BLM LIBRARY
Bureau of Land Management
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
Proposed Management Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement
July 1999
BLM/UT/PT-99/006+1610
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Prepared by
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
Cedar City, Utah
July 1999
&
Linda S. Colville, Acting State Director, Utah A. J. Meredith, Monument Manager
\Je,
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
337 South Main, Suite 010
Cedar City, Utah 84720
1600
(UT-030)
Dear Reader:
Enclosed for your review is the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument Proposed Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (Proposed Plan). The
Proposed Plan is a refinement of the Preferred Alternative
and accompanying environmental analysis contained in the
Draft Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Draft Plan) that was issued to the public in
November 1998. Elements of each of the five alternatives
analyzed in the Draft Plan were drawn upon to create this
Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan reflects consideration
given to public comments, corrections, and rewording for
clarification.
The Proposed Plan is published in a condensed format and
can be used in conjunction with the Draft Plan to facilitate
review. The description of the affected environment and
detailed descriptions of alternatives contained in the Draft
Plan, as well as some of the appendices, are referenced but
not reproduced in the Proposed Plan.
Upon publication of this Plan, a 30-day protest period and a
60-day Governor's Consistency review will be held. The
Record of Decision (ROD) and the Approved Management
Plan will then be prepared. Approval will be withheld on any
portion of the Proposed Plan under protest until final action
has been completed on any protests. Distribution of the
ROD/Approved Plan is expected to occur in the Fall of 1999.
We appreciate the time and effort you have given during your
involvement in this process. Your continued participation is
essential to achieve wise management of public lands and
resources within the Monument.
Sincerely,
A.WMeredith
Monument Manager
GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT
MANAGEMENT PLAN and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
( ) Draft Environmental Statement
(X) Final Environmental Statement
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
Type of Action:
(X) Administrative
( ) Legislative
Abstract: This is the Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
This document responds to public comments received on the Draft Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The Proposed Plan also corrects errors in the Draft Plan identified through the public
comment process and internal BLM review. The Proposed Plan and associated analysis presents a refined and modified version of the
Preferred Alternative and the accompanying impact analysis contained in the Draft Plan.
This document is published in a condensed form. To facilitate review, it can be used in conjunction with the Draft Plan, which was
published in November 1998.
Protests to this Management Plan must be received within 30-days of the date of publication, in the Federal Register, of the Notice of
Availability by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. A news release will also be provided to local newspapers.
For further information contact:
Ms. Chris Killingsworth, Planning Coordinator
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
337 South Main Street, Suite 010
Cedar City, Utah 84720
(435)865-5100
Protest Procedures
PROTEST PROCEDURES
The resource management planning process provides for an
administrative review to the BLM Director for those who
believe approval of the Proposed Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (Proposed Plan) for Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument would be in error
(See 43 CFR 1610.5-2). The following guidelines outline the
process for preparation and submission of a protest that will
assure the greatest consideration to your point of view.
Only those persons or organizations who participated in the
scoping or comment period for the 1998 Draft Management
Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement planning process
leading to this Proposed Plan may protest. If our records do
not indicate a person's involvement in any stage in the
preparation of the Proposed Plan, the protest will be
dismissed without further review.
A protesting party may raise only those issues which he/she
submitted for the record during the planning process. New
issues raised in the protest period should be directed to the
Monument Manager for consideration in plan
implementation, as a potential plan amendment, or as
otherwise appropriate.
The period for filing a plan protest begins with the
Environmental Protection Agency publication of the Notice
of Availability of the Proposed Plan/Final Environmental
Impact Statement in the Federal Register. The protest period
extends for 30 days. There is no provision for an extension of
time. To be considered timely, a protest must be postmarked
no later than the last day of the protest period.
Although not a requirement, we suggest that protests be sent
by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Protests must be in writing to:
Director, Bureau of Land Management
Attn: Ms. Brenda Williams, Protests Coordinator
1849 C Street NW
WO-210/LS-1075
Department of the Interior
Washington, DC 20240
Overnight mail address is:
Director, Bureau of Land Management
Attn: Ms. Brenda Williams, Protests Coordinator (WO-210)
1620 L Street, NW, Suite 1075
Department of the Interior
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202/452-5045
To expedite consideration, in addition to the original sent
by mail or overnight mail, a copy of the protest may be sent
by:
FAX to 202/452-51 12; or E-mail to bhudgens@wo.blm.gov
VII
Protest Procedures
Protests filed late, or filed with the State Director or
Monument Manager shall be rejected by the Washington
Office. To be considered complete, a protest must contain, at
a minimum, the following information:
1 . The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest
of the person filing the protest.
2. A statement of the issue or issues being raised.
3. Identification of the part or parts of the Proposed Plan
being protested. To the extent possible, this should be done
by reference to specific pages, paragraphs, sections, tables,
maps, etc. included in the document.
4. A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that
you submitted during the planning process, or a reference to
the date the issue or issues were discussed by you for the
record.
5. A concise statement explaining why the Utah BLM State
Director's proposed decision is believed to be incorrect. This
is a critical part of your protest. Take care to document all
relevant facts. As much as possible, reference or cite the
planning documents, environmental analysis documents, or
available planning records (e.g., meeting minutes or
summaries, correspondence). A protest which merely
expresses disagreement with the proposed decision, without
any data, will not provide us with the benefit of your
information and insight. In this case, the Director's review
will be based on the existing analysis and supporting data.
At the end of the 30-day protest period and after the
Governor's consistency review, the Proposed Plan, excluding
any portions under protest, will become final. Approval will
be withheld on any portion of the Proposed Plan under
protest until final action has been completed on such protest.
VIII
User's Guide
USER'S GUIDE
The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Proposed
Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) is divided into five chapters, and includes maps,
appendices, a glossary, references, an index, and an errata.
This document is published in a condensed format and can be
used in conjunction with the Draft Management Plan/Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) distributed in
November 1998.
Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need) contains introductory material
for the Proposed Management Plan/FEIS. It describes the
purpose and need for the preparation of the document and
identifies the issues that will be addressed. It also describes the
planning and scoping process and outlines the planning criteria.
This chapter also outlines changes that have occurred since the
publication of the Draft Plan. A table comparing the Proposed
Plan actions with the five draft alternatives can be found at the
end of this chapter.
Chapter 2 (Proposed Management Plan) outlines the general
management direction for the Monument including resource
objectives and actions to accomplish those objectives. This
chapter is organized as follows: Introduction, Resource and
Management Objectives, Specific Resource Objectives and
Actions, Zone Management Direction, Management Across
Zones, Special Emphasis Areas, and Cooperation and
Consultation. Maps and tables are found throughout the
chapter.
Chapter 3 (Environmental Consequences) analyzes the
potential impacts of implementation of the Proposed Plan. The
analysis covers the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of
the proposed actions on Monument resources. This chapter
also identifies and discusses issues considered but not analyzed
in detail.
Chapter 4 (Public Participation and Coordination) includes
a summary of public involvement, a collaborative management
strategy, a list of agencies and organizations receiving the
document, and the list of preparers for this Proposed
Management Plan/FEIS. This chapter also addresses the
consistency of the Proposed Plan with other approved plans.
Chapter 5 (Public Comments on the Draft Management
Plan/DEIS and Responses) addresses the public comments
received on the Draft and includes responses to those
comments.
The Appendices contain additional information to help in the
understanding of the document.
The Glossary, References, and the Index provide an aid to
the reader in finding and understanding the material contained
in this document.
An Errata to the Draft Management Plan/Draft Environmental
Impact Statement is provided at the end of this document.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACEC
ADC
AMP
APHIS
APD
ATV
AUM
BLM
CEQ
CFR
DEIS
DMP
DOGM
FACA
FEIS
FERC
FLPMA
GCNRA
GIS
GOPB
GSENM
IM
IMP
ISA
MOU
NEPA
NWSRS
OHV
Area of Critical Environmental Concern
Animal Damage Control
Allotment Management Plans
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Application for Permit to Drill
All-Terrain Vehicle
Animal Unit Month
Bureau of Land Management
Council on Environmental Quality
Code of Federal Regulations
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Draft Management Plan
Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining
Federal Advisory Committee Act
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Geographic Information System
Utah Governors Office of Planning and
Budget
Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument
Instruction Memorandum
Interim Management Policy and Guidelines
for Lands Under Wilderness Review
Instant Study Area
Memorandum of Understanding
National Environmental Policy Act
National Wild and Scenic River System
Off-Highway Vehicle
ONA Outstanding Natural Area
PFC Proper Functioning Condition
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PWR Public Water Reserves
RMIS Recreation Management Information System
RNA Research Natural Area
ROD Record of Decision
ROW Rights-of-Way
SITLA Utah School Institutional and Trust Lands
Administration
SRMA Special Recreation Management Area
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TGA Taylor Grazing Act
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality
UDWQ Utah Division of Water Quality
UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
UGS Utah Geological Survey
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USC United States Code
USDOI United States Department of the Interior
USGS United States Geological Survey
VER Valid Existing Right
VRM Visual Resource Management
WPPA Wolverine Petrified Forest Area
WSA Wilderness Study Area
WSR Wild and Scenic Rivers
Table of Contents
Protest Procedures vii
User's Guide ix
Acronyms and Abbreviations x
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED
Introduction 1.1
Setting 1.1
Purpose and Need for Action 1.1
The Proposed Plan 1.2
Planning Process 1-2
Scoping Process '. 1 .3
Issues 1-3
Development of Management Strategies and Alternatives 1 .4
Draft and Proposed Management Plans 1.11
Implementation and Plan Maintenance 1.11
Summary of Planning Criteria and Considerations 1.11
Proclamation 1 • 1 1
Federal Land Policy and Management and National Environmental Policy Acts 1.12
Planning Criteria 1-12
Significant Events and Changes Since Publication of the Draft Plan 1.14
Changes in Management Situation 1 ■ 14
Changes Between the Draft and Proposed Plan • 114
What's Next in the Planning Process 115
Figure 1.1- Overview of the Planning Process 1-3
Table 1.1 - Alternative Comparison 116
Map 1.1 - Land Status 15
Map 1 .2 - Lands Acquired in State Institutional and Trust Land Administration Exchange L7
Map 1.3 - Boundary Adjustment ' •"
CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN
Introduction 2- '
General Direction 2.1
Monument Management Direction 2.1
Table of Contents
Overall Resources and Management Objectives 2-2
Specific Resource Objectives and Actions 2-3
Geology 23
7 %
Paleontology
Archaeology
History 25
Soils and Biological Soil Crusts 26
Vegetation
Fish and Wildlife 2J
Water 29
Water's Role in The Protection of Monument Resources 2-9
Strategy For Assuring Water Availability 210
Appropriative Water Rights Under State Law 2-12
Federal Reserved Water Rights 212
7 1 3
Assuring Water Quality Z"1J
Air Quality
. 2 14
Zone Management Direction
Zone Descriptions
Camping ■ 2 Jfi
Climbing 2\$
Commercial Filming
Competitive and Special Events '
Facilities
Visitor Facilities in the Gateway Communities 2-16
2 17
Visitor Facilities in the Monument
c. 2.18
Group Size
Outfitter and Guide Operations
Recreation Allocations '
Recreational Stock Use '
Transportation and Access '
Public Access
Maintenance
Trails '
Administrative Routes and Authorized Users '
Road Restoration Strategy *
Enforcement '
Aircraft Operations
xii
Table of Contents
Utility Rights-of-way and Communication Sites 2.23
Rights-of-Way 2.24
Vending 2.24
Management Across Zones 2.25
Collections 2.25
Emergency and Management Exceptions 2.25
Fees 2.25
Fences 2.25
Implementation and Adaptive Management Framework 2.25
Livestock Grazing 2.26
Applicable Statutes and Regulations 2.26
Grazing Management Process 2.27
Mandatory Content For AMPs 2.28
Optional Content for AMPs 2.29
Schedule 2.29
Night Skies 2.29
Riparian 2.29
Science and Research 2.30
Focus of Science and Research 2.30
Education and Outreach 2.31
Management of Science and Research Activities 2.31
Special Status Animal Species 2.3 1
Endangered Fish 2.33
Bald Eagle 2.33
Peregrine Falcon 2.34
Mexican Spotted Owl 2.34
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 2.35
California Condor 2.35
Kanab Ambersnail 2-3->
Special Status Plant Species 2-36
Jones' Cycladenia 2-3 /
Kodachrome Bladderpod ZJ '
Ute Ladies '-tresses ZJO
Valid Existing Rights and Other Existing Authorizations 2.38
Energy and Mineral Activities (Including Hardrock, Oil, Gas, and Coal) 2.39
Other Existing Rights or Interests 2-40
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration Lands Acquired 2.42
xiii
Table of Contents
Vegetation Management • 2.44
Relict Plant Communities and Hanging Gardens 2.44
Vegetation Restoration Methods 2.44
Noxious Weed Control 2.45
Forestry Products 2.46
Native Vs. Non-native Plants 2.46
Reseeding after Fires 2.49
Restoration and Revegetation 2.49
Water-related Developments (Non-culinary) 2.50
Wildfire Management 2-50
Wildlife Services • • • 251
Withdrawal Review 2.5 1
2 52
Special Emphasis Areas
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 2.52
2 S?
Special Management Designations
Special Recreation Management Areas 252
Escalante Canyons SRMA 2.55
Paria/Hackberry SRMA 2.55
Paria Canyons and Plateaus SRMA 2.55
Fiftymile Mountain SRMA 2.56
Highway 12 Corridor SRMA 2.56
Highway 89 Corridor SRMA 256
Visual Resource Management •
Wild and Scenic Rivers ~'°j
Wilderness Study Areas '
The 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory and Section 202 Planning Process 2-71
2 72
Cooperation and Consultation
Consultation with Native American Indians •
Cooperation with Communities and Other State and Federal Agencies 2.72
Gsenm Advisory Committee
End Notes
2 40
Table 2.1 - Summary of GSENM Mineral Leases ~
Table 2.2 - Summary of Authorizations Acquired from SITLA ■
Table 2.3 - Withdrawals/Classifications '
Table 2.4 - Wilderness Study Areas
xiv
Table of Contents
Map 2.1- Management Zones and Transportation System pocket in back of document
Map 2.2 - Forestry Product Areas 2.47
Map 2.3 - Special Management Designations 2.53
Map 2.4 - Special Recreation Management Areas 2.57
Map 2.5 - Visual Resource Inventory Classes 2.59
Map 2.6 - Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitable Segments - Escalante Drainage 2.63
Map 2.7 - Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitable Segments - Paria Drainage 2.65
Map 2.8 - Wilderness Study Areas 2.67
Map 2.9 - Management Zones and Wilderness Study Areas 2.69
CHAPTER 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Introduction ■*•
Types of Impacts 3.1
Analysis Assumptions And Guidelines 3.2
Incomplete or Unavailable Information 3.2
Mitigation 3.3
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 3.3
Proposed Plan Impact Analysis 3.4
Impacts on Paleontological Resources 3.5
Impacts on Archaeological And Historic Resources 3.10
Impacts on Biological Soil Crusts 3.17
Impacts on Vegetation 3.23
Impacts on Special Status Plant Species 3.30
Impacts on Relict Plant Communities And Hanging Gardens 3.36
Impacts on Riparian Resources 340
Impacts on Wildlife 3.48
Impacts on Special Status Animal Species 3-56
Impacts on Water Quality 364
Impacts on Air Quality
Impacts on Scenic Quality
Impacts on Wild And Scenic River Values 3.78
3 80
Impacts on Wilderness Values
3 84
Impacts on Research Activities
Impacts on Recreational Use
Impacts on Outfitters And Guides
Impacts on Livestock Operations
xv
Table of Contents s^
Impacts on Forestry Product Use jyo
Impacts on Local Economies 3y°
Impacts on Adjacent Agencies Management 3101
Cumulative Impacts
Irreversible And Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 3107
Issues Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail 3j0°
Impacts on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 310°
Impacts on Prime And Unique Farmlands 3- 10°
Impacts on Floodplains
Impacts on Geological Resources •
Impacts on or From Hazardous And Solid Wastes 3108
Impacts on Native American Trust Rights •
Impacts on Environmental Justice
Impacts of Valid Existing Rights on Monument Resources and Management 3109
Table 3.1 - Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (RFAs)
CHAPTER 4 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION
4.1
Introduction . -
Visions Kit '
Scoping Workshops '
Science Symposium '
Management Strategies And Scenarios
Draft Plan Comments '
Draft Plan Open House Sessions '
Open House Session Locations, Dates, and Attendance ■
v ... 4.2
Update Letters . „
Internet Homepage '
Information Meetings '
Intergovernmental Coordination '
Federal Register Notices '
Planning Consistency .'«
Collaborative Management '
EIS Distribution List .'
List of Preparers
xvi
Table of Contents
Table 4.1 - Plan Consistency Review 4.5
CHAPTER 5 - PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DMP/DEIS AND RESPONSES
Public Comments 5.1
Organizations Who Commented 5.1
Individuals Who Commented 5.4
Comments and Responses on the Draft Management Plan 5.51
Access and Transportation 5.5 1
Biological Resources 5.61
General 5.66
Grazing 5.83
Lands 5.85
Recreation 5.88
Water Resources 5.91
Wilderness Study Areas 5.94
Wild and Scenic Rivers 5.95
APPENDICES
Appendix 1- Presidential Proclamation Al.l
Appendix 2 - Antiquities Act of 1906 A2. 1
Appendix 3 - Implementation and Adaptive Management Framework A3. 1
Appendix 4 - Standard Procedures for Surface Disturbing Projects or Proposals A4.1
Appendix 5 - Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands A5.1
Appendix 6 - Grazing Allotments A6. 1
Appendix 7 - Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation A7.1
Appendix 8 - Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species A8. 1
Appendix 9 - Special Status Plant Species A9. 1
Appendix 10 - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern A10.1
Appendix 1 1 - Wild and Scenic River Suitability Al 1.1
Appendix 12 - Economic Conditions A12.1
Glossary G1
References
Index L1
Errata E1
xvii
Chapter I
Purpose and Need
Chapter
Purpose and Need
INTRODUCTION
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
was established on September 18, 1996 when
President Clinton issued a Proclamation
(Appendix 1) under the provisions of the
Antiquities Act of 1906 (Appendix 2).
Pursuant to the Proclamation, this Proposed
Management Plan and Final Environmental
Impact Statement (PMP/FEIS) (hereinafter
referred to as the Plan or Proposed Plan) sets
forth the general vision and objectives for
management of public lands and associated
resources within Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument.
SETTING
The Monument covers about 1,870,800 acres
of Federal land in south-central Utah (Map
1.1). There are approximately 15,000 acres of
land within the Monument boundary that are
privately owned. Approximately 68 percent of
the Monument is in Kane County, while the
remaining 32 percent is in Garfield County.
About 49 percent of Kane County and 18
percent of Garfield County lie within the
Monument boundary. The Monument is
primarily surrounded by Federal lands. Dixie
National Forest borders the Monument to the
north, Capitol Reef National Park on the east,
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area on the
east and southeast, Bryce Canyon National
Park on the northwest, and other Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) administered lands
on the south and west. Kodachrome Basin
State Park also adjoins the Monument.
Since designation of the Monument and the
publication of the Draft Management
Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DMP/DEIS), there have been two Federal
laws passed which have affected its size. In
May 1998, Secretary of the Interior Babbitt
and Utah Governor Leavitt negotiated a land
exchange to transfer all State school trust lands
within the Monument to the Federal
government, as well as the trust lands in the
National Forests, National Parks and Indian
Reservations in Utah. On October 31, 1998
President Clinton signed the Utah Schools and
Lands Exchange Act (Public Law 105-335)
which legislated this exchange. The Utah
Schools and Land Exchange Act resulted in
the addition of 176,699 acres of State school
trust lands and 24,000 acres of mineral
interest to the Monument (Map 1.2). On
October 31, 1998, President Clinton also
signed Public Law 105-355. Section 201 of
this law adjusted the boundary of the
Monument by including certain lands (a one-
mile wide strip north of Church Wells and Big
Water) and excluding certain other lands
around the communities of Henrieville,
Cannonville, Tropic, and Boulder. This law
resulted in the addition of approximately 5,500
acres to the Monument (Map 1 .3).
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The Monument was created to protect a
spectacular array of historic, biological,
geological, paleontological, and archaeological
objects. These treasures, individually and
collectively, in the context of the natural
environment that supports and protects them,
are the "Monument resources" discussed
throughout this document.
The Proclamation, which is the principal
direction for management of the Monument,
clearly dictates that the BLM manage the
Monument for "the purpose of protecting the
objects identified." All other considerations are
secondary to that edict.
The Proclamation governs how the provisions
of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) will be applied within the
Monument. FLPMA directs the BLM to
manage public land on the basis of multiple use
and "in a manner that will protect the quality of
scientific, scenic, historic, ecological,
environmental, air and atmospheric, water
resources, and archaeological values." The
term "multiple use" refers to the "harmonious
and coordinated management of the various
resources without permanent impairment of the
productivity of the land and the quality of the
environment." Multiple use involves managing
an area for various benefits, recognizing that
the establishment of land use priorities and
exclusive uses in certain areas is necessary to
ensure that multiple uses can occur
harmoniously across a landscape.
The Proclamation, FLPMA, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other
mandates provide the direction for the
preparation of a management plan for the
Monument. Within this guidance, many
decisions remain about how best to protect
I.I
Purpose and Need
Chapter
Monument resources and address the major
issues surrounding Monument management.
The Presidential Proclamation directed the
Secretary of the Interior to prepare a plan in
order to begin making those decisions. This
Proposed Plan would guide management
activities within the Monument and provide for
the protection of Monument resources. It
proposes to do so in a manner that creates
opportunities for public discovery and
education, sets a precedence for progressive
public land stewardship, incorporates input
from the scientific community and the public at
large, and reflects the National significance of
these resources.
THE PROPOSED PLAN
The purpose of this Plan is to provide both a
set of decisions outlining management
direction and to create a framework for future
planning and decision-making. Its scope is
necessarily broad, since it is a general
framework document that will guide the overall
management of activities within the
Monument, as well as the use and protection of
Monument resources. As in the case of any
resource management plan, subsequent site
specific and more detailed planning will take
place for certain geographic areas and
resources within the Monument in
conformance with this Management Plan. For
example, this could include the management of
outfitter and guide services in a given area or
more specific integrated resource planning in
defined geographic areas. The most significant
areas in which this Plan offers decisions
include:
transportation and access
major and minor visitor facilities
cross-country vehicle travel
recreation
collection of objects
water quality
water developments
vegetation
scientific research activities
Wild and Scenic River recommendations
There are several areas for which major
decisions have been deferred. For example,
because Monument designation does not affect
existing permits or leases for, or levels of,
livestock grazing, grazing will ultimately be
addressed after the completion of assessments
for each grazing allotment and the preparation
of new allotment management plans.
Similarly, due to litigation and the timetable
mandated by the Proclamation, this Plan does
not offer recommendations for new Wilderness
Study Areas or recommendations for
legislative action regarding existing
Wilderness Study Areas,. Currently, the Utah
BLM is undertaking a separate statewide
planning process that will determine whether
there will be any new WSAs in the Monument.
This process is scheduled to be completed in
the fall of 2000. This Plan also does not make
specific decisions concerning valid existing
rights that may be asserted in the future under
various authorities. Instead, as outlined in
Chapter 2, the BLM will periodically verify
the status of valid existing rights. When any
action is proposed concerning these assertions,
the BLM will analyze all potential impacts in
order to provide a basis for decision making.
This Proposed Plan is presented in a condensed
format and can be used in conjunction with the
DMP/DEIS (published November 1998) to
facilitate review. The description of the
affected environment and detailed descriptions
of alternatives contained in the DMP/DEIS, as
well as some of the appendices, are referenced
but not reproduced in the Proposed Plan. The
description of the affected environment
presented in the DMP/DEIS still represents the
baseline from which this Plan was developed.
In addition, portions of the environmental
consequences analysis presented in the
DMP/DEIS have been supplemented based on
public comment and new information, and can
be found in Chapter 5 of this Plan (see
Comment/Response ACC- 14). Acreages
reported throughout this Plan were generated
using a Geographic Information System (GIS)
and may differ slightly from legal acreages.
PLANNING PROCESS
Figure 1 . 1 illustrates the steps in the planning
process that have led to the publication of this
Plan. Each of these steps is described in
subsequent sections.
1.2
Chapter
Purpose and Need
(
( Scoping )
( Issues )
Develop Management
Strategies, Scenarios and
Alternatives
Draft Management
Plan/DEIS
Public Comment Period
Proposed Management Plan/
Final EIS
)
i Approved Plan/ Record of Decision i
Plan Implementation and
Adaptive Management
Figure 1.1 Overveiw of the Planning Process
SCOPING PROCESS
The first step in the planning process was to
invite public participation. This "scoping"
process provided for a wide range of public
input on the significant issues to be addressed
in the Plan. The formal scoping period began
with publication of the Notice of Intent to
prepare a Management Plan, which appeared in
the Federal Register on July 8, 1997 (Volume
62, No. 130, Pg. 36570).
The scoping process invited public input
through a Visions Kit (a questionnaire),
electronic mail, the Internet, and public
workshops. Fifteen public workshops were
held in seven states and Washington, D.C.
between August 12 and October 16, 1997.
Several thousand scoping comments were
received, with comments coming from all 50
states and Washington, D.C.
ISSUES
One of the most important outcomes of the
scoping process was the identification of the
significant issues to be addressed in the Plan.
For planning purposes, an "issue" is defined as
a matter of controversy, dispute, or general
concern over resource management activities,
the environment, or land uses. In essence,
issues help determine what decisions should be
made in the Plan and what the environmental
analysis must address (through an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as J
required by NEPA).
Based on the scoping comments and
subsequent analysis and evaluation, seven
integrated planning issues were identified and
are listed below. In addition to the seven
issues identified in scoping, the Plan addresses
basic environmental and management issues
including air quality, water quality, and soils
management.
The planning issues identified in scoping were:
Issue 1: How will Monument resources be
protected?
The Presidential Proclamation establishing the
Monument identified an array of scientific and
historic objects to be protected. These
geological, paleontological, archaeological,
biological, and historic objects, individually
and collectively, in the context of the natural
environment that supports and protects them,
are considered Monument resources.
The Proposed Plan identifies various ways of
protecting such resources, including educating
visitors, restricting access, setting research
priorities, and restoring degraded ecological
conditions. Chapter 2 outlines the management
objectives for Monument resources and the
decisions that protect these resources.
Issue 2: How will research associated with the
Monument be managed?
Science and history are at the very heart of the
Proclamation which established the Monument.
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
provides an opportunity to explore ecosystems,
and to conduct social, natural, cultural, and
physical science studies.
Chapter 2 of this Plan outlines how the
scientific agenda for the Monument would be
determined, how research would contribute to
the protection of resources, how access for
1.3
Purpose and Need
Chapter I
researchers would be managed, and how
research would interact with recreation.
Issue 3: How will Monument management be
integrated with community plans?
Both local and Native American Indian
communities near the Monument have
contemporary and historic ties to lands within
the Monument. These communities make a
valuable contribution to our National heritage
and to the quality of visitor experiences.
This Plan discusses the need for continued
cooperation between the Monument and these
communities. Decisions under the
Cooperation and Consultation section in
Chapter 2 highlight collaborative endeavors
with Native American Indians, local
communities, Counties, the State, and other
Federal agencies.
Issue 4: How will people 's activities and uses
be managed?
The activities of visitors and other users are
recognized as having a profound effect on the
Monument environment as well as on local
communities surrounding the Monument.
Management of those activities is crucial in
protecting Monument resources.
Decisions such as: where and what kind of
interpretation and visitor services to provide,
how to manage uses such as rights-of-way,
utility lines, outfitter and guide services,
communication sites, and fuelwood cutting are
all important elements of this Plan and can be
found in Chapter 2. This Plan also addresses
the treatment of valid existing rights in
existence when the Monument was
established.
Issue 5: What facilities are needed and
where?
Facilities for the Monument include all
structures for visitors, administration, and
research.
This Plan identifies visitor facilities in gateway
communities and identifies the zones where
minor visitor facilities such as pullouts,
parking areas, and trailheads could be located.
Issue 6: How will transportation and access
be managed?
A network of routes and trails currently
provides access to many areas of the
Monument.
Proposed decisions in the Transportation and
Access section of Chapter 2 identify the
transportation network, maintenance activities,
administrative routes and authorized users, a
restoration strategy, trails, and an enforcement
strategy.
Issue 7: To what extent is water necessary for
the proper care and management of the objects
of the Monument, and what further action is
necessaiy to assure the availability of water?
The Proclamation directed the Secretary of the
Interior to address "the extent to which water is
necessary for the proper care and management
of the objects of this monument and the extent
to which further action may be necessary,
pursuant to Federal or State law, to assure the
availability of water."
The Water section in Chapter 2 outlines the
BLM's objectives with respect to water
resources within the Monument. The section
also addresses strategies for assuring water
availability and water quality.
DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVES
Defining the planning issues was the first step
toward narrowing the scope of possible actions
that would be carried forward into the planning
process. Management strategies aimed at
providing viable options for addressing the
planning issues were then developed. The
management strategies provided the building
blocks from which the general management
scenarios, and eventually, the more detailed
management alternatives, were developed. The
result of this process was the range of
management alternatives provided in the
DMP/DEIS.
1.4
Map 1.1:
Land Status
© Principal Communities
A/ Monument Boundary
A/ Highways 89 & 12
A/ Other Roads
□ BLM
I I Forest Service
1 Indian Lands
I I National Park Service
I I Private
[__] State
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Map 1.2:
Land Acquired in State
Institutional and Trust Lands
Administration Land Exchange
© Principal Communities
A/ Monument Boundary
A/ Highways 89 & 12
/V Other Roads
□ BLM
WW Former SITLA Lands
I I Private Land
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Map 1.3:
Boundary Adjustments
0 Principal Communities
A/ Monument Boundary
/V Highways 89 & 12
A/ other Roads
♦**♦»' Original Monument
Boundary
A/ Adjusted Monument
Boundary
I I Lands No Longer
Within Monument
5§ Lands Acquired
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Chapter
Purpose and Need
DRAFT AND PROPOSED
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Five alternatives for the management of the
Monument, including a "No Action"
Alternative, are described in the Draft
Management Plan and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement published in November
1998.
Alternatives B, C, D, and E describe various
ways the provisions of the Proclamation would
be applied to direct management of the
Monument. Each alternative has a somewhat
different emphasis, primarily defined in terms
of resource focus, but all afford the high degree
of protection for Monument resources required
by the Proclamation. As a result, the range of
alternatives presented in the DEIS is narrower
than in standard BLM environmental impact
statements. The DEIS represent a full range of
the alternatives possible within the parameters
of the Proclamation.
Alternative A, the No Action Alternative,
describes the continuation of the interim
management of the Monument, in which the
provisions of the Proclamation and the Interim
Guidance issued by the Director of the BLM
are applied. This alternative does not refer to
the management that was in place prior to
Monument designation, but instead assumes
the continuation of the interim management,
initiated subsequent to designation and prior to
the preparation of the Proposed Plan.
A 120-day public comment period followed the
publication of the Draft Plan, and open house
meetings were held throughout the West and in
Washington D.C. between December 1, 1998
and January 12, 1999. Over 6,800 comment
letters were received on the Draft Management
Plan (see Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of
public input).
This document describes the Proposed Plan for
the Monument. It is drawn from the
alternatives laid out in the Draft Plan,
applicable public comment, and management
direction. A comparative summary of the
planning alternatives addressed in the Draft
Management Plan and the Proposed Plan
presented in this document is provided in
Table 1 . 1 at the end of this chapter.
IMPLEMENTATION AND PLAN
MAINTENANCE
During the life of the Approved Plan, the BLM
expects that new information gathered from
field inventories and assessments, research,
other agency studies, and other sources will
update baseline data or support new
management techniques and scientific
principles. To the extent that such new
information or actions address issues covered
in the Plan, the BLM would integrate the data
through a process called plan maintenance or
updating. This process includes the use of an
adaptive management strategy. As part of this
process, the BLM would review management
actions and the Plan periodically to determine
whether the objectives set forth in this and
other applicable planning documents are being
met. Where they are not being met, the BLM
would consider adjustments of appropriate
scope. Where the BLM considers taking or
approving actions which would alter or not
conform to overall direction of the Plan, the
BLM would prepare a plan amendment and
environmental analysis of appropriate scope in
making its determinations and in seeking public
comment. A more detailed discussion of
implementation and the use of adaptive
management is included in Appendix 3.
SUMMARY OF PLANNING
CRITERIA AND
CONSIDERATIONS
Legal requirements and directives governing
the planning process were considered in
developing the framework for the Draft and
Proposed Management Plans. The following is
a summary of key planning considerations.
PROCLAMATION
The Presidential Proclamation
(Proclamation 6920, September 18, 1996):
The Proclamation (Appendix 1), enacted under
the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Appendix 2),
established the Monument, described the
purposes of the Monument, and made certain
provisions for its management, including the
following:
• Federal lands within the Monument are
withdrawn from new mineral location or
mineral leasing.
I.I I
Purpose and Need
Chapter
• Federal lands within the Monument
boundaries will remain in public
ownership, unless exchanged for lands that
would further protect Monument resources.
• Establishment of the Monument is subject
to valid existing rights.
• Establishment of the Monument does not
diminish the responsibility and authority of
the State of Utah for management offish
and wildlife, including regulation of
hunting and fishing, on Federal lands
within the Monument.
• Livestock grazing shall continue to be
governed by applicable laws and
regulations other than the Proclamation.
• Existing withdrawals, reservations, or
appropriations are not revoked by the
Proclamation, but such uses must be
managed to protect Monument resources.
• Water is not reserved as a matter of Federal
law. The Plan must address the extent to
which water is necessary for the proper
care and management of the objects of the
Monument and the extent to which further
action may be necessary pursuant to
Federal or State law to assure the
availability of water.
FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND
MANAGEMENT AND NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACTS
The Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, as amended, and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended: Development of the Management
Plan is guided by the legal authority found in
FLPMA and NEPA. In developing land use
plans, FLPMA and NEPA require that the
BLM use an interdisciplinary approach and
provide opportunities for public involvement
and interagency coordination. In addition,
FLPMA requires land use plans to:
• consider the present and potential uses of
the public lands
• consider the scarcity of values involved
• rely on public lands inventories
• comply with pollution-control laws
• manage Wilderness Study Areas to ensure
that their potential wilderness values are
not impaired
Both NEPA and FLPMA require the BLM to
provide the public with information about the
effects of implementing land use plans.
Since the passage of FLPMA, the BLM has
identified certain areas for Wilderness review.
These areas, called Wilderness Study Areas
(WSAs) and Instant Study Areas (ISAs), have
been managed under the BLM's Interim
Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands
Under Wilderness Review (IMP) (BLM
Manual H-8550-1) since they were identified
(Map 2.8 in Chapter 2). The objective of the
IMP is to manage those lands such that their
suitability for designation as Wilderness is not
impaired. The WSAs and ISAs within the
Monument will continue to be managed under
the IMP, and the Monument Management Plan
will only be carried out to the extent that it does
not conflict with the IMP, unless action is taken
by Congress. If Congress decides not to
designate any WSA lands as wilderness, those
lands would then be managed under the
provisions of the Monument Management Plan.
The evaluation of additional lands for WSA
status is outside the scope of this Plan (see
Chapter 2 The 1999 Utah Wilderness
Inventory and Section 202 Planning Process
for a more detailed discussion).
PLANNING CRITERIA
In addition to the planning considerations of the
Proclamation and FLPMA, the BLM planning
regulations (43 CFR 1610) require preparation
of planning criteria to guide development of all
resource management plans. Planning criteria
ensure that plans are tailored to the identified
issues and ensure that unnecessary data
collection and analyses are avoided. Planning
criteria are based on applicable law, agency
guidance, public comment, and coordination
with other Federal, state and local governments,
and Native American Indian tribes.
The planning criteria used in developing the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
Management Plan are listed below. These
reflect the criteria established prior to the
1.12
Chapter
Purpose and Need
development of the Draft Plan. Updates or new
circumstances are included in brackets.
• The Plan will be completed in compliance
with FLPMA and all other applicable laws.
It will meet the requirement of the
Proclamation to protect the objects of
geological, paleontological, archaeological,
historic, and biological value within the
Monument. However, the full extent of the
Monument's resources are not yet known.
• The Monument Planning Team will work
cooperatively with the State of Utah, tribal
governments, county and municipal
governments, other Federal agencies, and
all other interested groups, agencies and
individuals.
• The Plan will establish the guidance upon
which the BLM will rely in managing the
Monument.
• The planning process will include an
Environmental Impact Statement which
will comply with National Environmental
Policy Act standards.
• The Plan will emphasize the scientific and
historic resources of the Monument. It will
also identify opportunities and priorities for
research and education related to the
resources for which the Monument was
created. In addition, it will describe an
approach for incorporating research into
management actions.
• Due to the size of the Monument, the
number of entry points, the importance of
emphasizing local community involvement
in visitor services, the need to assure
managerial efficiencies, and the
overwhelming response during scoping,
the Plan will assume that a single large
scale office/visitor center is neither feasible
nor desirable. Major facilities and
services, whenever possible, will be
located in nearby communities, outside the
Monument boundaries, with locations
based upon considerations such as the
social, economic, and infrastructure factors
in surrounding communities, as well as the
need to facilitate effective management.
The Plan will set forth a framework for
managing recreational activities in order to
provide for enjoyment of visitor
experiences consistent with the
Proclamation.
The Plan will recognize valid existing
rights within the Monument and review
how valid existing rights are verified. The
Plan will also outline the process the BLM
will use to address applications or notices
filed after completion of the Plan on
existing claims or other land use
authorizations.
The management of grazing is regulated by
laws and regulations other than the
Proclamation. The Plan will incorporate
the statewide standards and guidelines
recommended by the Utah Bureau of Land
Management Resource Advisory Council
and accepted by the Secretary of the
Interior. It will lay out a strategy for
ensuring that proper grazing practices are
followed within the Monument. In
addition, the Plan will outline the
subsequent NEPA and decision making
processes that the BLM will follow to
manage grazing within the Monument.
The Plan will directly involve Native
American Indian tribal governments by
providing strategies for the protection of
recognized traditional uses.
The lifestyles of area residents, including
the activities of grazing and hunting, will be
recognized in the Plan.
The Monument Plan will not address
boundary adjustments. Boundaries were
established by the President and cannot be
adjusted administratively. [Since the
DMP/DEIS was published, the boundary of
the Monument was adjusted under Public
Law 105-355.]
The Monument Plan will recognize the
State's responsibility and authority to
manage wildlife, including hunting and
fishing, within the Monument.
Resolution of the State land inholding issue
is a priority for the Department of the
Interior and the BLM, and is being
addressed separately from the Management
Plan. Both State and private inholdings
within the Monument are covered by the
analysis in this document, although this
draft document does not propose decisions
for acquisition or management of these
lands. If the BLM acquires these lands,
they will be managed consistent with the
Plan, subject to any constraints associated
with the acquisition. [Note: Since the
DMP/DEIS was published, the State lands
and mineral interests within the Monument
1.13
Purpose and Need
Chapter
have been acquired by the BLM under the
Utah Schools and Land Exchange Act
(Public Law 105-335).]
• The Plan will address transportation and
access, and will identify where better
access is warranted, where access should
remain as is, and where decreased access is
appropriate to protect Monument resources
and manage visitation.
SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AND
CHANGES SINCE PUBLICATION
OF THE DRAFT PLAN
CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT
SITUATION
Several events since publication of the
DMP/DEIS have improved both the Monument
management situation and the ability of the
BLM to implement the direction outlined in the
Proclamation. These events have also reduced
the number of potentially serious conflicts.
First and most important, the Utah Schools and
Land Exchange Act, signed into law in October
1998, resulted in the conveyance to the Federal
government of all State school trust lands
within the Monument, in exchange for public
lands and interests in lands elsewhere in Utah
(Map 1.2). Unlike the Federal lands in the
Monument, school trust lands were to be
managed for economic development, creating
the risk that development on trust lands could
have harmed Monument resources. Resolution
of the longstanding and contentious state
inholding issue ensures that over 175,000 acres
of former State inholdings will be managed for
Monument purposes, subject to valid existing
rights.
Another law passed in October 1998 (Public
Law 105-355), adjusted the boundaries of the
Monument to include certain lands (a one-mile
strip north of Church Wells and Big Water)
containing important resources such as
valuable archeological artifacts and
paleontological objects (Map 1.3). This Act
also resolved one minor trespass and other
boundary issues around the communities of
Henrieville, Cannonville, Tropic, and Boulder.
These minor boundary adjustments resolved
several issues of concern to local communities,
preventing potential management conflicts in
the future.
Based on overwhelming public input that
emphasized local community involvement in
visitor services, it was proposed in the DEIS
that major facilities and services be located in
nearby communities, outside the Monument
boundary. Since publication of the DEIS, the
BLM and local communities have agreed on
which communities would host certain visitor
facilities (see Chapter 2 Visitor Facilities in
the Gateway Communities for a discussion
of these proposed locations). While precise
locations within the communities are yet to be
finalized (issues such as the availability of
infrastructure, and economic considerations
remain), the decision to locate these facilities
within the communities significantly
contributes to the protection of resources by
focusing economic development, services, and
associated infrastructure outside Monument
boundaries.
CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND
PROPOSED PLAN
The BLM is committed to providing
opportunities for meaningful public
participation in all resource management
planning processes. Since publication of the
Draft Plan, over 6,800 comments have been
received. These comments contained valuable
input and were carefully considered, along with
internal recommendations and new information,
to modify the Preferred Alternative laid out in
the Draft Management Plan. The nature of
these changes fall generally into three
categories: clarifications, technical corrections,
and policy decision changes.
Many of the changes between the Draft and
Proposed Plans are clarifications based on
misunderstandings or requests for more
information. Clarifications and additional
information have been provided to more fully
explain what was intended in the Draft Plan.
For example, limitations on the overall numbers
of visitors (allocations) were referred to in the
Draft as a tool available to protect resources in
certain zones. The Proposed Plan provides
more detail on what those allocations would
entail and how decisions on allocations would
be made. Other examples are the Advisory
Committee and Adaptive Management Process
referred to in the Draft Plan. This Plan
provides a more detailed discussion on the
make-up of the committee and a detailed
.14
Chapter
Purpose and Need
description of how adaptive management
would function in implementation of this Plan
(Appendix 3).
A few changes or modifications of policy
decisions have been made to the Preferred
Alternative in order to arrive at this Proposed
Plan. These changes are drawn from other
alternatives analyzed in the DEIS and are based
on public comment and new information. One
important example is zone boundaries. Zones
boundaries were refined based on
topographical and dominant terrain
considerations, and the Burr Trail was moved
from the Frontcountry to the Passage Zone.
These changes altered the percentages of each
zone. Another example is group size. Group
size limits have been altered in all zones. One
change was to eliminate group size limits in the
Frontcountry Zone, because this zone would be
the focal point for visitors and is along major
highways where bus tours and other large
groups will see the Monument. Group size
limits on these highways are not consistent
with the intent to focus visitation on the
periphery of the Monument in these areas.
Group size limits were also altered in the other
zones in order to accommodate long time uses
and to make the Primitive Zone consistent with
similar zones on adjacent National Park units.
These group sizes are considered consistent
with the protection of resources, and
allocations of overall number of visitors or
other tools would be used to protect resources
if needed. A third example is filming. Instead
of allowing commercial filming in some zones
and prohibiting it in others (as outlined in the
Preferred Alternative), this Plan would allow
minimum impact filming in all zones. This
would allow for documentary or very low
impact filming that is consistent with the
protection of Monument resources and the
other prescriptions for the zones, but would
prohibit all filming that could detrimentally
impact Monument resources.
Other changes made since publication of the
Draft Plan include technical corrections such
as errors in addition, inaccuracies in maps, and
other errors. These items raised in public
comments or found internally are corrected in
the Errata found at the end of this document.
Table 1 . 1 provides a comparison summary of
the decisions in each of the alternatives in the
DEIS and the decisions in the Proposed Plan.
Because the acreage contained in the
Monument has changed between the Draft and
the Proposed Plans for the reasons explained
previously, comparisons are provided as a
percentage of total acres. Even though many
decisions did not change between the Preferred
Alternative in the DEIS and the Proposed Plan
(e.g., campfires, trail construction), zone
percentages differ slightly between the two due
to zone boundary refinements.
WHAT'S NEXT IN THE
PLANNING PROCESS
Upon publication of this Plan, a 30-day protest
period and a 60-day Governor's Consistency
review will be held (Protest Procedures are
outlined at the beginning of this document).
The Record of Decision (ROD) and the
Approved Management Plan will then be
prepared. Approval will be withheld on any
portion of the Proposed Plan under protest until
final action has been completed on any protests.
Distribution of the ROD/ Approved Plan is
expected to occur in the Fall of 1999.
