nominated area to be considered as a potential ACEC. The boundaries of the potential ACECs were crafted by the BLM

3-130

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.15 Special Designations

interdisciplinary team and its cooperators to best incorporate the relevant and important values of each nomination. The proposals included areas previously nominated, nominations received from the public as part of scoping, and areas nominated, refined, or expanded by BLM staff specialists. As a result of work completed by the BLM ACEC interdisciplinary team and its cooperating agencies, 14 potential ACECs that meet both the relevance and importance criteria have been identified. A summary of these 14 potential ACECs are listed in Table 3.41 and are shown in Map 2-14. A description of the potential ACEC nomination along with its relevance and importance criteria follows Table 3.41. Table 3.41. Summary of Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Area Name Behind the Rocks Book Cliffs Wildlife Area Canyon Rims Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex Colorado River Corridor Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Highway 279 Corridor/ Shafer Basin/ Long Canyon Labyrinth Canyon Mill Creek Canyon Ten Mile Wash Upper Courthouse Westwater Canyon White Wash Wilson Arch Relevant and Important Values, Resources, Natural Processes or Systems, or Natural Hazards Scenic values, sensitive plant species, cultural values Wildlife resources Scenic values Wildlife resources Scenic, and cultural values, wildlife resources, rare plants, natural systems Natural hazards and natural systems Scenic values and wildlife resources Scenic and historic values Scenic and cultural values, natural systems, fish resources Cultural values, wildlife resources, natural systems, natural hazards Historic values, natural systems, rare plants Scenic values and fish resources Natural systems Scenic values Acres 17,836 304,252 23,400 125,620 50,483 35,830 13,500 8,528 13,501 4,980 11,529 5,069 2,988 3,700

More detailed information on the designation process, the ACEC team, and MFO relevance and importance evaluations can be found in Appendix I – Relevance and Importance Evaluations of Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Nominations.

3-131

Moab PRMP/FEIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.15 Special Designations

3.15.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF AREA AND RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE CRITERIA FOR POTENTIAL ACECS The following descriptions and relevance and importance criteria are taken from the Relevance and Importance Evaluations of Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) nominations (BLM 2004f). 3.15.1.2.1 BEHIND THE ROCKS (17,836 ACRES) Description o