1.15
Purpose and Need
Chapter
Table 1.1
Alternative Comparison
(This is a comparative summary of the Proposed Plan and the Draft Planning Alternatives. More detail on Alternatives A through E can be found in the Draft Management Plan/Draft
Proposed Plan
(FEIS)
Alternative A
(DEIS - No Action)
Alternative B
(DEIS - Preferred)
Alternative C
(DEIS)
Alternative D
(DEIS)
Alternative E
(DIES)
Zones
Frontcountry 4%
Passage 2%
Outback 29%
Primitive 65%
no zones
Frontcountry 7%
Passage 2%
Outback 30%
Primitive 61%
Intensive 9%
Management Research 21%
Transition 14%
Landscape Research 56%
Enhanced 7%
Rustic 10%
Remote 83%
Scenic Highways 2%
Rural 2%
Backcountry 9%
Foot and Hoof 22%
Primitive Motorized 25%
Primitive 40%
Air quality
• continue to be managed
as a Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration Class II
area
• continue to be
managed as a
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration
Class II area
• continue to be
managed as a
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration Class 11
area
• continue to be managed as
a Prevention of
Significant Deterioration
Class II area
• pursue obtaining a
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration Class
I redesignation
• continue to be managed
as a Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration Class II
area
Campfires
• allowed in designated
fire grates, pits, or
mandatory fire pans on
6%
• allowed, fire pans
encouraged on 93%
• not allowed on 1 %
• allowed on 100%
• allowed in designated
fire grates, pits, or
mandatory fire pans on
9%
• allowed, fire pans
encouraged on 90%
• not allowed on 1 %
• allowed on 43%
• not allowed on 57%
• allowed in
designated fire
grates, pits, or
mandatory fire
pans on 99%
• not allowed on 1%
• allowed in designated
fire grates, pits, or
mandatory fire pans on
4%
• allowed, fire pans
encouraged on 95%
• not allowed on 1 %
Camping
• dispersed camping
allowed on 94%
• designated areas only
on 6%
• dispersed
camping allowed
on 100%
• dispersed camping
allowed on 93%
• designated areas only
on 7%
• dispersed camping
allowed on 99%
• designated areas only on
1%
• dispersed camping
allowed on 99%
• designated areas
only on 1%
• dispersed camping
allowed on 100%
Communication
sites
• allowed on 6%
• allowed on 29% where
no other reasonable
location exists
• allowed on 65% only
for safety purposes and
only where no other
alternative exists
• allow only where
necessary on
100%
• allowed on 9%
• allowed on 91 % where
no other reasonable
location exists
• considered on a case-by-
case basis on 30%
• not allowed on 70%
• allowed on 7%
• not allowed on
93%
• allowed on 38%
• not allowed on 62%
Chapter
Purpose and Need
Table 1.1
Alternative Comparison
(This is a comparative summary of the Proposed Plan and the Draft Planning Alternatives. More detail on Alternatives A through E can be found in the Draft Management Plan/Draft
Proposed Plan
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
(FEIS)
(DEIS - No Action)
(DEIS - Preferred)
(DEIS)
(DEIS)
(DIES)
Competitive
• competitive events not
• continue to
• not allowed on 100%
• allowed on 30%
• allowed on 7%
• allowed on 13%
and special
allowed on 100%
manage permits
• not allowed on 70%
• not allowed on
• not allowed on 87%
events
• special events may be
approved, by permit, if
they meet other zone
requirements
approved in 1997
(2)
93%
Filming
• minimum impact
• allowed on 100%
• minimum impact
• not allowed on 100%
• minimum impact
• minimum impact
allowed on 100% if
allowed on 38%
allowed on 7%
allowed if used as an
other zone restrictions
• not allowed on 62%
• not allowed on
interpretive tool on
are met
93%
100%
Group size
• no group size limit on
• no group size
• group size limit of 25
• group size limit of 50
• group size limit of
• no limit on 2%
4%
limit on 100%
people and/or animals
people and/or animals on
25 people and/or
• group size limit of 75
• group size limit of 25
• recommended
on 9%
42%
animals on 7%
people and/or animals
people on 31%, larger
group size limit of
• group size limit of 12
• group size limit of 1 2
• group size limit of
on 11%
groups may be allowed
12 in Escalante
people and/or animals
people and/or animals on
1 2 people and/or
• group size limit of 12
by permit if criteria are
Canyons
on 91%
58%
animals on 93%
people and/or animals
met
on 87%
• 12 people and 12
animals on 65%, can get
permit for the Paria
River Corridor for up to
25 people
• further restriction on
group size could be
implemented if resource
damage is occurring
.17
Purpose and Need
Chapter I
Table 1.1
Alternative Comparison
(This is a comparative summary of the Proposed Plan and the Draft Planning Alternatives. More detail on Alternatives A through E can be found in the Draft Management Plan/Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, published November 1 998, More detail on the decisions in the Proposed Plan can be found in Chapter 2 of this document. )
Proposed Plan
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
(FEIS)
(DEIS - No Action)
(DEIS - Preferred)
(DEIS)
(DEIS)
(DIES)
GSENM
• one advisory committee
• none existing
• a science advisory
• a Monument advisory
• a Monument
• a Monument advisory
Advisory
would be chartered
group would be
group would be
advisory group
group would be
Committee
under Federal Advisory
chartered under FACA
established after the Plan
would be
established after the
Committee Act (FACA)
to advise on the
is completed to advise
established after
Plan is completed to
to advise on science
Monument research
management on a variety
the Plan is
advise management on a
issues and the
program and its
of topics
completed to
variety of topics
achievement of
integration with
advise
management objectives
Monument
management
• a Monument advisory
group would be
established after the
Plan is completed to
advise management on
a variety of topics
management on a
variety of topics
Minor facilities
• allowed for a variety of
• none identified,
• allowed for a variety
• allowed for a variety of
• allowed for a
• allowed for a variety of
(interpretative
purposes on 6%
develop as needed
of purposes on 7%
purposes on 30%
variety of purposes
purposes on 1 3%
sites, picnic
• not allowed except for
• not allowed except for
• not allowed on 70%
on 7%
• not allowed on 87%
areas, etc.)
resource protection on
29%
• not allowed on 65%
resource protection on
32%
• not allowed on 61%
• not allowed except
for resource
protection or
visitor safety on
10%
• not allowed on
83%
Outfitters and
• allowed if
• allow existing
• allowed if
• allowed if outfitter/guide
• allowed if
• allowed if
guides
outfitter/guide activities
permits
outfitter/guide
activities are appropriate
outfitter/guide
outfitter/guide activities
are appropriate to the
• no new permits
activities are
to the zone on 86%
activities are
are appropriate to the
zone on 100%
appropriate to the zone
on 100%
• not allowed on 14%
appropriate to the
zone on 100%
• some sites may
require a guide
zone on 100%
I.I!
Chapter I
Purpose and Need
Table 1.1
Alternative Comparison
(This is a comparative summary of the Proposed Plan and the Draft Planning Alternatives. More detail on Alternatives A through E can be found in the Draft Management Plan/Draft
Proposed Plan
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
(FEIS)
(DEIS - No Action)
(DEIS - Preferred)
(DEIS)
(DEIS)
(DIES)
Parking area
• allowed for a variety of
• allowed, as
• allowed for a variety
• allowed for a variety of
• allowed for a
• allowed for a variety of
and trailhead
purposes on 6%
needed, for
of purposes on 7%
purposes on 30%
variety of purposes
purposes on 38%
construction
• allowed only for
resource
• allowed only for
• not allowed on 70%
on 7%
• not allowed on 62%
resource protection on
protection
resource protection or
• allowed for
29%
visitor safety on 32%
resource protection
• not allowed on 65%
• not allowed on 61%
or visitor safety on
10%
• not allowed on
83%
Recreation use
• could be implemented
• no allocations
• could be implemented
• could be implemented on
• could be
• could be implemented
allocation
on 96%
on 93%
100%
implemented on
on 87%
• would not allocate on
• would not allocate on
100%J
• would not allocate on
4%
7%
13%
Research -
• allowed and encouraged
• continue to
• allowed and
• allowed and encouraged
• allowed and
• encouraged at visitor
non-surfacing
on 100%
support
encouraged on 1 00%
on 100%
encouraged on
sites to protect resources
disturbing
• permits required
• continue to
identify
opportunities and
priorities
• permits required
• permits required
100%,
• permits required
and use as an
interpretive tool on 35%
• priority for inventory
and field studies on
65%
• permits required
l.l<
Purpose and Need
Chapter I
Table 1.1
Alternative Comparison
(This is a comparative summary of the Proposed Plan and the Draft Planning Alternatives. More detail on Alternatives A through E can be found in the Draft Management Plan/Draft
Proposed Plan
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
(FEIS)
(DEIS - No Action)
(DEIS - Preferred)
(DEIS)
(DEIS)
(DIES)
Research -
• allowed on 35%
• allowed within
• allowed on 38%
• allowed for scientific
• allowed on 7%
• allowed if done as an
surface
• could be allowed on
the constraints of
• could be allowed on
purposes on 30%
• could be allowed
interpretive tool 1 3%
disturbing
65% for extremely high
law
62% for unique
• not allowed on 70%
on 93% if research
• allowed on 87% only if
value research
research opportunities
except for unique research
could not be done
it cannot be done
opportunities that are
with extremely high
opportunities
elsewhere, or if it
elsewhere
not available elsewhere
value
• permits required
directly relates to
• permits required
or which focus on
• permits required
or is dependent on
protecting Monument
remoteness
resources at risk. The
• permits required
GSENM Advisory
Committee could be
asked for
recommendations on
whether research
proposals merit
exceptions to zone
prescriptions.
• permits required
Signing
• allowed for a variety of
• continue to
• allowed for a variety
• allowed for a variety of
• allowed for a
• allowed for a variety of
purposes on 6%
provide as needed
of purposes on 7%
purposes on 44%
variety of purposes
purposes on 60%
• allowed only for
• allowed only for
• allowed only for resource
on 7%
• not allowed on 40%
resource protection or
resource protection or
protection on 56%
• allowed only for
visitor safety on 94%
visitor safety on 32%
• allowed only for
resource protection on
61%
resource protection
or visitor safety on
10%
• allowed only for
resource protection
on 83%
Toilets
• allowed on 6%
• allowed where
• allowed on 39%
• allowed on 44%
• allowed on 1 7%
• allowed on 60%
• allowed only to protect
needed to address
• not allowed on 61%
• could provide temporary
• not allowed on
• not allowed on 40%
resources on 29%
health and safety
facilities to accommodate
83%
• not allowed on 65%
concerns
research on 56%
1 '
.20
Chapter I
Purpose and Need
Table 1.1
Alternative Comparison
(This is a comparative summary of the Proposed Plan and the Draft Planning Alternatives. More detail on Alternatives A through E can be found in the Draft Management Plan/Draft
" More detail on the decisions in the Proposed Plan can be found in Chapter 2 of this document.)
I
Proposed Plan
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
(FEIS)
(DEIS - No Action)
(DEIS - Preferred)
(DEIS)
(DEIS)
(DIES)
Trail
• allowed for a variety of
• allowed
• allowed for a variety
• allowed for research and
• allowed for a
• allowed for a variety of
construction
purposes on 6%
of purposes on 9%
resource protection on
variety of purposes
purposes on 1 3%
• allowed only to protect
• allowed only to protect
44%
on 7%
• allowed only to protect
sensitive resources on
sensitive resources on
• not allowed on 56%
• allowed only to
sensitive resources on
94%
91%
protect sensitive
resources on 93%
22%
• not allowed on 65%
Trail
• allowed on 6%
• allowed as needed
• allowed on 7%
• allowed on 44%
• allowed on 7%
• allowed on 35%
maintenance
• allowed only for
• allowed only for
• allowed only for resource
• minimum level of
• minimum level of
resource protection on
resource protection on
protection on 56%
maintenance only
maintenance only on
94%
93%
on 93%
65%
Transportation
• 1,080 total miles of
• 2,167 miles of
• 1,128 total miles of
• 1 ,365 total miles of routes
• 790 total miles of
• 1 ,342 total miles of
system
routes open for public
routes open
routes open for public
open for public or
routes open for
routes open for public
or administrative use,
or administrative use,
administrative use,
public or
or administrative use,
including:
(Note: The above
including:
including:
administrative use,
including:
-345 miles designated
number is slightly
-227 miles designated
-1,186 miles designated
including:
-284 miles designated
open for street legal
lower than reported
open for street legal
open for street legal
-760 miles
open for street legal
vehicles only
in the DEIS due to
vehicles only
vehicles only
designated open
vehicles only
-543 miles open for
minor GIS
-591 miles open for
-non-street legal ATV and
for street legal
-976 miles open for
street legal and non-
calculation errors.)
street legal and non-
dirt bike use prohibited on
vehicles only
street legal and non-
street legal ATV and
street legal ATV and
all routes
-non-street legal
street legal ATV and
dirt bike use
dirt bike use
-179 miles open for
ATV and dirt bike
dirt bike use
-192 miles open for
-310 miles open for
administrative purposes
use prohibited on
-82 miles open for
administrative purposes
administrative
only
all routes
administrative purposes
only
(Note: The above total
purposes only
- 30 miles open for
only
(Note: The above
(Note: The above numbers
administrative
(Note: The above numbers
does not include 20 miles
numbers are different
are slightly lower than those
purposes only
are slightly lower than
of routes through private
than those in the DEIS,
reported in the DEIS due to
those reported in the DEIS
lands. Miles of routes
due to an error in
minor GIS calculation
due to minor GIS
through private lands were
administrative miles. See
errors.)
calculation errors.)
reported in the DEIS
Errata for details.)
Alternatives A- E totals.)
1.21
Purpose and Need
Chapter
Table 1.1
Alternative Comparison
(This is a comparative summary of the Proposed Plan and the Draft Planning Alternatives. More detail on Alternatives A through E can be found in the Draft Management Plan/Draft
Proposed Plan
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
(FEIS)
(DEIS - No Action)
(DEIS - Preferred)
(DEIS)
(DEIS)
(DIES)
Utility rights-
• allowed on 6%
• allow only those
• allowed on 9%
• allowed on 30%
• allowed on 7%
• allowed on 38%
of-way
• allowed on 29% where
necessary
• allowed on 30%
• not allowed on 70%
• not allowed on
• not allowed on 62%
(pipelines,
no other reasonable
where no other
93%
powerlines,
location exists
reasonable location
etc.)
• not allowed on 65%
exists
• not allowed on 61%
Vegetation
• the following methods
• maintain existing
• the following methods
• the following would be
• the following
• the following would be
restoration
could be used to restore
or allow new only
would be allowed to
allowed on 86%:
would be allowed
allowed as needed on
methods
natural systems and to
to protect or
restore natural systems
- chemical
for the protection
13%:
protect sensitive
enhance
and to protect sensitive
- biological
of sensitive
-mechanical
resources on 100%:
Monument
resources on 100%:
- hand cutting
resources on
-chemical
- chemical
resources
- chemical
- management ignited fire
100%:
-biological
- biological
• management
- biological
• mechanical not allowed
- limited chemical
-hand cutting
- hand cutting
ignited fire used
- hand cutting
on 30%
- hand cutting
-management ignited
- management ignited
to restore natural
- management ignited
• no methods allowed on
- management
fire
fire
systems or to
fire
14%
ignited fire
• management ignited
• mechanical not allowed
reduce hazardous
• mechanical not
only on 22%
on 65%
fuels
allowed on 61%
• management ignited fire
and hand cutting only
on 25%
• no methods allowed on
40%
Visual
VRM Classes:
VRM Classes:
VRM Classes:
VRM Classes:
VRM Classes:
VRM Classes:
Resource
• Class II (68%)
• Class II (68%)
• Class II (68%)
• Class II (68%)
• Class II (68%)
• Class II (68%)
Management
• Class III (32%)
• Class III (30%)
• Class III (30%)
• Class III (30%)
• Class III (30%)
• Class III (30%)
• Class IV (2%)
• Class IV (2%)
• Class IV (2%)
• Class IV (2%)
• Class IV (2%)
1.22
Chapter I
Purpose and Need
Table 1.1
Alternative Comparison
(This is a comparative summary of the Proposed Plan and the Draft Planning Alternatives. More detail on Alternatives A through E can be found in the Draft Management Plan/Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, published November 1998. More detail on the decisions in the Proposed Plan can be found in Chapter 2 of this document.)
Proposed Plan
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
(FEIS)
(DEIS - No Action)
(DEIS - Preferred)
(DEIS)
(DEIS)
(DIES)
Water
• could be used as a
• could be used to
• could be used as a
• could be used as a
• no new water
• could be used as a
developments
management tool:
protect or enhance
management tool
management tool
developments
management tool
(non-culinary)
- only when the water
resources
throughout the
throughout the Monument
throughout the
development would not
Monument to protect
to protect resources or to
Monument to protect
jeopardize or dewater
resources or to restore
restore natural systems
resources, to facilitate
streams or springs, and
natural systems
visitor use, or to manage
- only when there are no
livestock and wildlife
other means to achieve
the following
objectives:
- for better distribution
of existing livestock to
protect resources
- to restore or manage
native species or
populations
Water quality
• request that the State
• water quality
• request that the State
• request that the State
• request that the
• water quality
accelerate identification
monitoring would
accelerate
accelerate identification of
State accelerate
monitoring would be
of total maximum daily
continue in
identification of total
total maximum daily load
identification of
implemented when
load for 303d listed
cooperation with
maximum daily load
for 303d listed waters
total maximum
ground disturbance or
waters
the State
for 303d listed waters
daily load for 303d
listed waters
other factors could
adversely affect water
quality. Mitigation
would be required if
adverse affects were
detected.
1.23
Purpose and Need
Chapter I
(This is a
Table 1.1
Alternative Comparison
comparative summary of the Proposed Plan and the Draft Planning Alternatives. More detail on Alternatives A through E can be found in the Draft Management Plan/Draft
Chapter 2 of this document.)
Proposed Plan
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
(FEIS)
(DEIS - No Action)
(DEIS - Preferred)
(DEIS)
(DEIS)
(DIES)
Wildlife
• coyote control measures
• APHIS would be
• limited to the taking of
• limited to the taking of
• no animal damage
• would be restricted
Services
would be limited to the
urged, through
individual animals
individual animals
control activities
where it conflicts with
(formerly
Animal
taking of individual
amendments to
responsible for verified
responsible for verified
would take place
recreational use
animals within the
existing
livestock kills, where
livestock kills, where
within the
• limited to control
Damage
immediate vicinity of
agreements and
reasonable livestock
reasonable management
Monument
activities that achieve
Control)
verified livestock kills,
other measures, to
management measures
measures to prevent
and maintain natural
where reasonable
target individual
to prevent predation
predation have been taken
animal population
livestock management
predators, rather
have been taken and
and have failed
dynamics, and
measures to prevent
than predator
have failed
population distributions,
predation have been
populations
or which do not conflict
taken and have failed
with this objective
• no traps, poisons, or use
of M44s would be
allowed
1.24
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
INTRODUCTION
The Presidential Proclamation which
establishing Grand Staircase - Escalante
National Monument (GSENM) directed the
Secretary of the Interior to prepare a
management plan for the Monument. The
Proclamation also directed that the Monument
be managed pursuant to applicable legal
authorities. In accordance with these
directives, the Monument Planning Team
embarked on the planning process described in
Chapter 1 . A Draft Management Plan and
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DMP/DEIS) was published in November
1998.
The original 90 day public comment period
was extended for an additional 30 days, ending
on March 15, 1999. About 6,800 written
responses were received, as well as hundreds
of verbal comments gathered by the Team
during a series of public information meetings
held across the Nation. These comments were
analyzed and carefully considered, along with
recommendations from Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and Department of the
Interior officials. The Proposed Plan is based
upon the Preferred Alternative laid out in the
DEIS, with modifications to reflect public
comment.
GENERAL DIRECTION
This Proposed Management Plan is founded on
the directions outlined in the BLM 1997
Strategic Plan. All lands administered by the
BLM, including Grand Staircase - Escalante
National Monument, are managed to achieve
this mission:
Sustain the health, diversity, and productivity
of the public lands for the use and enjoyment
of present and future generations by:
• serving current and future publics;
• restoring and maintaining the health of the
land;
• promoting collaborative land and resource
management; and
• improving business practices and human
resource management.
MONUMENT MANAGEMENT
DIRECTION
Grand Staircase - Escalante National
Monument is unique among the public lands
managed by the BLM. Its size, resources and
remote character provide a spectacular array of
scientific, public education, and exploration
opportunities. It also has a purpose, delineated
in the Presidential Proclamation, that is more
specific than other BLM administered lands.
The following two basic precepts provide the
overall vision for future management of this
very special place.
1 . First and foremost, the Monument remains
a frontier. The remote and undeveloped
character of the Monument is responsible
for the existence and quality of most of the
scientific and historic resources described
in the Presidential Proclamation.
Safeguarding the remote and undeveloped
frontier character of the Monument is
essential to the protection of the scientific
and historic resources as required by the
Proclamation.
2. Second, the Monument provides an
unparalleled opportunity for the study of
scientific and historic resources. In
addition to the study of specific scientific
resources, this setting allows study of such
important issues as: understanding
ecological and climatic change over time;
increasing our understanding of the
interactions between humans and their
environment; improving land management
practices; and achieving a properly
functioning, healthy, and biologically
diverse landscape. Scientific study would
be supported and encouraged, but
potentially intrusive or destructive
investigations would be carefully reviewed
to avoid conflicts with the BLM's
responsibility to protect and preserve
scientific and historic Monument resources.
Within these two basic precepts, the
Proclamation and management policy specify
that other activities can and should continue to
occur. Four additional statements round out the
overall vision for GSENM.
• While much of the Monument exhibits
qualities where the Earth and its community
of life show little evidence of human
influence, it is also true that generations of
people have used lands within the
2.1
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
Monument for many different purposes.
The Proclamation directed that the
Monument remain open to certain specific
uses under existing laws and regulations.
These include valid existing rights, hunting,
fishing, grazing and pre-existing
authorizations. To the extent consistent
with existing rights, these uses would be
managed in a manner that protects
Monument resources.
• The Monument staff would work with local
communities to provide needed
infrastructure development such as
communications sites and utility rights-of-
way. As with other uses, this type of
development would be limited to small
areas of the Monument. In addition, it
must be done in a manner that would not
cause serious impacts to protected
resources or significantly change the
undeveloped character of the Monument.
• While interpretation and recreation would
be accommodated, and in some areas
developed, the intention of these
management activities would be to
contribute to the protection and
understanding of Monument resources.
Developed recreational and interpretive
sites would be limited to small areas of the
Monument. At these sites visitors could
experience, and come to better understand,
the scientific resources of the Monument
and the process and importance of scientific
research in improving our knowledge of
natural systems. This could be
accomplished without causing serious
impacts to the resources themselves.
Undeveloped recreation would be
accommodated as long as no significant
impacts to Monument resources would
occur. Limits on large groups, commercial
uses, and even limits on overall numbers of
individuals would be used when needed to
prevent impacts to Monument resources.
• Finally, the short history of the Monument
has already established a pattern for an
inclusive and collaborative effort to
protect, identify, assess, and where
appropriate, research or interpret resources
found in GSENM. The Monument staff
would continue to work with local, state
and Federal partners, scientists, Native
American Indians, and the public to refine
management practices that would insure
protection, facilitate scientific and historic
research, respect authorized uses, and
allow appropriate visitation.
The remainder of this chapter describes
objectives and actions aimed at fulfilling the
principles above. The following section
describes a set of general management
objectives common to all resources. These
general management objectives are followed
by a discussion of objectives and actions
specific to the major resources considered in
this Plan. The resource discussions are
followed by a description of a zoning strategy
designed to manage uses in accordance with
resource protection objectives. Following the
zone discussion, actions such as research and
livestock grazing that would be managed the
same across zones are discussed.
OVERALL RESOURCES AND
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Given the above direction and the direction
found in the Proclamation, the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and
other governing laws, the overall objectives of
the BLM with respect to the geological,
archaeological, historic, biological (including
soils, vegetation, fish and wildlife, and special
status species), water, and air resources would
be to:
• manage uses to prevent damage to the
resources listed above,
• increase public education and
appreciation of such resources through
interpretation, and
• facilitate appropriate research to
improve understanding of such resources
and to improve methods of protecting
these resources.
A discussion of how these objectives would be
achieved for each resource follows this section.
The discussion includes more specific
objectives and actions for each resource where
appropriate. Further actions aimed at meeting
these overall objectives, including a zoning
strategy, are also discussed in subsequent
sections. More detailed background on each
resource can be found in Chapter 3 of the
DEIS.
2.2
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
SPECIFIC RESOURCE
OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS
GEOLOGY
"...The monument is a geologic treasure of
clearly exposed stratigraphy and
structure..." (Proclamation 6920, 1996)
Ranging in age from Permian through
Quaternary, the sedimentary rocks and surficial
deposits within GSENM record nearly 270
million years of the geologic history. These
geologic strata are important for the
outstanding research opportunities that they
present and for the scenic beauty that they
create.
Generally, the major geologic attributes of the
Monument, such as regional stratigraphic units
and regional structures, are not at risk of
degradation from land management practices
or visitor use. For the most part, the landform
sculpting processes involving a combination of
water, wind, and tectonism began in the more
recent geologic past and continue unabated
today. Geomorphologic features such as
arches, natural bridges, hogbacks, pinnacles,
and slot canyons (small-scale expressions of
geological processes) are the features people
most often associate with the term "geology."
In fact, most of the scenic qualities of the
Monument exist because of the combination of
climatic processes, geologic structure, and the
underlying rock-types.
Much as the geomorphology of the Monument
holds the interest of visitors, some of the
features themselves can be hazards and are
often the result of processes that constitute
other geologic hazards. Geologic hazards can
include flash floods and debris flows,
landslides, rock falls, expansive and
collapsible soils, and naturally ignited coal
fires.
Program efforts for inventorying and assessing
the potential for geologic hazards as they
might relate to visitor safety, visitor facilities,
rights-of-way, communication sites, and
transportation routes would continue. Visitor
activities could be restricted in high-hazard
areas or in areas where damage to sensitive
geomorphologic features may occur.
Examples include restrictions on camping in
known flood channels, debris basins, sensitive
soil areas, or rock-climbing near arches or
natural bridges. Design or location of
designated primitive camping areas, trailheads,
or communication structures may be affected
by geologic hazards. Further management
actions aimed at meeting general resource
protection objectives are outlined later in this
chapter.
PALEONTOLOGY
"...The monument includes world class
paleontological sites..." (Proclamation 6920,
1996)
Monument lands contain widespread and varied
paleontological resources. Paleontological sites
contain a wealth of information about
prehistoric life and environments during the last
part of the Paleozoic Era (about 270 million
years ago) as well as throughout the Mesozoic
Era (245 to 66 million years ago). The
sequence of rocks found on the Kaiparowits
Plateau contains one of the best and most
continuous records of Late Cretaceous
terrestrial life in the world. Monument
paleontological resources are important to
members of the scientific community as well as
academic institutions, private organizations and
other interested individuals from around the
world. These sites also provide opportunities to
visitors for education and enjoyment.
The BLM would continue to inventory the
Monument for paleontological resources and
evaluate their potential for protection,
conservation, research, or interpretation. High-
use areas within the Monument would have
high priority for inventory efforts. Beyond
high-use areas, inventory and research efforts
would be expanded to fill in the information
gaps on formations and other information
needs. Such research would be coordinated as
part of the adaptive management framework
discussed in Appendix 3.
2.3
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
A range of methods to manage visitor use and
other activities would be used to protect
paleontological resources from intentional or
inadvertent damage. Many of these
prescriptions are discussed in subsequent
sections, along with other actions aimed at
meeting general resource protection objectives.
Among other things, these prescriptions would
limit vehicular travel to designated routes and
prohibit collecting of Monument resources
without a permit to do so for research. A
monitoring program would be used to assess
management needs of sensitive sites and areas.
In addition, all proposed projects would be
required to include a paleontological site
inventory, and appropriate strategies would be
used to avoid sensitive sites, restrict access to
the sensitive resource (i.e., construct barriers),
or as a last resort, excavating and curating the
resource.
Public education and interpretation would also
be emphasized to improve visitor
understanding of paleontological resources and
to prevent damage. Collaborative partnerships
with volunteers, universities and other research
institutions would be pursued to document,
preserve, monitor or interpret sites consistent
with the overall objective of protecting
paleontological resources.
ARCHAEOLOGY
"...Archeological inventories carried out to
date show extensive use of places within the
monument by ancient Native American
cultures. ..Many more undocumented sites
that exist within the monument are of
significant scientific and historic value
worthy of preservation for future study..."
(Proclamation 6920, 1996)
Monument lands contain an extensive array of
varied, non-renewable prehistoric
archaeological sites, including clusters of
unique sites that represent contact between the
Fremont and Anasazi, particularly in the
Kaiparowits region. These "cultural
resources" are valued by Native American
Indian tribes, local communities, the scientific
community, private organizations and
interested individuals from around the world.
These sites represent an important record of
prehistoric and historic cultures and events that
have intrinsic value to contemporary Native
American Indians who still have cultural,
historic and religious ties to these resources.
Furthermore, these prehistoric sites provide
opportunities to visitors for education and
enjoyment.
The BLM would continue to inventory and
conduct project compliance for archaeological
resources. This would be done in order to
evaluate their potential for protection,
conservation, research, or interpretation.
Cultural surveys in high-use areas, such as
along trails and open routes, would be
prioritized to ensure protection of vulnerable
resources. Beyond these areas, inventory and
research efforts would be expanded to fill in the
information gaps and complete research that
would contribute to the protection of sites.
Such research would be coordinated as part of
the adaptive management framework discussed
in Appendix 3. The BLM would use the
information collected to create a better
understanding of cultures, join with the other
sciences in interdisciplinary studies for
improving land management practices, and
work to showcase and preserve remnants of
Native American Indian cultures within the
Monument.
A range of methods to manage visitor use and
other activities would be used to protect
archaeological resources from intentional or
inadvertent damage. Many of these
prescriptions are discussed later in this chapter,
along with other actions aimed at meeting
general resource protection objectives. Among
other things, these prescriptions would limit
vehicular travel to designated routes, limit
dispersed camping in certain areas, and would
prohibit collection. In addition, all proposed
projects would continue to include a site
inventory for archaeological resources, and
appropriate strategies would be used to protect
sensitive sites. This would include avoiding the
site altogether, restricting access to the sensitive
resource (i.e., construct barriers), interpreting
the resource, or as a last resort, excavating and
curating the resource.
2.4
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Public education and interpretation would also
be emphasized to improve visitor
understanding of archaeological resources and
to prevent damage. Archaeological site
etiquette information would be readily
available to Monument visitors. Collaborative
partnerships with Native American Indians,
outfitters and guides, volunteers and
universities would be pursued to document,
preserve, study, monitor or interpret sites
consistent with the overall objective of
protecting archaeological resources.
Traditional Cultural Properties are those sites
recognized by contemporary Native American
Indians as important to their cultural
continuity. These sites would be identified,
respected, preserved and managed for
continued recognized traditional uses.
Consultation with the appropriate Native
American Indian communities would be a
priority. Uses on archaeological sites that
cause site damage and/or that are inconsistent
with the protection and use of Traditional
Cultural Properties would be prohibited.
HISTORY
"...The monument has a long and dignified
human history; it is a place where one can
see how nature shapes human endeavors in
the American West, where distance and
aridity have been pitted against our dreams
and courage..." (Proclamation 6920, 1996)
The distances, aridity, cliffs, and terraces have
indeed shaped the communities which are
located on the periphery of the Monument. It
is, in fact, these factors that severely limited
historic era settlement within the boundaries of
GSENM and produced the landscape we see
today. The Monument is surrounded by a
number of communities that were established
between the 1860s and the 1880s by Mormon
settlers looking for new resources and lands to
support their families. Early Mormon pioneers
left many historic objects. These include trails,
inscriptions, remnants of old towns (such as
the Old Pahreah townsite), cabins, and cowboy
line camps. They also constructed and
traversed the renowned Hole-in-the-Rock Trail
as part of their epic colonization efforts.
Mormon settlers built homes, developed dams,
reservoirs and irrigation systems, constructed
wagon roads and livestock trails, and
established cemeteries around and within the
Monument. Evidence of many of these still
exists.
In order to protect these important historic
resources, the BLM would continue to
inventory the Monument to identify historic
resources and to evaluate their potential for
conservation, research, or interpretation. This
would include efforts to evaluate historical and
cultural properties for nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places. Surveys
in high-use areas such as along trails and open
routes would be prioritized to ensure
protection of vulnerable resources. Beyond
these areas, inventory and research efforts
would be expanded to fill in the information
gaps and complete research that would
contribute to protection of sites. Such research
would be coordinated as part of the adaptive
management framework discussed in Appendix
3.
A range of methods to manage visitor use and
other activities would be used to protect historic
resources from intentional or inadvertent
damage. Many of these prescriptions are
discussed later in this chapter, along with other
actions aimed at meeting general resource
protection objectives. Among other things,
these prescriptions would limit vehicular travel
to designated routes. These prescriptions
would also prohibit collection of artifacts. In
addition, all proposed projects would be
required to include a site inventory for historic
resources, and appropriate strategies would be
used to protect sensitive sites. This would
include avoiding the site altogether, restricting
access to the sensitive resource (i.e., construct
barriers), interpreting the resource,
rehabilitating the resource, or as a last resort,
excavating and curating the resource.
The BLM would establish continuing
collaborative programs with local communities,
organizations, local and state agencies, Native
American Indian communities, outfitters and
guides, volunteers, and other interested parties.
This would be done in order to identify,
inventory, monitor, and develop and implement
plans for the restoration, stabilization,
protection, and/or interpretation of appropriate
sites and resources within the Monument. The
collaborative programs would include the
continuation of the current Oral History
Program in cooperation with local
2.5
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
communities. The Oral History Program
focuses on the collection of histories from local
residents and people knowledgeable about the
region. It was created in order to document the
history of the region and to increase
understanding of the interactions between
people and the environment of the Monument.
The BLM would use the information collected
to create a better understanding of cultures and
communities, join with the other sciences in
interdisciplinary studies for improving land
management practices, and work to showcase
the histories of the local communities as part of
the "long and dignified history" of the
Monument.
SOILS AND BIOLOGICAL SOIL
CRUSTS
"...Fragile cryptobiotic crusts, themselves of
significant biological interest, play a critical
role throughout the monument, stabilizing
the highly erodible desert soils and
providing nutrients for plants..."
(Proclamation 6920, 1996)
Conservation of soil resources is important, as
soil, combined with water, provides the base of
support for life within the Monument. Soils in
arid and semiarid regions are particularly
critical to sustaining ecosystems because they
can be more vulnerable to degradation from a
number of natural and artificially induced
disturbances.
Often referred to as cryptobiotic, cryptogamic,
microbiotic, or cyanobactenal-lichen soil
crusts, biological soil crusts consist of lichens,
mosses, and algae usually binding a matrix of
clay, silt, and sand. Biological soil crusts are
formed by living organisms and their by-
products, creating a surface crust of soil
particles bound together by organic materials
(USDA, 1997). Biological soil crusts, which
are widespread but not pervasive, play an
important ecological role in the Monument in
the functioning of soil stability and erosion,
atmospheric nitrogen fixation, nutrient
contributions to plants, soil-plant-water
relations, seedling germination, and plant
growth.
This Plan calls for Monument-wide
prescriptions, such as limiting vehicular travel
to designated routes and limiting facilities
construction within the Monument boundary,
which would help conserve soils. The BLM
would apply procedures to protect soils from
accelerated or unnatural erosion in any ground-
disturbing activity, including route
maintenance and restoration. The effects of
activities such as grazing, mineral exploration,
or water developments would be analyzed
through the preparation of project specific
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documents. This process would include
inventories for affected resources and the
identification of mitigation measures.
Prior to any ground disturbing activity, the
potential effects on biological soil crusts would
be considered and steps would be taken to
avoid impacts on their function, health, and
distribution. Long-term research toward
preservation and restoration of soils would be
part of the adaptive management framework
(Appendix 3). Further research would be
conducted on these crusts, and the results
interpreted for management and education
purposes.
VEGETATION
"...The blending of warm and cold desert
floras, along with the high number of
endemic species, place this area in the heart
of perhaps the richest floristic region in the
Intermountain West..." (Proclamation 6920,
1996)
The blending of three floristic provinces in the
Monument provides the potential for a high
degree of plant diversity. Steep canyons,
limited water, seasonal flood events, unique
and isolated geologic substrates, and large
fluctuations in climatic conditions have all
influenced the composition, structure, and
diversity of vegetation associations of this
region. The potential is great for research on
many aspects of these vegetation associations,
and protection of these areas is a primary
concern in the management of the Monument.
With this in mind, the Monument would be
managed to achieve a natural range of native
plant associations. Management activities
would not be allowed to significantly shift the
makeup of those associations, disrupt their
2.6
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
normal population dynamics, or disrupt the
normal progression of those associations.
In addition to the above objective, the BLM
would take measures to promote recovery and
conservation of all special status plant species
within the Monument (see the Special Status
Plant Species section in this chapter ). The
BLM would continue to consult with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to ensure that actions authorized by
the BLM do not jeopardize the continued
existence of any Federally listed plant species
or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitats. Activities
would occur in conjunction with the U.S.
Forest Service, the Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources' Natural Heritage Program, and the
National Park Service in areas where species
cross jurisdictional lines.
The BLM would place a priority on the control
of noxious weed species and prevent the
introduction of new invasive species in
conjunction with Kane and Garfield Counties
and the adjacent U.S. Forest Service and
National Park Service units. Further, in
keeping with the overall vegetation objectives
and Presidential Executive Order 11312, native
plants would be used as a priority for all
projects in the Monument. A more detailed
discussion of noxious weed control efforts and
the native plant policy can be found later in this
chapter.
The BLM would also continue to coordinate
with other organizations to inventory the
Monument and evaluate the need for
vegetation protection strategies. Such research
would be coordinated as part of the
implementation and adaptive management
strategies outlined in Appendix 3, and the
results would be interpreted for management
and public education purposes.
In addition, a range of methods to manage
visitor use and other activities would be used
to protect vegetation associations in the
Monument. Many of these prescriptions,
including prohibiting the collection of plants
and limiting vehicular travel to designated
routes, are discussed later in this chapter, along
with other actions aimed at meeting overall
resource protection objectives. In addition, all
proposed developments or surface disturbing
activities would be required to include a site
assessment for impacts to vegetation.
Appropriate strategies would be used to avoid
sensitive vegetation associations, and
restoration provisions would be included in
projects as described in the section on
Restoration and Revegetation in this chapter.
Of particular interest in this area, as mentioned
in the Proclamation, are relict plant
communities, hanging gardens, and riparian
resources. Sections that provide guidance on
management of these resources specifically are
included later in this chapter. Vegetation
management activities or "tools," such as
vegetation restoration methods (including
management ignited fire), weed control,
forestry product collection, reseeding after
fires, and restoration of disturbed areas, which
are also directly related to accomplishing the
vegetation objectives, are also discussed later in
this chapter. As described in those sections, all
vegetation management activities must be done
in accordance with the objective of achieving a
natural range of native plant associations.
FISH AND WILDLIFE
"...The wildlife of the monument is
characterized by a diversity of
species. ..Wildlife, including neotropical
birds, concentrate around the Paria and
Escalante Rivers and other riparian
corridors within the Monument..."
(Proclamation 6920, 1996)
Within the boundaries of GSENM and
surrounding areas, 362 species of vertebrate
animals and 1,112 species of invertebrates have
been identified. Given this diverse number of
species, combined with the vastness of the
Monument and other surrounding Federal
lands, this area provides unique and relatively
undisturbed habitat for wildlife. Having nearly
entire ecosystems within its boundaries, the
Monument remains a refuge and a place to
learn about wildlife and associated habitats.
The Proclamation establishing the Monument
states: "Nothing in this proclamation shall be
deemed to diminish the responsibility and
authority of the State of Utah for management
of fish and wildlife, including regulation of
hunting and fishing, on Federal lands within the
Monument." At the same time, the
Proclamation refers to the "outstanding
2.7
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
biological resources" and " important
ecological values" in the Monument. These
resources, which encompass entire natural
systems, including fish and wildlife habitat, are
among those that the BLM has been given
responsibility to manage and protect. The
BLM's objective in managing habitat would be
to work in conjunction with the Utah Division
of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) in managing
fish, wildlife, and other animals to achieve and
maintain natural populations, population
dynamics and population distributions in a way
that protects and enhances Monument
resources. The BLM would also work
cooperatively with the UDWR to reestablish
populations of native species to historic ranges
within the boundaries of GSENM, and to take
needed actions to protect and enhance the
habitat of these native species.
An additional important objective of the
BLM's habitat management program would be
to work with State, local, and Federal partners
to minimize or eliminate the need for additional
listing of species under the Endangered Species
Act, and to contribute to the recovery of
species already listed as such (see the Special
Status Animal Species section in this chapter).
The BLM would work cooperatively with the
USFWS and the UDWR to fulfill these
responsibilities and meet the requirements of
FLPMA, the Endangered Species Act, and
other laws and regulations governing fish and
wildlife.
To meet the above objectives, the BLM would
manage habitats for the recovery or
reestablishment of native populations through
collaborative planning with local, State and
Federal agencies, user groups and interested
organizations. The BLM would also work with
the UDWR to meet the requirements of
Executive Order 1 1312 on Invasive Species.
The BLM would continue to work with the
UDWR to meet the goals described in adopted
species management plans. The BLM would
place a priority on protecting riparian and
water resources as they relate to fish and
wildlife, and would work cooperatively with
the U.S. Forest Service to coordinate
maintenance of fisheries and flows. The BLM
would also limit additional adverse impacts to
crucial habitats on Monument lands from
developments to preserve the integrity of
wildlife corridors and migration routes and
access to key forage, nesting, and spawning
areas. A key component of this strategy is the
placement of major visitor facilities outside the
Monument, and restricting the number and
extent of minor facilities in the interior of the
Monument.
A range of methods to manage visitor use and
other activities would be used to protect fish
and wildlife and their habitats. Many of these
prescriptions are discussed later in this chapter,
along with other actions aimed at meeting
general resource protection objectives. Among
other things, these prescriptions would limit
vehicular travel to designated routes, prohibit
large developments within the Monument, and
prohibit climbing seasonally in areas sensitive
for raptors. In addition, all proposed projects
would be required to include a site assessment
for impacts to fish and wildlife species.
Appropriate strategies would be used to avoid
sensitive habitat and restrict access to the
sensitive habitats (i.e., construct barriers).
Seasonal restrictions on visitor use could be
implemented to protect crucial habitat and
migration corridors. Water developments could
be constructed for wildlife purposes if
consistent with the overall objectives for fish
and wildlife and with the water development
policy discussed in the Water-related
Development section of this chapter.
Given the fact that few comprehensive wildlife
studies have been conducted on Monument
lands, the BLM would continue to coordinate
with the UDWR and other organizations to
inventory for wildlife and to evaluate needs for
habitat protection. Inventory and research
efforts would be targeted to fill information
gaps on habitat needs. Such research would be
coordinated as part of the adaptive management
framework discussed in Appendix 3.
Public education and interpretation would also
be emphasized to improve visitor
understanding of fish and wildlife species.
Collaborative partnerships with volunteers and
universities would be pursued to monitor and
study biological resources consistent with the
overall objective of protecting such resources.
2.8
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
WATER
"...with scarce and scattered water sources,
the monument is an outstanding biological
resource..." (Proclamation 6920, 1996)
The Proclamation establishing the Monument
directs the Secretary of the Interior "to address
m the management plan the extent to which
water is necessary for the proper care and
management of the objects of this Monument
and the extent to which further action may be
necessary pursuant to Federal or State law to
assure the availability of water."
Water's Role in The Protection of
Monument Resources
The Monument is vast and arid, but its "scarce
and scattered water sources" are vital to a
number of Monument resources. The
landscape has been formed by water, its rock
laid down in shallow seas or deposited by
ancient streams and dune fields. Water
continues to sculpt the rock, forming canyons
and arches that characterize the area today.
Water is also crucial to most biological
resources within the Monument, including the
communities of plants and animals associated
with hanging gardens, seeps, springs, tinajas,
and with ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial
streams and ponds. Sensitive plant and animal
species also rely upon scarce water resources,
as do the riparian zones and entire natural
systems that support those and other species.
Water is also integral to the historic and
prehistoric context of settlement patterns in and
around the Monument. A more detailed
description of the need for water in the proper
care and management of Monument resources
can be found in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. In
addition, the monitoring strategy described in
the Strategy For Assuring Water
Availability section below would further
enhance knowledge of the extent water is
necessary to support resources.
The water necessary for the proper care and
management of Monument resources falls into
two general categories: (1) water needed for
Monument facilities to accommodate
researchers and other visitors; (for
campgrounds, sanitary facilities, and
administrative purposes), and (2) water needed
for the protection of the historic and scientific
objects of the Monument and the natural
processes associated with them.
For several reasons, it is the water in the
second category that is challenging to identify,
quantify, and protect. Water in this category is
referred to generally as "instream flows," and
simply means allowing water as it naturally
occurs in streams, seeps, springs, and other
expressions of groundwater, and even
precipitation, as one of the forces of nature, to
continue to operate. The legal system of water
law and water rights administration does not
fully address that task. Precipitation generally
becomes subject to the water law system only
once it reaches a watercourse (typically
defined as a stream or channel with an
identifiable bed and banks), a groundwater
aquifer, or is otherwise captured or contained
in such a way that it can be used to satisfy
established water rights. Furthermore, high
volume flood flows generally are not
appropriated and reduced to a water right,
unless there is an impoundment or similar
mechanism in place to capture and store these
high flows for later use. Finally, while it is
possible to perfect water rights in instream
flows for non-consumptive, ecological and
related uses, certain limitations on that method
exist, as explained below.
Water flows in the Monument can be or are
already protected in most instances by means
other than formal water rights of any kind.
Specifically, nearly all of the land within the
Monument is Federally owned, and the BLM
has broad powers over how those lands are
used. The BLM can exercise its land
management authorities to protect water flows
by simply not allowing construction of storage,
diversion, or conveyance facilities on these
lands, and in many situations this can be as
effective in protecting Monument resources as
securing formal rights to such flows.
The approval of a water appropriation
application by the Utah State Engineer does not
create a water right, only the right to try to
place the water to beneficial use and thereby
establish a water right. If the proposed point of
diversion is on land not owned by the applicant,
land use permission is a necessary element of
placing the water to legal beneficial use. The
Utah State Engineer commonly makes this
point in approving appropriation applications.
In one such recent instance, he said, "Also this
2.9
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
approval in no way grants right of trespass.
Such rights-of-way are the responsibility of the
applicant to obtain from the appropriate party."
(Memorandum Decision, In the Matter of
Change Application Number 97-6 (a21081),
August 6, 1998)
Where the proposed point of diversion is on
Federal land, the land managing agency can
decide whether to allow the diversion and any
related conveyance structures to be located on
its land. Particularly where the BLM (along
with other Federal agencies managing adjacent
Federal land) manages the upper reaches or
headwaters of water courses, it can (subject to
valid existing rights, including water rights)
effectively prevent others from coming onto
Federal land to construct facilities and establish
new water rights that might interfere with the
water needs of Monument resources.
Protecting water and water-dependent
resources through land management means is
less effective in situations where watercourses
found in the Monument arise outside the
Monument and flow into it, or in situations
where there are private inholdings within the
Monument. In these situations, absent an
instream flow right, the BLM generally cannot
exercise its land management authority to
protect those water resources from diversion on
non-Federal land, even if such diversions may
interfere with Monument resources. This is
also true, to some extent, where a BLM
boundary crosses a groundwater aquifer (i.e.,
where part of an aquifer lies beneath
Monument land and part underlies non-
Monument land). This can also occur where
aquifers outside the Monument feed streams
that flow into the Monument. It is
questionable whether the BLM has any
authority to prevent the pumping of
groundwater from such aquifers (absent an
instream flow water right), even though such
pumping might interfere with water necessary
for the protection of Monument resources.
Strategy For Assuring Water Availability
The BLM may obtain appropriative water
rights under Utah State law where the BLM
meets Utah State law requirements.
Campground, visitor, sanitary, and other
administrative uses are clearly "beneficial uses
of water" under Utah State law, for which
water rights may be granted by the Utah State
Engineer. Furthermore, none of the four
administrative basins established by the Utah
State Engineer has yet been closed to new
appropriations because they are considered
fully appropriated. Utah State law also allows
the United States and the BLM, as the land
owner/managing entity, to obtain such water
rights in its own name, rather than the actual
users (i.e., the visitors). Where water is
needed for visitor facilities, the BLM may
pursue this option.
Instream flows are another matter. Instream
flow is important to a number of Monument
resources, and its continued availability is
necessary for their proper care and
management. Our review to date strongly
suggests, however, that both currently and into
the reasonably foreseeable future, sufficient
water would continue to be available for these
purposes. This is for several reasons. First,
much of the water important to the Monument
falls as precipitation within the Monument or
on adjacent Federal lands, and is not subject to
appropriation by others. Its continued
availability for Monument resources can be
safeguarded by appropriate Federal land
management policies. Second, in those
relatively few places where opportunities exist
for appropriation under State law upstream
from, or on private inholdings within the
Monument, both current and reasonably
foreseeable appropriations do not significantly
threaten the continued availability of water in
the Monument. Third, Federal law may already
provide some protection, as discussed below.
For all these reasons, the BLM believes a sound
strategy for assuring the continued availability
of water for Monument resources is as follows:
(1) Ensure that land management policies
protect water resources. Since much of the
water important to the Monument falls as
precipitation within the Monument, its
continued availability can be ensured by
appropriate land management policies within
the Monument. The BLM would exercise its
existing land management authorities to protect
and maintain all available water and natural
flows in the Monument. Several decisions
described in later sections of this Plan are
designed to meet this objective. These include
the following:
2.10
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Major visitor centers and facilities would
be located outside of the Monument in
local communities where there would be
access to municipal water systems.
The need for water for visitor facilities
within the Monument would be minimal
because the only facilities provided would
be a relatively small number of modest
pullouts, toilets, parking areas, trailheads,
and picnic sites. Most of these sites do not
require water, including most toilet
facilities which could use other
technologies. In the limited cases where
water is needed for a visitor facility, the
acquisition of State appropriative water
rights (discussed above) should be possible.
New water developments for other uses in
the Monument (e.g., livestock, wildlife),
could only be used when deemed to have
an overall beneficial effect on Monument
resources, including water sources and
riparian areas. These developments could
only be done where there is no other means
to achieve resource protection objectives
and only where the development would not
jeopardize or dewater streams or springs.
Diversions of water out of the Monument
would not be permitted. An exception to
this policy could be made for local
community culinary needs if the applicant
could demonstrate that the diversion of
water would not damage Monument
resources or conflict with the objectives in
the Approved Monument Management
Plan.
(2) Monitor to ensure water flowing into the
Monument is adequate to support
Monument resources. The purpose of the
above measures is to protect water that
originates in the Monument or water after it
enters the Monument boundary. While these
measures are currently considered adequate to
ensure the continued availability of water to
support Monument resources, the BLM would
also assess whether the water flows coming
into the Monument continue to be adequate.
This would be part of an overall strategy work
to assess the status of water resources within
the Monument. The BLM would work with
the Water Resources Division of the U.S.
Geological Survey, the Utah Department of
Natural Resources, and others to gather
comprehensive information concerning
precipitation, surface water flows, and
subsurface water flows into and out of the
Monument. This would include establishing
additional stream-gauging stations at selected
locations, and continued inventorying of water
sources such as seeps, springs, and wells.
Established climate-data stations would be an
integral part of the hydrologic monitoring
network. Some of the main objectives of
water resource investigations would include,
but would not be limited to:
• Conceptualizing the surface and ground-
water systems, and their interactions at the
regional (Monument) scale.
• Subdividing the Monument into smaller-
scale hydrologic "compartments" on the
basis of hydrologic and geologic attributes.
Attributes, among others, could include
surface-water drainage areas, aquifer
systems, precipitation zones, hydraulic
conductivity of surficial deposits and
bedrock.
• Cataloging and classifying hydrologic
attributes of the compartments, and
establish appropriate long-term monitoring
programs to collect spring and stream
discharge and water chemistry data.
• Quantifying hydrologic processes such as
surface-water and ground-water exchange,
and precipitation, runoff, and sediment
transport relationships within each
compartment. In addition to new stream
and spring monitoring stations, the existing
network of climate stations would serve to
gather appropriate data.
• Determining direct and indirect effects of
humans on hydrologic attributes of each
compartment and subsequent effects on
Monument resources.
Recognizing that all components of the strategy
could not be implemented at once and that
measures to protect water that originates in the
Monument are currently considered adequate,
the priority in such a data collection effort
would be to collect data on flows entering the
Monument. This would be done in order to
ensure sufficient base and peak flows to
support Monument resources.
(3) Other options for assuring water
availability, if needed. At any point that the
above data collection and assessment effort
suggests that adequate water to protect
Monument resources is not entering the
2.11
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
Monument, or that water is otherwise being
depleted to the detriment of the Monument,
other measures for assuring water availability
would be taken. These measures include:
• Cooperation with other Federal agencies
that may already have Federal reserved
water rights.
• Initiation of discussions with the Utah State
Engineer (Utah Division of Water Rights),
Utah Division of Water Resources, and
State and local water users to identify how
nearby communities could secure water
supplies for expected future growth without
interfering with the water flows needed for
Monument resources.
• Other options are available to the BLM for
assuring water availability. These options
were discussed in detail in the DEIS. A
summary of these options follows.
Appropriative Water Rights Under State
Law
Under Utah State law, the only entities
authorized to hold instream flow rights are the
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the
Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, and
these entities have severe restrictions imposed
on them in obtaining and holding such water
rights. It may be possible to work out a
cooperative agreement between the BLM and
one of the State agencies authorized to acquire
and hold an instream flow right, where the
State agency has a similar interest in protecting
a particular resource, such as a state-listed
sensitive species of fish or wildlife.
Another Utah State law option relies on Utah's
version of the public interest doctrine. Under
this doctrine, the Utah State Engineer has
authority to deny a water right application,
even if there is unappropriated water available,
if he is convinced that the water would serve a
more beneficial purpose by remaining in the
channel (Bonham v. Morgan, 788 P.2d 497
Utah 1989). This authority stems from the
provisions of Utah Code 73-3-1 and 73-3-8.
The Utah State Engineer has, on occasion,
implemented this authority by use of a formal,
declared policy statement, as he did to prevent
appropriation or use of endangered fish
protection flows released from Flaming Gorge
Reservoir, as part of the recovery plan for the
endangered Colorado River native fishes. The
BLM, in appropriate circumstances, can
approach the Utah State Engineer with a
request to use this authority to protect natural
flows in the Monument in a similar manner.
In addition to the above, the BLM now holds a
number of water rights within the Monument
in support of its existing grazing program
under the Taylor Grazing Act and in support of
wildlife. If in the future any of the grazing
water rights are no longer needed, they might
be converted to wildlife rights after an
appropriate proceeding to change the water
right in the Office of the State Engineer.
Federal Reserved Water Rights
The Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument Proclamation does not reserve water
as a matter of Federal law. It does not,
however, abolish or defeat the BLM's claims to
Federal-law-based water rights under other
reservations or proclamations. These are
discussed below.
Public Water Reserves
The Pickett Act of 1910 (repealed in 1976)
vested the President with authority to withdraw
and reserve certain public lands for public
purposes (Act of June 25, 1910, ch. 421, 36
Stat. 847, as amended). Those purposes
included preserving water resources on the
public lands to serve the traveling public,
including livestock. Courts have held that
public water reserves do create Federal
reserved water rights fsee. e.g.. U.S. v. Denver.
656 P. 2dl (S. Ct. Col. 1982) and U.S. v. Idaho,
No. 23587 (S. Ct. Ida., April 6, 1998)], but
these courts generally regard these water rights
as limited to human and animal consumption.
The water reserved under Federal law by these
reservations may contribute to the care and
management of Monument resources. Used in
conjunction with appropriate land management
decisions they may be helpful.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
The nomination of a river through the planning
process by itself creates no Federal reserved
water right. The BLM has no authority of its
2.12
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
own to designate a Wild and Scenic River and
thereby create such rights. Only Congress, or
the Secretary of the Interior upon application of
the Utah Governor, may designate a Wild and
Scenic River within the Monument. Such a
designation would, under established legal
doctrine, reserve sufficient water to carry out
the purposes of the designation, including
instream flows.
Congressional Reservation of Unappropriated
Water
Congress may expressly reserve any
unappropriated water within the Monument
necessary to preserve Monument resources.
Such a reservation would be subject to valid
existing rights and would have a very junior
priority date; the date of the reservation of the
water, not of the Monument itself, because the
Proclamation establishing the Monument
expressly did not reserve water. This means
that the Monument would continue to be
subject to all water rights on the system senior
to its own water right, but would be protected
from adverse effects arising from subsequent
appropriations.
Presidential Proclamation
A reserved water right may be created by
Presidential Proclamation under the Antiquities
Act fCappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128,
(1976)]. If Monument needs for water cannot
be met by other means, the President could
amend the original Proclamation specifically to
include water for the purposes now identified
by the BLM as necessary to protect Monument
resources.
Assuring Water Quality
Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act
addresses water bodies and courses that are not
"fishable, or swimable." A 303(d) body of
water is one that has been identified as
possibly being in violation of State water
quality standards. Section 303(d) requires
each State to identify such waters and to
develop total maximum daily loads (TMDL)
for them, with oversight from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The
TMDL is a quantitative assessment of water
quality problems, contributing sources, and
load reductions or control actions needed to
restore and protect bodies of water. The
following list shows 303(d) waters within the
Monument and their associated load problems
[Utah Department of Environmental Quality
(UDEQ), Utah Division of Water Quality
(UDWQ), Utah 's 1998 303(d) List of Waters,
Table 1-b]:
• Paria River (from Arizona State line to
headwaters-tributaries - total dissolved
solids, sediment)
• Escalante River (from Lake Powell to Calf
Creek - total phosphorous, sediment)
• Escalante River (from confluence of Calf
Creek to headwaters — sediment)
• Calf Creek (confluence with Escalante
River to headwaters — temperature, total
dissolved solids, sediment)
In any case, the BLM would request that the
State of Utah accelerate development of
TMDLs for 303(d) waters in the Monument.
The State of Utah is currently engaged in a
more intensive water quality monitoring
program. Moreover, the BLM is currently
developing a water quality monitoring program
at 60 sites within the Monument, in conjunction
with the UDWQ, to ensure that State and
Federal water quality standards would be met.
In addition, the BLM would develop a
comprehensive water quality monitoring
program for protection of Monument resources
and for visitor safety. The BLM would
continue to work with UDEQ/UDWQ as water
quality improvement programs and TMDLs are
developed.
Water quality monitoring would be
implemented when ground disturbance or other
factors could adversely affect water quality.
Mitigation would be required if adverse effects
were detected.
AIR QUALITY
The existing air quality in and surrounding the
Monument is typical of undeveloped regions in
the western United States. Ambient pollutant
levels are usually near or below the measurable
limits. Exceptions include high, short-term
2.13
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
localized concentrations of particulate matter
(primarily wind blown dust or smoke from
wildland fires), ozone, and carbon monoxide.
Locations vulnerable to decreasing air quality
include the immediate operation areas around
mining and farm tilling, local population
centers affected by residential emissions, and
areas affected by long-range transport of
pollutants.
The entire management area has been
designated as either attainment or unclassified
for all pollutants and has also been designated
as Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Class II. Nearby PSD Class I areas
include Capitol Reef, Canyonlands, and Arches
National Parks to the east and north, Bryce
Canyon and Zion National Parks to the west,
and Grand Canyon National Park to the south.
The Monument would continue to be managed
as a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Class II area designated by the Clean Air Act.
The BLM's objective with regard to air quality
would be to ensure that authorizations granted
to use public lands and that the BLM's own
management programs would comply with and
support local, State, and Federal laws,
regulations, and implementation plans
pertaining to air quality. All BLM actions and
use authorizations would be designed or
stipulated so as to protect air quality within the
Monument and the Class I areas on
surrounding Federal lands.
Site specific project proposals affecting BLM
and adjacent lands would be reviewed for
compliance with existing laws and policies
protecting the areas. Mitigation would be
incorporated into project proposals to reduce
air quality degradation. Projects would be
designed to minimize further degradation of
existing air quality. New emission sources
would be required to apply control measures to
reduce emissions.
Management ignited fires must comply with
the State of Utah Interagency Memorandum of
Understanding requirements to minimize air
quality impacts from resulting particulates
(smoke). This procedure requires obtaining an
open burning permit from the State prior to
conducting a management ignited fire.
ZONE MANAGEMENT
DIRECTION
ZONE DESCRIPTIONS
Management zones are used in this Plan to
display various management emphases, and
are delineated by geographic area (Map 2.1 - in
the envelop at the back of this document).
These zones provide guidance to help define
permitted activities and any stipulations
pertaining to them, as well as any excluded
activities. In this context, zones are tools that
guide decision making on permitting visitor
uses and other activities within the Monument.
The preferred alternative in the DEIS put
forward a set of four management zones
designed to manage visitation and direct
economic opportunities to the adjacent
communities. In the development of the zones,
the Planning Team performed a "conflict
analysis" to determine if activities allowed
within a certain zone would conflict with any
sensitive resources within the zone. This
analysis was used to draw zone boundaries so
that higher use areas would avoid sensitive
resources, especially where the impacts to the
sensitive resource could not be avoided through
other stipulations on use. These zones were
further refined after consideration of public
comment on the DEIS, direction from
managers, and the application of the criteria
described below. The zone boundaries
portrayed on Map 2.1 may not exactly
correspond to the on the ground geographic
features. These differences are minor and do
not change the intent of the zone management
prescriptions.
The Frontcountry Zone (78,056 acres or 4
percent of the Monument) is intended to be the
focal point for visitation by providing day-use
opportunities in close proximity to adjacent
communities and to Highways 12 and 89 which
traverse the Monument. This zone would
accommodate the primary interpretation sites,
overlooks, trails, and associated facilities
necessary to feature Monument resources. The
zone boundaries were developed by locating a
corridor along Highways 12 and 89, Johnson
Canyon Road, and the portion of Cottonwood
Canyon Road leading to Grosvenor Arch. The
zone was then expanded or constricted to
coincide with the dominant terrain features
which would provide identifiable boundaries on
the ground. Existing destinations such as
2.14
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Grosvenor Arch, the Pahreah townsite, and the
Calf Creek Recreation Area were included in
order to provide for necessary improvements
and to accommodate expected visitation.
Lands close to Escalante were also included,
due to extensive visitor use. In delineating this
zone, Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs),
threatened and endangered species habitat,
relict plant areas, and other sensitive species
were avoided whenever possible. Highway 89,
from the western boundary to The Cockscomb,
lacks dominant terrain to delineate this zone.
For this reason, a one-mile buffer along each
side of the highway was used.
The Passage Zone (38,316 acres or 2 percent
of the Monument) includes secondary travel
routes which receive considerable use as
throughways and recreation destinations. The
condition of the routes and distance from
communities led the Planning Team to avoid
directing or encouraging visitation, while at the
same time allowing rudimentary facilities
necessary to protect resources, educate visitors
about Monument resources, or for public
safety. The primary criterion for developing
the zone boundaries was again dominant
terrain. The boundary does not constrict closer
than 100 feet to the routes, and encompasses
most obvious imprints of human activities such
as trailheads, transmission rights-of-way, and
potential resource interpretation sites within Vi
mile of the subject route. In many cases,
dominant terrain was not available along route
segments. In these cases, a 660 foot (1/8 mile)
buffer was used. Again, WSAs, threatened and
endangered species habitat, relict plant areas,
and other sensitive resources were avoided
whenever possible. In addition, riparian areas
were also avoided.
The Outback Zone (537,662 acres or 29
percent of the Monument) is intended to
provide an undeveloped, primitive and self-
directed visitor experience while
accommodating motorized and mechanized
access on designated routes. Facilities would
be rare and provided only when essential for
resource protection. This zone encompasses
existing seedings, land treatments, and other
known disturbed sites. The remaining public
routes not in the Frontcountry or Passage
Zones would be included in the Outback Zone.
Dominant terrain was again the primary
criterion for the zone boundary. The boundary
does not constrict closer than 100 feet to the
routes. WSAs were avoided wherever
possible (see the Wilderness Study Area
section of this chapter for a discussion of zone
boundaries and WSA considerations).
The Primitive Zone (1,21 1,386 acres or 65
percent of the Monument) is intended to
provide an undeveloped, primitive and self-
directed visitor experience without motorized
or mechanized access. Some administrative
routes are included in this zone, which could
allow very limited motorized access. Facilities
would be non-existent, except for limited signs
for resource protection or public safety. The
zone is intended to facilitate landscape-scale
research and therefore connects each of the
three major landscapes (Escalante Canyons,
Kaiparowits Plateau, and Grand Staircase), as
well as linking low elevation areas to higher
elevations. This zone is also intended to
connect primitive and undeveloped areas on
surrounding lands managed by other Federal
agencies.
CAMPING
Camping in developed campgrounds or in
designated primitive camping areas would be
allowed in the Frontcountry and Passage Zones.
Dispersed primitive camping would not be
allowed in these zones. Dispersed primitive
camping would be allowed in the Outback and
Primitive Zones, but primitive camping could
be limited to certain designated areas in these
zones if resource damage occurs. Permits
would be required for overnight use in all
zones. Designated primitive camping areas are
places where the BLM has identified and
designated areas for camping use. These areas
would not have any developments, other than a
small sign or barriers to delineate the site.
Except in WSAs, threatened and endangered
plant areas, relict plant areas, riparian areas, or
other areas identified for resource protection,
motorized or mechanized vehicles could pull
off of designated routes no more than 50 feet
for direct access to dispersed camping areas in
the Outback Zone. Visitors would be
encouraged to use existing disturbed areas for
pulling off of routes to access camping areas
and are required to leave existing vegetation
intact. In the Frontcountry and Passage Zones,
vehicles would be confined to using designated
2.15
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
pullouts and would not be allowed to pull off
of the route.
Campfires would not be allowed in the
Escalante and Paria/Hackberry Canyons, No
Mans Mesa, and other relict plant areas as they
are identified. Campfires would also be
prohibited in archaeological sites, rock shelters,
or alcoves Monument-wide. Fires would be
allowed only in designated fire grates,
designated fire pits, or mandatory fire pans in
the Frontcountry and Passage Zones, and wood
collection for campfires would not be
permitted. In the Outback and Primitive
Zones, fire pans would be encouraged and dead
and down wood could be collected in areas
where campfires are allowed.
CLIMBING
Climbing would not be allowed in
archaeological sites, on natural bridges or
arches, or within identified threatened and
endangered species nesting areas. Climbing
areas may be seasonally closed to assure that
disturbance to raptor nesting activities does not
occur. The BLM would work with the public
to identify climbing areas and develop specific
management plans for them. Climbing would
be subject to zone and other specific
management restrictions.
COMMERCIAL FILMING
Minimum-impact filming would be allowed in
all zones if the activity complies with the zone
requirements. Permits for commercial filming
would include the following "minimum-impact
filming" requirements and may require
preparation of a project-level NEPA document
(BLM Manual 2920). Filming may not:
• impact sensitive habitat or species
• impact archaeological sites
• involve use of explosives or major use of
pyrotechnics
• involve more than minimum impacts to
land, air, or water
• involve use of exotic plant or animal
species with danger of introduction into the
area
• involve adverse impacts to sensitive
resources including cultural or
paleontological sites, sensitive soils, relict
environments, wetlands or riparian areas
• involve use of heavy equipment
• involve use of vehicles off of routes
• involve set construction
• involve significant restriction of public
access
• involve significant use of domestic
livestock
• involve aircraft taking off, landing, or
flying less than 1,000 feet above the site
• involve 15 or more production vehicles, or
75 or more people, or exceed group size
limitations
• continue in excess of 10 days.
COMPETITIVE AND SPECIAL EVENTS
No competitive events would be allowed.
Special events may be approved, under permit,
if the event meets other zone requirements.
Events would be permitted in accordance with
the requirements of the most restrictive zone
that the event encounters.
FACILITIES
Visitor Facilities in the Gateway
Communities
Development of visitor use facilities would be
focused on the periphery of the Monument and
within the communities. This would protect
Monument resources, while providing
economic opportunities in the communities
surrounding the Monument.
Major facilities and the services associated with
them would be located outside the Monument
in nearby communities. These include a
Monument headquarters in Kanab, an
Interagency Office in Escalante, and visitor
contact stations in Cannonville, Glendale, and
Big Water. Their precise locations would be
based on factors such as the availability of
infrastructure; economic considerations,
including market feasibility; the availability of
financing; and managerial concerns. These
determinations would be made by the
communities and the BLM. Any construction
activities associated with these sites are
contingent upon funding by Congress.
Monument staff would also be available at the
Paria Contact Station and at the Anasazi State
Park in Boulder. Within the Monument, visitor
facilities would vary by zone, but in all zones,
developed facilities would be limited as
discussed below.
2.16
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Visitor Facilities in the Monument
All facilities and signs would be consistent
with the Monument Interpretive Plan, the
Monument Facilities Master Plan, and the
Monument Architectural and Landscape
Theme, all in the process of development. The
Monument Facilities Master Plan would
address and be consistent with the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1973, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. All
projects causing surface disturbance would be
subject to NEPA analysis and the standard
stipulations described in Appendix 4.
No projects or activities that would result in
permanent fills or diversions in, or placement
of permanent facilities on special flood hazard
areas (as designated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency), would occur within the
Monument. All facilities and parking areas
would be designed to be unobtrusive and to
meet the visual resource objectives discussed
in the Visual Resource Management section
of this chapter.
The provision of water at sites within the
Monument would be very limited because the
only facilities provided would be modest
pullouts, parking areas, trailheads, picnic sites,
toilets, and primitive camping areas. These
sites do not require water, including most
toilets which could use other technologies.
Nonetheless, water may be provided in limited
circumstances, where necessary for visitor
safety or resource protection, in the
Frontcountry or Passage Zones.
Frontcountry Zone: As the focal point for
visitation, visitor day-use facilities and signs
would be encouraged as necessary and
adequate for visitor use, safety and the
protection of sensitive resources, in addition to
existing facilities. These facilities could
include pullouts, parking areas, trailheads,
trails, toilets, fences, and picnic areas. Day-
use areas could include vault toilets, picnic
tables, interpretive kiosks, and in some cases,
interpretive trails which would be universally
accessible, but not paved. Most day-use
parking areas would be paved, but those off of
unpaved roads, such as Grosvenor Arch and
the Paria Movie Set, would remain unpaved.
Most parking areas would be small,
accommodating 10 to 20 cars. Construction of
small spur routes or trails may be allowed to
access parking areas or other facilities.
Scenic overlooks and other sites that have been
developed along Highway 12 would be
maintained. Some of the parking areas would
be better delineated with barriers or fences to
prevent further expansion. Additional wayside
exhibits may be developed for some of the
existing sites to stimulate further learning and
protect resources. The BLM would look for
appropriate opportunities to highlight
Monument resources for along Highways 12
and 89, and around the communities of
Boulder, Escalante, Henrieville, Cannonville,
Tropic, Church Wells, and Big Water. The
Monument staff would work with
communities, visitors, and other interested
publics to develop sites. Up to 15 of these sites
could be developed in the Frontcountry Zone,
and specific projects would go through the
NEPA process with full public involvement.
Calf Creek and Whitehouse Campgrounds are
the only developed campgrounds in the
Frontcountry Zone. Dispersed primitive
camping would not be allowed, although up to
10 designated primitive camping areas (without
amenities) may be identified for individuals or
groups. Most of these would be designated in
areas already used for camping. These areas
could accommodate 2-5 vehicles with a few
areas large enough for group camping.
Camping areas would be designated with a
small sign and barriers. Toilets, water, tables
or other amenities would not be provided at
these sites.
Passage Zone: The condition of routes and
distance from communities in the Passage Zone
makes it a secondary zone for visitation where
facilities may occur, but visitation would not
necessarily be directed or encouraged. Similar
facilities as allowed in the Frontcountry Zone
could be provided for resource protection,
visitor safety, or for the interpretation of
Monument resources. Most of the existing
trailheads are located in this zone. Deer Creek
Campground is also in this zone. Information
kiosks approximately the size of two 3 foot by
5 foot panels would be located at major
trailheads (e.g., The Gulch, Deer Creek, and
Dry Fork), and smaller kiosks or signs would
be located at less used trailheads. Rarely used
2.17
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
trailheads would be identified with a small
sign.
Most of the existing parking areas would be
better delineated with barriers to prevent
further expansion. Parking areas could
accommodate up to 30 vehicles, but most
would be designed for fewer than 10 cars.
Construction of small spur routes or trails may
be allowed to access parking areas or other
facilities. Trails and parking areas would not
be paved.
Existing destinations such as Devils Garden
and Dance Hall Rock would be maintained. A
better delineated parking area and toilets could
be considered for Dance Hall Rock. A fully
accessible trail that blends in with the terrain
could be considered for Devils Garden.
Up to 17 parking areas or pullouts (scenic
overlooks) could be designated in this zone.
These are generally areas that are already used
for parking, and delineating them with natural
barriers or fences would prevent further
resource damage. Interpretive kiosks or signs
could be provided at these sites as discussed
above.
The existing Deer Creek Campground would
be the only developed campground in this
zone. Dispersed primitive camping would not
be allowed, although up to 25 designated
primitive camping sites may be identified for
individuals or groups. Most of these would be
designated in areas already used for camping.
These areas could accommodate 2-5 vehicles
with a few camping areas large enough for
groups. Camping areas would be designated
with a small sign and barriers. Toilets, water,
tables or other amenities would not be
provided.
Outback Zone: In this zone small signs to
educate the public about a particular resource
or safety hazard may be installed at limited
sites, but these sites would not be promoted in
literature. Facilities such as designated
parking areas, toilets, or fences could be
allowed for protection of resources in limited
cases, only where other tools to protect
resources could not be used. Trails could be
delineated if necessary to prevent widespread
impacts from multiple trails. Dispersed
primitive camping would be allowed in this
zone, but certain areas could be closed and
certain areas could be designated for camping
(similar to the designated camping areas
described for the Passage Zone) if resource
damage is occurring.
Primitive Zone: In this zone, limited signs
could be allowed for resource protection or
public safety. Small directional signs may be
needed, but these would be kept to an absolute
minimum and would be rare. Trails could be
delineated only if necessary to prevent
widespread impacts from multiple trails. No
water, toilets, or other visitor amenities or
facilities would be provided. Dispersed
primitive camping would be allowed in this
zone, but certain areas could be closed and
certain areas could be designated for camping
(similar to the designated camping areas
described for the Passage Zone) if resource
damage is occurring.
GROUP SIZE
There would be no limit on group size in the
Frontcountry Zone. Group size would be
limited to 25 people in the Passage and
Outback Zones. Permits for groups over 25
people would be considered in the Passage and
Outback Zones, if the number of people and the
activities proposed are consistent with the
protection of Monument resources.
Appropriate NEPA analysis would be prepared
on areas where permits could be authorized.
These permits would require that adequate
sanitation and trash collection are provided, and
that activities take place in areas where
resources would not be damaged. In the
Primitive Zone, group size would be limited to
12 people and 12 pack animals. Within the
Paria River corridor in the Primitive Zone,
permits could be approved for groups over 12
people up to a maximum of 25 people.
In order to protect Monument resources, it is
possible that it would become necessary to
place limits on the overall numbers of people
and/or pack animals allowed, or to further
restrict group sizes in areas where resource
damage is occurring. See the Recreation
Allocation section in this chapter for further
discussion of limits on overall numbers of
people.
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
OUTFITTER AND GUIDE OPERATIONS
Outfitter and guide operations would be
allowed throughout the Monument in
compliance with the constraints of the zone and
allocation and use limits. Training would be
provided on an annual basis to keep outfitters
and guides current on appropriate research
studies occurring in the Monument. Outfitters
and guides would be strongly encouraged to
incorporate interpretive/educational
components into their trips.
RECREATION ALLOCATIONS
The Monument would use the following
indicators to determine when and where visitor
allocations need to be made: (1) resource
damage (e.g., proliferation of campsites,
human waste problems, social trailing or
vandalism to historical, archaeological,
paleontological sites, or destruction of
biological soil crusts), (2) conflicts with
threatened and endangered plant or animal
species, and/or (3) the number of social
encounters become unacceptable.
Rapid site backcountry inventories are
currently underway to determine where and
how many backcountry camping areas are in
the Primitive Zone. The BLM plans to begin
another inventory during the summer of 1999
to determine where and how many backcountry
camping areas are located along transportation
routes within the Monument. The rapid site
inventories provide information that could be
used in determining allocations including
whether camping areas, human waste, social
trails, archaeological sites, paleontological
sites, plant damage, cattle or signs of cattle are
present or absent. Inventories of threatened
and endangered species would also be used to
determine allocations. Finally, a backcountry
visitor use survey would be utilized to help
determine a baseline tolerance for social
encounters in known popular primitive areas.
These inventories, surveys, and studies would
establish a baseline to set up an ongoing
monitoring program and prioritize areas that
require more restrictive management. This
would be done as part of the adaptive
management framework (Appendix 3) with
consultation from the GSENM Advisory
Committee. When it is determined that critical
indicators have been approached or exceeded,
the Monument would go through a public
process to determine allocations for specific
areas. Total numbers of people and group size
would be considered. The BLM would consult
with Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
and the Escalante Ranger District of Dixie
National Forest if allocation is determined
necessary for the Escalante Canyons.
The Monument would work closely with the
UDWR throughout the public process as they
administer and regulate hunting, fishing and
the permits issued for these activities.
Frontcountty: This zone would be the focal
point for visitation. There would be no
allocation in this zone other than directing
individuals to selected sites chosen for their
interpretive values.
Passage: Allocation is possible for the
protection of sensitive resources or visitor
experience. The most likely places that
allocation would occur is at trailheads in order
to limit the number of people accessing the
primitive areas.
Outback: Allocation is moderately likely for
the protection of sensitive resources or visitor
experience. The first step would be designating
primitive camping areas. Limiting the number
of people in specific areas could also be used
after other measures were taken.
Primitive: Allocation is highly likely for the
protection of sensitive resources or visitor
experience. Based on current visitor use and
the inventories and studies listed above, it is
anticipated that allocations could be needed for
the Escalante Canyons, Fiftymile Mountain,
and Hackberry Canyon as soon as 2001.
Additional areas meeting the criteria would also
be considered.
In developing allocation plans for areas, efforts
would be made to coordinate with other
resource planning efforts (e.g., research,
grazing allotment management plans), as
discussed in the Implementation and
Adaptive Management Framework in
Appendix 3: This type of integrated activity
planning would lead to more comprehensive
planning efforts for specific areas and to better
decision making.
2.19
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
RECREATIONAL STOCK USE
Horses or other pack animals would not be
allowed in relict plant communities,
archaeological sites, rock shelters, or alcoves.
Sheep species would not be allowed for pack
use Monument-wide. Recreational stock are
limited to 12 animals in the Primitive Zone.
The BLM requires that all hay used on BLM
lands be certified weed free.
TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS
Public Access
The unregulated use of off-highway vehicles
(OHV), also called all-terrain vehicles (ATV),
including snowmobiles, off of designated
routes has the potential to damage Monument
resources and cause recreation conflicts.
Cross-country vehicle travel can damage
Monument objects associated with these
resources which are sensitive to surface
disturbance. Resources sensitive to this
disturbance include archaeological,
paleontological, geological, historic, biological
soil crusts, special status plant and animal
species, vegetation, and wildlife. Additionally,
OHV tracks can become ruts. These ruts
concentrate water flows, altering water quality
and quantity and creating erosion. Some
wildlife and special status wildlife species are
sensitive to the presence of OHVs and may
leave calving and fawning areas, roosts and
nests, or other critical habitat. Likewise,
OHVs conflict with primitive recreation
experiences by introducing the sights and
sounds of civilization. For these reasons,
cross-country motorized travel would be
prohibited in accordance with 43 CFR 8340
Off-Road Vehicle regulations. Use on
designated routes is provided however. To this
end, OHV designations in the Monument
would be either "closed" (in the Primitive
Zone) or "limited to designated routes" (in the
Frontcountry, Passage, and Outback Zones)
(Map 2.1). These designations are consistent
with standard BLM designations provided for
in BLM Manual 8340. As discussed in the
Camping and Forestry Products sections in
this chapter, vehicles may pull off of routes no
more than 50 feet for parking and camping in
the Outback Zone, except where prohibited.
No off-highway vehicle (OHV/ATV) play
areas would be designated in the Monument.
Bicycle use (including mountain bikes and
road bikes) was also carefully considered as
part of the overall transportation system.
Impacts from bicycles may be lower than
OHVs due to ability of OHVs to travel over
greater distances in a short period of time. Use
areas may also differ due to different ground
surface requirements (e.g., sand often
discourages mountain bike use, while it can be
desired by OHV users). However, impacts
from the use of OHVs and bicycles are similar.
Mountain bike travel can cause damage to
resources sensitive to surface disturbance,
particularly biological soil crusts, special status
plant species, and other vegetation.
Additionally, bicycle tracks can also become
ruts. These ruts, like those of OHVs, can
concentrate water flows, altering water quality
and quantity and creating erosion. Therefore,
use of bicycles is also limited to designated
routes and cross-country travel is not allowed.
Tins Plan would designate the route system for
the Monument, subject to valid existing rights.1
Although the BLM had not originally planned
to make access decisions in the Monument
Management Plan, the agency was persuaded,
as a result of widespread requests in the
scoping process and further examination, that
proper management of the Monument would be
enhanced by making decisions on access and
transportation routes in the Plan. The
transportation map (Map 2.1) shows routes that
would be open for public use and those
available for administrative use only (see the
Administrative Routes and Authorized
Users section in this chapter for further
discussion). The specific routes shown open
for public use are based on a variety of
considerations including what is needed to
protect Monument resources, implement the
planning decisions, and provide for the
transportation needs of surrounding
communities. The basic philosophy in
determining which routes would be open was to
determine which routes access some destination
(e.g., scenic overlook, popular camping site,
heavily used thoroughfare) and present no
significant threat to Monument resources.
These routes would be open for public use.
Routes that were not considered necessary or
desirable (for resource protection purposes)
would not be kept open for public access. The
DEIS presented a range of transportation
alternatives, and public comments on those
2.20
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
transportation options were considered in
crafting this transportation plan. As part of
developing an access system for this Plan, the
BLM sought to reach an agreement with Kane
and Garfield Counties resolving the many
issues surrounding rights-of-way and access in
the Monument. At the time this Plan was sent
to the printer, negotiations had not reached a
conclusion. Comments from the Counties were
considered in this Plan, however.
Street legal motorized vehicles, including four-
wheel-drive and mechanized vehicles
(including bicycles), would be allowed on 888
miles of routes designated open in the
Frontcountry, Passage, and Outback Zones
(Map 2.1). In order to display all open routes,
this mileage number includes sections of
Highways 12 and 89 within the Monument,
even though they are not administered by the
BLM. No routes would be designated open in
the Primitive Zone.
Non-street legal all-terrain vehicles (ATVs)
and dirt bikes would be restricted to those
routes designated as open for their use. Non-
street legal ATVs and dirt bikes would be
allowed on 543 miles of the 888 miles of routes
designated open to street legal vehicles in the
Frontcountry, Passage, and Outback Zones; no
routes would be designated open to them in the
Primitive Zone. All zones would allow hikers,
horses, and pack animals, except where noted
elsewhere to protect resources.
Maintenance
With the exception of those segments listed
below, open routes could be maintained within
the current disturbed areas; no widening,
passing lanes, or other travel surface upgrades
could occur. Deviations from the current
maintenance levels would be allowed as
follows (subject to Wilderness Study Area
Interim Management Policy, BLM Manual H-
3550-1):
• Hole-in-the-Rock Road: Allow
stabilization of washout prone areas,
primarily along the southeastern end, to
prevent erosion and sediment loading in
drainages.
• Smoky Mountain Road: Allow
stabilization in the Alvey Wash section to
prevent erosion and sediment loading in
drainages.
• Cottonwood Wash Road: Allow
stabilization of washout prone areas,
primarily along the southern section, to
prevent erosion and sediment loading in
drainages.
• Skutumpah Road: Allow new crossing for
safety at Bull Valley Gorge, and
stabilization of washout prone areas,
primarily along the northern section, to
prevent erosion and sediment loading in
drainages.
In the event that Title 5 rights-of-way are
issued pursuant to negotiations with Kane and
Garfield Counties, or in the event of legal
decisions on RS 2477 assertions, maintenance
activities would be governed under the terms of
those actions.
The BLM would continue to work with the
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
concerning route maintenance for Highways 12
and 89. This would cover maintenance and
safety work activities. Any new ground
disturbance would require site-specific
environmental analysis.
Trails
In the Frontcountry Zone, a full range of trails
could be developed and maintained in order to
provide opportunities for visitors. The BLM
would work with UDOT to explore the
possibility of developing bicycle lanes or
parallel bicycle routes along Highways 12 and
89. In the Passage Zone, trails could be
developed and maintained where needed for
protection of Monument resources or for public
safety. Elsewhere, trails could only be
developed or maintained where necessary to
protect Monument resources.
The Great Western Trail is proposed to traverse
the Monument in the Grand Staircase section.
The BLM is currently working with adjacent
agencies to select an appropriate route through
the Monument that is consistent with the
objectives in this Plan. The route currently
identified would be on existing routes
designated open to ATVs in this Plan. This
process may require further NEPA analysis.
2.21
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
Administrative Routes and Authorized
Users
The BLM would be responsible for
administrative routes which would be limited
to authorized users. These are existing routes
that lead to developments which have an
administrative purpose, where the BLM or
some permitted user must have access for
regular maintenance or operation. These
authorized developments include such things as
powerlines, cabins, weather stations,
communication sites, spring developments,
corrals, and water troughs. Routes designated
open for certain administrative purposes (192
miles) are shown on Map 2.1. Access would
be strictly limited and would only be granted
for legitimate and specific purposes.
Maintenance would be the minimum required
to keep the routes open for limited use by high
clearance vehicles. If the administrative
purpose were to cease, the route would be
evaluated for closure following public
notification and opportunity to comment.
Authorized users could include grazing
permittees, researchers, State or Federal
agencies, Native American Indians accessing
recognized traditional cultural properties, and
others carrying out authorized activities under a
permit or other authorization.
Beyond the routes shown on Map 2.1, the
BLM would work with any individual
operating within the Monument under existing
permits or authorizations to document where
access must continue in order to allow
operation of a current permit or authorization.
Routes that go only to BLM range monitoring
and study areas would not be maintained, but
periodic vehicular access to these sites would
be granted for required range monitoring uses.
Road Restoration Strategy
The BLM's strategy for closing routes that
would no longer be available for public or
administrative use in the Monument would be
phased over a period of years. This would be
accomplished as rapidly as funding permits. It
is anticipated that this could take as many as
ten years. Each year, a percentage of the
Monument's base budget would be used to
close routes in areas that are easily accessible
to the public and that involve sensitive
resources in immediate danger of being
degraded. Generally, routes in the
Frontcountry and Passage Zones would be
closed first. However, there may be routes in
the Outback and Primitive Zones that would be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
As soon as this Plan is formally approved,
these routes would be considered closed. The
proposal for restoration would include:
• not repairing washed out routes
• natural barriers, such as large boulders
• dead and down wood to obscure route
entry ways
• fences
• ripping up the route bed and reseeding with
vegetation natural to that area
• replacing gates with a fence if area has a
fence in place
• visitor education and information
Each route would be looked at individually, and
the best, least intrusive method would be used
based on the geography, topography, soils,
hydrology, and vegetation. The first several
hundred feet of select routes identified for
closure could be left open to provide pull-out
areas or camping opportunities, preventing new
ground disturbance elsewhere.
Enforcement
The BLM's strategy to keep vehicles on
designated travelways would be to hire
additional staff including law enforcement
personnel to patrol by foot, horse, and vehicle.
The BLM would be proactive in educating the
public about routes that are open with maps and
signs. The information would be on the
Monument website, at the visitor
centers/contact stations, and sent to the media.
The BLM is pursuing cooperative agreements
with the Sheriff departments in Kane and
Garfield Counties to facilitate shared law
enforcement and support for enforcing
established closures. The BLM would continue
to work with the counties, the State, the
communities, and others to communicate
correct information to the visiting public and
residents. An extensive volunteer program that
would assist in educating visitors about the
Monument would also be developed.
Monument staff would be scheduled to patrol
on a regular basis throughout the year.
Additional patrols would be added for intense
use periods.
2.22
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Aircraft Operations
Congress has delegated monitoring and control
of the National Airspace System to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). At the
present time, airspace over the Monument is
subject to numerous aviation regulations
designed to establish a safe operating
environment for all aircraft.
The Department of Defense operates two
Military Training Routes across the
Monument. These routes (IR-126 and IR-266)
include both fighter aircraft and heavy
bombers. Their operating altitudes can vary
from the surface, using terrain-following radar,
up to 9000 feet Mean Sea Level. The route
width varies from 2 to 4 miles on either side of
the centerline. These routes have been in use
for many years, and are active year-round.
They were established in part because of the
lack of human settlement in the region. The
existence of these military training routes
would be included in visitor information
materials, which would tell visitors in the
affected areas to expect military aircraft
operations. The BLM intends to work
cooperatively with the Department of Defense
to ensure that military training routes are
appropriate to Monument management.
A number of air tour operators are located in
close proximity to the Monument in locations
such as Bryce Canyon, Kanab, St. George,
Page, and Las Vegas. These operators charter
tours over the Monument upon request. The
BLM would work cooperatively with aircraft
operators, adjacent land managing agencies,
and the FAA to direct overflights to
appropriate management zones.
The only active airstrip inside the Monument is
the New Home Bench airstrip near Boulder,
which is located partially on U.S. Forest
Service and partially on BLM lands. The
BLM is cooperating with the U.S. Forest
Service in the issuance of a Special Use Permit
for operation of the airstrip. In order to protect
Monument resources, aircraft takeoff and
landings would be allowed only at the New
Home Bench airstrip.
A number of entities holding rights-of-way or
permits, State agencies, and the BLM use
aircraft for patrolling, monitoring,
maintenance, and repair functions. Necessary
aircraft operations for rights-of-way holders,
permittees, and other agencies would be
documented in the appropriate permit,
authorization or a Memorandum of
Agreement. Landing of aircraft for these
purposes would be limited to the minimum
necessary to meet the required maintenance or
repair function.
Due to the remote and undeveloped character
of the Monument, natural ambient sound is
considered by the public to be an extremely
important component of the resource and the
visitor experience. Studies on the effects of
noise utilizing both visitor surveys and sound
measuring instruments would be completed to
determine what the noise baseline is for
various areas within the Monument. Studies
would be coordinated for areas that border
adjacent National Parks.
UTILITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND
COMMUNICATION SITES
Monument managers are committed to working
with nearby communities and other land
management agencies to pursue management
activities which cooperatively accomplish the
objectives of each agency within the constraints
of Federal law. The BLM would work in
cooperation with local communities and utility
providers to identify short and long-term
community needs for infrastructure which
could affect Monument lands and resources.
Community projects which require public lands
access or use would be subject to necessary
project level NEPA analysis. The BLM would
work with the sponsor of a project to meet
Monument Plan objectives for protecting
resources. Alternative locations for projects
would be identified when unavoidable conflicts
arise. In order to protect Monument resources,
such projects would be focused in appropriate
zones as discussed below.
In general, proposals for diverting water out of
the Monument would not be permitted as
discussed previously in this chapter in the
Water section. However, exceptions could be
considered for local community culinary needs
if the applicant could demonstrate that the
diversion of water would not damage
Monument resources or conflict with the
objectives in the Approved Monument
Management Plan.
2.23
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
In the Frontcountry and Passage Zones,
communication sites and utility rights-of-way
would be allowed, but would have to meet
visual resource objectives described in the
Visual Resource Management section of this
chapter. In the Outback Zone, communication
sites and utility rights-of-way would be
allowed within the constraints of the zone,
where no other reasonable location exists, and
would meet the visual objectives described in
the Visual Resource Management section of
this chapter. In the Primitive Zone, utility
rights-of-way would not be permitted. In cases
of extreme need for local (not regional) needs
and where other alternatives are not available, a
plan amendment could be considered for these
facilities in the Primitive Zone.
Communication sites would only be allowed in
the Primitive Zone for safety purposes and
where no other alternative exists.
Rights-of-Way
The following criteria apply to the management
of all rights-of-way in the Monument where
they are allowed:
1 . Bury new and reconstructed utility lines
(including powerlines up to 34.5 kilovolts)
unless: visual quality objectives can be met
without burying; geologic conditions make
burying infeasible; or burying would
produce greater long-term site disturbance.
2. All reconstructed and future powerlines
must meet non-electrocution standards for
raptors. If problems with existing
powerlines occur, corrective measures
would be taken.
3 . Construct all powerlines using non-
reflective wire. Steel towers would be
constructed using galvanized steel.
Powerlines would not be high-lined unless
no other location exists.
4. Strobe lights would not be allowed at any
communication site. Other methods would
be used to meet aircraft safety
requirements.
5. Communication site plans would be
prepared for all existing sites before any
new uses or changes in use occur.
6. A Monument-wide feasibility study would
be prepared to determine the most
appropriate location(s) for new
communication sites.
There are two utility line projects proposed in
the Monument at this time; the upgrade of
PacifiCorp's Cottonwood Canyon powerline
from 230-kilovolts to 345-kilovolts, and the
Lake Powell to Sand Hollow Reservoir water
pipeline. In December of 1975, Utah Power
and Light (a subsidiary of PacifiCorp) filed an
application to increase the voltage in their
Cottonwood Canyon powerline from 245-
kilovolts to 345-kilovolts. The proposal was to
raise the cross arms 5 feet on the existing
wood towers, add three insulators to each
conductor, bundle the conductors, and add one
X-brace to each existing tower for increased
support. At the request of the applicant, this
project was put on hold.
No application has formally been filed for the
Lake Powell to Sand Hollow water pipeline.
However, the tentative route would follow
Highway 89 for most of its length. Per Public
Law 105-355, signed by President Clinton on
October 31, 1998, a utility corridor was
designated along Highway 89 in Kane County,
including that portion of Highway 89 within the
Monument. The utility corridor extends 240
feet north from the center line of the highway,
and 500 feet south from the center line of the
highway. Location of the proposed water
pipeline within this utility corridor is a
possibility.
In any case, subsequent environmental analysis
would be required on both the powerline
upgrade proposal, and the water pipeline
proposal. A determination as to their
conformance with the Approved Plan would be
required.
In general, the BLM would authorize only one
access route to private land parcels unless
public safety or local ordinances warrant
additional routes. Private land owners would
be required to coordinate the development of
access routes across public lands in order to
prevent a proliferation of routes. Rights-of-
way may be allowed when necessary to
exercise valid existing rights.
VENDING
Vending within the Monument would be
occasional, infrequent, and could be allowed by
permit only on a case-by-case basis in the
2,24
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Frontcountry and Passage Zones, in association
with approved special events or recreation
sites. Generally, permits could be issued to
provide services needed at recreation sites
(such as firewood sales at campgrounds) and
services that are commonly offered in
conjunction with permitted special events.
Criteria to protect Monument resources would
be included in all permits. Concessionaire
sales and on-going vending permits are not
included in this provision, except where
contracts between concessionaires and the
Monument are used to provide services to
visitors in the Frontcountry and Passage Zones.
Vending would not be allowed in the Outback
or Primitive Zones.
the collection of certain natural materials by
Native American Indians under BLM permit;
the collection of antlers or horns as provided
for by UDWR regulations; and the collection
of dead and down wood for immediate use in
campfires, where campfires are allowed.
The above prohibitions shall not be deemed to
diminish the responsibility and authority of the
State of Utah for management of fish and
wildlife, including the regulation of hunting
and fishing, on Federal lands within the
Monument.
EMERGENCY AND MANAGEMENT
EXCEPTIONS
prevention and control, and other uses where
justified. Certain authorized users could be
given motorized access not given to the general
public for specific, authorized uses as described
in the Administrative Routes and Authorized
Users section in this chapter.
FEES
The Monument has been approved to develop a
fee demonstration program. Public input would
be sought prior to the design and
implementation of any fee system. Existing use
fees would continue to be charged.
FENCES
The BLM would work with UDOT to regulate
vendors along Highways 12 and 89.
MANAGEMENT ACROSS ZONES
COLLECTIONS
In order to carry out the intent of the
Proclamation to protect historic and scientific
objects, collection of Monument resources,
objects, rocks, petrified wood, fossils, plants,
parts of plants, animals, fish, insects or other
invertebrate animals, bones, waste, or other
products from animals, or of other items from
within the Monument would be prohibited.
Exceptions could include: collections
authorized by permit in conjunction with
authorized research or management activities;
the collection of small amounts of fruits, nuts,
and berries for personal, non-commercial use;
As discussed in the Transportation and
Access section of this chapter, motorized and
mechanized vehicles are generally limited to
designated routes, except as provided for in the
Camping and Forestry Products sections of
this chapter. In emergency circumstances,
however, vehicles may pull immediately off of
designated routes.
In addition, limited exceptions to the general
management provisions may be granted by the
Monument Manager. These exceptions could
allow off-highway vehicle use, aircraft
landing, motorized or mechanized access on
closed routes, or use of mechanized equipment
in closed areas. Exceptions would be made in
emergencies, or where clearly essential to
serve Monument management purposes.
Exceptions could be made in cases such as
carrying out search and rescue operations, fire
Fences would be used in certain circumstances
to protect Monument resources, to manage
visitor use, and to manage livestock, consistent
with the Proclamation. They would be
designed and constructed in accordance with
visual resource management objectives and the
Monument Facilities Master Plan (see the
Visual Resource Management section of this
chapter for further discussion).
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
While this Plan contains general direction and
context for the entire Monument and makes
decisions on specific actions for some issues
(e.g., access restrictions), many management
actions necessary to achieve broad-scale
objectives (e.g., achieving a natural range of
native vegetation associations) may require
2.25
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
further analysis and additional planning. The
Implementation and Adaptive Management
Framework outlined in Appendix 3 describes
the expected types and levels of analysis and
planning that would "step-down" broad-scale
information and decisions in this Plan to site-
specific actions. Appendix 3 also provides a
framework for developing a specific
monitoring and evaluation program which
would measure the conditions and trends in the
Monument. The information developed
through the monitoring process would be used
to assess management strategies and then alter
decisions, change implementation, or maintain
current management direction as appropriate.
LIVESTOCK GRAZING
The Presidential Proclamation establishing the
Monument addressed livestock grazing with
the following statement: "Nothing in this
proclamation shall be deemed to affect existing
permits or leases for, or levels of, livestock
grazing on Federal lands within the monument:
existing grazing uses shall continue to be
governed by applicable laws and regulations
other than this proclamation."
There is a substantial body of law and
regulation governing grazing on public lands.
In addition, the Utah State Director for the
BLM has developed Standards for Rangeland
Health and Guidelines for Grazing
Management which were approved by the
Secretary of the Interior on May 20, 1997
(Appendix 5). The Utah Standards and
Guidelines apply to grazing management
statewide, including those lands within the
Monument.
This section describes how grazing uses within
the Monument shall be managed, in keeping
with applicable laws and regulations, and with
the statewide Standards and Guidelines. It
describes a process for grazing management
and a schedule for completion of this process
Monument- wide.
Applicable Statutes and Regulations
The management of grazing on public lands in
the United Sates began in 1934 with the
passage of the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA),
which established a strategy for grazing
management. This strategy was amended in
1976 when Congress enacted FLPMA, which
made fundamental changes to the management
of public lands overall, including grazing
management.
Under FLPMA, public lands are to be
managed under the principles of multiple use
and sustained yield, unless otherwise specified
by law. The Act defines "multiple use" as:
"...the management of the public lands and
their various resource values so that they
are utilized in the combination that would
best meet the present and future needs of
the American people; making the most
judicious use of the land for some or all of
these resources or related services....; the
use of some land for less than all of the
resources; a combination of balanced and
diverse resource uses that takes into account
the long-term needs of future generations
for renewable and nonrenewable resources,
including, but not limited to, recreation,
range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife
and fish, and natural scenic, scientific, and
historic values; and harmonious and
coordinated management of the various
resources without permanent impairment of
the productivity of the land and the quality
of the environment, with consideration
being given to the relative values of the
resources and not necessarily to the
combination of uses that would give the
greatest economic return or the greatest unit
output." [43 USC Section 1792(c)]
FLPMA also established the policy that public
lands are to "be managed in a manner that
would protect the quality of scientific, scenic,
historic, ecological, environmental, air and
atmospheric, water resource, and
archaeological values; that, where appropriate,
would preserve and protect certain public lands
in their natural condition; that would provide
food and habitat for fish, wildlife, and domestic
animals; and that would provide for outdoor
recreation, human occupancy, and use." [43
USC Section 1702 (a)(8)]
In addition to complying with the TGA and
FLPMA, the BLM must comply with several
other laws that affect the range management
program. These include the Public Rangelands
Improvement Act of 1978, the Wild Free-
Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, the National
2.26
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the
Clean Water Act of 1972.
Grazing regulations were first promulgated
pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act. Before
1946, when the BLM was established, the
Grazing Service assigned grazing privileges to
landowners who historically grazed livestock
on public rangelands. This was a complex and
contentious process in which use areas, grazing
levels, season-of-use, grazing fees, and base
property qualifications were established. In
subsequent years, the BLM refined the grazing
regulations to incorporate new legislation and
administrative initiatives. The regulations
(Grazing Administration, exclusive of Alaska)
are found in Volume 43 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 4100.
The BLM's grazing regulations were revised in
August 1995. A new subpart directed each
BLM State Director to develop "Standards and
Guidelines for Grazing Administration." A
Standard is a minimum resource condition to
be achieved on BLM lands, and a Guideline is
an acceptable or best management grazing
practice that would be applied in order to
achieve the Standards. In Utah, the State
Director developed the Standards and
Guidelines in consultation with the statewide
Utah Resource Advisory Council. The
Secretary of the Interior approved the
"Standards for Rangeland Health and
Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM
Lands in Utah" on May 20, 1997. Local plans
and decisions may be more detailed than the
Utah Standards and Guidelines, but must be in
conformance with the Standards and be
consistent with the Guidelines.
Grazing Management Process
Within the Monument, the following process
would be followed so that grazing
management conforms with the grazing
regulations and Utah's Standards and
Guidelines. In this process, each grazing
allotment would be assessed, and new
allotment management plans would be
developed, consistent with the BLM-wide
grazing permit renewal process.
Step 1: Assessment
All allotments (see Appendix 6 for allotment
descriptions and map) would be assessed in
accordance with the guidelines and guidance
issued by the BLM. All available data would
be used to make an overall assessment of
rangeland health, including ecological
processes, watershed functioning condition,
water quality conditions, special status species,
and wildlife habitat conditions for each
allotment, as described in the Utah Standards
for Rangeland Health, in light of the
Fundamentals of Rangeland Health at 43 CFR
§4180.1.
Priorities for completing the assessments and
implementing needed changes would be set
using the following criteria:
• presence of values that are regulated by
operation of law such as water quality,
threatened and endangered or sensitive
plant and animal species
• areas at high risk of becoming degraded, or
high public interest areas
• permit renewal schedule
Step 2: Determination of Rangeland Health
and Evaluation of Existing Grazing
Management
The authorized officer (GSENM Manager)
shall determine rangeland health for each
allotment according to the Utah Standards and
Guidelines for Grazing Administration, in light
of the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health. The
GSENM Manager determines whether or not
assessment results show that each allotment is
achieving or making significant progress
toward the Utah Standards.
To the extent any assessment result is found to
be inconsistent with the Standards, the GSENM
Manager shall determine whether or not
existing livestock grazing practices or levels of
use are significant factors in such
inconsistency. The GSENM Manager shall
take appropriate action under 43 CFR Subparts
4120, 4130, and 4160 as soon as practicable,
but not later than the start of the next grazing
year, upon determining that existing grazing
management practices or levels of grazing on
public lands need to be modified to conform
with Utah Standards and Guidelines.
2.27
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
Step 3: Develop Allotment Management
Plans
The compatibility of grazing with other land
uses would be evaluated in allotment
management plans (AMP), and the results of
the evaluation would be consistent with all
applicable legal authorities, including FLPMA,
the TGA, the Public Rangelands Improvement
Act, 43 CFR Part 4180, Utah Standards and
Guidelines, and National Wildlife Federation v.
BLM, 140 Interior Board of Land Appeals
(IBLA) 85 (1997). AMPs may be developed
on an individual basis, or may be developed for
a group of allotments where similar ecosystems
or land uses exist. These AMPs may include
integrated activity planning, addressing a range
of non-grazing issues within the plan area.
Mandatory Content For AMPs
In addition to all other applicable legal
authority, all AMPs shall be prepared in
accordance with 43 CFR § 4120.2, and shall
ensure that the following conditions exist:
1 . Watersheds are in, or are making
significant progress toward properly
functioning physical condition. This must
include their upland, riparian-wetland, and
aquatic components. Soil and plant
conditions must support infiltration, soil
moisture storage, and the release of water
that are in balance with climate and
landform, and must also maintain or
improve water quality, water quantity, and
timing and duration of flow.
2. Ecological processes, including the
hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and
energy flow are maintained, or there is
significant progress toward their attainment
in order to support healthy biotic
populations and communities.
3. Water quality complies with State water
quality standards, and achieves or is
making significant progress toward
achieving established BLM management
objectives such as meeting wildlife needs.
4. Habitats are, or are making significant
progress toward being restored or
maintained for Federal threatened and
endangered species, Federal candidate
species, and other special status species.
Allotment management plans shall designate
lands that are available for livestock grazing.
Grazing permits or leases shall specify the
types and levels of use authorized, including
livestock grazing and suspended use.
No allotments would be converted from cows
and horses to domestic sheep within at least a
9 mile buffer of bighorn sheep habitat, except
where topographic features or other barriers
prevent physical contact. This is in order to
prevent the spread of disease from domestic
sheep to desert bighorn sheep. Other BLM
guidelines or policy in regard to domestic and
wild stock interactions would also apply.
Regarding conservation use, on September 1 ,
1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit decided Public Lands Council v.
Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th Circuit 1999).
The case resolved the Government's appeal of
an adverse U.S. District Court order enjoining
the application of four separate grazing
provisions in 43 CFR Part 4100. The Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's order on
three of the four provisions. The only grazing
provisions now enjoined are those providing
that "conservation use" is a permissible use for
a grazing permit.
AMPs would include a monitoring program in
conjunction with the adaptive management
framework (Appendix 3). The monitoring
program would be designed to periodically
observe and collect data to evaluate the effects
of management actions prescribed in the AMP,
and to evaluate the effectiveness of those
actions in:
• meeting the management objectives stated
in the AMP;
• achieving the conditions described as the
Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43
CFR4180.1);
• meeting the Utah Standards for Rangeland
Health, as indicated by the factors described
therein; and
• ensuring that grazing use is not causing
unacceptable resource degradation.
2.28
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Optional Content for AMPs
Grass Bank Allotments/Pastures
The BLM's grazing regulations provide for
increasing and decreasing the total number of
animal unit months (AUMs) of specified
livestock grazing (43 CFR 41 10.3-1 and
41 10.3-2). The setting aside of lands for future
grazing use within the Monument, to offset
potential future reductions in existing
allotments or to facilitate research in grazing
methods, is what the BLM refers to in this
document as a grass bank. The BLM may
designate grass banks on public lands within
the Monument that are not apportioned to any
grazing permittee or lessee. Grass banks shall
meet the requirements of the Utah Standards
and Guidelines in light of the Fundamentals of
Rangeland Health, and they shall contain
forage that may be apportioned on a sustained
yield basis to qualified applicants for livestock
grazing consistent with multiple-use
management objectives. The BLM may
consider making grass bank forage available on
an emergency, nonrenewable basis under 43
CFR 41 10.3-l(c). Should an allotment or a
portion of an allotment become available
through a voluntary relinquishment or an
operation of law, it would be considered for
grass banking.
The BLM is not obligated to graze the grass
bank allotment annually, and use of the grass
bank by qualified applicants, permittees, or
lessees is within the discretion of the BLM.
Science
The geology, soils, and erosional
characteristics in the Monument and the
resulting plant communities provide
opportunities to test, validate, and develop
management methods, criteria, or techniques
which would lead to improved grazing
practices. Similarly, the Monument may
present opportunities for testing new
partnership arrangements with grazing
permittees and interested publics that would
lead to improved grazing practices. It would
be the policy of the Monument to encourage
the use of the special characteristics of the
Monument to facilitate such testing or research
using scientific methods where appropriate.
Schedule
The 3-step Grazing Management Process
described above, and all associated NEPA
documents, shall be completed within the 3
years commencing on the first July 1 following
the approval of the Monument Management
Plan.
NIGHT SKIES
Few places are as dark as south-central Utah.
It is one of the darkest spots on NASA's
satellite image of the United States at night.
As such, the BLM would not propose actions
within the Monument that would contribute to
light pollution, and would be proactive in
preventing light pollution within the
Monument. The BLM would also work
closely with the surrounding communities to
minimize light pollution.
RIPARIAN
Riparian areas, though totaling less than 1
percent of the total lands in the Monument, are
some of the most productive, ecologically
valuable, and utilized resources in the
Monument. The Riparian- Wetland Initiative
for the 1990s established national goals and
objectives for managing riparian- wetland
resources on public lands. One goal is to
provide the widest variety of vegetation and
habitat diversity for wildlife, fish, and
watershed protection.
Proper Functioning Condition (PFC)
assessment protocols were developed to
provide standardized assessments of riparian
areas on public lands. The BLM uses this
process to evaluate three components of a
riparian- wetland area: (1) vegetation, (2)
landform/soils, and (3) hydrology. Additional
information may be collected during the PFC
assessments of riparian areas.
The overall objective of the BLM with respect
to riparian resources within the Monument
would be to manage riparian areas so as to
maintain or restore them to properly
functioning conditions and to ensure that
stream channel morphology and functions are
appropriate to the local soil type, climate and
landform.
2.29
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
Besides the general provisions that are provided
elsewhere for use management, the following
provisions apply to riparian areas. These
provisions provide for the protection of these
areas, as recognized in the Proclamation:
• Although the standard protocols do not
include evaluation of special status species
habitat or ecological processes, these
resources would also be evaluated in all
future riparian assessments.
• All segments of riparian habitat previously
inventoried are scheduled to be reassessed
as part of the grazing allotment
assessments. Furthermore, riparian areas
that have not been previously evaluated are
scheduled for assessments in the next three
years.
• Monitoring of riparian resource conditions,
if not currently occurring, would be
established to determine when actions
should be taken to ensure movement
towards proper functioning condition on all
riparian stream segments in the Monument.
• Commercial filming, communication sites,
and utility rights-of-way would avoid
riparian areas whenever possible.
• Vegetation restoration methods (described
in the Vegetation Management section of
this chapter) would not be allowed in these
areas, unless needed for removal of noxious
weed species or restoration of disturbed
sites. In these circumstances, consultation
with the GSENM Advisory Committee
would be used to determine the most
appropriate control and restoration
methods to ensure proper protection.
• The noxious weed control program would
target invasive species such as tamarisk
and Russian olive, which would improve
riparian functioning condition.
• New recreation facilities would be
prohibited, except for small signs for
resource protection.
• Trails would be kept out of riparian areas
wherever possible. Where this is not
possible, trails could be designed to
minimize impacts by placing trails away
from streams, using soil stabilization
structures to prevent erosion, and planting
native plants in areas where vegetation has
been removed.
• Group size limits may be imposed in these
areas to restrict use beyond the restrictions
provided in the various zones.
SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Focus of Science and Research
The primary purpose for establishing GSENM
is to protect the scientific and historic
resources described in the Proclamation.
Unparalleled opportunities for large-scale
study of these resources are available
throughout the Monument. In addition to the
study of specific scientific resources, this
setting allows study of such important issues
as: understanding ecological and climatic
change over time; increasing our understanding
of the interactions between humans and their
environment; improving land management
practices; and achieving a properly functioning,
healthy, and biologically diverse landscape.
Science would be supported and encouraged,
but intrusive or destructive investigations
would be carefully reviewed to avoid conflicts
with the BLM's responsibility to protect and
preserve scientific and historic Monument
resources. By conducting research in the
Monument, the BLM would be able to protect
resources using the best possible information.
For example, baseline inventories for hanging
gardens can identify areas that are sensitive and
areas that may be affected by proposed
activities. This would allow the BLM to take
appropriate measures for the protection of these
resources. A comprehensive and integrated
research and science program would ensure that
scientific resources are not only available for
current research opportunities, but that certain
scientific resources are preserved in place for
future study.
Monument management priorities and budgets
would focus on a more comprehensive
understanding of the resources of the
Monument while assisting in the development
of improved and innovative land management,
restoration, and rehabilitation practices. The
natural, physical, and social sciences, including
the study of history would each play an
essential role in science and research activities.
2.30
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Research projects would have a multi-scale and
interdisciplinary approach when possible.
Recreation and other uses would be managed
to complement science and research objectives.
The first priority for conducting BLM-
sponsored research would be to study, collect,
or record scientific information that is most at
risk of being damaged or lost through
disturbance or the passage of time, including
oral histories and ethnologies related to the
Monument area. The second priority would be
to continue gathering baseline data on the
biological, physical, cultural, and social
sciences within the Monument. A third
priority would be to conduct applied research
regarding the management of natural systems,
including disturbance and recovery strategies.
Education and Outreach
The BLM would encourage researchers to
incorporate a public outreach/education
component into projects. Educators and
students would have the opportunity to
participate in research activities where
appropriate. The BLM would also involve
communities in science and education activities
in order to provide the needed support to the
emerging showcase of scientific exploration,
cooperation, and management.
Research sites and visitor centers would
emphasize scientific interpretation. Results of
scientific research and inventory data would be
disseminated through interpretive displays,
publications, forums, and public exhibition of
objects and artifacts. The BLM is currently
working on an interpretive plan for the
Monument. Themes for the various visitor
contact stations would be identified as well as
appropriate onsite and offsite interpretation
areas and topics. The BLM would also play a
role in developing educational programs for
grades Kindergarten through 12, emphasizing
the area's scientific and cultural resources.
The BLM would also cooperate with colleges
and universities in undergraduate and graduate
programs as resources permit. A Monument
Internet website, Monument-sponsored science
publications, and cooperative field schools
would be incorporated into management
programs to the extent possible. In addition to
normal avenues for research publications
(scientific journals, symposia proceedings,
etc.), the BLM would help facilitate the
transfer of research information to the public
through periodic science forums and
Monument-sponsored publications.
Management of Science and Research
Activities
In general, researchers would have to comply
with the various zone prescriptions described
throughout this chapter. However, some
science and research activities may require the
use of equipment, surface disturbance, and/or
personnel which could exceed the management
prescriptions outlined for visitors and other
users. Except where specifically prohibited
(e.g., in relict plant areas, wildlife protected
activity centers), the BLM would consider
exceptions to the zone prescriptions during the
special-use permitting process for extremely
high-value research opportunities, especially
for those opportunities that may not be
available elsewhere (e.g., Late Cretaceous
terrestrial vertebrate evolution). Research
projects focused on protecting resources at risk
would also be considered for exceptions to
zone prescriptions. The GSENM Advisory
Committee would be consulted on whether
research proposals which require restricted
activities warrant the requested exceptions.
Evaluation would consider whether the
proposed research could be permitted in a
manner consistent with the protection of
Monument resources, and whether the methods
proposed are the minimum necessary to achieve
the desired research objective. All research and
related educational activities would require
special-use permits. All research would meet
Monument data collection standards to be
established by the Monument Manager with the
advice of the GSENM Advisory Committee,
and would provide information that feeds
directly into the adaptive management
framework.
SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES
The BLM would take measures to promote the
recovery and conservation of all special status
animal species within the Monument (including
Federally listed endangered and threatened
species, candidate species, and State sensitive
species). This would be in accordance with
applicable Endangered Species Act regulations
(50CFR402) and BLM policy (6840 Manual,
IM UT No. 97-66). Federally listed animal
2.31
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
species are discussed in detail below. There
are currently no candidate animal species
present within the Monument. A list of
sensitive species is provided in Appendix 8.
The BLM would continue ensure that actions
authorized do not jeopardize the continued
existence of any special status animal species
or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitats.
Activities would occur through consultation
with the USFWS when listed or candidate
species are involved, and also in conjunction
with the U.S. Forest Service, the TJDWR, and
the National Park Service in areas where
species cross jurisdictional lines. The BLM
would work with these agencies to develop
recovery plans, when needed, and to
implement existing recovery plans for all listed
species.
Surface disturbing research activities would
generally not be allowed in threatened or
endangered species habitat. All scientific
research projects in close proximity to listed
species populations or habitat would be
evaluated by Monument biologists, the
USFWS, and appropriate experts prior to
initiation to determine impacts to these
populations or habitat. Any research project
that may have an effect on populations of listed
species would be coordinated with the USFWS
and appropriate permits and Section 7
consultation would be completed as determined
necessary. Projects which provide new
information and understanding of listed
species, their populations, and/or their habitat,
may be allowed after approval by the BLM
and the review and issuance of permits by the
USFWS. All projects would be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis.
Protection of habitat (nesting, roosting and
foraging) is a primary consideration in meeting
the objectives for protection of listed species.
The following activities and programs would
benefit the listed species, by limitation or
action:
• Fuelwood cutting, as described in the
Vegetation Management section in this
chapter, is restricted to designated areas,
none of which would occur in known
nesting or roosting habitat. These areas are
small in size and are unlikely to affect
foraging activities of raptors or other listed
species. Future identification of fuelwood
cutting areas would consider listed animal
populations prior to designation.
• Maintenance of existing seedings would be
allowed if consistent with the overall
vegetation management objectives (see the
Vegetation Management and Overall
Resource Objectives sections of this
chapter), but would not be allowed in areas
where special status species roost or nest
(unless consultation with USFWS indicates
no effect to species). Research in seeded
areas may be initiated to increase
knowledge of disturbed ecosystems and
provide information on restoration
ecology. This knowledge would be helpful
in the future if restoration is needed from
unforseen disturbance, such as fires.
• There would be an active noxious weed
control program in the Monument as
described in the Noxious Weed Control
section of this chapter. This program would
focus on areas where habitat is being lost
due to changes in the water table and
changes in vegetation structure and
composition caused by noxious weeds.
This weed control program would include
the use of volunteer groups, BLM
employees, county personnel, contractors,
and adjacent agency personnel when
appropriate. This program would target
species in a prioritized manner. Priorities
for weed control may include: invasiveness
of the species, extent of invasion, sensitivity
of area being invaded, and accessibility.
• Nesting activities, roosting activities, and
habitat of listed species can all be affected
by use of OHVs in areas where they occur.
All listed species would be substantially
protected by restriction of OH V use to
designated routes in the Monument. The
BLM is pursuing cooperative agreements
with each of the Sheriff departments in
Kane and Garfield Counties to facilitate
shared law enforcement and support for
enforcing established closures. BLM law
enforcement personnel and increased field
presence of BLM field personnel would
help deter non-compliance activities in
closed areas.
2.32
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
• Livestock grazing allotments would be
evaluated and grazing as it relates to all
endangered species would be addressed
during this process and would incorporate
the latest research and information in the
protection of species. Section 7
consultation would be conducted for all
allotments that may affect listed species
during the individual allotment evaluations.
This process would provide protection for
listed and sensitive species as the
evaluation would be site specific for each
of the allotments.
• The information on water describes a
strategy for assuring water availability (see
the Water section of this chapter). Priority
would be to maintain natural flows and
flood events. The measures described in
that section would be initiated to
accomplish this goal. In addition, the
maintenance of instream flows would
provide adequate water for natural structure
and function of riparian vegetation.
The following additional measures would be
applied to specific listed species in order to
promote the protection and recovery of these
species. Other measures may be implemented
and some may be terminated, as deemed
necessary through evaluation of monitoring
data in conjunction with the adaptive
management framework.
Endangered Fish
The Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus
lucius) and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen
texanu) are found in the Colorado River
system and were more prevalent prior to the
construction of Glen Canyon Dam. There are
no known records of these two fish within the
boundaries of the Monument, and recent
surveys have not located these species in the
Escalante River. Regardless of this fact,
activity level environmental assessments
would be required before the use of any
chemical substances that may reach Lake
Powell through the Escalante River.
Furthermore, the main use of these substances
would be in the control of noxious weeds,
which would increase water flows and water
quality.
Bald Eagle
The Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan
for the bald eagle was prepared in 1983,
providing a strategy for the recovery of this
species. Successful recovery of this species in
much of its original range (most of North
America) has initiated efforts to remove this
species from the threatened species list.
Regardless of the results of these efforts, the
wintering habitat of this species in the
Monument would be protected from actions
that may contribute to its decline and actions
that promote recovery and conservation would
be encouraged.
• If recreation activities (e.g., hiking,
camping, backpacking) are determined to
impact known roost sites, allocations and/or
group size restrictions or other measures
would be implemented to reduce
disturbance. If allocations and group size
limits were implemented, they would be
developed in accordance with the allocation
and group size restrictions established for
other areas of the Monument, described in
the Group Size and Recreation Allocation
sections in this chapter.
• Trail construction would generally be
limited to the Frontcountry and Passage
Zones. Project level assessments and
consultation with the USFWS would be
completed before construction of any trails
that are in close proximity to eagle roost
sites. Designated primitive camping areas,
picnic areas, and trailheads would not be
located in areas of known roost sites for
bald eagles. Every effort would be made to
protect potential roosting areas in the
Monument from human disturbance
activities.
• This Plan does not allow for the use of
poisons for animal damage control
activities. This eliminates the risk to eagles
of feeding on poisoned animals. All control
would be coordinated with Wildlife
Services, as described in the Wildlife
Services section of this chapter. Control of
mountain lions and black bears are under
the jurisdiction of the UDWR, and would
2.33
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
be coordinated to assure protection of bald
eagles from poisoning.
Peregrine Falcon
An American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan
(Rocky Mountain Southwest Populations) was
prepared in 1984 which outlined the recovery
of this species in this part of the country. Due
in large part to recovery efforts, they now
breed from non-Arctic Alaska to southern Baja
California, central Arizona and Mexico
(locally), and their eastern limit presently
follows the eastern front of the Rocky
Mountains. The return of this species to much
of its historic range has prompted efforts to
remove the peregrine from the endangered
species list [Federal Register (Vol. 63, No.
165) August 26, 1998, pp. 45446-45463].
Regardless of the results of these efforts,
peregrine falcon habitat in the Monument
would be protected from actions that may
contribute to the decline of this species.
Actions which promote recovery and
conservation would be encouraged.
• If recreation activities (e.g., hiking,
camping, backpacking) are determined to
impact known nest sites, allocations and/or
group size restrictions or other measures
would be implemented to reduce
disturbance. If allocations and group size
limits were implemented, they would be
developed in accordance with the allocation
and group size restrictions established for
other areas of the Monument, described in
the Group Size and Recreation
Allocation section of this chapter.
• Trail construction would generally be
limited to the Frontcountry and Passage
Zones. Project level assessments and
consultation with the USFWS would be
completed before construction of any trails
proposed within 1 mile of falcon nest sites.
New designated primitive camping areas,
picnic areas, and trailheads would not be
located within 1 mile of known falcon
nests, unless consultation with USFWS
determines that impacts to nesting birds
would not occur. This 1 mile buffer is
recommended in the "Utah Field Guide for
Raptor Protection from Human and Land
Use Disturbances" (USFWS, 1999).
• Criteria for designation of climbing areas
would be established for the Monument.
These criteria would not allow climbing
areas to be designated in known peregrine
falcon nest sites. If new sites are identified
as occupied for nesting in areas designated
for climbing, seasonal closures would be
established in those areas to assure that
disturbance of nesting activities does not
occur.
Mexican Spotted Owl
A recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl
was prepared by the Southwest Region of the
USFWS in 1995. No critical habitat has been
designated for the spotted owl. Regardless of
this fact, the protection of spotted owls and
their habitat within the Monument would be
protected from impacts which might contribute
to their decline and actions which promote
recovery and conservation would be
encouraged.
• Fires have played only a small role in the
recent history of vegetation in the
Monument. Thus, the potential for large
fires, which would remove foraging habitat
for the owl, are minimal. Fire suppression
activities may have a greater impact than
allowing fire to burn in an area. With this
in mind, suppression activities would be
evaluated by fire resource advisors prior to
implementation to provide appropriate
protection measures in spotted owl habitat.
• If recreation activities (e.g., hiking,
camping, backpacking) are determined to
impact known nest sites, allocations and/or
group size restrictions or other measures
would be implemented to reduce
disturbance. If allocations and group size
limits were implemented, they would be
developed in accordance with the allocation
and group size restrictions established for
other areas of the Monument, as described
in the Group Size and Recreation
Allocation sections of this chapter.
• Trail construction would generally be
limited to the Frontcountry and Passage
Zones. Project level assessments and
consultation with the USFWS would be
completed before construction of any trails
that are in close proximity to owl nest sites.
2.34
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Designated primitive camping areas, picnic
areas, and trailheads would not be located
within Vi mile of known spotted owl
nesting, unless consultation with USFWS
determines that impacts to nesting birds
would not occur. This lA mile buffer is
recommended in the "Utah Field Guide for
Raptor Protection from Human and Land
Use Disturbances" (USFWS, 1999).
Criteria for designation of climbing areas
would be established for the Monument.
These criteria would not allow climbing
areas to be designated in known Mexican
spotted owl nest sites. If new nest sites are
identified in areas designated for climbing,
seasonal closures would be established in
those areas to assure that disturbance of
nesting activities does not occur.
A comprehensive inventory for spotted
owls in the Monument was begun in 1999.
This is a multi-year project that will look at
occurrence of owls, current habitat, and
potential habitat (i.e., habitat that is
potential if modifications were made to that
habitat). After the surveys are completed,
the BLM would designate protected
activity centers in accordance with the
recovery plan. Activities such as
recreational use in these protected areas
may be limited to help protect this species.
Limitations may include prohibition of
camping or hiking during critical times of
the year and/or limitations on the number
of people or group size allowed.
Limitations would be based on the
identification of activities that may be
affecting this species.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
For the purposes of the Endangered Species
Act, all breeding southwestern willow
flycatchers in GSENM are endangered
southwestern willow flycatchers.
Non-breeding southwestern willow flycatchers
confirmed outside the June 22 to July 10
window may or may not be endangered willow
flycatchers. No recovery plan has been
prepared for this species, but efforts are
underway to complete a recovery plan.
Critical habitat was not designated for this
species when it was listed, but action which
promote the recovery and conservation of this
species and habitat would be encouraged.
• A comprehensive inventory for
southwestern willow flycatcher
populations in the Monument was begun in
1999. This is a multi-year project that will
look at occurrence of southwestern willow
flycatchers, current habitat, and habitat that
is potential if modifications are made (i.e.,
removal of tamarisk). This inventory will
help to identify some of the impacts that
are occurring in the area, which will help
the BLM determine when and where limits
on activities (such as recreational use) need
to be implemented to protect the
southwestern willow flycatcher.
California Condor
On October 16, 1996 the USFWS reintroduced
the California condor into northern
Arizona/southern Utah and designated this
population as nonessential and experimental
under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species
Act [Federal Register (Vol. 61, No. 202)
October 16, 1996, pp. 54044-54060], The
purpose of this population is to establish a
second non-captive population, spatially
disjunct from the southern California
population as part of the recovery for this
species. An agreement between the counties in
Utah and the USFWS outlines a positive
working relationship, and stipulates that
reintroduction would not impact current or
future land use planning. Although Section 7
consultation is not required for this species, the
USFWS and the BLM agree that it is
appropriate and desirable to discuss this
species. Efforts would be made to protect
potential habitat for this species and to limit
activities which may be detrimental to their
existence in cooperation with the counties and
the USFWS.
Kanab Ambersnail
A recovery plan for the Kanab ambersnail was
prepared in 1995. In Utah, the ambersnail is
known to exist in two small populations in
Kanab Creek and a new location near the "Best
Friends Sanctuary" just outside Kanab
(Meretsky, personal communication, 1998).
Although Kanab Creek is a drainage not
connected to the Monument, there is the
2.35
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
potential for this species to occur within the
Monument. Surveys for this species have
begun in 1999. Surveys are being conducted in
potential habitat, moist seeps, and along water
courses in the Grand Staircase portion of the
Monument. Results of this survey will be used
to determine the potential for further surveys.
If this species is discovered in the Monument,
actions would be taken to improve habitat as
consistent with the recovery plan objectives.
Actions may include assuring flows in
appropriate streams and seeps by removing
non-native plants affecting the water table and
reducing impacts from visitors and/or
livestock. Surveys will also identify current
habitat and habitat that is potential if
modifications are made.
SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
In addition to the vegetation management
objectives stated previously, the BLM would
take measures to promote the recovery and
conservation of all special status plant species
within the Monument (including Federally
listed endangered and threatened species,
candidate species, and State sensitive species).
This would be in accordance with applicable
Endangered Species Act regulations (50 CFR
402) and BLM policy (6840 Manual, IM UT
No. 96-69). Federally listed plant species are
discussed in detail below. There are currently
no candidate plant species present within the
Monument. A list of sensitive species is
provided in Appendix 9. The BLM would
continue to ensure that actions authorized do
not jeopardize the continued existence of any
special status plant species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitats.
Activities would occur through consultation
with the USFWS when listed or candidate
species are involved, and also in conjunction
with the U.S. Forest Service, the Utah Division
of Wildlife Resources' Natural Heritage
Program, and the National Park Service in
areas where plant species cross jurisdictional
lines. The BLM would work with these
agencies to develop recovery plans, when
needed, and to implement existing recovery
plans for all listed species.
Although there are emergency exceptions for
specific activities in the Monument, vehicular
travel into areas of known habitat or locations
of sensitive species would not be included in
these provisions. These locations would be
protected from impacts that might lead to the
decline of the species unless, through
consultation with the USFWS, the action is
deemed necessary for proper management of
the species.
Surface disturbing research activities would
generally not be allowed in threatened or
endangered plant species habitat. All scientific
research projects in close proximity to listed
species populations or habitat would be
evaluated by Monument biologists, the
USFWS, and appropriate experts prior to
initiation to determine impacts to these
populations or habitat. Any research project
which may have an effect on populations of
listed species would be coordinated with the
USFWS and appropriate permits and Section 7
consultation would be completed as determined
necessary. Projects which provide new
information and understanding of listed species,
their populations and/or their habitat, may be
allowed after approval by the BLM and the
review and issuance of permits by the USFWS.
All projects would be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.
Livestock grazing has the potential to be
detrimental to listed plant species through
trampling, soil compaction, and disturbance of
riparian vegetation during certain seasons.
Grazing can be beneficial to Ute ladies '-tresses,
however, by controlling or limiting the density
of the vegetation, allowing the orchid to get
enough light to grow. In fact, the Ute ladies '-
tresses population is currently healthy, leading
to the conclusion that current levels of grazing
are either benign or beneficial to the
population. For Kodachrome bladderpod and
Jones' cycladenia there is little potential for
cattle to impact these populations in the
Monument, due to the sparse vegetation and
inaccessibility where they grow. Grazing
allotments would be evaluated consistent with
the BLM-wide grazing permit review process.
This process would address protection of
endangered species and would incorporate the
latest research and information in the protection
of species. Section 7 consultation would be
conducted for all allotments during the
individual allotment evaluations. This process
2.36
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
would provide necessary protection for listed
and sensitive species.
Fuelwood cutting, as described in the Forestry
Products section of this chapter, is restricted to
designated areas, none of which would occur in
listed species populations. Future fuelwood
cutting areas would not be designated in listed
plant populations.
There would be an active noxious weed control
program in the Monument as described in the
Noxious Weed Control section of this chapter.
Areas with threatened or endangered plants
would be targeted for these activities as a first
priority. BLM employees or contractors with
appropriate certification would be responsible
for use of chemicals in noxious weed removal
efforts, and would take precautions to prevent
possible effects to non-target species.
Public education about protection of these
species would be an integral part of all projects
and would be provided in interpretive displays
and handouts at project sites and visitor centers
around the Monument. Information would also
be included on the Monument website.
Commercial filming, communication sites,
utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way
would not be permitted in known special status
species populations for any reason. As permits
are granted for these sites and rights-of-way,
surveys would be completed to determine the
presence of special status species in the area. If
they are found, these activities would be moved
to another location.
Reseeding or surface disturbing restoration
after fires in these areas would not be allowed.
Natural diversity and vegetation structure
would provide adequate regeneration of areas.
Management ignited fires would also not be
allowed in these areas.
The following additional measures would be
applied to specific listed species in order to
promote the protection and recovery of these
species. Other measures may be implemented
and some may be terminated, as deemed
necessary through evaluation of monitoring
data in conjunction with the adaptive
management framework.
Jones' Cycladenia
• Historically, there have been threats from
mining and mineral operations in the
Jones' cycladenia populations. No new
mining claims or mineral/oil and gas leases
are allowed on the Monument.
Furthermore, there are currently no mining
or mineral operations in the area that would
affect this population of plants or its
habitat. There are oil and gas leases in the
area, some of which have been suspended.
These leases expire by the year 2003 if no
action is taken to develop them. If a lease
holder submits an application for permit to
drill on these leases, stipulations would be
placed in the permit to prevent impacts to
these populations through avoidance or
other conservation measures (through
consultation with the USFWS). Due to the
current state of hydrocarbon resources in
the country, there is limited potential for the
development of these leases prior to their
expiration.
• Jones' cycladenia habitat would be
substantially protected by restrictions on
OHV use in the Monument. Since OHV
use would occur on designated routes in the
Monument, and none of these routes are
near the population or habitat, there would
be no impact from these activities to the
Jones' cycladenia population (refer to the
Enforcement section in this chapter).
• Inventories to locate new populations of
this species would be conducted to provide
more accurate information on distribution
and to facilitate protection and recovery.
Kodachrome Bladderpod
• Historically, there have been threats from
mining and mineral operations in the
Kodachrome bladderpod populations. No
new mining or mineral claims would be
allowed on the Monument. Furthermore,
there is no mining or mineral development
in the Kodachrome bladderpod population
currently, and no existing mining claims or
mineral leases in the population area.
• Monitoring plots were established in 1997
to determine population health and to
measure impacts to the Kodachrome
bladderpod population. Areas documented
as having impacts in 1998 were temporarily
closed and would remain closed to travel
2.37
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
off of designated routes in conjunction with
plan provisions in the Transportation and
Access section of this chapter. The one route
remaining open in that area would be closed to
OHV use.
• Physical barriers as well as "closed" signs
may be placed in strategic locations to
prevent access into areas where the
Kodachrome bladderpod grows.
Restoration in closed areas may occur to
eliminate impacts and return the area to
pre-disturbance condition. Monitoring
would continue in order to determine
effects of closures and to measure the
resilience of the population.
• Compliance with established closures
would be facilitated by the BLM pursuing
cooperative agreements with each of the
Sheriff departments in Kane and Garfield
Counties, who would aid in enforcing
established closures. The BLM law
enforcement personnel would help with the
increased enforcement of closures. The
increased field presence of BLM field
personnel would help deter non-compliance
activities in closed areas.
• Additional monitoring sites would be
developed in strategic locations to measure
impacts to the population, following
established protocols. If, through
monitoring, impacts to the population from
visitors were identified, visitor allocations
or other measures would be imposed to
prevent impacts from increased visitation
and use. Group size and numbers of
groups allowed in the area, as well as the
types of activities allowed, could be limited
to accomplish these goals.
• Trails, parking areas or other recreations
facilities would not be allowed in these
areas.
• Camping, overnight stays and campfires
would not be allowed in these areas.
Ute Ladies'-tresses
• The information in the Water section of
this chapter describes a strategy for
assuring water availability. Under that
strategy, priority would be to maintain
natural flows and flood events. In
addition, the maintenance of instream
flows would provide adequate water for
natural structure and function of riparian
vegetation.
• Surveys for this species would be
completed during the 1999 growing season
and results of this survey would be used to
determine any further actions.
• Appropriate actions would be taken to
prevent trampling of the plants by visitors
in high-use areas. These actions may
include replanting native vegetation or
construction of barriers.
• Areas may be closed if necessary to protect
these plants. Barriers would be
constructed and restoration work initiated to
stabilize the soil and banks and provide the
best possible habitat for this plant.
• No expansion of current or new facilities
would be permitted where this plant grows.
• Existing trails in areas where this plant
grows would be relocated out of the area
when possible. These protection measures
apply to current as well as future potential
habitat areas for this species.
• Interpretive materials would be developed
to educate the public about Ute ladies'-
tresses and the actions being implemented
to protect it.
• Restoration of the current social trails in
known populations would be initiated,
including obliteration of the trail by
planting native species, and moving soil to
return the area to its natural grade. Group
size restrictions, allocations or other
measures would be initiated if continued
monitoring indicates that visitor use in the
area is causing impacts.
VALID EXISTING RIGHTS AND OTHER
EXISTING AUTHORIZATIONS
The Proclamation establishing the Monument
states: "The establishment of this monument is
subject to valid existing rights." This sentence
reflects the President's intention to honor rights
that existed prior to the establishment of the
Monument. Before it was established, the
lands within GSENM were subject to various
2.38
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
authorizations, some giving "rights" to the
holders and some of which could be construed
as providing valid, but lesser, interests.
Valid existing rights (VERs) are those rights in
existence within the boundaries of GSENM
when the Monument was established on
September 18, 1996. Valid existing rights
were established by various laws, leases, and
filings under Federal law, and for leases on
lands acquired by the United States from Utah,
under Utah State law. This section describes
such VERs within the Monument, addresses
how VERs would be verified, and explains
how applications and notices filed after
completion of this Plan on existing mining
claims would be addressed. Also addressed are
the lesser interests or other authorizations that
existed prior to September 18, 1996; a
discussion of how those authorizations would
be handled subsequent to approval of the Plan
is also included.
Energy and Mineral Activities (Including
Hardrock, Oil, Gas, and Coal)
The Proclamation establishing the Monument
withdrew all Federal lands and interests in
lands within the Monument from entry,
location, selection, sale, leasing, or other
disposition (except for exchanges that further
the protective purposes of the Monument)
under the public land laws, including the
mineral leasing and mining laws. Thus, no
new Federal mineral leases or prospecting
permits may be issued, nor may new mining
claims be located within the Monument.
Authorization for activities on existing mineral
leases and mining claims, according to the
Proclamation, would be governed by VERs.
With respect to oil and gas leases, mineral
leases, and mining claims "valid existing
rights" vary from case to case, but generally
involve rights to explore, develop, and produce
within the constraints of laws and regulations.
The Federal laws, regulations, and standards
related to Mineral Activities are described in
Chapter 2 of the DEIS.
Within the Monument, there are currently 68
Federal mining claims covering approximately
2,700 acres, 85 Federal oil and gas leases
encompassing more than 136,000 acres, and 18
Federal coal leases on about 52,800 acres
(Table 2.1). Newly acquired Utah School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration
(SITLA) mineral and oil and gas leases are
summarized below in the section titled School
and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration Lands Acquired.
The BLM would verify whether VERs are
present in each of these cases by periodically
reviewing the files related to existing mining
claims and leases. This would help ensure that
required actions, filings, and fees are in full
compliance with the law. This process, known
as adjudication, would continue for the life of
each VER. With regard to mining claims and
millsites located under the Mining Law of
1872, the BLM would initiate a validity
examination process to verify the VERs of
claimants before such claimants conduct
surface disturbing activities greater than casual
use. Valid mining claims require existence on
September 18, 1996, of a discovery of a
valuable mineral deposit, as well as a
continuing discovery to the date of the validity
examination and thereafter. For previously
approved operations, the BLM would conduct
validity examinations. For new proposals,
except as described in the next sentence, the
BLM would (1) withhold approval of plans of
operations under 43 CFR 3802 or 3809 until
the validity examination process is complete
and the claims are determined to be valid; and
(2) inform persons who have written the BLM
that they intend to commence notice-level
operations under 43 CFR 3809 that such
operations cannot commence until the BLM
completes its validity examination process and
has verified that there are VERs. Until the
validity examination process is complete, the
BLM may allow notice-level operations or
approve a plan of operations under 43 CFR
3809 for operations on unreclaimed previously
disturbed areas, which are limited to taking
samples to confirm or corroborate mineral
exposures that are physically disclosed and
existing on the mining claim. BLM may deny
plans of operations without the performance of
a validity examination if such denial is
consistent with BLM regulations and policy.
In addition, VERs may be examined in the field
for compliance with laws and regulations. The
BLM would continue to monitor oil and gas
activities through its Inspection Program.
2.39
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
Once a VER is verified, the process used to
address applications or notices filed under that
VER (such as an application to drill on an oil
or gas lease, or a plan of operations or notice
filed on a mining claim) would vary by
commodity and regulation. However, for all
applications and notices, the BLM would use a
documented analysis (NEPA or other written
documentation) to determine potential impacts
on the Monument resources that the Approved
Plan is required to protect. Once such analysis
is completed, the BLM would take the
following actions on a case-by-case basis:
1 . If the analysis indicates no impact to
Monument resources, or indicates impacts
to resources, but determines that the
impacts are consistent with the
Proclamation and this Plan, the proposed
operation can proceed in accordance with
applicable regulations, standards and
stipulations.
2. If analysis and documentation indicate that,
under the laws, regulations, and stipulations
discussed above, a proposal may have
impacts that are not in conformance with
the Proclamation and this Plan, the BLM
would take the following actions on a case-
by-case basis:
A. Work with the applicant to find
alternatives or modifications to the
proposal that would either:
1 . Cause no adverse impacts to
Monument resources, or
2. Minimize such impacts through
special stipulations or other permit
conditions, consistent with the
applicant's rights.
B. If unable to prevent or minimize
adverse impacts as described in A,
disapprove the proposed action if
disapproval is consistent with the
applicants' rights. For persons with
rights within WSAs within the
Monument, the BLM would also be
guided by its July 5, 1995, Interim
Management Policy and Guidelines for
Lands Under Wilderness Review.
Table 2.1
Summary of GSENM Mineral Leases
Summary of GSENM Mineral Leases
Lessee
No.
Leases
Acres
Federal Coal Leases
Andalex
PacifiCorp
17
1
34,499
18,287
Subtotal
18
52,786
Federal Oil & Gas Leases
Individual Operators
Citation O&G, et al.
Kidd Family
Partnership
Conoco - Rangeland
14
6
7
58
9,984
9,153
10,672
106,518
Subtotal
85
136,327
Total
189113
Other Existing Rights or Interests
There are other situations, unrelated to
minerals, in which the BLM has authorized
some use of public land, or has conveyed some
limited interest in public land. The
authorization may be valid, existing when the
Monument was designated, and may convey
some "right" or interest. Many rights-of-way2,
easements3, and leases4 granted on public land
are in this category. They vary from case-to-
case, but the details of each one are specified in
the authorizing document. Chapter 2 in the
DEIS lists the authorizations for these
activities.
These authorizations, where they are valid and
existed when the Monument was established,
would be recognized in the Monument and
their uses would be allowed subject to the terms
and conditions of the authorizing document.
Where these uses conflict with the protection of
Monument resources, and where legally
possible, leases, permits, or easements would
be adjusted to eliminate or minimize adverse
impacts.
There are currently 106 rights-of-way
authorized under FLPMA and the Mineral
Leasing Act (see Chapter 3 of the DEIS for
more detail on existing rights-of-way and other
authorizations). In addition to these
authorizations, there are 17 authorized mineral
material sites in the Monument where the
removal of construction-type minerals such as
sand and gravel had been allowed. Seven of
the mineral material sites were authorized
2.40
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
under the Materials Act of 1947 (30 USC 601
et seq), as amended, and were subject to either
free use permits or contracts of sale. The
Materials Act of 1947 specifically excludes the
disposal of mineral materials from National
Monuments. As a result, free use permits or
contracts for mineral materials authorized
under this Act would not be renewed.
The remaining ten sites are authorized under
Title 23 USC Section 107 (1998), which
provide for the appropriation of lands or
interests in lands for highway purposes (see
Chapter 3 of the DEIS for more detail on
existing mineral material sites and Title 23
sites). Unlike free use permits or contracts for
sale of mineral materials that are issued for a
fixed term, Title 23 rights-of-way continue
indefinitely. The BLM does not resume
jurisdiction over the land covered by the rights-
of-way until the lands are returned to the BLM
upon a determination by the Federal Highway
Administration that the need for the material no
longer exists. Existing Title 23 rights-of-way
within the Monument are inconsistent with the
protection of Monument resources. The BLM
would request closure of those sites from the
Federal Highway Administration and would
work with the Federal Highway Administration
to find suitable replacement sources of mineral
material.
Non-Federal Land Inholdings
There are approximately 15,000 acres of
private land within the boundary of the
Monument. They are not Monument lands, but
their presence has implications for Monument
lands, because landowners generally have
rights to reasonable access to their lands across
public lands. The Proclamation does not alter
that.
Owners of non-Federal land surrounded by
public land managed under FLPMA are
entitled to reasonable access to their land.
Reasonable access is defined as access that the
Secretary of the Interior deems adequate to
secure the owner reasonable use and
enjoyment of the non-Federal land. Such
access is subject to rules and regulations
governing the administration of public land.5
In determining reasonable access, the BLM
has discretion to evaluate and would consider
such things as proposed construction methods
and location, reasonable alternatives, and
reasonable terms and conditions as are
necessary to protect the public interest and
Monument resources.
The BLM would consider land exchanges and
acquisitions so long as the current owner is a
willing participant and so long as the action is
in the public interest, and is in accordance with
other management goals and objectives of this
Plan. The action must also result in a net gain
of objects and values within the Monument,
such as wildlife habitat, cultural sites, riparian
areas, live water, threatened or endangered
species habitat, or areas key to the
maintenance of productive ecosystems. The
action may also meet one or more of the
following criteria:
• ensures the accessibility of public lands in
areas where access is needed and cannot
otherwise be obtained;
• is essential to allow effective management
of public lands;
• results in the acquisition of lands which
serve a National priority as identified in
National policy directives.
All land exchanges and acquisitions would be
subject to VERs as determined by the BLM.
Other Land Use Authorizations
There are a variety of other land use
authorizations which were in effect at the time
of the Proclamation, and which, although they
involve no "rights," are being continued in the
Monument. Outfitter and guide permits are an
example. These permits authorize certain uses
of public land for a specified time, under
certain conditions, without conveying a right,
title, or interest in the land or resources used.
Such permits would be recognized in the
Monument and fulfilled subject to the terms
and conditions of the authorizing document. If
at any time it is determined that an outfitter and
guide permit, other such permit, or any
activities under those permits, are not consistent
with the Approved Monument Management
Plan, then the authorization would be adjusted,
mitigated, or revoked where legally possible.
Grazing permits are also in this category.
Grazing permits or leases convey no right, title,
or interest in the land or resources used.
Although the Proclamation specifically
2.41
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
mentions livestock grazing, it does not
establish it as a "right" or convey it any new
status. The Proclamation states that "grazing
shall continue to be governed by applicable
laws and regulations other than this
proclamation," and says that the Proclamation
is not to affect existing permits for, or levels of,
livestock grazing within the Monument. Other
applicable laws and regulations govern changes
to existing grazing permits and levels of
livestock grazing in the Monument, just as in
other BLM livestock grazing administration
programs. Management of livestock grazing is
addressed previously in the Livestock Grazing
section of this chapter.
School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration Lands Acquired
On October 31, 1998, President Bill Clinton
signed into law the Utah Schools and Lands
Exchange Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-335),
ratifying a May 8, 1998 Agreement to
Exchange Utah School Trust Lands Between
the State of Utah and the United States of
America (Agreement). Under this Act, the
State inholdings within the Monument were
transferred to the United States, along with the
mineral interest on approximately an additional
24,000 acres. The lands contain numerous
interests of varying types (e.g., leases, permits,
licenses) held by third parties. The conveyance
occurred on January 8, 1999. Section 5(A) of
the Agreement provides that any lands and
interests in lands acquired by the United States
within the exterior boundaries of Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument under
the Agreement shall become part of the
Monument and shall be subject to all laws and
regulations applicable to the Monument.
The conveyance by the State of Utah to the
United States was subject to all VERs, existing
authorizations, and other interests outstanding
in third parties found acceptable under the
Attorney General's title regulations, including:
• valid existing water rights owned by
private parties;
• all leases, permits and contracts for grazing
of domestic livestock, and the related terms
and conditions of the State's user
agreements;
• title to, or any interest in, any range
improvement held by any private party on
such lands;
• all rights-of-way and special use
agreements; and
• existing surface and mineral leases.
Table 2.2 summarizes the leases, permits, and
other authorizations associated with SITLA
lands that were acquired by the BLM within
the Monument.
2.42
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Table 2.2
Summary of Authorizations Acquired from SITLA
Number
Type
Miles/Acres
1
Water storage/settling pond permit
5.99acres
2
Water pipeline permits
4.64acres
1
Water pipeline permit
No data available
1
Water pipeline easement
l.OOacres
5
Power line permits
7.59miles
2
Power line permits
No data available
1
Power line easement
0.55 miles
1
Oil pipeline permit
1 .29 acres
1
Oil storage facility permit
5.01 acres
6
Fence permits
6.78 miles
1
Stock watering well permit
18.99 acres
1
Trail permit
No data available
1
Stock driveway permit
0.75 miles
1
Livestock watering site permit
839 ft. of pipe & 28 ft. of troughs
1
Pipeline, valves & boxes permit
No data available
1
Building side camp permit
No data available
2
Unpaved route permits
2.93 acres
1
Unpaved route permit
No data available
2
Paved road (highway) permits
67.79 acres
80
Livestock grazing permits
134,174.53 acres
7
Coal leases
4,479.96 acres
3
Gypsum leases
200.00 acres
3
Gem/Fossil leases
240.00 acres
14
Metallic minerals leases
7,560.83 acres
93
Oil and gas leases
76,643.24 acres
1
Building stone leases
! 40.00 acres
The Agreement provides express assurances
that the United States would accept the
transferred lands subject to VERs found
acceptable under the Attorney General's title
regulations. Specifically, section 6 makes
clear that nothing contained in the Agreement
would impair valid existing water rights
owned by private parties. All terms and
conditions of existing State grazing permits
would be honored. Moreover, ranchers who
rely on the State section to meet Federal base
property requirements for Federal grazing
permits would be able to continue to use the
former State section to qualify as base
property. The agreement also includes a
provision ensuring that nothing expands or
diminishes pre-existing rights-of-way under
State or Federal law. Finally, mineral leases
would remain in force and subject to their
existing terms.
The BLM would be acting in place of the
State in administering all valid existing
authorizations for the remainder of the
applicable term in accordance with State laws
and regulations. As part of such
administration, BLM decisions would be
subject to those Federal laws which are
ordinarily attached to Federal decisions (e.g.,
the National Environmental Policy Act,
Endangered Species Act, National Historic
Preservation Act). Renewal of any lease,
permit, or contract would occur if provided
for under the terms of the lease, permit, or
contract. Upon expiration of any grazing
lease or permit, the holder shall be entitled to
a preference right to renew such lease or
2.43
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
permit to the extent provided by Federal law.
This provides a priority to the holder of the
expiring lease or permit against other
applicants, but does not guarantee that a
renewal will occur. [Public Lands Council v.
Babbitt, 158 F.3rd 1160, 1171 (10th Cir
1998)]
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
Relict Plant Communities and Hanging
Gardens
Relict plant communities are areas that have
persisted despite the pronounced warming
and drying of the interior west over the last
few thousand years (Betencourt, 1984) and/or
have not been influenced by settlement and
post-settlement activities (such as domestic
livestock grazing). This isolation, over time
and from disturbance, has created unique
areas that can be used as a baseline for
gauging impacts occurring elsewhere in the
Monument and on the Colorado Plateau.
Hanging gardens occur where ground water
surfaces along canyon walls from perched
water tables or from bedrock fractures. The
existence of hanging gardens is dependent on
a supply of water from these underground
water sources. The geologic and geographic
conditions for hanging gardens exist
throughout southern Utah (Welsh and Toft,
1981), including the Monument. The
potential for finding additional locations of
hanging gardens in the Grand Staircase and
Escalante sections of the Monument is also
high. Due to the conditions of isolation
produced in hanging gardens, there is a
potential for unique species in these areas.
In addition to the general provisions provided
elsewhere for use management, the following
provisions apply to hanging gardens and relict
areas. These provisions provide for the
protection of these areas, as recognized in the
Proclamation:
• Vegetation restoration methods (described
in the next section) would not be allowed
in these areas, unless needed for removal
of noxious weed species. In these
circumstances, consultation with the
GSENM Advisory Committee would be
used to determine the most appropriate
control methods to ensure proper
protection.
• No new water developments would be
authorized in these areas. Maintenance
activities would be allowed if these
resources were not affected.
• Surface disturbing research would not be
allowed in these areas.
• Parking areas or other recreation facilities
would not be allowed in these areas.
• Camping, overnight stays, and campfires
in these areas would not be allowed.
• Group size limits may be imposed in
relict plant areas to restrict use beyond the
restrictions provided in the various zones.
Most of these areas occur in the Primitive
Zone which has limits of 1 2 people and
12 pack animals. Pack stock would not
be allowed in these areas, effectively
limiting the group size to 12 people.
• Communication sites and utility rights-of-
way would not be allowed in these areas.
• Inventories, modeling, and field
investigations for both relict plant
communities and hanging gardens would
be conducted to ensure their protection.
Current information on the location of
these associations in the Monument are
largely anecdotal and may change
following consideration of inventory data.
Vegetation Restoration Methods
A variety of vegetation restoration methods
may be used to restore and promote a natural
range of native plant associations in the
Monument. Use of machinery, as defined
below, would not be allowed in the Primitive
Zone. Methods and projects which do not
achieve this objective or which irreversibly
impact Monument resources would not be
permitted. Vegetation restoration methods
fall into four broad categories: mechanical,
chemical, biological, and management ignited
fires. Each of these methods would be used
in accordance with the overall vegetation
objectives discussed in the Vegetation
section of this chapter, and progress towards
these objectives would be monitored as part
2.44
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
of the Implementation and Adaptive
Management Framework (Appendix 3).
Mechanical methods include the use of hand
tools (e.g., chainsaws, machetes, pruners), the
use of machinery (e.g., roller chopping,
chaining, plowing, discing), and manual
pulling. Chaining has been used in the past to
remove pinyon and juniper prior to reseeding
with perennial grasses. Due to the potential
for irreversible impacts to other Monument
resources, such as archaeological sites and
artifacts, and paleontological resources, this
treatment method would not be used to
remove pinyon and juniper. It would be
allowed to cover rehabilitation seed mixes
with soil after wildfires where: (1) noxious
weeds and invasive non-native species are
presenting a significant threat to Monument
resources or watershed damage could occur if
the burned area is not reseeded, (2) it can be
demonstrated that Monument resources
would not be detrimentally affected (i.e.,
completion of full archaeological,
paleontological, threatened and endangered
species and other resource clearance and
consultation), (3) it is determined that seed
cover is necessary for the growth of the
native species proposed for seeding, and (4)
other less surface disturbing measures of
covering seed are not available or cannot be
applied in a timely manner. Visual impacts
of chaining would also be minimized near
routes and other points of concern by
covering the native seed mix with harrows or
light chains. The GSENM Advisory
Committee would be consulted before the
mechanical treatments are permitted.
Livestock grazing after the native seedings
are established would be modified to ensure
the survival of the native plants. The
livestock exclusion period required to allow
full establishment of seeded native species
and recovery of surviving native plants after a
wildfire may be more than two years. Site
evaluation would be required to determine
when the native seedings should be grazed
again and the effectiveness of the current or
new grazing system on the persistence of
native plants.
Chemical methods, including aerial spraying,
would generally be restricted to the control of
noxious weed species, and are discussed in
that section. The use of chemicals may be
allowed in conjunction with research projects
and must lead to the achievement of the
overall vegetation objectives. These activities
would be approved as determined appropriate
through consultation with the GSENM
Advisory Committee.
Biological control would be used exclusively
for control of noxious or exotic weed species
and a discussion is included in that section.
The last method is the use of management
ignited fire. This is the method most likely to
be used in the Monument and would be used
when fire has been documented to historically
occur in an area, and where various factors
have prevented natural fire cycles from
occurring. In these circumstances,
management ignited fires may be used, and
would attempt to simulate natural fire
intensity and timing. Specific objectives for
all management ignited fires would be
developed prior to its use in the Monument.
The use of non-native plants in conjunction
with fire rehabilitation is discussed in the
non-native plant section. All fire activities
would be conducted and coordinated with
appropriate fire management personnel, as
provided for in the Color Country Interagency
Fire Management Area annual operating plan.
With all of the methods described above,
vegetation monitoring plots would be
established to determine the effectiveness of
the treatments in achieving management
objectives and to provide baseline data of
overall change. This monitoring would
include species frequency, density and
distribution data, and would be part of the
overall adaptive management framework
described in Appendix 3.
Noxious Weed Control
In accordance with National and State
policies, the BLM is mandated to control
noxious weed species. Control of noxious
weeds is also a priority to achieve the overall
vegetation objectives stated above. In the
control of these invasive species it is
imperative to have an array of methods from
which to choose. Use of chemicals (aerial
spraying, hand spraying, and painting), hand
cutting, biological control agents, and manual
2.45
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
pulling are all viable methods for control of
noxious weed species. Each of these methods
has a place in the control of these invasive
species and would be evaluated for its
effectiveness as eradication projects are
designed. BLM employees or contractors
with appropriate certification would be
responsible for use of these chemicals and
would take precautions to prevent possible
effects to non-target plant species. Aerial
chemical applications could only be used in
limited circumstances where: (1)
accessibility is so restricted that no other
alternative means is available, (2) it can be
demonstrated that non-target sensitive species
or other Monument resources would not be
detrimentally affected, and (3) noxious weeds
are presenting a significant threat to
Monument resources. The GSENM Advisory
Committee would be consulted before the
aerial application of chemicals is permitted.
Working in conjunction with Kane and
Garfield Counties and adjacent U.S. Forest
Service and National Park Service staffs, the
BLM hopes to control noxious weed species
and prevent introduction of new invasive
species into the Monument and surrounding
ecosystems. An active control program
would target species in a prioritized manner.
Priorities for weed control may include:
invasiveness of the species, extent of
invasion, sensitivity of area being invaded,
and accessibility. Project level environmental
assessments or other NEPA analysis would
be completed prior to noxious weed removal
project initiation.
In addition to strategies for control of noxious
weeds, it is also imperative to reduce the
introduction of noxious weed species as
stated in Presidential Executive Order (EO
11312) on invasive species. Cooperative
programs established for control of these
species can also help identify potential new
invasions before area-wide establishment has
occurred. There are two policies which
would help to reduce potential noxious weed
introduction. First, the BLM requires that all
hay used on BLM lands be certified weed
free. This is a statewide policy which applies
to the Monument, as well as all other BLM
lands in the State of Utah. Second is the
requirement that all machinery that has been
used outside the Monument be cleaned prior
to use in the Monument. This provision
generally applies to contract equipment used
for projects such as construction of facilities
and firefighting equipment. Both of these
provisions would help reduce the introduction
and spread of noxious weed species in the
Monument. For major removal projects,
monitoring plots would be established in key
areas to determine effectiveness of methods
and presence of noxious weed species. All
projects would contain restoration and/or
revegetation protocols to minimize re-
colonization of treated areas by noxious weed
species. Monitoring in these areas would be
part of the adaptive management framework
described in Appendix 3.
Forestry Products
Fuelwood (green or dead and down)
harvesting, post cutting, and Christmas tree
cutting would be allowed by permit only
within designated areas (Map 2.2). There are
currently two fuelwood cutting areas located
in the Monument: Rock Springs Bench area
and Buckskin Mountain area. More areas
may be designated to meet the overall
vegetation management objectives, but would
not be allowed outside already disturbed
areas. All cutting areas would be designated
under a permit system, with maps provided to
assure compliance. Off-highway vehicle
restrictions discussed in previous sections
would apply to all of these activities and
vehicular travel would be allowed only on
designated routes. Vehicles would be
permitted to pull no more than 50 feet off of a
designated route in designated wood cutting
areas to load fuelwood in the Outback Zone,
the same as is allowed for accessing dispersed
primitive camping areas in that zone.
No commercial timber harvesting is
authorized within the Monument.
Commercial fuelwood cutting would be
limited and authorized in designated areas
only to accomplish the vegetation
management objectives.
Native Vs. Non-native Plants
In keeping with the overall vegetation
objectives and Presidential Executive Order
11312, native plants would be used as a
2.46
Map 2.2:
Forestry Product Areas
© Principal Communities
A/ Monument Boundary
A/ Highways 89 & 12
Other Roads
] Buckskin Mtn.
I Rock Springs Bench
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
GRAND STAIRCASE
ESCALANTE
^HH
Produced by
Grand Staircase- Escalante
National Monument
1999
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
priority for all projects in the Monument.
There are limited, emergency situations
where it may be necessary to use non-native
plants in order to protect Monument
resources by stabilizing soils and displacing
noxious weeds. This use would be allowed,
on a limited emergency basis, to the extent
that use complies with the vegetation
objectives, Presidential Executive Order
11312, and the Standards for Rangeland
Health and Guidelines for Grazing
Management for BLM Lands in Utah (1997).
In these situations, short-lived species (i.e.,
nurse crop species) would be used and would
be combined with native species to facilitate
the ultimate establishment of native species.
All projects proposed in the Monument
would contain a restoration or revegetation
component and would budget for the cost of
seeding with native species. All planning for
projects, in all except limited, emergency
situations, would use native species, and the
use of non-native species would not be
analyzed as an alternative.
Non-native plants may also be used for
restoration related research, if the use is
consistent with and furthers the overall
vegetation management objectives, and after
consultation with the GSENM Advisory
Committee. Non-native plants could not be
used to increase forage for livestock and
wildlife. If non-native plants are used in an
area, monitoring plots would be established to
document changes in vegetation structure and
composition and would be an integral part of
the adaptive management framework.
Reseeding after Fires
When deciding whether to reseed after fires,
there are many factors that should be
considered. The overriding consideration is
the vegetation management objective and
priority to use native plants. In trying to
make the determination of whether seeding
would help attain these objectives, there are
other considerations: (1) the structure and
diversity of vegetation in the area before it
burned, and (2) the presence of noxious
weeds in the area and the likelihood of such
weeds increasing as a result of a fire. Areas
with high species diversity and little potential
for noxious weed spread would not be
reseeded. Areas that had little diversity and
little potential for noxious weed invasion
would be seeded with native species
exclusively. Areas of low diversity and high
potential for noxious weed invasion would
most likely be seeded, and non-natives/native
seed mixes could be used if it was determined
that timing was critical and non-native
species would help prevent weed spread.
Each fire would have to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis to determine the
appropriate actions to meet the established
vegetation management objectives. Actions
may change over time as a result of new
research or other information in accordance
with the adaptive management framework
outlined in Appendix 3. If seeding with non-
natives is deemed necessary, it would be in
accordance with the provision stated above
(short-lived, nurse crop species with natives
in the mix).
The use of aircraft in reseeding operation may
be allowed in areas as appropriate. In areas
with raptor species, timing would be
appropriate to eliminate impacts to these
species.
Restoration and Revegetation
Although the terms revegetation, restoration,
reclamation, and rehabilitation are often used
interchangeably to describe placing
vegetation back into an area after disturbance,
they are very different processes and
concepts. Rehabilitation and reclamation are
both ambiguous terms which can imply either
restoration or revegetation depending on the
situation. Due to the ambiguity of these
terms they will not be used here. Restoration
and revegetation would both be used in the
Monument and, although they can be similar
in implementation, are very different
concepts. As such, they will be discussed
separately and used in situations where
appropriate.
Restoration is the process of returning
disturbed areas to a natural array of native
plant and animal associations. Although this
may sound easy, success rates are low and
restoration to pre-disturbance condition is
often difficult if not impossible to achieve. In
order to maximize the success of restoration,
projects are most often in areas away from
development, with little use, where restoring
the natural processes and functions of the
vegetation is desired. Restoration not only
denotes the return of the vegetation to the site,
2.49
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
but also the return of the entire system
functions that existed prior to disturbance.
This includes the return of soil characteristics,
water relations, associated wildlife and non-
dominant plants that are often omitted from
most projects.
Revegetation is the process of putting
vegetation back in an area where vegetation
previously occurred. In this case, the species,
their density, and their location in relation to
one another, may or may not simulate natural
conditions. The objective of revegetation
projects is to stabilize areas that are disturbed,
often from overuse by human activities, and
to prevent further degradation of a site.
Revegetation is also used to reduce the visual
contrast between the disturbed area and the
existing landscape where use would prevent a
return to predisturbance conditions. This type
of project often uses native species that are
easy to establish, drought tolerant, and simple
to propagate.
Many factors need to be considered when
deciding to implement a revegetation or
restoration strategy. Each project and area to
be treated must be evaluated to determine the
appropriate strategy. There are some general
guidelines that can be applied to determine
which strategy is the most appropriate and
how it would be implemented in order to be
consistent with the overall vegetation
management objectives.
1 . Restoration would be the goal whenever
possible (i.e., an attempt would be made
to return disturbed areas to conditions
which promote a natural array of native
plant and animal associations).
2. Species used in both restoration and
revegetation projects would comply with
the non-native plant policy described
above (i.e., native plants would be used as
a priority).
3. Revegetation strategies would be used in
areas of heavy visitation, where site
stabilization is desired.
4. Restoration provisions would be included
in all surface disturbing projects including
provisions for post restoration monitoring
of the area. Costs for these activities
would be included in the overall cost of
the project and would come out of the
entire project budget.
5. Priority for restoration or revegetation
would be given to projects where
Monument resources are being damaged.
These sites would likely be in areas near
development and/or heavy visitor use.
Although these areas are more likely to be
candidates for revegetation projects, careful
evaluation of disturbed sites needs to be
conducted to include desired future condition
of an area. Restoration of areas receiving
heavy use may include limits on visitor use in
order to promote recovery.
WATER-RELATED DEVELOPMENTS
(Non-Culinary)
Water developments could be used as a
management tool throughout the Monument
for the following purposes: better distribution
of livestock when deemed to have an overall
beneficial effect on Monument resources,
including water sources or riparian areas, or
to restore or manage native species or
populations. They could be done only when
there is no other means to achieve the above
objectives and only when the water
development would not jeopardize or dewater
streams or springs. Developments would not
be permitted to increase overall livestock
numbers. All developments would be subject
to NEPA analysis. Maintenance of existing
developments could continue, but may
require NEPA analysis and would have to be
consistent with the objectives of this Plan.
WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT
Vegetation in the Monument generally
evolved with fire as a minor part of the
ecosystem, as is evident from the flora and
soil characteristics. Periodic fires did occur
in the Monument, but little information is
known about the frequency or size of these
fires. The objective of the fire management
program would be to allow fire to play its
natural role in the ecosystem. Management
ignited fires may be initiated in areas where
fire suppression has disrupted natural fire
regimes. A full discussion on the use of
management ignited fire as a tool is discussed
2.50
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
in the Vegetation Management section in
this chapter. Specific objectives for
management ignited fire would be developed
prior to its use and with recommendations
from the GSENM Advisory Committee.
For all fire activities, the Monument is part of
the Color Country Interagency Fire
Management Area. This area includes Iron,
Washington, Beaver, Kane, and Garfield
Counties in Utah, and the BLM Arizona Strip
Field Office lands of Mohave County in
Arizona. This area was established to share
resources in southwestern Utah and
northwestern Arizona. An operating plan
outlining agency responsibilities and
organizational structure for suppression
activities is updated annually. Specific zoned
areas and policies have been established to
indicate how suppression activities would be
managed in the specific areas of the
Monument. Most of the Monument is
included in zones that have little fire
suppression activity. Some full suppression
zones occur within the Monument, found in
areas where protection of structures and
property are a concern. Protection of other
resources is fully integrated into the fire
management strategies for all of the zones in
southern Utah and northern Arizona. Heavy
equipment use is allowed through
authorization of the Monument Manager.
Changes in specific zone strategies may be
updated on an annual basis to assure
appropriate action is taken for fire
suppression in a given area. All changes in
zones and activities would be coordinated
with the Color Country Fire Management
Area staff following established processes. A
designated fire resource advisor familiar with
WSA issues would be consulted on all fires
within the Monument that involve WSAs.
WILDLIFE SERVICES
Wildlife Services (formerly Animal Damage
Control) activities within the Monument
would be limited to the taking of individual
coyotes within the immediate vicinity after
verified livestock kills, where reasonable
livestock management measures to prevent
predation had been taken and had failed.
Reasonable livestock management measures
could include preventative measures to
control predation, such as managing where
calving occurs, in order to develop improved
land management practices. No traps,
poisons, snares, or M44s would be allowed in
the Monument due to safety concerns and
potential conflicts with Monument resources.
Consistent with the Proclamation, bear and ,
mountain lion populations would be managed
under State regulations through the Division
of Wildlife Resources. This includes
regulations for hunting and regulations
covering depredating bears and mountain
lions.
WITHDRAWAL REVIEW
The Proclamation establishing the Monument
states: "All Federal lands and interests in
lands within the boundaries of this Monument
are hereby appropriated and withdrawn from
entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or
other disposition under the public land
laws..." The Proclamation also states:
"Nothing in this Proclamation shall be
deemed to revoke any existing withdrawal,
reservation, or appropriation; however, the
National Monument shall be the dominant
reservation." This statement refers to any
lands within the Monument that have been
removed or withdrawn from operation under
some or all of the public land laws (such as
mining and/or mineral leasing laws) by
statute or Secretarial order prior to the
Proclamation. These withdrawals were
imposed to achieve a variety of purposes, and
they remain in effect until specifically
revoked, or otherwise expire. Many were
established prior to the enactment of FLPMA
in 1976. Table 2.3 summarizes all existing
withdrawals in the Monument.
The BLM would continue to review
withdrawals within the Monument to
determine their consistency with the intent of
the withdrawal. Any withdrawals no longer
meeting their intended purpose would be
terminated under section 204 (1) of FLPMA.
Where appropriate, existing withdrawals
could also be modified or revoked under
Section 204 (a) of FLPMA to implement the
objectives of this Plan.
2.51
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
Table 2.3
Withdrawals/Classifications
Number
Type
Acres
248
Public Water Reserves
12,035.25
10
Reclamation
Withdrawals
17,496.00
3
Recreation
Classifications
7,940.00
Withdrawal for FERC
Project #2219
131.55
Withdrawal for FERC
Project #2642
57.14
Wolverine Petrified
Wood Area
1,520.00
Escalante Canyons
ONA
1,160.00
Devils Garden ONA
640.00
North Escalante
Canyon ONA
5,800.00
The Gulch ONA
3,430.00
Phipps-Death Hollow
ONA
34,300.00
Calf Creek Recreation
Area
5,835.00
Deer Creek Recreation
Area
640.00
Dance Hall Rock
Historic Site
640.00
SPECIAL EMPHASIS AREAS
AREAS OF CRITICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC) are areas within the public lands
where special management attention may be
required to protect important historic,
cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife
resources, or other natural systems or
processes, or to protect human life and safety
from natural hazards.
The BLM is required to consider designating
ACECs as part of the planning process.
FLPMA provides for ACEC designation and
establishes National policy for the protection
of public land ACECs.
The BLM called for ACEC nominations
within the Monument in March of 1998. In
addition, twenty-two nominations were
brought forward from earlier planning efforts.
Appendix 10 lists the ACEC nominations
received for this planning process and
describes the ACEC evaluation methods used.
After careful evaluation of the resources
recognized in each of the nominations, it was
determined that their protection would be
substantially equivalent under either
Monument authority or ACEC designation.
Therefore, it was concluded that no ACECs
were necessary, and that no ACECs would be
designated under the Monument Management
Plan.
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT
DESIGNATIONS
All existing special management designations
are consistent with the Proclamation and the
objectives of this Plan. It is recommended
that the following designations (Map 2.3)
would be continued:
• Calf Creek Recreation Area
• Deer Creek Recreation Site
• Devils Garden Outstanding Natural Area
• Dance Hall Rock Historic Site
• Escalante Canyons Outstanding Natural
Area (tracts 2, 3, 4 are included in North
Escalante Canyon/The Gulch ISA and
Tract 1 and 5 are separate)
• North Escalante Canyon Outstanding
Natural Area
• The Gulch Outstanding Natural Area
• Phipps-Death Hollow Outstanding
Natural Area
• No Mans Mesa
• Wolverine Petrified Wood Area
SPECIAL RECREATION
MANAGEMENT AREAS
Special Recreation Management Areas
(SRMA) are areas where more intensive
recreation management may be needed
because the area would be a focal point for
visitation (Highway 12 and 89 corridors) or
because recreational uses within the area need
to be closely managed or limited to prevent
conflicts with Monument resources
2.52
Map 2.3:
Special Management Designations
0 Principal Communities
A/ Monument Boundary
A/ Highways 89 & 12
A/ Other Roads
1 Calf Creek Recreation Area
2 Dance Hall Rock Historic Site
3 Deer Creek Recreation Site
4 Devils Garden Outstanding
Natural Area
5 Escalante Canyons Outstanding
Natural Area
6 No Mans Mesa Research Natural Area
7 North Escalante Canyon
Outstanding Natural Area
8 Phipps Death Hollow
Outstanding Natural Area
9 The Gulch Outstanding Natural Area
10 Wolverine Petrified Wood
Natural Environmental Area
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
Produced by
Grand Stairoase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
(Escalante Canyons, Paria/Hackberry, and
Fiftymile Mountain).
The Escalante Canyons, Paria/Hackberry, and
Paria Canyons and Plateaus would continue
to be managed as Special Recreation
Management Areas. Fiftymile Mountain, the
Highway 12 Corridor, and the Highway 89
Corridor would also be SRMAs (Map 2.4).
Management objectives for these areas are
outlined below. Management of these areas
would be accomplished through subsequent
integrated activity plans as discussed in
Appendix 3 .
Escalante Canyons SRMA
Area Description: The boundary line would
follow the geographical topography including
all the tributaries to the main Escalante
Canyon. It would include trailheads for all
the popular routes into the canyons.
Activities include: backpacking,
canyoneering, non-motorized boating, and
equestrian use.
Desired Future Condition: The overall
recreation experience would continue to be
primitive, uncrowded and remote. Overall
social encounters would remain low
compared to other southwest canyon hiking
opportunities. However, a range of social
encounters would be available, from
experiences where parties would be
encountered to experience where there would
be little or no contact with others. People
would be able to make informed decisions
about which recreation opportunities meet
their desires, and have their expectations met.
Monument resources would not be impaired.
Potential permit systems could address
general public, commercial, and
administrative users.
Paria/Hackberry SRMA
Area Description: This area would be
bordered on the west by Kitchen Canyon
Road, on the east by Cottonwood Canyon
Road corridor, on the south by the confluence
of Hackberry /Cottonwood Creeks and the
Paria River, and on the north by Dixie
National Forest, excluding the Skutumpah
corridor.
Activities include: backpacking,
canyoneering, and equestrian use.
Desired Future Condition: The overall
recreation experience would continue to be
primitive, uncrowded and remote. Equestrian
opportunities would be emphasized in Paria
Canyon, while backpacking opportunities
would be emphasized in Hackberry Canyon.
Potential permit systems could address
general public use and commercial users.
Paria Canyons and Plateaus SRMA
Area Description: This area encompasses
Buckskin Mountain, West Clark Bench, and
Cedar Mountain to connect to the BLM
Arizona Strip's "Canyons and Plateaus of the
Paria Resource Conservation Area." These
areas are located south of Highway 89, with
the Monument boundary marking the east
boundary.
Activities include: canyoneering, equestrian
use, backpacking, hiking, hunting, and scenic
touring along the House Rock Valley Road.
Desired Future Condition: The overall
recreation experience would continue to be
primitive, uncrowded and remote. Overall
social encounters would remain low
compared to other southwest canyon hiking
opportunities. However, a range of social
encounters occur. People would be able to
make informed decisions about which
recreation opportunities meet their desires,
and have their expectations met.
Scenic touring on the House Rock Valley
Road would accommodate passenger cars
most of the time. Use along the road could
become moderate.
Management of this SRMA would be in
coordination with the Kanab and the Arizona
Strip Field Offices.
2.55
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
Fiftymile Mountain SRMA
Area Description: Geographical area called
Fiftymile Mountain including trail access
points.
Activities include: equestrian use,
backpacking, and hunting.
Desired Future Condition: The recreation
experience would be primitive, uncrowded
and remote. Visitors would not be
encouraged to go to this area and commercial
outfitting would be extremely limited.
Highway 12 Corridor SRMA
Area Description: The Highway 12 corridor
located in the Monument, including Calf
Creek Campground and Interpretive Trail.
Activities include: scenic driving, day use
hiking, camping, equestrian use, road
bicycling, scenic and interpretive viewing.
Desired Future Condition: The recreation
experience would focus on learning about
geology, history, archaeology, biology, and
paleontology, in addition to scenic viewing.
Short interpretive trails and scenic overlooks
would be developed to encourage visitors to
learn more about these Monument resources.
Opportunities would accommodate all
visitors. Information stations located in
Boulder, Escalante, and Cannonville would
disseminate educational materials to further
information about these resources.
Highway 89 Corridor SRMA
Area Description: Highway 89 corridor
located in the Monument. This SRMA would
encompass the Paria Movie Set, the old
Pahreah townsite, and the Paria Contact
Station.
Activities include: scenic driving, day-use
hiking, camping, road and mountain
bicycling, scenic and interpretive viewing.
Desired Future Condition: The recreation
experience would focus on learning about
geology, history, archeology, biology, and
paleontology in addition to scenic viewing.
Short interpretive trails and scenic overlooks
would be developed to encourage visitors to
learn more about these Monument resources.
Opportunities would accommodate all
visitors. This corridor would be coordinated
with the Vermilion Cliffs Highway Project.
VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The wealth of landforms, geology, colors,
elevation changes, and vegetation types in the
Monument contribute to its outstanding
scenery. The BLM's objective would be to
preserve these spectacular scenic assets in
"this high, rugged, remote region, where bold
plateaus and multi-hued cliffs run for
distances that defy human perspective..."
(Proclamation 6920, 1996)
Visual Resource Management (VRM) would
be used as one tool to meet this objective
(other visual resource requirements are
discussed below). An inventory of visual
resources, using the procedures specified in
the BLM's Visual Resource Inventory
Manual H-8410-1, was updated after the
Monument was established. The updated
visual inventory classes were developed using
higher sensitivity ratings due to the high
visibility and sensitivity of visual resources
associated with a National Monument.
Utilizing the results of the visual resource
inventory and other resource allocation
considerations, 68 percent of the lands within
the Monument would be assigned to VRM
Class II and 32 percent of the lands within the
Monument would be assigned to VRM Class
II, as shown on Map 2.5.
These VRM Class assignments reflect the
visual resource analysis inventory upgraded
in those areas where the BLM deemed that
higher management class objectives were
appropriate. This upgrade included shifting
all Class IV areas into surrounding Class II or
III areas based on public comment and the
desire to have higher visual management
objectives in those areas. The VRM class
objectives are as follows:
Class II: The objective of this class is to
retain the existing character of the landscape.
The level of change to the characteristic
landscape should be low. Management
activities may be seen, but should not attract
the attention of the casual observer. Any
changes must repeat the basic elements of
2.56
Map 2.4:
Special Recreation
Management Areas
©
A/
Principal Communities
Monument Boundary
Highways 89 & 12
Other Roads
] Escalante Canyons
Highway 12 Corridor
Paria Canyons and
Plateaus
Paria/Hackberry
Fiftymile Mountain
Highway 89 Corridor
□
mm
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
ot sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
GRAND STAIRCASE
ESCALANTE
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Map 2.5:
Visual Resource Management
Inventory Classes
© Principal Communities
A/ Monument Boundary
A/ Highways 89 & 12
A/ Other Roads
□ Class II
H Class III
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
ot sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
GRAND STAIRCASE
ESCALANTE
gfjM^aag'mSg
m Bag
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
form, line, color, and texture found in the
predominant natural features of the
characteristic landscape.
Class III: The objective of this class is to
partially retain the existing character of the
landscape. The level of change to the
characteristic landscape should be moderate.
Management activities may attract attention
but should not dominate the view of the
casual observer. Changes should repeat the
basic elements found in the predominant
natural features of the landscape.
All proposed actions must consider the
importance of visual values and must
minimize the impacts the project may have on
these values. While performing an
environmental analysis for projects, the visual
resource contrast rating system would be
utilized as a guide to analyze potential visual
impacts of the proposal. Projects would be
designed to mitigate impacts and conform to
the assigned VRM Class objective and other
objectives including: (1) using natural or
natural appearing material as a priority, (2)
meeting restoration/revegetation objectives,
and (3) complying with the Monument
Facilities Master Plan.
Some types of projects such as rights-of-way
requests, valid existing rights, or ingress to
private land may be allowed on a case-by-
case basis in Class II or III areas. Visual
resource impacts in these instances would be
minimized by such measures as screening,
painting, project design, relocation, or
restoration.
The Monument Manager may allow
temporary projects, such as research projects,
to exceed VRM standards in Class II-III
areas, if the project terminates within two
years of initiation. Rehabilitation would
begin at the end of the two year period.
During the temporary project, the Manager
may require phased mitigation to better
conform with prescribed VRM standards.
The VRM classes acknowledge existing
visual contrasts. Existing facilities or visual
contrasts would be brought into VRM class
conformance to the extent practicable when
the need or opportunity arises (i.e., rights-of-
way renewals, mineral material site closures,
abandoned mine rehabilitation).
Areas that are designated Wilderness or
designated a wild section of a National Wild
and Scenic River in the Monument would be
reassigned to Class I VRM Class objectives at
the time the law creating Wilderness or
National Wild and Scenic River becomes
effective.
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
In this Plan, 223 miles of river segments
would be determined suitable and would be
recommended for Congressional designation
into the National Wild and Scenic River
System. The suitable river segments include:
Escalante River 1, 2, 3; Harris Wash; Lower
Boulder Creek; Slickrock Canyon; Lower
Deer Creek 1, 2; The Gulch 1, 2, 3; Steep
Creek; Lower Sand Creek and tributary
Willow Patch Creek; Mamie Creek and west
tributary; Death Hollow Creek; Calf Creek 1,
2, 3; Twenty- five Mile Wash; Upper Paria
River 1, 2; Lower Paria River 1, 2; Deer
Creek Canyon; Snake Creek; Hogeye Creek;
Kitchen Canyon; Starlight Canyon; Lower
Sheep Creek; Hackberry Creek; Lower
Cottonwood Creek; and Buckskin Gulch..
The suitable segments are shown on Maps 2.6
and 2.7. Rationale for suitability
determinations for all segments are found in
Appendix 1 1 .
The BLM would manage suitable segments
for the preservation of outstandingly
remarkable values. River segments
determined non-suitable would be managed
under the direction and prescriptions of this
Plan. While found non-suitable for wild and
scenic status, these river segments have
values that would be protected under the
prescriptions of this Plan.
WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS
Wilderness preservation is part of the BLM's
mandate. Pursuant to this mandate, certain
areas within the Monument have been
identified for Wilderness review. The
purpose of these areas, referred to as
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), is to protect
potential wilderness values until further study
is completed, recommendations on their
suitability for Wilderness designation are
2.61
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
made, and legislation takes effect to designate
them as part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System or release them from
further study or protection.
The Monument contains 16 WSAs, totaling
approximately 880,857 acres6, or about 47
percent of the BLM acres in the Monument
(Table 2.4 and Map 2.8). These WSAs were
identified in a 1978-80 inventory as having
wilderness character and thus worthy of
further study to determine their suitability for
designation as part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. In 1990, the Utah
Statewide Final Environmental Impact
Statement analyzed the suitability of the
WSAs for designation, and in 1991, the Utah
Statewide Wilderness Study Report made
suitability recommendations to Congress.
Further recommendations on wilderness
suitability are outside the scope of this Plan.
The 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory and
Section 202 Planning Process is described
below.
Existing WSAs in the Monument would be
managed under the BLM's Interim
Management Policy (IMP) and Guidelines for
Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM
Manual H-8550-1) until legislation takes
effect to change their status. The major
objective of the IMP is to manage lands under
wilderness review in a manner that does not
impair their suitability for designation as
wilderness. In general, the only activities
permissible under the IMP are temporary uses
that create no new surface disturbance nor
involve permanent placement of structures.
Temporary, non-disturbing activities, as well
as activities governed by valid existing rights,
may generally continue in WSAs.
Actions allowed under the IMP would also be
subject to other BLM laws and policies that
govern the use of public land, including
management prescriptions or other
restrictions developed in this Plan (where
they are consistent with the IMP). It is
important to note that some uses and activities
described in this Plan may not be achievable
under the IMP. For example, the
Frontcountry Zone overlaps WSAs in several
places, generally along Highways 12 and 89
(Map 2.9). The Frontcountry Zone could
allow activities such as interpretive structures
that would not be allowed in the WSA under
IMP. The reason for this inconsistency is that
zone boundaries were drawn with topography
and dominant terrain features in mind, along
with other management considerations such
as providing some areas along routes for
appropriate facilities such as pullouts. In any
case, where conflicts occur between the zone
prescriptions and IMP, IMP would take
precedence until action is taken by Congress
to either designate them or release them from
further protection. This Plan and zone
prescriptions would apply to any and all
public land within the Monument if Congress
releases them from WSA status.
2.62
Map 2.6: Escalante Drainage
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Suitable Segments
© Principal Communities
A/ Highway 12
/V Burr Trail/
Hole-in-the-Rock Road
RIVER CLASSES
/V Wild
A/ Scenic
A/ Recreational
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Map 2.7: Paria Drainage
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Suitable Segments
© Principal Communities
// Highway 89
A/ Cottonwood Road/
Skutumpah Road
RIVER CLASSES
A/ Wild
A/ Recreational
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Map 2.8:
Wilderness Study Areas
(•) Principal Communities
A/ Monument Boundary
A/ Highways 89 & 12
' Other Roads
I I Burning Hills
I I Carcass Canyon
Death Ridge
Devils Garden
CD
IZZI
nm
IZZI
cz
Escalante Canyons
Tract 5 ISA Complex
Fifty Mile Mountain
Mud Spring Canyon
North Escalante Canyons/
The Gulch ISA Complex
Pari a -Hack berry/
Paria-Hackberry 202
Phipps-Death Hollow
ISA Complex
Scorpion
Steep Creek
The Blues
The Cockscomb
Wahweap
^fr]
^*/
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Map 2.9:
Management Zones and
Wilderness Study Areas A
©
A/
Principal Communities
Monument Boundary
Highways 89 & 12
Other Roads
Frontcountry
Passage
Outback
Primitive
Wilderness Study
Areas
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
I
GRAND S
1 A I R<
ASK
■ ESCAI
AMI
3*^
■ mm « i « « > i s :
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
Table 2.4
Wilderness Study Areas
Name
Acres*
Phipps-Death Hollow Instant Study Area (ISA)
42,731
Steep Creek Wilderness Study Area (WSA)
21,896
North Escalante Canyons/The Gulch ISA
119,752
Carcass Canyon WSA
46,71 1
Scorpion WSA
35,884
Escalante Canyons Tract 1 ISA
360
Escalante Canyons Tract 5 ISA
760
Devils Garden ISA
638
The Blues WSA
19,030
Fiftymile Mountain WSA
146,143
Death Ridge WSA
62,870
Burning Hills WSA
61,550
Mud Spring Canyon WSA
38,075
The Cockscomb WSA
10,080
Paria/Hackberry and Paria/Hackberry 202 WSA
135,822
Wahweap WSA
134,400
* WSA/ISA acres are total BLM acres from the Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report, October 1 991 .
Total acres reported elsewhere in this Plan were generated by a Geographic Information System (GIS) and vary slightly
from those reported here.
THE 1999 UTAH WILDERNESS
INVENTORY AND SECTION 202
PLANNING PROCESS
In response to an ongoing debate over
whether additional lands in Utah should have
been designated for wilderness study as part
of the original inventory process under
section 603 of FLPMA, a subsequent
inventory of BLM lands was begun in 1996
and was completed in early 1999. This effort
inventoried areas covered in proposed
legislation before Congress at that time (HR
1500 and HR 1745). Out of 3.1 million acres
inventoried, the BLM found 2.6 million acres
with wilderness characteristics (in addition to
the existing WSAs in the State), of which
457,049 acres are within the Monument. In
March 1999, the BLM began a planning
process under Section 202 of FLPMA to
consider whether to include any of these
additional lands in new Section 202 WSAs.
The 202 process is being carried out
separately from the planning process for the
Monument, and is expected to be completed
in 2000. Thus, recommendations on
wilderness suitability for these areas are
beyond the scope of this Plan.
Because the reinventory results were not
available until February 1999, the Monument
Planning Team was not able to consider the
inventory in the development of the
DMP/DEIS released in November 1998.
While the reinventory results were available
for the preparation of this Plan, and while
2.71
Proposed Management Plan
Chapter 2
they were considered along with other
relevant inventories in the planning process,
the policy of the BLM is not to manage the
additional acres with wilderness
characteristics as if they were already in a
WSA. Thus, the prescriptions of this Plan
would apply to these lands unless additional
WSAs are identified. The BLM would
continue to give careful consideration before
acting affirmatively on any proposals for
activities on these lands. The normal
requirements of law, such as environmental
evaluation under NEPA, apply to any such
proposals.
COOPERATION AND
CONSULTATION
CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE
AMERICAN INDIANS
Although limited in the recent past, use by
Native American Indians of the Monument
and its resources has been extensive for
centuries prior to European contact. Native
American Indians continue to use this area for
plant collection and pilgrimages, and many
places within the Monument are considered
important to the continuity of their
contemporary cultures.
Consultation for this planning effort has been
undertaken with the following tribal groups:
Hopi, Zuni, Navajo, Kaibab Paiute, Paiute
Tribes of Utah, San Juan Paiute, and Ute.
Consultation has consisted of information
letters, telephone calls, meetings and field
trips. In addition to the planning effort, the
BLM has also conducted consultation on
BLM projects, Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act, and
workshops on potential interpretive topics
and perspectives. This consultation would
continue throughout Plan implementation.
The Monument has entered into active
agreements on the collection of ethnographic
data with the Hopi and the Kaibab Paiute. In
the coming years the BLM would expand this
effort to the other tribal groups and expand
the breadth of this program.
COOPERATION WITH COMMUNITIES
AND OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL
AGENCIES
The BLM 1997 Strategic Plan directs the
agency to promote collaborative land and
resource management to promote community-
based planning. Monument Managers are
committed to working with nearby
communities, counties, and other State and
Federal land management agencies to
cooperatively accomplish land use objectives
within the constraints of Federal law.
Examples of collaborative efforts already in
place include BLM participation with the
Southern Utah Planning Authorities Council
(SUP AC) (a forum where senior Federal,
State, and local officials meet regularly to
discuss and resolve southern Utah land use
planning issues); a quarterly coordination
meeting with Kane and Garfield County
Commissioners, where Federal land managers
are invited to discuss current management
projects; and extensive involvement in
administering specific projects within the
Monument. The Monument Manager has
directed staff to be available for any
reasonable request to attend informational
meetings. The Manager and staff have
attended dozens of such meetings throughout
the Nation and region to discuss the
Monument planning process and to foster
continuing public involvement. Chapter 4
describes the public participation process in
detail. Chapter 4 also includes a section
listing collaborative management objectives.
GSENM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument Advisory Committee (chartered
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act)
would be established to advise Monument
managers on science issues and the
achievement of management plan objectives.
This committee would serve solely as an
advisory committee, making
recommendations to Monument management.
Monument management would evaluate all
Advisory Committee recommendations, but
would ultimately be responsible for making
all final decisions. The primary purpose for
the establishment of this committee is to aid
in achievement of the management plan
objectives, through participation in the
adaptive management program. In this
capacity it would have several tasks. First
would be to review evaluation reports
2.72
Chapter 2
Proposed Management Plan
produced by the Management Science Team
(comprised of the Assistant Monument
Managers for Biological Sciences, Cultural
and Earth Sciences, and Visitor Services) and
make recommendations on protocols and
projects to meet overall objectives. These
evaluations would be completed regularly
(see Appendix 3, Implementation and
Adaptive Management Framework) and
would compile monitoring data and assess the
extent to which management plan objectives
are being met. The second task would be to
review research proposals and make
recommendations on project necessity and
validity. The Committee would also make
recommendations regarding allocation of
research funds through review of research
and project proposals as well as needs
identified through the evaluation process
above. Finally, the Committee could be
consulted on issues such as protocols for
specific projects (i.e., vegetation restoration
methods) or standards for excavation and
curation of artifacts and objects. This
Committee would meet at least twice a year
to accomplish the tasks outlined above.
This Committee would be comprised
primarily of scientists, reflecting its science
focus. There would be eight scientists
covering the areas of archaeology,
paleontology, geology, botany, wildlife
biology, history, social science, and systems
ecology. In addition to scientists, there would
be seven other Committee members: one
local elected official from each county, one
from State or tribal government, one from the
environmental community, one educator, one
from the outfitter and guide community
operating within the Monument, and one
from the ranching community, operating
within the Monument. These additional
members would facilitate communication
with adjacent agencies and stakeholders and
provide insight into community and
stakeholder concerns. Further details
regarding frequency of meetings and
selection of Committee members would be
developed in the charter establishing this
Committee.
END NOTES
1 . Some government entities may have a valid existing
right to an access route under Revised Statutes (R.S.)
2477, Act of June 26, 1866, ch. 262, § 8, 14 Stat. 251
[codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. § 932 until repealed
in 1 976 by the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Public Law 94-579, Section
706(a), Stat. 2744, 2793 (1976)], which granted "[the
right-of-way for the construction of highways over
public lands, not reserved for public uses.]" As
described in the United States Department of Interior,
Report to Congress on R.S. 2477 (June 1993), claims of
rights-of-ways under R.S. 2477 are contentious and
complicated issues, which have resulted in extensive
litigation. See e.g. Sierra Club v. Hotel, 848 F.2d 1068
(10th Cir. 1988): Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v.
Bureau of Land Management. Consolidated Case No.
2:96-CV-836-S (D. Utah, filed Oct. 3, 1996, pending). It
is unknown whether any R.S. 2477 claims would be
asserted in the Monument which are inconsistent with
the transportation decisions made in the Approved Plan
or whether any of those R.S. 2477 claims would be
determined to be valid. To the extent inconsistent
claims are made, the validity of those claims would have
to be determined. If claims are determined to be valid
R.S. 2477 highways, the Approved Plan would respect
those as valid existing rights. Otherwise, the
transportation system described in the Approved Plan
would be the one administered in the Monument.
2. A "right-of-way" refers to the public lands authorized
to be used or occupied pursuant to a right-of-way grant.
A right-of-way grant authorizes the use of a right-of-way
over, upon, under or through public land for
construction, operation, maintenance and termination of
a project (from 43 U.S.C. Section 1761-1771, 43 CFR
Ch. Ii, 2800.0-5).
3. An easement is a non-possessory, non-exclusive,
interest in land which specifies the rights of the holder
and the obligation of the Bureau of Land Management to
use and manage the lands in a manner consistent with
the terms of the easement, (from 43 U.S.C. 1732, 1733,
1740, 43 CFR 2920.0-5)
4. A lease is an authorization to possess and use public
land for a fixed period of time, (from 43 CFR 2920.0-5)
5. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of
1980 (16 U.S.C. 3210). The courts have found that this
provision applies nationally. Also found in BLM
Manual 2800.06B.
6. WSA acres reported here are larger than reported in
the DEIS because the boundary adjustment (Public Law
105-355) included more acres of the Wahweap WSA
within the Monument.
2.73
Chapter 3
Environmental Consequences
Chapter 3
Introduction - Environmental Consequences
INTRODUCTION
This chapter analyzes the environmental
impacts or effects of the management decisions
presented in Chapter 2. Since this Proposed
Plan describes an overall management
framework, and in most cases does not propose
specific on-the-ground projects or actions, the
environmental consequences are often
expressed in comparative, general terms.
Quantitative analysis has been included when
possible based on specific decisions proposed
in Chapter 2, as well as estimates of reasonably
foreseeable actions described below. In most
cases, subsequent analysis would be required to
implement resource management decisions.
More detailed or site-specific studies and
appropriate environmental documents will be
prepared in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its
implementing regulations, as needed.
TYPES OF IMPACTS
Impacts analyzed in this chapter include direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed
actions to the extent they were identifiable for
analysis. Where applicable, the short-term or
long-term nature of these effects are described.
Direct effects result from activities planned or
authorized by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and occur at the same time and place.
Indirect effects are caused by these actions and
occur later in time or farther removed in
distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.
Cumulative effects occur when there are
multiple effects on the same values. They are
incremental effects of proposed activities or
projects, when combined with past, present,
and future actions. As stated in 40 CFR
1508.7, a "... 'cumulative impact' is the impact
on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added
to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what
agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative
impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place
over a period of time... ." The cumulative
effects discussed in this chapter address
resources for which direct and indirect impacts
have been described earlier.
NEPA requires that the analysis of a Proposed
Action in an Environmental Impact Statement
address the following three topics:
1 . The relationship between short-term uses
of the environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term
productivity: Short-term impacts occur
during or immediately after project
placement and may continue for a period
of up to five years. Long-term impacts
occur beyond the first five years. Impacts
described in this chapter are usually direct
and long-term, unless otherwise indicated.
2. Irreversible or irretrievable commitments
of resources: Irreversible commitments of
resources are the result of actions in which
changes to resources are considered
permanent. Irretrievable commitments of
resources result from actions in which
resources are considered permanently lost.
A discussion of these impacts is included
in the Irreversible or Irretrievable
Commitments of Resources section at the
end of this chapter.
3. Unavoidable adverse effects: These are
the effects that cannot be avoided if the
proposal and mitigation measures
(incorporated as the design features of the
this Plan) are implemented. These effects
are described throughout this chapter in
each of the resource and use impact
sections. Mitigation and/or the nature of
the planned actions are designed to
minimize these effects. Many of these
stipulations for mitigation are included in
Appendix 4, Standard Procedures for
Surface Disturbing Projects or
Proposals.
The impacts of all decisions described in this
Proposed Plan are analyzed. However, only
those impacts and actions which are believed to
have reasonably foreseeable impacts are
discussed in detail. Programs or resources that
were determined, through scoping and
interdisciplinary evaluation, to have minimal,
insignificant impacts as a result of the planned
actions are not discussed in detail. A brief
discussion of these topics is included at the end
of this chapter.
3.1
Chapter 3
Introduction - Environmental Consequences
ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS AND
GUIDELINES
The following assumptions and guidelines were
used to guide and direct the analysis of
environmental consequences:
1 . This Proposed Plan would be implemented
substantially as described in Chapter 2.
2. The BLM would have sufficient funding
and personnel to implement the Plan.
3. The planning period for the analysis is the
next 15 years. Short-term impacts are
those that would occur during the first five
years of plan implementation. Long-term
impacts are those that would occur beyond
the first five years.
4. Measures would be taken to protect and
encourage recovery of species listed as
Federally endangered or threatened.
5. The geographic area that has the potential
to be cumulatively affected by a
combination of decisions and actions by
the BLM and other agencies or persons is
primarily within the boundaries of Kane
and Garfield Counties, Utah, except for
economic impacts, which are discussed for
a five county region.
6. Current upward trends in recreation use
would continue as discussed in Chapter 3
of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS).
7. Specific actions to protect human life
would be taken regardless of the
management criteria in this Plan.
8. Livestock grazing would continue to be
governed by applicable laws and
regulations.
9. The Plan would be subject to valid
existing rights and other existing
authorizations in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations.
10. Any projects authorized by the BLM
would be required to obtain necessary
permits and authorizations from other
Federal, State and local agencies.
1 1 . Research would continue to be funded, at
least at current levels.
12. Impacts associated with the use of
facilities, routes, and trails usually occur
within % mile due to ease of access and
use patterns.
13. Acreages reported in the analysis are
Geographic Information System (GIS)
numbers and not legal acreages.
14. Wild and Scenic River miles used in this
analysis are for all suitable segments
within the boundary of the Monument.
The miles reported in Chapter 2, and in
the Wild and Scenic River Appendix 1 1 ,
include segments in the Paria Wilderness
Area. It does not include small segments
in the Escalante Canyons area that are
being handled by Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area, since the majority of
these river segments are located on lands
administered by the them.
INCOMPLETE OR UNAVAILABLE
INFORMATION
There is less than complete knowledge about
many of the relationships and conditions of
wildlife species, vegetation associations, the
economy, and communities. The ecology,
inventory, and management of arid ecosystems
is a complex and developing discipline. The
biology of specific species prompts questions
about population dynamics and habitat
relationships. The interaction among resource
protection, the economy, and rural communities
is also poorly understood and is the subject of
much debate.
Although there is a substantial amount of
credible information about the general topic of
arid ecosystems management, the lack of
specific information creates uncertainty for
managers. Still, in development of this
environmental impact statement, the central
relationships and basic data are sufficiently
established for the formulation of decisions for
this Plan. The best available information was
used to evaluate and formulate these decisions.
When encountering a gap in information, the
question implicit in the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations on
incomplete or unavailable information was
posed: Is this information "essential to a
reasoned choice among alternatives"? (40 CFR
1502.22(a)). While additional information
would often add precision to estimates or better
specify a relationship, the basic data and central
3.2
Chapter 3
Introduction - Environmental Consequences
relationships are sufficiently established such
that new information would be unlikely to
completely reverse or nullify understood
relationships. Though new information would
be welcome, no missing information was
considered to be essential to a reasoned choice
among the decisions or alternatives as they
were constituted.
Nonetheless, the precise relationships between
the amount and quality of habitat or the
location of other Monument resources is far
from certain; there is a certain level or risk
inherent in the management of any ecosystem.
All other things being equal, the lesser the
information, the greater the risk attributable to
incomplete knowledge. That relationship is an
impetus for the implementation and adaptive
management framework described in Appendix
3 of this Plan. Should there be new scientific
information regarding the protection of
resources in the Monument, there are
provisions for changing management practices
to reflect the new information, as long as
actions are consistent with the overall direction
of this Plan. This adaptive management
process - which is guided by monitoring,
research, and GSENM Advisory Committee
oversight - provides additional assurance that
incomplete information would not undermine
proper management of the ecosystem.
MITIGATION
Mitigation is important in the design and
implementation of any action. In general,
mitigation is a measure taken to cause an action
to become less harsh or less severe. From the
CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.20),
mitigation includes:
• Avoiding the impact altogether by not
taking a certain action or parts of an
action
• Minimizing impacts by limiting the
degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation
Rectifying the impact by repairing,
rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment
• Reducing or eliminating the impact over
time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action
• Compensating for the impact by replacing
or providing substitute resources or
environments
Mitigating measures have been incorporated
and evaluated for activities and decisions
described in Chapter 2 of this Plan and
throughout the discussion of environmental
consequences in this chapter. For the actions
analyzed in this Plan, mitigating measures are
addressed as design features of the proposed
actions themselves, primarily through land
allocations, management practices, and
standards as described in Chapter 2.
REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
ACTIONS
A Reasonably Foreseeable Action (RFA) is a
potential future action where specific decisions
cannot be determined during development of
an overall plan. RFAs are used to help predict
impacts. The RFAs are not actual allocations or
decisions, but a best estimate or a guideline for
what actions may be taken in the future, given
the overall guidance in this Plan. Table 3.1
provides the RFAs that have been used in this
analysis.
RFAs are developed through interdisciplinary
team discussion using past and present
information to make an informed estimate of
the potential action and its impacts. In
developing the RFAs, the BLM considered
current resource conditions and trends, the
restrictions or opportunities provided by the
planned actions, and known or potential
projects and proposals in and around Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument
(GSENM). Predictions of potential projects are
based on professional judgement regarding
approximate project locations, general site
conditions and design features commonly
applied to such projects, and do not definitively
forecast the outcome of site-specific analysis
required prior to implementation of any project.
For example, this Plan does not make specific
decisions on the number or length of new
rights-of-way to private land because the need
for such rights-of-way is uncertain at this time.
However, an estimate of such requests over the
next 15 years can be made for analysis
purposes. These estimates are based on
knowledge of the amount of private inholdings
that do not have access currently, and estimates
of miles of rights-of-way needed to access these
parcels. Based on this information, an estimate
of 3.5 miles was made for analysis purposes.
3.3
Chapter 3
Introduction - Environmental Consequences
Table 3.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (RFAs)1
(RF As are not actual decisions, but are estimates of actions used to help predict impacts)
Management Activity
Recreation sites
Designated primitive
camping areas:
Communication sites
Utility rights-of-way
(ROW) (large)
Projects over 15 years
Disturbed Acres
Total Disturbance
32 sites
0.5 acres/site
1 6 acres
35 camping areas
2 acres/area
70 acres
2 sites
1 acre/site
2 acres
1 ROW
1 50 acres/ROW
150 acres
Utility rights-of-way
(small)
20 ROWs
5 acres/ROW
1 00 acres
Road rights-of-way
3.5 miles
2.4 acres/mile
8.4 acres
Water developments
10 developments
1 acres/site
1 0 acres
Vegetation restoration
methods
20,000 acres
1,000
3,000 acres/year
20,000 acres
'Estimates of disturbance for valid existing rights (e.g., mineral development) are not included because insufficient
information is currently available to predict where resources will be discovered or the extent of development that may occur
(refer to the Full Field Development section in the DEIS).
: Includes estimates of areas that would be designated in the Frontcountry and Passage Zones where camping would be
allowed in designated areas only. This estimate does not include areas that may be needed elsewhere to correct resource
damage.
PROPOSED PLAN IMPACT
ANALYSIS
The impact analysis for resources and uses
follows. A discussion of cumulative impacts
is included in each resource section under
Summary of Effects. An overall discussion
of cumulative impacts of actions outside the
scope of this Plan is also included in the
Cumulative Impacts section at the end of
this chapter.
In response to public comments, the impact
analysis provided is more detailed for some
aspects than that provided in the DEIS. For
example, additional projections of reasonably
foreseeable actions (RFAs) and more explicit
analysis of spatial impacts of routes have been
provided for this Plan. Where that additional
detail would have varied appreciably among
the DEIS alternatives, additional analysis for
those alternatives has been provided (see
Chapter 5, ACC-14). Where that additional
detail would not vary appreciably by
alternative (e.g., RFAs that are likely to occur
under all alternatives, or the analysis of visitor
impacts in the vicinity of existing recreational
facilities), additional analysis of the DEIS
alternatives has not been provided. Since
these impacts would not have varied by
alternative, more detailed analysis of such
impacts by alternative would not have
contributed to the selection of this Plan or
altered the central relationships upon which
the DEIS and this Plan are based.
3.4
Chapter 3
Paleontological Resources - Environmental Consequences
IMPACTS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Introduction
Paleontological sites contain a wealth of information about prehistoric life and environments during the last part of
the Paleozoic Era and throughout the Mesozoic Era. The sequence of rocks found on the Kaiparowits Plateau
contains one of the best and most continuous records of Late Cretaceous terrestrial life in the world. Protection of
these resources is a priority in management of the Monument. The locations of many paleontological resources
within the Monument are yet unknown. However, studies show that Monument lands sustain widespread and
varied paleontological resources.
Summary of Effects
Impacts to paleontological resources result directly from surface disturbing activities such as: vehicle and human
use; construction of recreational facilities and water developments; and vegetation restoration activities. Indirect
impacts also result from these activities by causing erosion and allowing access for unauthorized collection. There
is a potential for cumulative surface disturbance of approximately 360 acres from reasonably foreseeable activities
such as recreation facilities, rights-of-way, and water developments over the 1 5 year planning horizon. Much of
the surface disturbance associated with recreational facilities would occur in areas already disturbed by existing
camping or other uses. Subsequently, acres of disturbance from these activities would likely be less than are
reported here. In addition, visitor and livestock use has the potential to cause surface disturbance which is difficult
to estimate. Vegetation restoration methods also have the potential to cause surface disturbance on 20,000 acres
over the 15 year planning horizon. These methods would be used to restore native plant associations and would
occur primarily in areas already disturbed. These areas would be surveyed prior to project initiation. This Plan
would afford substantial protection to paleontological resources through: closure of vehicular travel off of
designated routes; avoidance when placing facilities; monitoring and surveying around current facilities and
transportation corridors; surveying prior to vegetation restoration and other projects; and restrictions on visitor use
(e.g., allocations, barriers, temporary closures).
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Collections
Commercial Filming
Paleontological resources in the Monument are protected from collection by the Proclamation and this Plan.
Impacts from unauthorized collection would be substantially reduced by this restriction. In sensitive areas where
collection of fossils occurred prior to Monument designation, interpretive information would be developed and
disseminated in order to educate the public about the sensitivity and importance of these resources. Information
could include interpretive displays, brochures, visitor center displays and information on the website.
Commercial filming in the Monument would be limited to minimum impact standards, which include provisions
that would prevent disturbance or clearing of vegetation and associated soil erosion. These provisions include: no
use of heavy equipment and no travel off of designated routes. A full list of these restrictions is found in Chapter
2, Commercial Filming. Films documenting paleontological resources in the Monument could help educate
3.5
Chapter 3
Paleontological Resources - Environmental Consequences
Commercial Filming cont.
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-of-
Way, and Road Rights-of-Way
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Livestock Grazing
people about these resources, but filming relating to any aspect of the Monument may bring more people to the
area, possibly causing increased use and damage as described below in the Recreational Facilities and Use section.
Clearing areas for the placement of communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way directly
impacts paleontological resources by destroying fossils during leveling and other installations activities. These
activities indirectly impact resources through clearing vegetation and biological soil crusts, which allows for
erosion of soil and further degradation of fossils. It is reasonably foreseeable that 1 large and 22 small
communication or utility rights-of-way facilities, and 3.5 miles of road rights-of-way, would be constructed over
the next 15 years, disturbing 150, 102, and 8.4 acres respectively. These sites would generally not be allowed on
1,21 1,386 acres of the Monument (except for communication sites, which may be allowed throughout the
Monument for safety purposes only, and road rights-of-way for private inholdings). Although these sites are
allowed on 654,034 acres, areas with known, unique paleontological resources would be avoided. In other areas,
sites would be surveyed prior to construction. In the event that unique fossils are found in these areas, the location
of sites or rights-of-way would be moved to avoid these impacts. In other cases, where ubiquitous fossils are
present, samples may be taken to record their presence and the site may be allowed. A feasibility study for
communication sites in the Monument would be completed, identifying appropriate areas for construction of these
facilities.
Non-surface disturbing research activities which focus on increasing the knowledge of the distribution and type of
paleontological resources in the Monument, or which result in stabilizing or preserving paleontological resources at
risk of being damaged or destroyed, would be encouraged. Monitoring initiated as part of the adaptive
management framework (Appendix 3) would provide information regarding the condition of paleontological
resources in the Monument. It would also provide a mechanism for alteration in management if degradation was
determined to be occurring.
Surface disturbing research activities have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources. Surface
disturbing research projects would be evaluated by the BLM, and the GSENM Advisory Committee would be
consulted for recommendations, on whether research proposals warrant exceptions, whether they could be
permitted in a manner consistent with the protection of Monument resources, and whether the methods proposed
are the minimum necessary to achieve desired research objectives. The Monument science program would ensure
that scientific resources are not only available for current research opportunities, but that certain scientific
resources are preserved in place for future study. Prior to initiation of these projects, excavation and curation of
paleontological features may be initiated, if deemed necessary.
Livestock grazing has the potential to impact paleontological resources directly by trampling, and indirectly
through accelerating erosion. Livestock grazing uses within the Monument would be managed in keeping with
applicable laws and regulations, and with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. In the
3.6
Chapter 3
Paleontological Resources - Environmental Consequences
Livestock Grazing cont.
Recreational Facilities and Use
evaluation of allotments as part of the Standards and Guidelines implementation, the effects of livestock grazing on
paleontological resources would be assessed. Monitoring for sensitive paleontological resources would be initiated
when necessary to determine if damage or destruction were occurring. If these impacts were found, fences or other
barriers would be constructed, or other measures would be taken to prevent further impacts from livestock grazing.
Clearing areas for the placement of visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking areas, picnic areas,
pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets) directly impacts paleontological resources by
destroying fossils during leveling, construction, drilling for posts, and/or other installation activities. These
activities indirectly impact resources through clearing vegetation and biological soil crusts, and from increased
visitor use around sites, allowing for erosion of soil and further degradation of fossils. Unauthorized collection
may also occur from increased use surrounding these sites. Projected increases in use would result in an increase
of this type of impact. This type of impact is typically limited to within V* mile of recreation sites.
Currently there are 36 recorded paleontological sites within V* mile of existing recreation facilities and 106 known
sites within V* mile of trails. These sites would be evaluated for impacts and monitoring plots would be established
when the unique nature of fossils warrants close attention. Additional surveys would be conducted in these areas to
ensure impacts to unknown resources are not occurring. Due to the large number of paleontological sites present,
monitoring on all sites may not be possible, resulting in damage or destruction of paleontological resources. If
degradation from visitor use is found in these areas, sites may be closed or allocations initiated to reduce the
number of people in the area.
New recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones,
except for those necessary to protect resources. Dispersed primitive camping and pack stock use in these zones
may lead to impacts to paleontological resources from trampling or unauthorized collection. Group size
restrictions of 12 and 25 respectively would reduce the potential for these impacts. Where impacts are documented
in a given area, camping may be restricted to a designated and clearly delineated area away from sensitive
resources. This would limit more widespread impacts and disturbance. Such areas would only be designated in
these zones for resource protection purposes and would most often be designated in areas currently disturbed by
camping use. Limits on the number of people in these areas, through the implementation of an allocation system,
would also help t© reduce impacts from this type of use.
Although there is the potential for 32 new recreation sites disturbing 16 acres in the Frontcountry and Passage
Zones (1 16,372 acres), areas with known, unique paleontological resources would be avoided. In other areas, sites
would be surveyed prior to construction. In the event that unique fossils are found in these areas, the location of
recreation sites would be moved to avoid these impacts. In other cases, where common, ubiquitous fossils are
present, samples may be taken to record their presence, and the site may be allowed with interpretive displays and
signs used to educate the public on the protection of paleontological resources.
3.7
Chapter 3
Paleontological Resources - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
Transportation
It is reasonably foreseeable that 35 new primitive camping areas would be designated in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones, disturbing 70 acres. Surface disturbance, monitoring, curation and excavation would occur as
described previously. Most of these areas would be designated where primitive camping currently occurs, so new
surface disturbance would actually be less than 70 acres. Camping would not be allowed elsewhere in these two
zones (except in existing campgrounds), reducing the potential for more widespread impacts.
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed and site
specific impacts to paleontological resources would be addressed.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations (see
the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2). This
would afford substantial protection to paleontological resources from the direct effects of vehicle use off of
designated routes (e.g., destruction, damage), and from the indirect effects (e.g., unauthorized collection, erosion)
of continued cross-country vehicle access. There is the potential for direct and indirect impacts to paleontological
resources from unauthorized travel of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and bicycles off these routes. Enforcement, as
described in the Enforcement section of Chapter 2, would reduce the possibility of unauthorized use off of these
designated routes.
Use of 888 miles of designated routes may contribute to unauthorized collection. It is assumed that this type of
impact on paleontological resources is generally limited to within % mile of routes. Projected increases in use
would increase the potential for these impacts. Currently there are 245 paleontological sites known to occur within
% mile of designated routes. As described for recreation sites, unique paleontological resources would be
monitored and/or surveyed to determine impacts, and appropriate actions (e.g., barriers, excavation and curation,
allocations) would be taken when determined necessary for protection.
While motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes, there is a provision for pulling no more
than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking or primitive camping in the Outback Zone (618 miles of routes).
There are currently 12 known paleontological sites within 50 feet of these routes, which may result in damage or
destruction of these resources. These sites would be monitored and protected as described previously.
Maintenance of designated routes has the potential to directly and indirectly cause impacts as described for other
surface disturbing activities, such as communication sites and recreation sites. Maintenance activities would occur
on 888 miles of designated routes in the Monument, but these activities would not be allowed outside the current
disturbance on most of the routes. In the limited cases where maintenance activities would occur outside of the
existing disturbance, areas would be inventoried and sites would be protected as described above for Recreational
Facilities and Use.
Chapter 3
Transportation cont.
Paleontological Resources - Environmental Consequences
Use of 192 miles of administrative routes throughout the Monument has the potential to indirectly impact
paleontological resources by causing erosion. Erosion control structures would be installed when necessary to
minimize these impacts. Maintenance of these routes would be the minimum necessary to keep them accessible to
high clearance vehicles. However, any maintenance that requires new surface disturbance would require
inventories and appropriate protection as described above. Unauthorized collection, and impacts to 28 sites within
'/i mile, are not likely to occur since use along these routes would be limited and only by authorized users.
Vegetation Management
Water Issues
Wilderness Study Area Protection
This Plan would close approximately 1,087 miles of routes currently open to public travel. Chapter 2 includes a
strategy for closing and restoring these routes to conditions present before disturbance, minimizing indirect impacts
from erosion in these areas. Although restoration would be a priority for the protection of sensitive resources, not
all sites can be restored simultaneously, which may result in some continued impacts to paleontological resources.
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed areas
to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration work could be
completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would primarily
consist of management ignited fires. These treatments would be used to establish a natural range of native plant
associations as stated in the vegetation management objective. Surveys would be conducted in these areas for
paleontological resources prior to restoration, and areas with sensitive paleontological resources would be avoided,
as described previously for other surface disturbing activities. Project level NEPA analysis would also be
completed prior to initiation of these projects.
It is reasonably foreseeable that up to 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years, could
be permitted in cases where an overall benefit to Monument resources could be demonstrated. There is the
potential for disturbance, damage, or destruction of paleontological resources from surface disturbing construction,
and from impacts associated with the subsequent concentration of use in the immediate vicinity of some water
developments, such as troughs or impoundments. Areas for potential development would be surveyed for
paleontological resources prior to construction, and if resources were found, the sites would be relocated.
Maintenance of existing water developments has the potential to disturb, damage, or destroy paleontological sites
through surface disturbing maintenance activities. Project level NEPA analysis and inventories for these resources
could be required prior to the authorization of maintenance activities.
Until legislation takes effect to change their status, the BLM's Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for
Lands under Wilderness Review (IMP) would prevent most surface disturbance on 880,857 acres currently
designated as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). This would prevent degradation of paleontological resources from
the activities described above in these areas.
3.9
Chapter 3
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Archaeological and Historic Resources - Environmental Consequences
Fires occur infrequently in the Monument and do not directly impact paleontological resources. Emergency use of
equipment, such as chaining, for fire restoration has the potential to impact paleontological sites and resources
directly by destroying fossils, or indirectly by clearing vegetation and biological soil crusts, which allows for
erosion. These methods would not be used for management ignited fires and are only allowed under limited
circumstances as described in the Vegetation Restoration Methods section of Chapter 2. Even though it is
impossible to determine where emergency fire restoration would be needed, surveys would be conducted for
paleontological resources (as well as other resources) in burned areas, prior to use of equipment. Areas with
sensitive paleontological resources would be avoided, as described previously for other surface disturbing
activities.
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
No reasonably foreseeable effects to paleontological resources would be expected from proposed decisions
listed under the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, Riparian Resources Program, Special
Status Species Program, Visual Resource Management (VRM), Weed Management, Wild and Scenic Rivers,
Wildlife Services.
IMPACTS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Monument lands sustain an extensive array of varied, non-renewable prehistoric archaeological sites, including
clusters of unique sites which represent contact between the Fremont and Anasazi people in the Kaiparowits
region. The distances, aridity, cliffs, and terraces have shaped the communities which are located on the
periphery of the Monument. Early Mormon pioneers left many historic objects including: trails, inscriptions,
and remnants of towns. The locations of many cultural resource sites within the Monument are yet unknown.
The data on historic sites have largely been developed through oral histories and other anecdotal information
over the last two years and have not been verified in the field. The majority of the archaeological sites
documented to date are close to routes due to easy accessibility. Numerous unidentified sites are expected to
occur throughout the Monument.
Damage, degradation, and destruction of archaeological and historic resources result directly from surface
disturbing activities such as: vehicle, human, and livestock use; construction of facilities, communication sites,
and water developments; maintenance of routes; wildfires; and vegetation restoration methods or any other
ground disturbing activity. Indirect impacts also result from these activities, by causing erosion and allowing
access for unauthorized collection. There is a potential for cumulative surface disturbance of approximately
360 acres from reasonably foreseeable activities such as recreation facilities, rights-of-way, and water
developments over the 15 year planning horizon. Much of the surface disturbance associated with recreational
facilities would occur in areas already disturbed by existing camping or other use. Subsequently, acres of
disturbance from these activities would likely be less than are reported here. In addition, visitor and livestock
use have the potential to cause surface disturbance which is difficult to estimate. Vegetation restoration
3.10
Chapter 3
Summary of Effects cont.
Archaeological and Historic Resources - Environmental Consequences
methods also have the potential to cause surface disturbance on 20,000 acres over the 15 year planning horizon.
These methods would be used to restore native plant associations and would occur primarily in areas already
disturbed. These areas would be surveyed prior to project initiation. This Plan would offset most of these
impacts to archaeological and historic resources through: closure of vehicular travel off of designated routes;
avoidance when placing facilities; monitoring and surveys around current facilities and transportation corridors;
surveys prior to vegetation restoration or other projects; identification of sensitive resources for avoidance
during fire suppression; restrictions on visitor use (group size, allocations, barriers, temporary closures); and
visitor education. In areas where impacts could not be offset, excavation and curation of archaeological and
historic resources would be initiated.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Collections
Commercial Filming
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of- Way, and Road Rights-of- Way
Archaeological and historic sites continue to be protected from destruction and artifact collection by existing
laws and regulations and the Proclamation. Regardless, unauthorized collection of archaeological resources
continues. In areas of known destruction or damage, sites would be closed where possible, and/or excavated as
a last resort, and the artifacts curated to document the information contained in these sites. Monitoring and
inventory work would be initiated in areas determined to be sensitive and high priority, which would help
determine where resources and impacts occur. Information on the location of archaeological resources would
be protected to maintain site integrity and prevent looting of these sites. Interpretive information would be
developed and disseminated in order to educate the public about the sensitivity and importance of these
resources. This would be done to prevent inadvertent damage to archaeological and historic resources.
Information could include interpretive displays, guided tours, brochures, visitor center displays and information
on the website.
Commercial filming in the Monument would be limited to minimum impact standards, which include
provisions that would prevent disturbance or clearing of vegetation and associated soil erosion. These
provisions include: no use of heavy equipment and no travel off of designated routes. A full list of these
restrictions is found in Chapter 2, Commercial Filming. Films documenting these resources in the Monument
could help educate people about these resources, but filming relating to any aspect of the Monument may bring
more people to the area, possibly causing increased use and damage as described below in the Recreational
Facilities and Use section.
Clearing areas for the placement of communication sites, utility rights-of-way and road rights-of-way directly
impacts archaeological and historic resources by destroying artifacts and structures during leveling and other
installations activities. These activities indirectly impact resources through clearing vegetation and biological
soil crusts, allowing for erosion of soil and further degradation of sites. Often it is not evident that sites are
present until such activities are initiated. It is reasonably foreseeable that 1 large and 22 small communication
3.11
Chapter 3
Archaeological and Historic Resources - Environmental Consequences
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of-Way, and Road Rights-of-Way cont.
or utility rights-of-way facilities, and 3.5 miles of road rights-of-way, would be constructed in the Monument
over the next 15 years, disturbing 150, 102, and 8.4 acres respectively. These sites would generally not be
allowed on 1,21 1,386 acres of the Monument (except for communication sites, which may be allowed
throughout the Monument for safety purposes only, and road rights-of-way for private inholdings). Although
these sites are allowed on 654,034 acres, areas with known archaeological and historic resources would be
avoided. In other areas, sites would be surveyed prior to and during construction. In the event that artifacts are
found, the location of sites would be moved to avoid these impacts. A feasibility study for communication sites
in the Monument would be completed, identifying appropriate areas for construction of these facilities.
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Livestock Grazing
Non-surface disturbing research activities which focus on increasing knowledge of the distribution and type of
archaeological and historic resources in the Monument, or which result in stabilizing or preserving at risk
resources, would be encouraged. Monitoring initiated as part of the adaptive management framework would
provide information regarding the condition of archaeological and historic resources in the Monument and
would provide a mechanism for alteration in management if degradation was determined to be occurring.
Surface disturbing research activities have the potential to damage or destroy artifacts, rock art, and structures in
archaeological and historic sites. Surface disturbing research projects would be evaluated by the BLM, and the
GSENM Advisory Committee would be consulted for recommendations on whether research proposals warrant
exceptions, could be permitted in a manner consistent with the protection of Monument resources, and whether
the methods proposed are the minimum necessary to achieve desired research objectives. The Monument
science program would ensure that scientific resources are not only available for current research opportunities,
but that certain scientific resources are preserved in place for future study. If the surface disturbing research
were allowed to proceed, excavation and curation of archaeological sites would be initiated.
Livestock grazing has the potential to impact archaeological and historic resources directly by trampling
artifacts, mixing cultural materials, pushing over standing structures, rubbing on rock art panels, concentrating
use in alcoves, and surface disturbance from construction of range facilities. Indirectly, livestock use has the
potential to impact archaeological and historic resources by accelerating erosion, leading to the destruction of
standing structures and uncovering buried artifacts, which may subsequently be trampled. Additionally,
concentrating use around range facilities has the potential to impact sites in close proximity to these facilities.
Livestock grazing uses within the Monument would be managed in keeping with applicable laws and
regulations, and with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. In the evaluation of allotments
as part of the Standards and Guidelines implementation, the effects of livestock grazing on archaeological and
historic resources would be assessed. Monitoring for sensitive archaeological and historic resources would be
initiated when necessary to determine if damage or destruction were occurring. If these impacts were found,
fences or other barriers would be constructed, or other measures would be taken to protect archaeological and
3.12
Chapter 3
Archaeological and Historic Resources - Environmental Consequences
Livestock Grazing cont.
Recreational Facilities and Use
historic resources. Construction of new range facilities would require inventory and would avoid
archaeological and historic sites, with project level NEPA analysis completed for all projects.
Clearing areas for the placement of visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking areas, picnic
areas, pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets) directly impacts archaeological and
historic resources by destroying artifacts, structures and sites during leveling, construction, drilling for posts
and/or other installation activities. These activities indirectly impact resources through clearing vegetation and
biological soil crusts, and from increased visitor use around sites, allowing for erosion of soil and further
degradation of sites. Unauthorized collection may also occur from increased use surrounding these sites.
Projected increases in use would result in an increase of this type of impact. This type of impact is typically
limited to within % mile of recreation sites due to short travel distances for most visitors, ease of access, and
ability to take artifacts away in vehicles.
Currently there are 65 recorded archaeological and historic sites within % mile of existing recreation facilities
and 265 within % mile of existing trails. These sites would be evaluated for impacts, and monitoring plots
would be established when sensitivity of the sites warrants close attention. Surveys would continue in these
areas to locate additional sites for evaluation and protection. Due to the large number of archaeological and
historic sites present, monitoring on all sites may not be possible. This has the potential to result in damage or
destruction of these resources. If degradation were found from visitor use in these areas, sites may be closed or
allocations initiated to reduce the number of people in the area.
New recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones,
except for those necessary to protect resources. Dispersed primitive camping and pack stock use in these zones
may lead to impacts to archaeological and historic resources from trampling or unauthorized collection. Group
size restrictions of 12 and 25 respectively would reduce the potential for these impacts. Where impacts are
documented in a given area, camping may be restricted to a designated and clearly delineated area away from
sensitive resources. This would limit more widespread impacts and disturbance. Such areas would only be
designated in these zones for resource protection purposes and would most often be designated in areas
currently disturbed by camping use. Limits on the number of people in these areas through the implementation
of an allocation system would also help to reduce impacts from this type of use.
Although there is the potential for 32 new recreation sites disturbing 16 acres in the Frontcountry and Passage
Zones (1 16,372 acres), areas with known archaeological and historic sites would be avoided. Some
archaeological and historic sites may be developed for interpretation in order to educate the public about these
resources. This would occur in sites where increased use could be accommodated without site degradation and
where sensitive artifacts and structures are properly documented. For all proposed sites, surveys would be
completed prior to construction, and areas with archaeological and historic resources would be avoided.
3.13
Chapter 3
Archaeological and Historic Resources - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
Transportation
Delineation of these sites and installation offences and interpretive signs would limit the size of the disturbed
area and increase awareness of archaeological and historic resources, resulting in a reduction in site
degradation. Concentrating use into a smaller area, where use could be accommodated without impacting
sensitive resources, reduces impacts to archaeological and historic resources over a larger area of the
Monument.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 35 new primitive camping areas could be designated in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones, disturbing up to 70 acres. Surface disturbance, monitoring, curation and excavation would
occur as described previously for designated camping areas. Most of these areas would be designated where
primitive camping currently occurs, so new surface disturbance would actually be less than 70 acres. Camping
would not be allowed elsewhere in these two zones (except in existing campgrounds), reducing the potential for
more widespread impacts.
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed and
site specific impacts to archaeological and historic resources would be addressed.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2).
This would afford substantial protection to archaeological and historic resources from the direct effects of cross-
country vehicle use (degradation, destruction and damage to artifacts and sites). Protection of archaeological
and historic resources from indirect effects (unauthorized collection and erosion from surface disturbance)
would also occur as a result of these restrictions. There is the potential for direct and indirect impacts to
archaeological and historic resources from unauthorized vehicle travel off of designated routes in the
Monument. Enforcement, as described the Enforcement section of Chapter 2, would reduce the possibility of
unauthorized use off of these routes.
Use of 888 miles of designated routes may contribute to the unauthorized collection of archaeological and
historic artifacts. It is reasonably foreseeable that this type of impact on archaeological and historic sites is
generally limited to within % mile of these routes, due to use patterns and accessibility. Projected increases in
use would increase the potential for this type of impact. Although inventories for sites have not been
completed throughout the Monument, there are 597 archaeological and historic sites currently recorded as
occurring within % mile of designated open routes. As described for recreation sites, sensitive archaeological
and historic sites would be monitored and/or surveyed to determine impacts, and appropriate actions (barriers,
excavation and curation, allocations) would be taken when determined necessary for protection.
While motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes, there is a provision for pulling no more
than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking or primitive camping in the Outback Zone (618 miles of
3.14
Chapter 3
Archaeological and Historic Resources - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
I
Vegetation Management
routes). Visitors would be encouraged to use areas already disturbed, and new clearing would be prohibited.
There are currently 8 known archaeological and historic sites within 50 feet of these routes, which may result in
damage or destruction of these resources. These sites would be monitored and protected as described above.
Maintenance of designated routes has the potential to directly and indirectly cause impacts to archaeological
and historic resources as described for other surface disturbing activities, such as communication sites and
recreation sites. Maintenance activities would occur on 888 miles of routes in the Monument, but these
activities would not be allowed outside the current disturbance on most of the routes (see the Maintenance
section in Chapter 2). In the limited cases where maintenance activities would occur outside of the existing
disturbance, areas would be inventoried and sites would be protected through excavation, curation or avoidance.
If routes were originally constructed through archaeological sites, continued degradation of the site could occur
from maintenance activities. Steps would be taken in these cases to excavate and curate the remaining site
contents to reduce further degradation and loss of information.
There are 192 miles of administrative routes throughout the Monument which have the potential to indirectly
impact archaeological and historic resources by causing erosion. Erosion control structures would be installed
when necessary to minimize these impacts. Maintenance of these routes would be the minimum necessary to
keep them accessible to high clearance vehicles. However, any maintenance that requires new surface
disturbance would require inventories and appropriate protection as described above. Unauthorized collection
by authorized users of administrative routes would be unlikely to affect the 8 1 known or other undocumented
sites that may occur within % mile of these routes.
This Plan would close approximately 1,087 miles of routes currently open to public travel. Chapter 2 describes
a strategy for closing and restoring these routes to conditions present before disturbance, minimizing indirect
impacts from erosion in these areas. Although restoration would be a priority for the protection of sensitive
resources, not all sites can be restored simultaneously, which may result in some continued impacts to
archaeological and historic resources in the interim until routes are closed and restored.
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration work could
be completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would
primarily consist of management ignited fires. Although these areas have had vegetation manipulation in the
past, resource inventories may not have been conducted. Moreover, surface disturbance from chaining may
have revealed sites previously hidden. Surveys would be conducted for archaeological resources prior to any
future restoration, and areas with sensitive archaeological resources would be avoided, as described for other
surface disturbing activities. Project level NEPA analysis would also be completed prior to initiation of these
projects.
3.15
Chapter 3
Archaeological and Historic Resources - Environmental Consequences
Water issues
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
It is reasonably foreseeable that up to 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years,
could be permitted in cases where an overall benefit to Monument resources could be demonstrated. There is
the potential for disturbance, damage, or destruction of archaeological and historic resources from surface
disturbing construction and impacts associated with the subsequent concentration of use in the immediate
vicinity of some water developments, such as troughs or impoundments. Areas for potential development
would be surveyed for archaeological and historic resources prior to construction, and if resources were found,
the sites would be relocated. Maintenance of existing water developments could disturb, damage, or destroy
archaeological and historic sites through surface disturbing maintenance activities. Project level NEPA analysis
and inventories for these resources could be required prior to the authorization of maintenance activities.
Until legislation takes effect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. This would prevent much of the degradation of archaeological
and historic resources from the activities described above.
Direct impacts to archaeological and historic resources (particularly rock art and structures with wood
components) from wildfire could occur from direct combustion of these materials and obliteration or
destruction of rock art. Because cross-country travel is prohibited, impacts to cultural or archeological sites
could be greater if limited access hindered wildfire suppression activities. Although emergency exceptions for
wildfire suppression could be granted, the lack of maintained routes in certain areas and restrictions on the use
of some types of equipment could delay or affect response. However, because fire is not a significant risk in
most of the Monument, these impacts would be minimal. The limited impacts which could occur would be
offset by the protection that archaeological resources would receive from disturbance associated with motorized
cross-country travel and access. If archaeological and historic sites with wood structures and/or rock art were
close to travel corridors and sensitive in nature, they could be identified in the fire management zones for
suppression activities as described in Chapter 2, Wildfire Management.
Emergency use of equipment, such as chaining, for fire restoration has the potential to impact archaeological
and historic sites and resources directly by damaging and destroying artifacts and mixing cultural materials.
These methods would not be used for management ignited fires and are only allowed under limited
circumstances as described in the Vegetation Restoration Methods section of Chapter 2. Even though it is
impossible to determine where emergency fire restoration would be needed, surveys would be conducted for
archaeological and historic resources (as well as other resources) in burned areas, prior to use of equipment.
Areas with sensitive archaeological and historic resources would be avoided, as described for other surface
disturbing activities.
3.16
Chapter 3
Biological Soil Crusts - Environmental Consequences
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
No reasonably foreseeable effects to archaeological and historic resources would be expected from proposed
decisions listed under the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, Riparian Resources Program,
Special Status Species Program, VRM, Weed Management, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife Services.
IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL SOIL CRUSTS
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Biological soil crusts perform many important ecological functions including: preventing soil erosion, fixing
atmospheric nitrogen, improving plant soil-water relationships, contributing to nutrient cycling, and providing
sites for seed germination and plant growth. These soil crusts are particularly sensitive to ground disturbance,
especially compression which has the potential to result from foot traffic by animals or humans. It is probable
that impacts to biological soil crusts have impacts on many other resources and environmental factors, including
soils, water quality, nutrient cycling, and on vegetation and the other organisms it supports.
Direct impacts on biological soil crusts occur primarily from surface disturbing activities, such as construction
of facilities, and trampling by people, livestock, and wildlife. These activities also lead to an increased chance
for erosion and the introduction of weeds species. There is a potential for cumulative surface disturbance of
approximately 360 acres from reasonably foreseeable activities such as recreation facilities, rights-of-way, and
water developments over the 15 year planning horizon. Much of the surface disturbance associated with
recreational facilities would occur in areas already disturbed by existing camping or other uses. Subsequently,
acres of disturbance from these activities would likely be less than are reported here. In addition, visitor and
livestock use have the potential to cause surface disturbance and damage to biological soil crusts, which is
difficult to estimate. Vegetation restoration methods also have the potential to cause surface disturbance on
20,000 acres over the 15 year planning horizon. These methods would be used to restore native plant
associations and would occur primarily in areas already disturbed. Restrictions on surface disturbing activities,
active control of noxious weeds, and controls on visitor and vehicle use in the Monument would contribute to
the increased protection afforded by the actions in this Plan. Additionally, increased research on restoration
ecology and biological soil crusts has the potential to discover new methods to restore disturbed areas to pre-
disturbance condition.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Commercial Filming
Commercial filming in the Monument would be limited to minimum impact standards, which include
provisions that would prevent disturbance or clearing of biological soil crusts, vegetation and associated soil
erosion These provisions include: no use of heavy equipment and no travel off of designated routes. A full
list of these restrictions is found in Chapter 2, Commercial Filming. Films documenting the sensitivity of dry
climate biological soil crusts could help educate people about the this resource, but filming relating to any
aspect of the Monument may bring more people to the area, possibly causing increased use and damage as
3.17
Chapter 3
Commercial Filming cont.
Biological Soil Crusts - Environmental Consequences
described below in Recreational Facilities and Use. Mechanisms to control visitor use as described in that
section would be initiated to reduce these potential impacts.
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of-Way, and Road Rights-of-Way
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Livestock Grazing
Clearing areas for the placement of communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way directly
impacts biological soil crusts by physically removing these soils and vegetation during leveling and other
construction activities. Erosion resulting from soil crust and vegetation loss and soil destabilization during
these activities has the potential to further degrade biological soil crusts. It is reasonably foreseeable that 1
large and 22 small communication or utility rights-of-way facilities, and 3.5 miles of road rights-of-way, would
be constructed over the next 15 years disturbing 150, 102, and 8.4 acres respectively. These sites would
generally not be allowed on 1,21 1,386 acres of the Monument (except for communication sites, which may be
allowed throughout the Monument for safety purposes only, and road rights-of-way for private inholdings).
Although these sites are allowed on 654,034 acres, the small amount of surface disturbance and low number of
potential sites reduce the chance that biological soil crusts would be affected by these activities. In all instances,
sites would be surveyed prior to construction. In the event sensitive soil crusts were found, the location of sites
may be moved to avoid these impacts. Project level NEPA analysis would be completed for all projects, taking
into account impacts on biological soil crusts. A feasibility study for communication sites in the Monument
would be completed, identifying appropriate areas for construction of these facilities.
Non-surface disturbing research activities which focus on increasing the knowledge of the distribution of
biological soil crusts in the Monument, or which would help restore and protect these associations, would be
encouraged. Monitoring initiated as part of the adaptive management framework (Appendix 3) would provide
information regarding the condition of vegetation in the Monument, and would provide a mechanism for
alteration in management if degradation to biological soil crusts was determined to be occurring.
Surface disturbing research activities have the potential to degrade biological soil crusts. Surface disturbing
research projects would be evaluated by the BLM, and the GSENM Advisory Committee would be consulted
for recommendations on whether research proposals warrant exceptions, could be permitted in a manner
consistent with the protection of Monument resources, and whether the methods proposed are the minimum
necessary to achieve desired research objectives. Increased research in the Monument could increase awareness
of the sensitivity of biological soil crusts, but may cause increased visitation, contributing to impacts discussed
for Recreation Facilities and Use below.
Livestock use has the potential to directly impact biological soil crusts by trampling and indirectly by
accelerating erosion, leading to further damage. These crusts are especially susceptible in erodible soils and
during dry seasons when the brittle nature of these crusts and loose soil result in easy destruction by trampling.
Grazing on many of the allotments in the Monument occurs during winter and the early spring months, reducing
the potential for impacts from these grazing activities. Additionally, concentrating use around range facilities
3.18
Chapter 3
Biological Soil Crusts - Environmental Consequences
Livestock Grazing cont.
Recreational Facilities and Use
has the potential to cause impacts to biological soil crusts in close proximity to these facilities. Livestock
grazing within the Monument would be managed in keeping with applicable laws and regulations, and with the
Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. In the evaluation of allotments as part of the Standards
and Guidelines implementation, the effects of livestock grazing on biological soil crusts would be considered.
Proper grazing and vegetation management, as outlined in the Standards and Guidelines, maintains natural
vegetation composition and structure and function of rangelands, including functioning biological soil crusts.
Healthy rangelands also prevent erosion and further degradation of soils. Monitoring in conjunction with
grazing management would provide information on changes in vegetation and soil condition, allowing for
changes in grazing management strategies in conjunction with the adaptive management framework (Appendix
3).
Clearing areas for the placement of visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking areas, picnic
areas, pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets) directly impacts biological soil crusts
through physical removal. Indirect impacts to biological soil crusts occurs from visitor use around sites, which
results in surface disturbance and erosion of soil. Additionally, visitors are a primary vector for the transport of
noxious weed species. Construction of new sites has the potential to introduce weeds into areas where they
have not previously been found. Impacts from weeds are described below in the Weed Management section.
Projected increases in use would result in an increase of these impacts. Impacts from use in association with
recreation sites are generally concentrated to within V* mile of facilities.
Recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones, except
for those necessary to protect resources. Dispersed primitive camping and pack stock use in these zones may
lead to direct and indirect impacts, but limited access and use in these zones would not contribute substantially
to these impacts. Group size restrictions of 12 and 25 respectively would help reduce the potential for these
impacts. Pack stock use also has the potential to contribute to the introduction of weed species, but
requirements for weed free hay on BLM lands would reduce this possibility. Where impacts are documented in
a given area, camping may be restricted to a designated and clearly delineated area away from sensitive
resources. This would limit more widespread impacts and disturbance. Such areas would only be designated in
these zones for resource protection purposes and would most often be designated in areas currently disturbed by
camping use. Limits on the number of people in these areas, through the implementation of an allocation
system, could also help to reduce impacts from this type of use.
There is the potential for the construction of 32 new recreation sites disturbing 16 acres in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones (1 16,372 acres). Direct and indirect impacts from construction and use of these facilities would
be as described previously. Surveys would be completed prior to construction, and areas with sensitive soil
crusts would be avoided. The small number of new sites and subsequent surface disturbance would not
contribute substantially to impacts on biological soil crusts. Delineation of these sites and installation offences
3.19
Chapter 3
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
Biological Soil Crusts - Environmental Consequences
and interpretive signs would limit the size of the disturbed area, reducing the direct effects of trampling and
indirect effects of erosion. Again, the concentration of disturbance and use into areas where increased use can
be accommodated without causing degradation of sensitive resources, would protect larger areas of the
Monument from dispersed use disturbance.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 35 new primitive camping areas could be designated in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones, disturbing 70 acres. Most of these areas would be designated where camping currently occurs,
so new surface disturbance would actually be less than 70 acres. Camping would not be allowed elsewhere in
these two zones (except in existing campgrounds), reducing the potential for more widespread impacts to
biological soil crusts. Direct and indirect effects of the surface disturbance and use of these areas would be as
described previously for other facilities.
Transportation
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed and
site specific impacts to biological soil crusts would be addressed.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Management and Emergency Exceptions sections in Chapter 2).
This would afford protection to biological soil crusts from being crushed and destroyed and from the indirect
effects of these activities, which includes erosion. Additionally, use of vehicles, such as OHVs and bicycles,
facilitate the transport of noxious weed species, resulting in impacts as described below in the Weed
Management section. The combination of soil crust removal and weed introduction has the potential to have
long-term detrimental effects on biological soil crusts and native vegetation associations. There is the potential
for direct and indirect impacts on biological soil crusts from unauthorized travel of vehicles off of designated
routes. Enforcement, as described in the Enforcement section of Chapter 2, would reduce the possibility of
unauthorized use off of these routes.
Use of 888 miles of designated routes may result in people traveling by foot off of these routes, directly and
indirectly affecting biological soil crusts by trampling, compaction of soil, and surface disturbance, causing
erosion. It is assumed that this type of impact on biological soil crusts is generally concentrated within % mile
of routes due to use patterns and ease of access. Projected increases in use would increase the potential for this
type of impact.
While motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes, there is a provision for pulling no more
than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking or primitive camping in the Outback Zone (618 miles of
routes). This could directly and indirectly impact biological soil crusts by crushing and by causing surface
disturbance. Visitors would be encouraged to use areas already disturbed, and new clearing of vegetation
would be prohibited. However, some impacts to biological soil crusts may still occur.
3.20
Chapter 3
Biological Soil Crusts - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
Vegetation Management
Direct impacts may occur from activities associated with the maintenance of designated open routes, as
described for other surface disturbing activities, such as communication sites and recreation sites. Maintenance
activities would occur on 888 miles of designated open routes in the Monument, but these activities would not
be allowed outside the current disturbance on most of the routes, protecting biological soil crusts from burial
and destruction. In the limited cases where maintenance activities would occur outside of the existing
disturbance, areas would be inventoried and maintenance achieved in a manner that would minimize impacts to
sensitive biological soil crusts.
Although there are fewer miles of administrative routes (192 miles), lack of maintenance on these routes may
increase degradation and erosion. Erosion control structures would be installed when necessary to minimize
these impacts.
This Plan would close approximately 1,087 miles of routes currently open to public travel. Chapter 2 describes
a strategy for closing and restoring these routes to conditions present before disturbance, minimizing indirect
impacts from erosion. An opportunity for the study of restoring biological soil crusts exists in these areas.
Although restoration would be a priority for the protection of sensitive resources, not all sites can be restored
simultaneously, which may result in some impacts to biological soil crusts.
Native plants would be used as a priority for all seeding projects in the Monument. This would afford
biological soil crusts protection from displacement and competition from aggressive non-native species.
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this reclamation work
could be completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments
would primarily consist of management ignited fires. These activities would only be used to restore a natural
range of native plant associations in the Monument, directly and indirectly improving the condition of native
vegetation throughout the Monument. For example, a seeding which is primarily crested wheatgrass may be
burned and seeded to promote the restoration of native plant associations in the area. Research on the
restoration of biological soil crusts would be initiated in these areas and project level NEPA analysis would be
completed prior to initiation.
Removal of forestry products would only occur on the 23,950 acres designated for fuelwood cutting, or in other
areas where deemed necessary to restore a natural range of native plant associations. These areas are typically
pinyon and juniper woodlands which, as a result of impacts from livestock, wildlife and fire suppression, have
spread and contain little understory and herbaceous growth, and often little soil crust development. There is the
potential for trampling of biological soil crusts during collection of forestry products exists, though the small
amount of area where these activities would be allowed would not contribute substantially to impacts.
3.21
Chapter 3
Biological Soil Crusts - Environmental Consequences
Vegetation Management cont.
Water Issues
Weed Management
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Restoration and revegetation provisions, as discussed in Chapter 2, are required for all surface disturbing
activities in the Monument as part of the project planning process. These provisions would provide substantial
protection from noxious weed invasion, erosion, and further degradation of surrounding biological soil crusts.
It is reasonably foreseeable that up to 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years,
could be permitted when necessary for the protection of Monument resources. The indirect effects of surface
disturbing activities would be the same as for other surface disturbing activities and associated use, as described
previously. Maintenance of existing water developments has the potential to cause some minor surface
disturbance. Project level NEPA analysis would be completed prior to the authorization of any construction.
These water developments would most often be used to displace use away from sensitive riparian habitat, which
is more easily affected by cattle and wildlife. Biological soil crusts in and around the areas where use is
displaced could be affected from increased trampling and degradation of these soil crusts.
Non-native plants and noxious weeds displace native species and affect the structure and function of biological
soil crusts in surrounding areas. Disturbance of biological soil crusts can actually lead to increased probability
of weed invasion in many areas. Once established in disturbed sites, weeds may spread into adjacent
undisturbed lands and further disrupt biological soil crusts. Conversion of vegetation structure by noxious weed
species can make re-establishment of biological soil crusts difficult if not impossible. These species are spread
by a variety of means, some of which (e.g., vehicles and foot traffic) are directly attributable to human actions
and are discussed in those sections. Although removal of noxious weed species in the Monument is a priority,
not all areas can be targeted for removal efforts simultaneously. Continued degradation of biological soil crusts
has the potential to occur in areas left untreated.
Until legislation takes effect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. This would prevent much of the degradation of biological soil
crusts from the activities described above.
Although fire is not a major component of the Monument's ecosystems, natural fires do occasionally occur in
the area. In areas where annual weed species are prevalent, destruction and degradation of biological soil crusts
would result from fires. Although vegetation in these areas would quickly regrow, the loss of biological soil
crusts in the area may lead to an increased chance for invasion of weed species and associated impacts. Impacts
from fire suppression activities can have a profound effect on biological soil crusts by crushing and disturbing
the soil, changing the way water moves across the landscape, and causing erosion. These effects are difficult to
reverse, especially in dry climates such as the Monument's.
Fire would be allowed to play its natural role in the Monument as much as possible, while protecting private
land and providing for public safety. Most of the Monument is located in fire management areas which have
3.22
Chapter 3
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
cont.
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
Vegetation - Environmental Consequences
little suppression activity. This would allow fires to reach a larger size, but would protect biological soil crusts
from the surface disturbing effects associated with motorized travel off of designated routes during suppression
activities. Areas such as recreation sites and wooden structures would be protected from fire, but most have
access routes to them. Emergency use of equipment, such as chaining, for fire restoration has the potential to
impact biological soil crusts by clearing vegetation and biological soil crusts which allows for erosion. These
methods would not be used for management ignited fires and are only allowed under limited circumstances as
described in the Vegetation Restoration Methods section of Chapter 2. Impacts to biological soil crusts from
management ignited fires and emergency fire restoration projects would be evaluated prior to implementation of
these activities in the Monument.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to biological soil crusts resources would be expected from proposed decisions
listed under the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, Collections, Riparian Resources
Program, Special Status Species Program, VRM, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife Services.
IMPACTS ON VEGETATION
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Steep canyons, limited water, seasonal flood events, unique and isolated geologic substrates, and large
fluctuations in climatic conditions have all influenced the composition, structure, and diversity of vegetation
associations of the Monument. Vegetation is a fundamental and vitally important element among the
Monument's biological resources. Impacts to other resources are often an indirect result of clearing vegetation.
Where impacts to vegetation lead to soil erosion, that erosion has the potential to damage or degrade
archeological, paleontological, and historic resources, as well as water quality and air quality, as described in
impact discussions for those resources. Impacts to Federally listed plant species are included in a separate
section, though many of the impacts are similar in nature.
Impacts to vegetation resources result directly from the removal of vegetation for the construction of facilities
(e.g., recreation, communication) and from trampling by visitors, livestock or wildlife. Indirect impacts include
changes in composition of vegetative associations brought about by invasion of weeds and surface disturbance
leading to erosion and habitat degradation. There is a potential for cumulative surface disturbance of
approximately 360 acres from reasonably foreseeable activities, such as recreation facilities, rights-of-way, and
water developments, over the 15 year planning horizon. Much of the surface disturbance associated with
recreational facilities would occur in areas already disturbed by existing camping or other uses. Subsequently,
acres of disturbance from these activities would likely be less than are reported here. In addition, visitor and
livestock use have the potential to cause surface disturbance which is difficult to estimate. Vegetation
restoration methods also have the potential to cause surface disturbance on 20,000 acres over the 1 5 year
planning horizon. These methods would be used to restore native plant associations and would occur primarily
in areas already disturbed. Limited amounts of surface disturbance, restrictions on surface disturbing activities,
3.23
Chapter 3
Vegetation - Environmental Consequences
Summary of Effects cont.
controls on visitor and vehicle use, monitoring of vegetation condition, restoration and revegetation provisions,
and an active noxious weed removal program, all contribute to an increase in protection for vegetation in the
Monument as a result of actions in this Plan.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Collections
Commercial Filming
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of- Way, and Road Rights-of- Way
The unauthorized collection of objects, including plants and plant parts, is prohibited by the Proclamation and
this Plan. Casual collection (picking flowers, leaves, cones, etc.) in the Monument has not been a problem in
the past, and is not anticipated to contribute to the impacts of vegetation associations. Interpretive information
would be provided to visitors in high-use areas concerning the sensitivity of vegetation resources and the
prohibition on collection to prevent inadvertent damage to vegetation resources.
Commercial filming in the Monument would be limited to minimum impact standards, which include
provisions that would prevent disturbance or clearing of vegetation and associated soil erosion. These
provisions include: no use of heavy equipment, no travel off of designated routes, no work in excess of 10
days, and no degradation of riparian habitat. A full list of these restrictions is found in Chapter 2, Commercial
Filming. Films documenting the sensitivity of dry climate vegetation associations could help educate people
about the this resource, but filming relating to any aspect of the Monument may bring more people to the area,
possibly causing increased use and damage as described below in the Recreational Facilities and Use section.
Mechanisms to control visitor use as described in that section would be initiated to reduce these potential
impacts.
Clearing areas for the placement of communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way directly
impacts vegetation associations by physically removing vegetation and biological soil crusts during leveling and
other installations activities. Erosion resulting from vegetation loss and soil destabilization during these
activities has the potential to further degrade vegetation associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that 1 large
and 22 small communication or utility rights-of-way facilities, and 3.5 miles of road rights-of-way, would be
constructed in the Monument over the next 15 years, disturbing 150, 102, and 8.4 acres respectively. These
sites would generally not be allowed on 1,21 1,386 acres of the Monument (except for communication sites,
which may be allowed throughout the Monument for safety purposes only, and road rights-of-way for private
inholdrngs). Although these sites are allowed on 654,034 acres, the small amount of surface disturbance and
low number of potential sites reduce the chance that vegetation associations would be affected by these
activities. In all instances, sites would be surveyed prior to construction. In the event that sensitive vegetation
asssociations were found, the location of sites may be moved to avoid these impacts. Project level NEPA
analysis would be completed for all projects, taking into account impacts on vegetation. A feasibility study for
communication sites in the Monument would be completed, identifying appropriate areas for construction of
these facilities.
3.24
Chapter 3
Vegetation - Environmental Consequences
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Livestock Grazing
Recreational Facilities and Use
Non-surface disturbing research activities which focus on increasing the knowledge of the distribution of plants
and plant associations in the Monument, or which would help restore and protect these associations, would be
encouraged. Monitoring initiated as part of the adaptive management framework would provide information
regarding the condition of vegetation in the Monument and would provide a mechanism for alteration in
management if degradation to vegetation associations was determined to be occurring.
Collection of plants is a vital component of most studies relating to vegetation associations. This type of
collection would be allowed by permit as required for the proper documentation of plant specimens and to gain
a better understanding of the distribution of plants in the Monument. There is the potential for degradation of
vegetation associations by removing plants during surface disturbing research activities, including research
relating to other resources. Surface disturbing research projects would be evaluated by the BLM and the
GSENM Advisory Committee would be consulted for recommendations on whether research proposals warrant
exceptions, could be permitted in a manner consistent with the protection of Monument resources, and whether
the methods proposed are the minimum necessary to achieve desired research objectives. Evaluation of
proposed research projects would take into account the short and long-term impacts these collection activities
may have on vegetation associations. Increased research in the area may draw attention to vegetation or other
resources in the Monument, possibly contributing to impacts discussed previously.
Livestock use has the potential to directly impact vegetation resources by consumption and trampling of
vegetation, and indirectly by accelerating erosion leading to further damage of vegetation associations.
Additionally, concentrating use around range facilities has the potential to impact plants in close proximity to
these facilities. Livestock grazing uses within the Monument would be managed in keeping with applicable
laws and regulations, and with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. In the evaluation of
allotments as part of the Standards and Guidelnes implementation, the effects of livestock grazing on vegetation
is a primary measure of range condition. Proper grazing and vegetation management, as outlined in the
Standards and Guidelines, maintains natural vegetation composition, structure and function of rangelands.
Healthy rangelands also prevent erosion and degradation of soils and water. Monitoring in conjunction with
grazing management would provide information on changes in vegetation condition, allowing for changes in
grazing management strategies in conjunction with the adaptive management framework (Appendix 3).
Clearing areas for the placement of visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking areas, picnic
areas, pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets) directly impacts vegetation associations
by removing plants and biological soil crusts. Indirect impacts to vegetation come from visitor use around sites
which results in surface disturbance and erosion of soil. Additionally, visitors are one of the primary vectors
for the transport of noxious weed species. Construction of new sites has the potential to introduce weeds mto
areas where they have not previously been found. Impacts from weeds would be as described below in the
Weed Management section. Projected increases in use would result in an increase of these impacts.
3.25
Chapter 3
Vegetation - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
Riparian Resources Program
New recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones,
except for those necessary to protect resources. Dispersed primitive camping and pack stock use in these zones
may lead to direct and indirect impacts, but limited access and use in these zones would not contribute
substantially to these impacts. Group size restrictions of 12 and 25 respectively would reduce the potential for
these impacts. Pack stock use also has the potential to the introduce weed species, but requirements for weed-
free hay on BLM lands would reduce this possibility. Where impacts are documented in a given area, camping
may be restricted to a designated and clearly delineated area away from sensitive resources. This would limit
more widespread impacts and disturbance. Such areas would only be designated in these zones for resource
protection purposes and would most often be designated in areas currently disturbed by camping use. Limits on
the number of people in these areas through the implementation of an allocation system would also help to
reduce impacts from this type of use.
There is the potential for the construction of 32 new recreation sites, disturbing 16 acres in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones (1 16,372 acres). Direct and indirect impacts from construction and use of these facilities would
be as described above. The small number of new sites and subsequent surface disturbance would not contribute
substantially to impacts on vegetation associations. Delineation of these sites and installation offences and
interpretive signs would limit the size of the disturbed area, reducing the direct effects of trampling and indirect
effect of erosion. Concentrating use into a smaller area, where use could be accommodated without impacting
sensitive resources, reduces impacts to vegetation resources over a larger area of the Monument.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 35 new primitive camping areas could be designated in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones, disturbing up to 70 acres. Direct and indirect effects of the surface disturbance and use of these
areas would be as described previously for other facilities. As above, the limited number of areas and surface
disturbance would not contribute substantially to the impacts on vegetation associations. Most of these areas
would be designated where primitive camping currently occurs, so new surface disturbance would actually be
less than 70 acres. Camping would not be allowed elsewhere in these two zones (except in existing
campgrounds), reducing the potential for more widespread impacts.
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed and
site specific impacts to vegetation would be addressed.
Restoration and maintenance of riparian areas to proper functioning condition would enhance vegetation
associated with these systems and contribute to the overall protection of vegetation associations in the
Monument. Impacts specific to riparian resources are discussed separately under the Impacts on Riparian
Resources section of this chapter. Restoration and inventory of all of these areas simultaneously is impossible,
but steps are being taken to complete this process through the implementation of the Standards and Guidelines
and additional inventory efforts over the next three years. Plants occurring in non-functioning or at risk riparian
3.26
Chapter 3
Vegetation - Environmental Consequences
Riparian Resources Program cont.
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
areas have the potential to see direct mortality and degradation. Impacts to riparian resources are discussed in
detail under a separate heading in this chapter.
Protection of habitat for Federally listed threatened and endangered species (both plants and animals), as
described in Chapter 2, Special Status Plants Species and Special Status Animals Species, would benefit
vegetation in the immediate areas of protected habitats. Impacts on special status species are described
separately for wildlife and plants in this chapter.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access section of Chapter 2). This would prevent vegetation from the direct
effects of being crushed and uprooted and from the indirect effects of these activities, which include removal of
vegetation resulting in erosion and degradation of water quality. Additionally, use of vehicles facilitate the
transport of noxious weed species, resulting in impacts as described below in the Weed Management section.
There is the potential for direct and indirect impacts to vegetation resources from unauthorized vehicle travel
off of designated routes in the Monument. Enforcement, as described the Enforcement section of Chapter 2,
would reduce the possibility of unauthorized use off of these routes.
Use of 888 miles of routes designated open may result in people traveling by foot off of these routes directly
and indirectly impacting vegetation by trampling, compaction of soil, and surface disturbance causing erosion.
It is assumed that this type of impact on vegetation is generally limited to within % mile of routes due to use
patterns. Projected increases in use would increase the potential for this type of impact.
While motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes, there is a provision for pulling no more
than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking or primitive camping in the Outback Zone (618 miles of
routes). This would directly and indirectly impact vegetation by crushing and by causing surface disturbance.
Visitors would be encouraged to use areas already disturbed, and new clearing of vegetation would be
prohibited. However, some vegetation removal may still occur.
Direct impacts may occur from activities associated with the maintenance of routes, as described for other
surface disturbing activities, such as communication sites and recreation sites. Maintenance activities would
occur on 888 miles of routes in the Monument, but these activities would not be allowed outside the current
disturbance on most of the routes (see the Maintenance section in Chapter 2). In the limited cases where
maintenance activities would occur outside of the existing disturbance, areas would be inventoried to avoid
sensitive vegetation, and restoration or revegetation would occur as discussed in that section of Chapter 2.
Although there are fewer miles of administrative routes (192 miles), lack of routine maintenance on these routes
may increase degradation and erosion. Erosion control structures would be installed when necessary to
minimize these impacts.
3.27
Chapter 3
Vegetation - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
Vegetation Management
Water Issues
This Plan would close approximately 1,087 miles of routes currently open to public travel. Chapter 2 describes
a strategy for closing and restoring these routes to conditions present before disturbance, minimizing indirect
impacts from erosion. Although restoration would be a priority for the protection of sensitive resources, not all
sites can be restored simultaneously, which may result in some impacts to vegetation associations.
Native plants would be used as a priority for all restoration projects in the Monument. This would afford native
plant associations protection from displacement and competition from aggressive non-native species.
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration work could
be completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would
primarily consist of management ignited fires. Restoration methods would only be used to restore a natural
range of native plant associations in the Monument, directly and indirectly improving the condition of native
vegetation throughout the Monument. For example, a seeding which is primarily crested wheatgrass may be
burned and seeded to promote the restoration of native plant associations in the area. Again, these treatments
would be used to establish a natural range of native plant associations.
Removal of forestry products would only occur on the 23,950 acres currently designated as fuelwood cutting
areas, unless more areas are identified as necessary to meet the objective of restoring a natural range of native
plant associations. These areas are typically pinyon and juniper woodlands which, as a result of impacts from
livestock, wildlife, and fire suppression, have spread and contain little understory and herbaceous growth.
Opening of areas through thinning would allow shrub, grass and forb species to increase, improving the
condition of these vegetation associations. Trampling of vegetation during collection of forestry products has
the potential to occur.
Restoration and revegetation provisions, as discussed in Chapter 2, are required for all surface disturbing
activities in the Monument as part of the project planning process. These provisions would provide substantial
protection from noxious weed invasion, erosion and further degradation of surrounding vegetation associations.
It is reasonably foreseeable that up to 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years,
could be permitted when necessary for the protection of Monument resources. The indirect effects of these
surface disturbing activities would be the same as for other surface disturbing activities and associated use as
described previously. Maintenance of existing water developments has the potential to cause some minor
surface disturbance. Project level NEPA analysis would be completed prior to the authorization of any
construction activities. These water developments would most often be used to displace use away from
sensitive riparian habitat, which is more easily affected by cattle and wildlife. Vegetation in the areas where use
is displaced to would see increased use by cattle and wildlife, causing trampling and degradation of these
3.28
Chapter 3
Vegetation - Environmental Consequences
Water Issues cont.
Weed Management
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
associations. These impacts would be taken into consideration during the NEPA analysis for future water
development projects.
Non-native plants and noxious weeds displace native species and affect the structure of plant associations.
Noxious weeds can also impact water quality and wildlife species dependent on native vegetation by displacing
native species and de-watering of streams. Once established in disturbed sites, weeds may spread into adjacent
undisturbed lands and disrupt natural plant and animal associations. Conversion of vegetation structure by
noxious weed species can make reestablishment of native plant associations difficult if not impossible. These
species are spread by a variety of means, some of which (e.g., vehicles and foot traffic) are directly attributable
to human actions and are discussed in those sections.
An active noxious weed control program would focus on the removal of these species in the most sensitive of
habitats, such as riparian areas and special status species areas. The use of chemicals in the treatment of weed
species, under limited circumstances as described in Chapter 2, has the potential to directly impact some non-
target species, but the reestablishment of natural vegetation structure and function would increase the habitat
conditions for all species over the long-term. BLM employees or contractors with appropriate certification
would be responsible for use of these chemicals and would take precautions to prevent possible effects to non-
target species. NEPA analysis would be required prior to project initiation.
Although removal of noxious weed species in the Monument is a priority, not all areas can be targeted for
removal efforts simultaneously. Continued degradation of vegetation associations has the potential to occur in
areas left untreated.
Until legislation takes effect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. This would prevent much of the direct and indirect impacts of
surface disturbing activities on vegetation, as described previously. Research on restoration ecology in
conjunction with the adaptive management framework (Appendix 3) would provide mechanisms for restoration
of these areas in the future.
Although fire is not a major component of the Monument's ecosystems, natural fires do occasionally occur in
the area. Short-term loss of vegetation would result from fires, but would quickly regrow in areas with diverse
vegetation within a growing season. Reseeding with native species would be initiated in areas where species
diversity was low prior to burning. Impacts from fire suppression activities can have a profound effect on
vegetation, changing the way water moves across the landscape and causing erosion. These effects are difficult
to reverse, especially in dry climates such as the Monument's.
3.29
Chapter 3
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
cont.
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
Special Status Plant Species - Environmental Consequences
Fire would be allowed to play its natural role in the Monument as much as possible, while protecting private
land and providing for public safety. Most of the Monument is located in fire management areas which have
little suppression activity. This would allow fires to reach a larger size, but would protect vegetation from the
surface disturbing effects associated with motorized travel off of designated routes. Areas such as recreation
sites and wooden structures would be protected from fire as much as possible and most have access routes to
them. Emergency use of equipment, such as chaining, for fire restoration has the potential to impact vegetation
associations by clearing vegetation and biological soil crusts which allows for erosion. These methods would
not be used for management ignited fires and are only allowed under limited circumstances as described in the
Vegetation Restoration Methods section of Chapter 2.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to vegetation resources would be expected from proposed decisions listed
under the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, VRM, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife
Services.
IMPACTS ON SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Various factors have contributed to the overall diversity and unique nature of the Monument's flora. The
isolation and presence of hanging gardens and relict plant communities also provide opportunities for rare or
unusual plants. Currently, Jones' cycladenia and Ute ladies'-tresses are listed as Federally threatened and
Kodachrome bladderpod is listed as Federally endangered. In addition to these three species, there are 14
species listed by the Utah BLM as sensitive species. A list of these species is provided in Appendix 9.
Impacts to special status plant populations occur primarily from soil compaction, trampling, and introduction of
weed species. Because vehicles are restricted to designated routes, impacts would result primarily from
trampling or collection by visitors, or trampling by livestock or wildlife. Restrictions on surface disturbing
activities, mechanisms to control visitor use, restoration, and an active weed removal program all contribute to
the protection and promote recovery of special status plant species. The BLM concludes that the actions
proposed in this Plan are not likely to adversely affect the Kodachrome bladderpod, Jones' cycladenia or
sensitive plant populations or habitat in the Monument. Furthermore, the actions described in this Plan would
likely be beneficial to the recovery and conservation of these species. Most actions described in this Plan
would likely be beneficial to the recovery and conservation of Ute ladies'-tresses populations and habitat. As a
result, the BLM concludes that the actions proposed in this Plan may affect, but do not adversely impact, Ute
ladies'-tresses populations or habitat. The BLM would continue to work in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and adjacent land managers to protect and restore special status species populations
and habitat.
3.30
Chapter 3
Special Status Plant Species - Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Collections
Commercial Filming
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of-Way, and Road Rights-of-Way
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Livestock Grazing
The unauthorized collection of objects, including plants and plant parts, is prohibited by the Proclamation and
this Plan. Furthermore, the Endangered Species Act prohibits the collection of Federally listed plant species
without a permit from the USFWS. The prohibition of these actions would help eliminate the casual collection
or taking of protected species in the Monument. Coupled with an education program and increased law
enforcement presence in the Monument, there should be little threat from unauthorized collection of listed
species in the Monument. Collection of any specimens near known listed species populations for scientific
purposes is discussed below in the Inventory, Monitoring, Research and Adaptive Management section, and
would be closely monitored.
Commercial filming in the Monument would be limited to minimum impact standards and would not be
permitted in known special status species populations for any reason.
Communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way would not be permitted in known special
status species populations for any reason. As permits are granted for these activities, surveys would be
completed to determine the presence of special status species in the area. If they were found, these activities
would be moved to another location. This would protect these resources from the direct and indirect effects of
surface disturbance associated with the construction and use of these facilities.
Non-surface disturbing research activities which focus on increasing the knowledge of special status species in
the Monument, or which would help restore and protect these resources, would be encouraged. Surface
disturbing research activities would not be allowed in threatened or endangered species habitat. All scientific
research projects in close proximity to listed species populations or habitat would be evaluated by Monument
biologists, the USFWS, and appropriate experts prior to initiation to determine impacts to these populations or
habitat. Any research project which may have an effect on populations of listed species would be coordinated
with the USFWS, and appropriate permits and Section 7 consultation would be completed as determined
necessary. Projects which provide new information and understanding of listed species, their populations,
and/or their habitat, may be allowed after approval by the BLM and the review and issuance of permits by the
USFWS. All projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Increased research in the area may draw
attention to these unique associations, possibly contributing to impacts, the introduction of weeds, and
degradation of habitat.
Livestock grazing, though allowed in Kodachrome bladderpod and Jones' cycladenia habitat, has little effect on
these populations, as stated in the Federal Register listing these species. Furthermore, cattle infrequently use the
areas where these plants grow due to the sparse nature of the vegetation, providing little available forage.
3.31
Chapter 3
Special Status Plant Species - Environmental Consequences
Livestock Grazing cont.
Recreational Facilities and Use
Effects of livestock grazing on Ute ladies '-tresses has the potential to be detrimental through trampling, soil
compaction, and disturbance of riparian vegetation during certain seasons. Grazing can also be beneficial by
keeping the density of the competing vegetation low, allowing the orchid to get enough light to grow. In fact,
the Ute ladies'-tresses population is currently healthy, leading to the conclusion that grazing is either benign or
beneficial to the population.
Livestock grazing allotments would be evaluated, consistent with the BLM-wide grazing permit review process
described in the Livestock Grazing section of Chapter 2. Grazing as it relates to all special status plan species
would be addressed during this process and would incorporate the latest research and information in the
protection of species. Section 7 consultation would be conducted for all allotments that may affect threatened
and endangered species during the individual allotment evaluations. This process would provide increased
protection for listed and sensitive species. Monitoring in conjunction with grazing management would provide
information on impacts on special status animal species, and if impacts were found, changes in grazing
management strategies in conjunction with the adaptive management framework (Appendix 3) would be taken.
Clearing areas for the construction and placement of visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking
areas, picnic areas, pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets) would not be permitted in
special status plant species populations. Small interpretive signs for resource protection may be placed in close
proximity to populations, but would not involve surface disturbance in populations. Since people act as one of
the primary vectors for the transport of noxious weed species, an allocation system may be initiated to facilitate
the protection of these sensitive resources. Impacts from weeds would be as described below in the Weed
Management section. Projected increases in use would result in an increase in these impacts.
No recreation facilities (including camping areas and trails) currently occur in Kodachrome bladderpod and
Jones' cycladenia populations. New designated primitive camping areas, overnights stays, and pack stock use
are also forbidden in these populations, except in existing campgrounds.
There is one trail which occurs within the Ute ladies'-tresses population. Compaction of soil, degradation of
vegetation associations, and introduction of weed species all have the potential to impact this population. This
trail would be relocated out of the riparian area, wherever possible, and the old trail would be restored with
native vegetation. Interpretive signs and barriers could be installed in order to educate the public about the
sensitivity of resources in the area. Monitoring of use in these areas would be initiated and implementation of
allocations may be initiated if degradation was determined to be occurring.
Ute ladies'-tresses have been documented as growing in Deer Creek Campground. Surveys for this species
would be completed and appropriate actions taken to prevent trampling of the plants by visitors in the
campground area. These actions may include replanting native vegetation or construction of barriers if these
3.32
Chapter 3
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
Riparian Resources Program and
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
Special Status Plant Species - Environmental Consequences
actions would be appropriate for conservation of this species. Individual sites may be closed if necessary to
protect these plants in the campground. Monitoring would continue yearly to assure that these plants are
protected. Plans which propose expansion of the campground would be evaluated for the impacts to this
species. If expansion results in moving sites out of the immediate riparian zone, and restoring these sites to the
natural condition, they would be favored. No expansion which proposes further impact to the riparian area
would be considered, as it would increase the potential for impacts to this population.
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed,
which would include a special status species inventory addressing site specific impacts to special status species.
Ute ladies'-tresses occur in riparian areas. Restoration and maintenance of riparian areas to proper functioning
condition would enhance habitat and potential habitat for this species. Provisions in the Endangered Species
Act and BLM policy require the protection of listed species from actions which would lead to further decline or
extinction. The BLM would work toward the recovery of species and habitat which are listed as Federally
threatened or endangered. The BLM is dedicated to working with the USFWS and adjacent land managers in
the recovery and enhancement of listed species populations and habitat.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2).
This would afford protection to known special status species populations from the direct effects of being
crushed and uprooted, and from the indirect effects of these activities (surface disturbance and removal of
vegetation resulting in erosion and degradation of water quality). Additionally, the use of vehicles facilitates
the transport of noxious weed species, resulting in impacts as described below in the Weed Management
section.
Jones' cycladenia grows in areas which have not been used by OHVs or bicycles in the past and no routes occur
within 4 miles of recorded plant locations. Unauthorized use in these areas would be unlikely due to a lack of
past use, however, monitoring of the areas would continue to ensure damage is not occurring.
The entire population of Ute ladies'-tresses grows in an area which is closed to OHV use due to Outstanding
Natural Area designation, and this would continue under this Plan. The Burr Trail crosses the Ute ladies'-
tresses population, but impacts would occur primarily from use of facilities (e.g., parking area, campground)
rather than the route. The paved nature of the road may bring more people into the areas, increasing the impacts
described in the Recreation Facilities and Use section above.
Kodachrome bladderpod habitat and population has been threatened in the past from the use of vehicles off of
routes, and on existing two-track routes within the population. Monitoring has indicated mortality as a result of
3.33
Chapter 3
Special Status Plant Species - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
Vegetation Management
Water Issues
Weed Management
vehicle use in the area. There is currently one route which would remain open (0. 1 8 miles) through the
Kodachrome bladderpod population, but this route has been historically maintained and no plants grow in close
proximity to this route. This route would not be open to OHV use. Unauthorized travel off this route has the
potential to result in impacts as discussed above. Physical barriers, as well as closed signs, would be placed in
strategic locations to prevent access into areas where the Kodachrome bladderpod grows. Restoration of some
of the site may be initiated to repair damage from vehicle use. Monitoring would continue in order to determine
effects of closures and to measure the resilience of the population. Use of routes and people traveling by foot
into these areas may also result in trampling and transport of weed species into the Kodachrome bladderpod
population.
The BLM would pursue cooperative agreements with the Sheriff departments in Kane and Garfield Counties to
facilitate shared law enforcement and support for enforcing established closures. BLM law enforcement
personnel are being hired to help with some of the increased enforcement of proposed closures. The increased
field presence of BLM field personnel would help deter non-compliance activities in closed areas.
Seeding, vegetation restoration methods, and forestry product collection would not be allowed in special status
species populations. Methods for removal of noxious weed species may be initiated if these species are found
in these areas, or to restore these areas to natural conditions. Details on impacts from weeds and actions to be
taken are described below. Project level NEPA analysis would be completed prior to initiation of these projects.
The information in the Water section of Chapter 2 describes a strategy for assuring water availability. Priority
would be to maintain natural flows and flood events. The measures described in that section would be initiated
to accomplish this goal. In addition, the maintenance of instream flows would provide adequate water for
natural structure and function of riparian vegetation. No new water developments would be authorized in
special status species populations.
Non-native plants and noxious weeds displace native species and affect the structure of plant associations. This
can be more pronounced in areas where water is sufficient to facilitate establishment and maintenance of these
species, such as in the Ute ladies '-tresses populations. Noxious weeds can also impact water quantity and
quality and native vegetation by displacing native species and de-watering these areas. Once established in
disturbed sites, weeds may spread into adjacent undisturbed lands and disrupt natural plant associations.
Conversion of vegetation structure by noxious weed species can make reestablishment of native plant
associations difficult if not impossible. These species are spread by a variety of means, some of which (e.g.,
foot traffic) are directly attributable to human actions and were discussed previously.
An active noxious weed control program would focus on the removal of these species in the most sensitive of
habitats, such as special status species populations. The use of chemicals in the treatment of weed species,
3.34
Chapter 3
Special Status Plant Species - Environmental Consequences
Weed Management cont.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
under limited circumstances as described in Chapter 2, has the potential to directly impact some non-target
species, but reestablishment of natural vegetation structure and function would increase the habitat conditions
for all species over the long-term. These chemicals would not be used in close proximity to listed species to
ensure they are not affected by these actions. BLM employees or contractors with appropriate certification
would be responsible for use of these chemicals and would take precautions to prevent possible effects to non-
target plant species. NEPA analysis would be required prior to project initiation.
Although removal of noxious weed species in the Monument is a priority, not all areas can be targeted for
removal efforts simultaneously. Special status species populations would be targeted as a top priority for
removal of weed species. There is the potential for continued degradation of special status species habitat in
areas left untreated.
There are 223 miles of river recommended suitable in this Plan. These segments would be managed for the
preservation of identified outstandingly remarkable values. This could prevent damming and diversions
upstream (and associated disruption of special status plant habitat such as Ute ladies '-tresses which is along a
suitable segment in the Monument), if such activities would harm identified outstandingly remarkable values.
Until legislation takes effect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. This would prevent much of the direct and indirect impacts of
surface disturbing activities on Ute ladies'-tresses and Kodachrome bladderpod whose populations partially
occur in WSAs.
Although fire is not a major component of the Monument's ecosystem, natural fires do occasionally occur in the
area. Due to the sparse nature of vegetation in Kodachrome bladderpod and Jones' cycladenia populations,
there is little likelihood that fire was a major component of these systems. Still, natural fires do occur in these
areas and these process would not be altered. Reseeding or surface disturbing restoration after fires in these
areas would not be allowed. Natural diversity and vegetation structure would provide adequate regeneration of
areas. Management ignited fires would also not be allowed in these areas.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to special status plant species would be expected from proposed decisions
listed under the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, VRM, Wildlife Services.
3.35
Chapter 3
Relict Plant Communities and Hanging Gardens - Environmental Consequences
IMPACTS ON RELICT PLANT COMMUNITIES AND HANGING GARDENS
Introduction
Relict plant communities and hanging gardens contain unique vegetation assemblages as well as associated
wildlife species which are not found elsewhere in the Monument. The unique quality of these areas is directly
related to their isolation over time and/or from disturbance. This isolation also provides an opportunity to
gauge impacts occurring elsewhere in the Monument and on the Colorado Plateau. Although the location of
some of these areas are known in the Monument, the potential for additional areas is high.
Summary of Effects
While relict plant communities and hanging gardens can be damaged by surface disturbance and the
introduction of weed species, limited access to these areas limits disturbance which would alter their structure
and function. Continued protection from surface disturbing activities, uncontrolled visitor use, and weed
infestations would substantially protect these associations from degradation. Additionally, inventory and
research projects in the Monument would provide information on the location and distribution of these areas,
which allows for better protection.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Collections
Commercial Filming
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of- Way, and Road Rights-of- Way
The unauthorized collection of objects, including plants and plant parts, is prohibited by the Proclamation and
this Plan. Casual collection (picking flowers, leaves, cones, etc.) in the Monument has not been a problem in
the past, and is not anticipated as contributing to the impacts of relict plant communities and hanging gardens in
the Monument, due to the inaccessibility of the locations where they occur. Collection for scientific purposes
are discussed below in the Inventory, Monitoring, Research and Adaptive Management section, and would be
closely monitored.
Commercial filming in the Monument would be limited to minimum impact standards, which include
provisions that would prevent damage or destruction in relict plant communities and hanging gardens. These
provisions include: no use of heavy equipment and no travel off of designated routes. A full list of these
restrictions is found in Chapter 2, Commercial Filming. Films documenting these unique associations could
help educate people about the this resource, but filming relating to any aspect of the Monument may bring more
people to the area, possibly causing increased use and damage as described below in the Recreational Facilities
and Use section. Mechanisms to control visitor use as described in that section would be initiated to reduce
these potential impacts.
Communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way would not be permitted in relict plant
communities or hanging gardens for any reason. This would protect these resources from the direct and indirect
effects of surface disturbance associated with the construction and use of these facilities.
3.36
Chapter 3
Relict Plant Communities and Hanging Gardens - Environmental Consequences
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Livestock Grazing
Recreational Facilities and Use
Non-surface disturbing research activities which focus on increasing the knowledge of relict plant communities
and hanging gardens in the Monument, or which would help restore and protect these resources, would be
encouraged. Inventory projects would be initiated to determine the overall distribution and species composition
of relict plant communities and hanging gardens in the Monument. This would provide guidance for increased
protection of these resources.
Surface disturbing research activities would not be allowed in relict plant communities and hanging gardens,
unless necessary for the restoration of individual sites. Surface disturbing research projects would be evaluated
by the BLM, and the GSENM Advisory Committee would be consulted for recommendations on whether
research proposals warrant exceptions, could be permitted in a manner consistent with the protection of
Monument resources, and whether the methods proposed are the minimum necessary to achieve desired
research objectives. Evaluation of proposed research projects would take into account the short and long-term
impacts these collection activities may have on these associations. Increased research in the area may draw
attention to these unique associations, possibly contributing to the introduction of weeds and degradation of
vegetation and associated species.
The relict plant communities which have been identified in the Monument exist partially due to the fact that
little if any livestock use has occurred. For this reason, there is little potential for impacts to occur. Although
access to many hanging gardens by livestock is not possible, there are some areas where access has been
observed. In these cases, the presence of cattle in these sites has the potential to directly impact vegetation
resources by consumption and trampling of vegetation, and indirectly by accelerating erosion, leading to further
damage of hanging gardens. Water and increased vegetation associated with hanging gardens attract cattle,
increasing the potential for impacts. Livestock grazing uses within the Monument would be managed in
keeping with applicable laws and regulations, and with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland
Health. Proper grazing and vegetation management, as outlined in the Standards and Guidelines, maintains
natural vegetation composition, structure and function of rangelands. Inventories would help identify the
locations of these resources to facilitate monitoring and protection. Fences, barriers, or other management
techniques could be used to prevent cattle from degrading hanging garden associations.
No current recreation facilities occur in relict plant communities and hanging gardens, although trails are in
close proximity to some hanging gardens. and trails lead to some relict plant areas. Compaction of soil,
degradation of vegetation communities and introduction of weed species all have the potential to impact these
associations. Monitoring of use in these areas and implementation of allocations may be initiated if degradation
is determined to be occurring. Primitive camping, campfires, and pack stock use are also forbidden in relict
plant communities. Although these activities are allowed near hanging gardens, they are not allowed directly in
them. The prohibition of pack stock use in these areas would eliminate the possibility of weeds transport by
3.37
Chapter 3
Relict Plant Communities and Hanging Gardens - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
Riparian Resources Program and
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
Vegetation Management
pack stock and the associated feed. This would reduce the possibility of impacts from weeds as described
below.
Clearing areas for the construction and placement of new visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites,
parking areas, picnic areas, pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets) would not be
permitted in relict plant communities and hanging gardens. Since people would still be allowed in these areas,
and they act as one of the primary vectors for the transport of noxious weed species, limits on the number of
people through the implementation of an allocation system may be initiated to facilitate the protection of these
sensitive resources. Potential impacts from weeds would be as described below in the Weed Management
section. Projected increases in use would result in an increase in all of these impacts.
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed and
site specific impacts to relict plant communities and hanging gardens would be addressed if applicable.
Protection of riparian resources would help to protect relict plant communities and hanging gardens associated
with them. Restoration and maintenance of riparian areas to proper functioning condition has the potential to
enhance sensitive areas associated with these riparian resources. There are currently no known Federally listed
species associated with known relict plant communities and hanging gardens. As these sites are inventoried,
new species or locations of currently listed species may be found. These species would be protected, and the
protection of these species and habitat would contribute to the protection of relict plant communities and
hanging gardens.
There are no routes in known relict plant communities and hanging gardens. There are 379 acres of relict plant
communities within % mile of designated open routes. Increased use on these routes has the potential to impact
relict plant communities by visitors introducing weeds or causing surface disturbance. Additionally, there are
25 acres of relict plant communities within % mile of administrative routes, but these would not likely be
affected due to the low amount of use and the fact that routes are not directly located in relict plant
communities. Motorized and mechanized vehicles have had little effect on relict plant communities and
hanging gardens due to inaccessibility and remoteness of these sites. Due to the limitation on vehicles to stay
on designated routes, except in limited situations, there is little potential for future damage from vehicle use.
The ongoing inventory and adaptive management framework (Appendix 3) would identify new resources or
unforseen conflicts between vehicles and these resources.
Seeding, vegetation restoration methods, and forestry product collection would not be allowed in relict plant
communities and hanging gardens. Methods for removal of noxious weed species may be initiated if these
species are found in these areas, or to restore these areas to natural conditions. Project level NEPA analysis
would be completed prior to initiation of these projects.
3.38
Chapter 3
Relict Plant Communities and Hanging Gardens - Environmental Consequences
Water Issues
No new water developments would be authorized in relict plant communities or hanging gardens, and
maintenance activities that would harm these resources would not be allowed.
Weed Management
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Non-native plants and noxious weeds displace native species and affect the structure of plant associations. This
can be more pronounced in areas where water is sufficient to facilitate establishment and maintenance of these
species, such as hanging gardens. Once established in disturbed sites, weeds may spread into adjacent
undisturbed lands and disrupt natural plant and animal associations. Relict plant communities are defined as
relatively undisturbed native plant associations. Weed species in these associations are a serious concern to the
protection of the integrity of these associations. Conversion of vegetation structure by noxious weed species
can make reestablishment of native plant associations difficult if not impossible. These species are spread by a
variety of means, some of which (e.g., foot traffic) are directly attributable to human actions and were discussed
previously.
An active noxious weed control program would focus on the removal of these species in the most sensitive of
habitats, such as relict plant communities and hanging gardens. The use of chemicals in the treatment of weed
species, under limited circumstances as described in Chapter 2, has the potential to directly impact some non-
target species, but the reestablishment of natural vegetation structure and function would increase the habitat
conditions for all species over the long-term. BLM employees or contractors with appropriate certification
would be responsible for use of these chemicals and would take precautions to prevent possible effects to non-
target plant species. NEPA analysis would be required prior to project initiation.
Although removal of noxious weed species in the Monument is a priority, not all areas can be targeted for
removal efforts simultaneously. Continued degradation of relict plant communities and hanging gardens has the
potential to occur in areas left untreated.
Until legislation takes affect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. This would prevent much of the direct and indirect impacts of
surface disturbing activities in relict plant communities and hanging gardens, many of which occur in existing
WSAs.
Although fire is not a major component of the Monument's ecosystems, natural fires do occasionally occur in
the area. Since relict plant communities and hanging gardens are generally isolated and protected from
disturbance, there is little likelihood that fire was a major component of these system. Still, natural fires do
occur in areas and these processes would not be altered. The isolation of these areas also contributes to
inaccessibility even if fire suppression activities were desired. Short-term loss of vegetation would result from
fires, but would quickly regrow in areas with diverse vegetation within a growing season. Reseeding after fires
in these areas would not be allowed. Natural diversity and vegetation structure would provide adequate
3.39
Chapter 3
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
cont.
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
Riparian Resources - Environmental Consequences
regeneration of the area. Management ignited fires would also not be allowed in these areas, unless it was
determined that fire had been historically and purposefully excluded from an area.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to relict plant communities and hanging gardens would be expected from
proposed decisions listed under the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, VRM, Wild and
Scenic Rivers, Wildlife Services.
IMPACTS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Riparian areas, comprising less than 1 percent of the total lands in the Monument, are some of the most
productive, ecologically valuable, and utilized resources in the Monument. Many wildlife species utilize
riparian areas for forage, nesting, migration and year around habitat. This species richness is made possible by
the plant diversity, availability of water, prey species, and the proximity to upland communities with their floral
and faunal diversity. Impacts to riparian resources are similar to impacts on wildlife and vegetation and have
been discussed in those sections when applicable. Comprehensive data collection on riparian resources has not
been completed at this time, but preliminary inventory information is available and has been used in the analysis
when possible.
Impacts to riparian resources result directly and indirectly from the removal of vegetation and degradation of
water quality from the construction of facilities (e.g., recreation, communication), and from trampling by
visitors livestock, and wildlife. These activities change the composition of vegetative associations by causing
weed invasion and surface disturbance, which leads to erosion and habitat degradation. There is a potential for
cumulative surface disturbance of approximately 360 acres within the Monument from reasonably foreseeable
activities such as recreation facilities, rights-of-way, and water developments over the 15 year planning horizon.
However some of this disturbance (86 acres) can be attributed to new recreation facilities which are prohibited
in riparian areas. The remainder of the disturbance estimates would be from activities that would avoid riparian
areas whenever possible. In addition, visitor and livestock use have the potential to cause surface disturbance
which is difficult to estimate. Vegetation restoration methods also have the potential to cause surface
disturbance on 20,000 acres over the 15 year planning horizon. These methods would be used to restore native
plant associations and would occur primarily in areas already disturbed, outside of riparian areas. The
following actions all contribute to an increase in protection for riparian resources in the Monument as a result of
actions in this Plan: prohibition of facilities in riparian areas; limits and restrictions on all surface disturbing
activities; mechanisms to control visitor use; closure of vehicular travel off of designated routes; monitoring of
Proper Functioning Condition for riparian areas; monitoring of vegetation condition; restoration and
revegetation provisions; and an active noxious weed removal program. Additionally, research and the adaptive
3.40
Chapter 3
Riparian Resources - Environmental Consequences
Summary of Effects cont.
management framework (Appendix 3) would facilitate and increase knowledge of these areas in the Monument,
and provide mechanisms for changing management to increase protection of these unique and vital resources.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Commercial Filming
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of- Way, and Road Rights-of- Way
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Commercial filming in the Monument would be limited to minimum impact standards, which include
provisions that would prevent disturbance or clearing of vegetation and associated soil erosion. These
provisions include: no use of heavy equipment, no travel off of designated routes, no work in excess of 10
days, and no degradation of riparian habitat. A full list of these restrictions is found in Chapter 2, Commercial
Filming. Films documenting the sensitivity of riparian resources could help educate people about the this
resource, but filming relating to any aspect of the Monument may bring more people to the area, possibly
causing increased use and damage as described below in Recreational Facilities and Use. Mechanisms to
control visitor use as described in that section would be initiated to reduce these potential impacts.
Clearing areas for the placement of communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way has the
potential to directly impact riparian resources by physically removing vegetation and biological soil crusts
during leveling and other installations activities. Erosion resulting from vegetation loss and soil destabilization
during these activities has the potential to further degrade water quality and subsequently riparian resources. It
is reasonably foreseeable that 1 large and 22 small communication or utility rights-of-way facilities, and 3.5
miles of road rights-of-way would be constructed in the Monument over the next 15 years disturbing 150, 102,
and 8.4 acres respectively. These sites would generally not be allowed on 1,21 1,386 acres of the Monument
(except for communication sites which may be allowed in this areas for safety purposes only and road rights-of-
way for private inholdings). Although these sites are allowed on 654,034 acres, the small amount of surface
disturbance and low number of potential sites reduce the chance that riparian resources would be affected by
these activities. Furthermore, these facilities would avoid riparian areas whenever possible. In all instances,
sites would be surveyed prior to construction. In the event that sensitive riparian resources are found, the
location of sites or rights-of-way may be moved to avoid these impacts. Project level NEPA analysis would be
completed for all projects, taking into account impacts on vegetation and riparian resources. A feasibility study
for communication sites in the Monument would be completed, identifying appropriate areas for construction of
these facilities.
Non-surface disturbing research activities which focus on increasing the knowledge of riparian resources in the
Monument, or which would help restore and protect these resources, would be encouraged. Monitoring
initiated as part of the adaptive management framework (Appendix 3) would provide information regarding the
condition of riparian resources in the Monument and would provide a mechanism for alteration in management
if degradation to riparian resources was determined to be occurring.
3.41
Chapter 3
Riparian Resources - Environmental Consequences
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management cont.
Livestock Grazing
Recreational Facilities and Use
There is the potential for degradation of riparian resources by removing plants during surface disturbing
research activities, including research relating to other resources. Surface disturbing research projects would be
evaluated by the BLM and the GSENM Advisory Committee would be consulted for recommendations on
whether research proposals warrant exceptions, could be permitted in a manner consistent with the protection of
Monument resources, and whether the methods proposed are the minimum necessary to achieve desired
research objectives. Increased research in the area may draw attention to riparian areas or other resources in the
Monument, possibly contributing to impacts discussed previously.
Livestock use has the potential to impact riparian resources directly by consumption and trampling of
vegetation, and indirectly by accelerating erosion leading to further damage of riparian resources. Water and
increased vegetation associated with riparian areas attract cattle, increasing the potential for impacts.
Additionally, concentrating use around range facilities in riparian areas has the potential to impact plants,
animals and soil in close proximity or downstream from these facilities. Livestock grazing uses within the
Monument would be managed in keeping with applicable laws and regulations, and with the Utah Standards
and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. In the evaluation of allotments as part of the Standards and Guidelines
implementation, the effects of livestock grazing on riparian resources is a primary measure of range condition.
Assessment of riparian Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is a standard method of evaluation used to
determine condition and impacts to riparian areas (see Riparian Resources section below for further discussion).
Continued evaluation of these areas is just one aspect of grazing and resource management. Proper grazing,
vegetation and riparian management, as outlined in the Standards and Guidelines, maintains natural vegetation
composition, structure and function of rangelands. Healthy rangelands also prevent erosion and degradation of
soils and water. Monitoring in conjunction with grazing management would provide information on changes in
vegetation condition, allowing for changes in grazing management strategies in conjunction with the adaptive
management framework (Appendix 3).
Clearing areas for the placement of visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking areas, picnic
areas, pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets) directly impacts riparian resources by
removing vegetation and causing ground disturbance leading to erosion and increased sedimentation. Indirect
impacts to riparian areas are caused by visitor use around sites, resulting in further surface disturbance and soil
erosion. Additionally, people are one of the primary vectors for the transport of noxious weed species.
Construction of new sites has the potential of introducing weeds into areas where they have not previously been
found. Impacts from weeds would be as described below in the Weed Management section. Projected increases
in use of all facilities would result in an increase in all of these impacts. Impacts from use in association with
recreation sites are generally limited to within Vi mile of facilities due to ease of access.
New recreation facilities in riparian areas would be limited to small signs for resource protection throughout the
Monument. This would afford substantial protection to riparian areas, not only from a lack of surface
3.42
(~harrtpr "? Riparian Resources - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont. disturbance related to construction, but also from the increased use which facilities would bring to these areas.
Trails could be delineated in riparian areas, if necessary to prevent widespread impacts from multiple trails.
Trails would be delineated outside of riparian areas wherever possible.
Dispersed primitive camping and pack stock use in the Primitive and Outback Zones may lead to direct and
indirect impacts. Due to the presence of water and vegetation for shade, these areas are used preferentially over
surrounding areas, concentrating use and subsequent impacts. Limited access and group size restrictions of 12
(Primitive) and 25 (Outback) would help reduce the potential for these impacts. Pack stock use also has the
potential to contribute to the introduction of weed species, but requirements for weed free hay on BLM lands
would reduce this possibility. Where impacts are documented in a given area, camping may be restricted to a
designated and clearly delineated area away from sensitive resources. This would limit more widespread
impacts and disturbance. Such areas would only be designated for resource protection purposes in these zones
and would most often be designated in areas currently disturbed by camping use. Limits on the number of
people in these areas through the implementation of an allocation system could also help to reduce impacts from
this type of use.
While new recreation facilities (other than signs and trails) would not be allowed in riparian areas, there is the
potential for direct and indirect impacts from the use of facilities in close proximity to (within % mile of)
riparian areas. Currently there are 15 recreation sites that are within % mile of riparian habitat, possibly
contributing to impacts as described previously. Due to the small number of potential new sites (32 over 15
years, all outside riparian areas), impacts on riparian resources are not expected to be substantial. Some of these
facilities would simply better delineate existing parking areas and trailheads to limit and concentrate disturbance
in a smaller area. This would protect sensitive resources over a larger area.
Trail use would have similar impacts on riparian areas as other recreation facilities, although the farther away
from routes and parking areas, the fewer the number of people, and the less substantial the impacts. There are
120 miles of riparian habitat that occur within '/« mile of trails in the Monument, possibly contributing to these
effects Of these miles, 95 are in proper functioning condition and the remainder are either non-functioning,
functioning at risk, or no data is available. Many of the trails that are in close proximity to riparian areas occur
in the Escalante Canyons, where canyons are narrow and placement of trails more than % mile from riparian
areas is impossible. In areas where placement of trails out of riparian areas is not possible, trails would be
designed to minimize impacts by placing trails away from streams, using soil stabilization structures to prevent
erosion, and planting native plants in areas where vegetation has been removed.
It is also anticipated that up to 35 primitive camping areas could be designated in the Frontcounrry and Passage
Zones disturbing 70 acres. Most of these areas would be designated where primitive camping currently occurs,
so new surface disturbance would actually be less than 70 acres. Camping would not be allowed elsewhere in
3.43
Chapter 3
Riparian Resources - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
Riparian Resources Program
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
these two zones (except in existing campgrounds), reducing the potential for more widespread impacts. The
delineation of these areas and installation offences and interpretive signs would limit the size of the disturbed
area, reducing the direct effects of trampling and indirect effects of erosion. These areas would be designated
where increased use could be accommodated without compromising sensitive resources. Some currently used
areas in sensitive riparian habitat may be closed. Any new areas designated for primitive camping would not be
located in or in close proximity to sensitive riparian areas.
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed and
site specific impacts to riparian resources would be addressed.
Restoration and maintenance of riparian areas to proper functioning condition would enhance these areas
throughout the Monument. There are 439 miles of riparian habitat inventoried in the Monument, representing
80 percent of the total riparian habitat assumed to occur within the Monument boundary. Of these miles, 192
are in proper functioning condition, 120 are non- functioning or functioning at risk, and 122 miles have no data
available on classification status. Restoration and inventory of all of riparian areas simultaneously is
impossible, but steps are being taken to complete this process through the implementation of the Standards and
Guidelines and additional inventory efforts over the next three years. Non-functioning and at risk riparian areas
have the potential for continued degradation until actions are taken to reverse or stop activities causing these
impacts.
Protection of habitat for Federally listed threatened or endangered species (both plants and animals), as
described in Chapter 2, would protect riparian areas which occur in conjunction with these species' habitat.
Protection of these habitats would reduce or eliminate impacts to riparian areas as well as these listed species.
Impacts on special status species are described separately for wildlife and plants in this chapter.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2).
This would afford protection to riparian areas from vehicles traveling in stream beds and in adjacent riparian
vegetation. Keeping vehicles out of these areas would prevent removal of vegetation, accelerated erosion of
stream banks, and degradation of water quality. Additionally, use of vehicles off of designated routes facilitates
the widespread transport of noxious weed species, resulting in impacts as described below in the Weed
Management impacts section. There is the potential for direct and indirect impacts to riparian resources from
unauthorized vehicle travel off of designated routes in the Monument. Enforcement, as described the
Enforcement section of Chapter 2, would reduce the possibility of unauthorized use off of these routes.
Direct impacts to riparian resources may occur from activities associated with the maintenance of designated
routes, as described for other surface disturbing activities, such as communication sites and recreation sites.
3.44
Chapter 3
Riparian Resources - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
Vegetation Management
Riparian areas are also common stopping places for visitors when traveling along routes, due to shade and
proximity to water. This may result in people traveling by foot off of these routes, directly and indirectly
impacting riparian areas by trampling vegetation, compacting soil, disturbing wildlife use patterns, and
contributing to erosion. There are approximately 27 miles of riparian habitat within Va mile of designated open
routes. Of these, there are 6.9 miles in proper functioning condition, 3.9 miles non-functioning or functioning
at risk, and 16.2 miles where no data is available. These areas would be most susceptible to these impacts.
Projected increases in use would increase the potential for this type of impact.
While motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes, there is a provision for pulling no more
than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking or primitive camping in the Outback Zone (618 miles of
routes). Travel 50 feet off of designated routes in the Outback Zone does not include travel in riparian areas,
and these areas would be signed to reflect this restriction.
Maintenance activities would occur on 888 miles of designated routes in the Monument, although these
activities would not be allowed outside the current disturbance on most routes. There are approximately 27
miles of riparian habitat within V* mile of these routes as mentioned above. Although some of these routes are
not located directly in riparian areas, erosion and increased sedimentation from run-off have the potential to
impact riparian resources. In many cases, maintenance activities could help to channel water off routes,
reducing erosion and sedimentation.
Although there are fewer miles of administrative routes (192 miles, with approximately 6 miles of riparian
habitat within V* mile), the lack of maintenance on these routes may increase degradation and erosion. Erosion
control structures would be installed when necessary to minimize these impacts to riparian resources.
This Plan would close approximately 1,087 miles of routes currently open to public travel. Chapter 2 describes
a strategy for closing and restoring these routes to conditions present before disturbance, minimizing indirect
impacts from erosion. Although restoration would be a priority for the protection of sensitive resources, and
non-functioning or functioning-at-risk riparian areas would be a high priority, not all sites can be restored
simultaneously, which may result in some impacts to riparian resources.
Native plants would be used as a priority for all restoration projects in the Monument. This would afford native
plant associations protection from displacement and competition from aggressive non-native species.
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration work could
be completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would
primarily consist of management ignited fires. These methods would only be used to restore a natural range of
3.45
Chapter 3
Riparian Resources - Environmental Consequences
Vegetation Management cont.
Water Issues
Weed Management
native plant associations, directly and indirectly improving the condition of native vegetation and riparian areas
throughout the Monument.
Forestry product collection would not be permitted in riparian areas, since pinyon and juniper stands are seldom
dense enough in these areas to warrant such activities, and soil disturbance may lead to increased sedimentation.
Restoration and revegetation provisions, as discussed in Chapter 2, are required for all surface disturbing
activities in the Monument as part of the project planning process. These provisions would provide substantial
protection from noxious weed invasion, erosion and further degradation of surrounding riparian resources.
It is reasonably foreseeable that up to 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years,
could be permitted when necessary for the protection of Monument resources. The effects of this surface
disturbing activity would be the same as for other surface disturbing activities and associated use as described
previously. These water developments would most often be used to displace use away from sensitive riparian
habitat, which is more easily affected by livestock and wildlife use. Maintenance of existing water
developments has the potential to cause some minor surface disturbance, but most maintenance activities would
be to fix facilities and prevent further degradation of the surrounding area. Project level NEPA analysis would
be completed prior to the authorization of any construction activities. Impacts to riparian resources would be
taken into consideration during NEPA analysis for future water development projects.
Non-native plants and noxious weeds displace native species and affect the structure of plant associations,
especially in riparian areas where water is sufficient to facilitate establishment and maintenance of these
species. Noxious weeds can also impact water quality and wildlife species dependent on native vegetation by
displacing native species and de-watering streams. Once established in disturbed sites, weeds may spread into
adjacent undisturbed lands and disrupt natural plant and animal associations. Conversion of vegetation
structure by noxious weed species can make reestablishment of native plant associations difficult if not
impossible. These species are spread by a variety of means, some of which (e.g., vehicles and foot traffic) are
directly attributable to human actions and are discussed in those sections.
An active noxious weed control program would focus on the removal of these species in the most sensitive of
habitats, such as riparian areas. The use of chemicals in the treatment of weed species has the potential to
directly impact some non-target species, but reestablishment of natural vegetation structure and function would
increase the habitat conditions for all species over the long-term. BLM employees or contractors with
appropriate certification would be responsible for use of these chemicals and would take precautions to prevent
possible effects to non-target species. NEPA analysis would be required prior to project initiation.
3.46
Chapter 3
Riparian Resources - Environmental Consequences
Weed Management cont.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
Although removal of noxious weed species in the Monument is a priority, not all areas can be targeted for
removal efforts simultaneously. There is the potential for continued degradation of riparian resources in areas
left untreated.
There are 223 miles of river recommended suitable in this Plan. These segments would be managed for the
preservation of identified outstandingly remarkable values. This could prevent damming and diversions on
upstream segments (and associated disruption of riparian resources on the Monument) if such activities would
harm identified outstandingly remarkable values.
Until legislation takes affect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. This would prevent much of the direct and indirect impacts of
surface disturbing activities in riparian areas, where they occur in WSAs. Vegetation restoration methods in
these areas would only done where compatible with the BLM's IMP. Research on restoration ecology in
conjunction with the adaptive management framework (Appendix 3) would provide mechanisms for restoration
of these areas in the future.
Although fire is not a major component of the Monument's ecosystems, natural fires do occasionally occur in
the area. Riparian areas are even less likely to have fires, and are consequently less adapted to the effects of
fire. Short-term loss of vegetation would result from fires, but would quickly regrow in areas with diverse
vegetation within a growing season. Due to the fact that many riparian areas have evolved without the
influence of fire, some species may not recover to pre-burned condition. Emergency seeding measures may be
initiated if accelerated erosion is anticipated in large riparian systems. These practices would be in accordance
with recommendations from the Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) Team report. Reseeding with
native species would be a priority and would be initiated in areas of where species diversity was low prior to
burning.
Impacts from fire suppression activities can have a profound effect on vegetation, including riparian areas,
changing the way water moves across the landscape and causing erosion. These effects are difficult to reverse,
especially in dry climates such as the Monument. Fire would be allowed to play its natural role in the
Monument as much as possible, while protecting private land and providing for public safety. Little chance
exists for fires to occur in riparian areas due the prohibition of campfires in the Escalante Canyons and Pana
Hackberry areas, and the small amount of natural fires which have historically occurred in riparian areas. Most
of these canyons are inaccessible, making suppression difficult if not impossible. This protects these areas from
the impacts of suppression activities.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to riparian resources would be expected from proposed decisions listed under
the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, Collection, VRM, Wildlife Services.
3A7
Chapter 3
Wildlife - Environmental Consequences
IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
Introduction
Summary of Effects
The Proclamation establishing the Monument states: "Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to diminish
the responsibility and authority of the State of Utah for management of fish and wildlife, including regulation of
hunting and fishing, on Federal lands within the Monument." At the same time, the proclamation refers to the
"outstanding biological resources" and " important ecological values" in the Monument. These resources,
which encompass entire natural systems, including fish and wildlife habitat, are among those the BLM has been
given responsibility to manage and protect. Monument wildlife includes all vertebrate and invertebrate animal
species (aquatic and terrestrial), including insects, reptiles and amphibians, fish, birds, and mammals.
Threatened and endangered wildlife species are discussed separately. Wildlife species are interrelated and
interdependent; impacts to any one are likely to impact others. Data on the presence and distribution of wildlife
in the Monument area is scarce. Collaborative inventory and monitoring projects would help improve current
baseline data, including spatial information, which improves future habitat and species management.
Impacts to wildlife species populations and habitat occur primarily from the alteration of foraging habitat
through surface disturbing activities and from use of facilities such as recreation sites and routes. Increased
erosion, degradation of riparian habitat, disruption of nesting activities, and introduction of weed species are a
direct result of these activities. There is a potential for cumulative surface disturbance of approximately 360
acres from reasonably foreseeable activities such as recreation facilities, rights-of-way, and water developments
over the 15 year planning horizon. Much of the surface disturbance associated with recreational facilities would
occur in areas already disturbed by existing camping or other uses. Subsequently, acres of disturbance from
these activities would likely be less than are reported here. In addition, visitor and livestock use have the
potential to cause surface disturbance, which is difficult to estimate. Vegetation restoration methods also have
the potential to cause surface disturbance on 20,000 acres over the 15 year planning horizon. These methods
would be used to restore native plant associations in areas already disturbed, which would improve habitat for
native wildlife species. Restrictions on surface disturbing activities, mechanisms to control visitor use (e.g.,
allocations, groups size restrictions, designated camping areas), closure to vehicular travel off of designated
routes, restoration, avoidance, and an active weed removal program all contribute to the protection of all
wildlife species.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Collections
The collection of objects, including wildlife, is prohibited by the Proclamation and this Plan, with the exception
of wildlife controlled by the State of Utah, Division of Wildlife Resources. Collection of wildlife or wildlife
parts is controlled by regulations set forth by the Utah Wildlife Board. This includes the collection of antlers
and horns, and the collection of wildlife for scientific research. Unauthorized collection of wildlife in the
3.48
Chapter 3
Wildlife - Environmental Consequences
Collections cont.
Commercial Filming
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of- Way, and Road Rights-of- Way
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Monument has not been a problem in the past, and is not anticipated to contribute to the impacts of wildlife
populations in the Monument.
Commercial filming in the Monument would be limited to minimum impact standards, which include
provisions that would prevent disturbance of wildlife habitat. These provisions include: no use of heavy
equipment, no travel off of designated routes, no work in excess of 10 days, and no degradation of riparian
habitat. A full list of these restrictions is found in Chapter 2, Commercial Filming. Films documenting
wildlife in the Monument could help educate people about the habitat needs and wildlife sensitivity, but filming
relating to any aspect of the Monument may bring more people to the area, possibly causing increased use and
damage as described below in Recreational Facilities and Use. Mechanisms to control visitor use as described
in that section would be initiated in order to reduce these potential impacts.
Clearing areas for the placement of communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way has the
potential to impact wildlife species by destroying or degrading habitat and causing erosion. The construction of
powerlines has the potential to impact raptor species. Raptor provision for powerlines, which are a standard
procedure discussed in the Rights-of- Way section of Chapter 2, would reduce or eliminate this type of impact.
It is assumed that 1 large and 22 small communication or utility rights-of-way facilities, and 3.5 miles of road
rights-of-way, would be constructed in the Monument over the next 15 years, disturbing 150, 102, and 8.4 acres
respectively. These sites would generally not be allowed on 1,21 1,386 acres of the Monument (except for
communication sites, which may be allowed throughout the Monument for safety purposes only, and road
rights-of-way for private inholdings). Although these sites are allowed on 654,034 acres, the small amount of
surface disturbance and low number of potential sites reduce the chance that wildlife habitat, use patterns, or
other activities would be disrupted by these facilities. In all instances, sites would be surveyed prior to
construction. In the event sensitive wildlife species or habitat are found in these areas, the location of sites or
rights-of-way may be moved to avoid these impacts. Project level NEPA analysis would be completed for all
projects, taking into account wildlife impacts. A feasibility study for communication sites in the Monument
would be completed, identifying appropriate areas for construction of these facilities.
Non-surface disturbing research activities which focus on increasing the knowledge of the distribution and
presence of wildlife species in the Monument, or which would help restore and protect wildlife habitat, would
be encouraged. Monitoring initiated as part of the adaptive management framework (Appendix 3) would
provide information regarding the condition of wildlife species in the Monument and would provide a
mechanism for alteration in management if impacts on wildlife species or habitat were determined to be
occurring.
There is the potential for the degradation of wildlife habitat, as described previously, from surface disturbing
research activities, including research relating to other resources. Surface disturbing research projects would be
3.49
Chapter 3
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management cont.
Wildlife - Environmental Consequences
evaluated by the BLM and the GSENM Advisory Committee would be consulted for recommendations on
whether research proposals warrant exceptions, could be permitted in a manner consistent with the protection of
Monument resources, and whether the methods proposed are the minimum necessary to achieve desired
research objectives. Taking of animals is often a component of wildlife studies, though becoming less common.
Wildlife taken in conjunction with scientific research requires a Certificate of Registrations from the Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources. Evaluation of proposed research projects would take into account the short and
long-term impacts these collection activities may have on wildlife populations. Increased research in the area
may draw attention to the wildlife or other resources in the Monument, possibly contributing to impacts
discussed previously.
Livestock Grazing
Recreational Facilities and Use
Livestock grazing has the potential to directly impact wildlife by competing for habitat, especially in riparian
areas. Livestock grazing also has the potential to indirectly impact wildlife by changing vegetation
composition, structure, and function. Aquatic wildlife has the potential to be affected by water quality
degradation resulting from a reduction of vegetative cover and erosion in and near streams and water sources.
A discussion of impacts to wildlife in relation to water developments is included in the Water Issues section
below. Livestock grazing uses within the Monument would be managed in keeping with applicable laws and
regulations, and with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. The effects of livestock grazing
on wildlife species would be assessed in the evaluation of allotments as part of the Standards and Guidelines
implementation. Proper grazing and vegetation management, as outlined in the Standards and Guidelines,
maintains natural vegetation composition, structure and function of rangelands, with ample forage for both
wildlife and livestock. Healthy rangelands also prevent erosion and degradation of water quality, protecting
aquatic habitat and species from mortality and habitat loss. Monitoring in conjunction with grazing
management would provide information on changes in vegetation condition, allowing for changes in grazing
management strategies in conjunction with the adaptive management framework (Appendix 3).
Clearing areas for the placement of visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking areas, picnic
areas, pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets) indirectly impacts wildlife species by
clearing vegetation and biological soil crusts, and from increased visitor use around sites, allowing for erosion
of soil and degradation of vegetation associations. Use of recreation sites close to waterways and riparian areas
may lead to increased erosion and sedimentation, affecting water quality and aquatic habitats. Direct impacts
result from disruption during construction activities and subsequent use of sites, possibly disrupting travel
patterns, nesting activities, roosting, foraging, and migration. Projected increases in use would result in an
increase of these impacts.
Currently there are 15 recreation sites within V* mile of riparian areas, possibly affecting aquatic wildlife habitat
and riparian habitat for species associated with these areas. These sites would be evaluated for impacts and
appropriate actions taken if degradation of habitat or species population decline was identified as a result of
3.50
Chapter 3 Wildlife - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont. increased use at recreation sites. Actions may include: site stabilization, implementation of allocations,
establishment of monitoring plots, construction of barriers, temporary closures, and interpretive information
provided for education about the sensitivity of affected wildlife species. Additional surveys and research
projects would contribute to the knowledge of species distribution, providing for increased protection of these
species. Due to the large size of the Monument, inventory and distribution information for all species is
unlikely, resulting in possible mortality and/or habitat destruction. If mortality or habitat destruction for
wildlife species were found from visitor use, actions would be taken as described previously to reduce these
impacts.
New recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones,
except for those necessary to protect resources. Dispersed primitive camping and pack stock use in these zones
may lead to indirect impacts, but due to limited access and use in these zones these uses would not contribute
substantially to these impacts. Group size restrictions of 12 and 25 respectively, would help reduce the
potential for these impacts. Where impacts are documented in a given area, camping may be restricted to a
designated and clearly delineated area away from sensitive resources. This would limit more widespread
impacts and disturbance. Such areas would only be designated in these zones for resource protection purposes
and would most often be designated in areas currently disturbed by camping use. Limits on the number of
people in these areas through the implementation of an allocation system could also help to reduce impacts from
this type of use.
There is the potential for 32 new recreation sites, disturbing 16 acres in the Frontcountry and Passage Zones
(1 16,372 acres). Direct and indirect impacts from construction and use of these facilities would be as
mentioned previously. The small number of new sites and subsequent surface disturbance would not contribute
substantially to impacts on wildlife species. For all proposed sites, surveys would be completed prior to
construction and impacts on wildlife species considered in facility placement. Delineation of these sites and
installation of fences and interpretive signs would limit the size of the disturbed area. Concentrating use into a
smaller area, where use could be accommodated without impacting sensitive resources, reduces impacts to
wildlife habitat over a larger area of the Monument.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 35 new primitive camping areas could be designated in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones, disturbing up to 70 acres. Direct and indirect effects of the surface disturbance and use of these
areas would be as described previously for other facilities. Most of these areas would be designated where
primitive camping currently occurs, so new surface disturbance would actually be less than 70 acres. Camping
would not be allowed elsewhere in these two zones (except in existing campgrounds), reducing the potential for
more widespread impacts to wildlife habitat. As above, the limited number of areas and surface disturbance
would not contribute substantially to the impacts on wildlife species and habitat.
3.51
Chapter 3
Wildlife - Environmental Consequences
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed and
site specific impacts to wildlife species and habitat would be addressed.
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
Riparian Resources Program
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
Restoration and maintenance of riparian areas to proper functioning condition would enhance wildlife habitat
and contribute to the overall protection of these species. Impacts specific to riparian resources are discussed
separately under the Impacts on Riparian Resources section of this chapter. Restoration and inventory of all
of these areas simultaneously is impossible, but steps are being taken to complete this process, through the
implementation of the Standards and Guidelines and additional inventory efforts over the next three years.
Wildlife species, especially aquatic wildlife, occurring in non-functioning or at risk riparian areas have the
potential to see a population decline from habitat degradation.
Protection of habitat for Federally listed threatened and endangered species and state listed species (both plants
and animals), as described in Chapter 2, would additionally protect other wildlife species habitat. Impacts on
special status species are described separately for wildlife and plants in this chapter.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2).
This would afford protection to wildlife species from the direct effects of vehicle use off of designated routes,
including noise and the presence of people and vehicles in the area, possibly disrupting travel patterns, nesting
activities, roosting, foraging, and migration. Protection from indirect effects, including removal and damage of
vegetation and habitat, erosion from surface disturbance causing loss of habitat, and degradation of water
quality, would also occur as a result of these restrictions. There is the potential for direct and indirect impacts to
wildlife from unauthorized vehicle travel off of designated routes in the Monument. Efforts for enforcement, as
described in the Enforcement section of Chapter 2, would reduce the possibility of unauthorized use off of
these routes.
Use of 888 miles of designated open routes may result in indirect impacts to wildlife species, loss of habitat
from people traveling off routes on foot, and erosion from surface disturbance causing loss of habitat and
degradation of water quality. It is assumed that this type of impact on wildlife species is generally limited to
within % mile of routes. Projected increases in use would increase the potential for this type of impact.
While motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes, there is a provision for pulling no more
than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking or primitive camping in the Outback Zone (618 miles of
routes). Visitors would be encouraged to use areas already disturbed, and new clearing would be prohibited.
However, some vegetation removal may still occur. This is expected to have little direct and indirect impact on
wildlife species and habitat.
3.52
Chapter 3
Wildlife - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
Vegetation Management
In addition to the number of miles open to vehicle travel, the orientation of these designated routes in relation to
wildlife migration routes also affects these species. Often it is difficult to determine impacts from these types of
activities since wildlife species may adapt to regular use in an area, changing use and timing of use in areas in
response to disturbance. There are approximately 588 miles of designated open routes and 109 miles of
administrative routes within mule deer habitat, 52 miles of designated open routes and 2 miles of administrative
routes in elk habitat, 45 miles of designated open routes and 1 mile of administrative routes in black bear
habitat, 45 miles of designated open routes and 13 miles of administrative routes in bighorn sheep habitat, and
64 miles of designated open routes and 5 miles of administrative routes in upland bird habitat. The closure of
1,087 miles of routes in the Monument, could reduce wildlife disturbance and vehicle strikes. The resulting
increased traffic on the remaining routes has the potential to increase mortality of wildlife, especially deer,
where routes cross migration paths.
Temporary, short-term direct impacts may occur from activities associated with the maintenance of designated
routes, as described for other surface disturbing activities, such as communication sites and recreation sites.
Maintenance activities would occur on 888 miles of designated routes in the Monument, but these activities
would not be allowed outside the current disturbance on most of the routes (see the Maintenance section in
Chapter 2). Maintenance activities would not occur with enough regularity to have a substantial impact on
wildlife species. However, in the limited cases where maintenance activities would occur outside of the existing
disturbance, areas would be inventoried to minimize impacts to sensitive wildlife habitat.
Administrative routes (192 miles) throughout the Monument could indirectly impact wildlife species by causing
erosion. Erosion control structures would be installed when necessary to minimize these impacts. Limited use
on these routes would minimize the disruption to wildlife.
This Plan would close approximately 1,087 miles of routes currently open to public travel. Chapter 2 describes
a strategy for closing and restoring these routes to conditions present before disturbance, minimizing indirect
impacts from erosion. Although restoration would be a priority for the protection of sensitive resources, not all
sites can be restored simultaneously, which may result in some impacts to wildlife habitat.
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration work could
be completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would
primarily consist of management ignited fires. In accordance with the vegetation management objectives, these
treatments would only be used to restore a natural range of plant associations. For example, a seeding which is
primarily crested wheatgrass may be burned and seeded to promote the restoration of native plant associations
in the area. Restoration of native plant associations would provide forage and habitat for native wildlife species
with which they evolved.
3.53
Chapter 3
Wildlife - Environmental Consequences
Vegetation Management cont.
Water Issues
Weed Management
Removal of forestry products in the Monument would only occur on 23,950 acres in the Monument unless more
areas are identified as necessary to meet the objective of having a natural range of native plant associations.
Opening of areas through thinning would benefit species dependent on grassland and small shrub browse
species, but has the potential of impacting species dependent on pinyon and juniper communities. The small
amount of area where these activities would be allowed would not contribute substantially to impacts on
wildlife species.
It is reasonably foreseeable that up to 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years,
could be permitted when deemed beneficial overall for Monument resources. The indirect effects of surface
disturbing activities would be the same as for other surface disturbing activities and associated use as described
previously. All new water developments would have provisions for wildlife use, benefitting certain wildlife
species. Maintenance of existing water developments has the potential to cause some minor surface
disturbance, some of which would be associated with measures to adapt developments so they are compatible
for wildlife use. Project level NEPA analysis would be completed prior to the authorization of any construction
activities. These water developments would most often be used to displace use away from sensitive riparian
habitat, crucial for many wildlife species in the Monument. This would facilitate the protection and
enhancement of water quality in the Monument and subsequently reduce population pressures on aquatic
wildlife species and their habitat.
Noxious weeds can impact wildlife indirectly by replacing native species and de-watering critical riparian
habitat. Removal of these species, though temporarily removing cover, would facilitate the return of native
species in the long-term. The recovery of native vegetation structure and function would improve habitat and
populations of wildlife species, since these species evolved together. The use of chemicals in the treatment of
weed species under limited circumstances as described in Chapter 2, has the potential to directly impact some
species of wildlife in the short-term. BLM employees or contractors with appropriate certification would be
responsible for use of these chemicals and would take precautions to prevent possible effects to wildlife species.
NEPA analysis would be completed prior to project initiation. Although removal of noxious weed species is a
priority, all areas can not be targeted for removal efforts at once. There is the potential for continued
degradation of wildlife habitat in areas left untreated.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
There are 223 miles of river recommended suitable in this Plan. These segments would be managed for the
preservation of identified outstandingly remarkable values. This could prevent damming and diversions on
upstream segments (and associated disruption of riparian wildlife habitat in the Monument) if such activities
would harm identified outstandingly remarkable values.
3.54
Chapter 3
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildlife - Environmental Consequences
Until legislation takes effect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. This would prevent much of the direct and indirect impacts of
surface disturbing activities on wildlife habitat in WSAs. Vegetation restoration methods in these areas would
only be allowed where consistent with the Interim Management Policy. Research on restoration ecology in
conjunction with the adaptive management framework would provide mechanisms for restoration of these areas
in the future.
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Wildlife Services (Animal Damage
Control)
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
Although fire is not a major component of the Monument's ecosystems, natural fires do occasionally occur in
the area. A short-term loss of habitat would result to species dependent on these plants. Forage and habitat
would quickly return to these areas, providing ample forage within a growing season. There is the potential for
impacts to result from an immediate reduction in prey species. Again, these would be short-term impacts, as
population numbers would rebound for prey species as forage increased. Most of the Monument is located in
fire management areas which have little suppression activity. This would allow fire to reach a larger size, but
would protect wildlife species from the surface disturbing effects associated with motorized cross-country travel
and access. Emergency use of equipment, such as chaining, for fire restoration has the potential to impact
wildlife habitat by clearing vegetation and biological soil crusts which allows for erosion. These methods
would not be used for management ignited fires and are only allowed under limited circumstances as described
in the Vegetation Restoration Methods section of Chapter 2. Effects of such activities on sensitive wildlife
species would be assessed prior to their use.
Animal damage control activities would directly impact targeted wildlife species by removing individual
animals from the population. Use of poisons or other pre-control methods, or methods which target entire
populations, would not be allowed as described in the Wildlife Services section of Chapter 2. Restrictions on
Wildlife Services methods in the Monument would prevent inadvertent mortality of non-predator species.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to wildlife species or habitat would be expected from proposed decisions
listed under the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, VRM.
3.55
Chapter 3
Special Status Animal Species - Environmental Consequences
IMPACTS ON SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES
Introduction
There are two Federally listed threatened species and six Federally listed endangered species known to occur
within the Monument. The threatened species are the bald eagle and the Mexican spotted owl. The endangered
species are: the California condor (an experimental, non-essential population), the Colorado pikeminnow, the
American peregrine falcon, the razorback sucker, the Kanab ambersnail, and the southwestern willow
flycatcher. There are no known candidate species within the boundaries of the Monument. The Mexican
spotted owl and American peregrine falcon are the only listed bird species known to nest in the Monument, and
additional information on nesting locations needs to be collected. In addition to these listed species, there are
also sensitive species which are included in the special status animal species discussed here and described in the
Special Status Animal Species section of Chapter 2. Surveys to gather additional information on the
distribution and population of special status animal species in the Monument are discussed below.
Summary of Effects
Impacts to special status animal populations and habitat occur primarily from the alteration of foraging habitat
through surface disturbing activities and from use of facilities such as recreation sites and routes. Increased
erosion, degradation of riparian habitat, disruption of nesting activities, and introduction of weed species are all
direct results of these activities. Because vehicles are restricted to designated routes, impacts would result
primarily from trampling or collection by visitors. Restrictions on surface disturbing activities, mechanisms to
control use (allocations, groups size restrictions, designated camping areas), restoration, and an active weed
removal program all contribute to the protection and recovery of these listed species. The BLM concludes that
the actions proposed in this Plan are not likely to adversely affect bald eagle, American peregrine falcon,
Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, California condor, Kanab ambersnail, Colorado
pikeminnow, razorback sucker or sensitive wildlife species populations or habitats in the Monument.
Furthermore, the actions described in this Plan would likely be beneficial to the recovery and conservation of
these species. The BLM would work in conjunction with the USFWS and adjacent land managers to protect and
restore special status animal species populations and habitat.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Collections
The collection of objects, including special status animal species, is prohibited by the Proclamation and this
Plan. Furthermore, the Endangered Species Act prohibits the collection of Federally listed animal species
without a permit from the USFWS. The prohibition of these actions would help eliminate the casual collection
or taking of protected species in the Monument. Coupled with an education program and increased law
enforcement presence in the Monument, there should be little threat from unauthorized collection of listed
species in the Monument. Collection of listed species for scientific purposes is discussed below in the
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and Adaptive Management section, and would be closely monitored.
3.56
Chapter 3
Commercial Filming
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of-Way, and Road Rights-of-Way
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Special Status Animal Species - Environmental Consequences
Commercial filming in the Monument would be limited to minimum impact standards and is restricted by many
provisions as described in the Commercial Filming section of Chapter 2. Commercial filming in the
Monument would not be permitted in known special status species nesting areas. Films documenting special
status animal species in the Monument could help educate people about the habitat needs and wildlife
sensitivity, but filming relating to any aspect of the Monument may bring more people to the area, possibly
causing increased use and damage as described below in Recreational Facilities and Use. Mechanisms to
control visitor use as described in that section would be initiated to reduce these potential impacts
Communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way would not be permitted in known special
status species nesting areas. Prior to the initiation of these activities, surveys for special status animal species
would be completed. Projects determined to affect special status animal species would be moved to avoid
impacts. Although the construction of powerlines (where they are allowed) has the potential to impact raptor
species, raptor protection guidelines, as discussed in the Rights-of-Way section of Chapter 2, would reduce or
eliminate this type of impact. Project level NEPA analysis would be completed for all projects, taking into
account impacts on special status animal species.
Non-surface disturbing research activities which focus on increasing the knowledge of the distribution and
presence of special status animal species in the Monument, or which would help restore and protect special
status animal species habitat would be encouraged. Surface disturbing research activities would not be allowed
in known nesting areas for threatened or endangered species. All scientific research projects in close proximity
to listed species populations or habitat would be evaluated by Monument biologists, the USFWS, and
appropriate experts prior to initiation to determine impacts to these populations or habitats. Any research
project which may have an effect on populations of listed species would be coordinated with the USFWS, and
appropriate permits and Section 7 consultation would be completed as determined necessary. Projects which
provide new information and understanding of listed species, their populations, and/or their habitat may be
allowed after approval by the BLM and the review and issuance of permits by the USFWS. All projects would
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
A comprehensive inventory for Mexican spotted owls in the Monument began in 1999. This project will look at
occurrence of owls, current habitat, and potential habitat if modifications are made. After the surveys in 1999,
the BLM would designate protected activity centers in accordance with the recovery plan. These protected
activity centers would place limitations on activities as descnbed below in the Recreation Facilities and Use
section. Limitations would be based on the identification of activities which may be affecting this species.
A comprehensive inventory for southwestern willow flycatcher populations in the Monument began in 1999.
This study will look at occurrence of southwestern willow flycatchers, current habitat, and potential habitat if
modifications are made (e.g., removal of tamarisk). This inventory would help to identify some of the impacts
3.57
Chapter 3
Special Status Animal Species - Environmental Consequences
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management cont.
Livestock Grazing
which may be occurring in the area, which would help the BLM determine when and where limits on activities
(such as recreational use) need to be implemented to protect the southwestern willow flycatcher.
Although the primary habitat for the Kanab ambersnail is along Kanab Creek (a drainage not connected to the
Monument), there is a potential for this species to occur within the Monument. Surveys for this species have
begun in the 1999 field season. Surveys will be conducted in potential habitat, moist seeps and along water
courses in the Grand Staircase portion of the Monument. Results of this survey would be used to determine the
potential for further surveys. If this species is discovered in the Monument, actions would be taken to improve
habitat as consistent with the recovery plan objectives. Actions may include assuring flows in appropriate
streams and seeps by removing non-native plants affecting the water table, and reducing impacts from visitors
and/or livestock. Surveys would also identify current habitat and potential habitat if modifications are made
(e.g., removal of tamarisk).
Increased research in the area may draw attention to the special status animal species or other resources in the
Monument, possibly contributing to impacts discussed previously. Monitoring initiated as part of the adaptive
management framework (Appendix 3) would provide information regarding the condition of special status
animal species in the Monument and would provide a mechanism for alteration in management if degradation to
special status animal species was determined to be occurring.
Livestock grazing has the potential to directly impact special status animal species by competing for habitat,
especially in riparian areas. Livestock grazing has the potential to indirectly impact special status animal
species by changing vegetation composition, structure, and function. Aquatic special status animal species have
the potential to be affected by water quality degradation resulting from erosion in and near streams and water
sources. Livestock grazing uses within the Monument would be managed in keeping with applicable laws and
regulations, and with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. In the evaluation of allotments
as part of the Standards and Guidelines implementation, the effects of livestock grazing on special status animal
species would be assessed. Section 7 consultation would be conducted for all allotments that may affect
Federally listed species. Proper grazing and vegetation management, as outlined in the Standards and
Guidelines, maintains natural vegetation composition, structure and function of rangelands, with ample foraging
habitat for both wildlife and cattle. Healthy rangelands also prevent erosion and degradation of water quality,
protecting aquatic habitat and species from mortality and habitat loss. Monitoring in conjunction with grazing
management would provide information on impacts on special status animal species, and if impacts were found,
changes in grazing management strategies in conjunction with the adaptive management framework (Appendix
3) would be taken.
3.58
Chapter 3 Special Status Animal Species - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use Clearing areas for the placement of visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking areas, picnic
areas, pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails and toilets) indirectly impacts special status animal
species by clearing vegetation and biological soil crusts allowing for erosion of soil and degradation of
vegetation associations and habitat. Use of recreation sites close to waterways and riparian areas may lead to
increased erosion and sedimentation, impacting water quality and aquatic based habitats. These impacts are
discussed in the Impacts on Riparian Resources section in this chapter. Direct impacts result from disruption
during construction activities and subsequent use of sites, possibly disrupting travel patterns, nesting activities,
roosting, foraging, and migration. This type of impact would have the most effect on nesting activities of
spotted owls and peregrine falcons. It is assumed that this type of impact would be limited to 'A mile for spotted
owls and 1 mile for peregrine falcons. Projected increases in use would result in an increase of these impacts.
Currently there is 1 recreation site and 34.2 miles of trails within the above distances of nesting sites, possibly
affecting these species. These sites would be evaluated for impacts and appropriate actions taken if degradation
of habitat or species population decline was identified as a result of increased use at recreation sites. Actions
related to spotted owls would be in conjunction with future identification of protected activity centers, as
outlined in the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. Actions may include: site stabilization, implementation
of allocations, establishment of monitoring plots, construction of barriers, temporary closures for restoration,
and interpretive information provided for education about the sensitivity of affected special status animal
species.
New recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones,
except for those necessary to protect resources. Dispersed primitive camping and pack stock use in these zones
may lead to indirect impacts, but due to limited access and use in these zones these activities would not
contribute substantially to these impacts. Group size restrictions of 12 and 25 respectively, would help reduce
the potential for these impacts. Where impacts are documented in a given area, camping may be restricted to a
designated and clearly delineated area away from sensitive resources. This would limit more widespread
impacts and disturbance. Such areas would only be designated in these zones for resource protection purposes
and would most often be designated in areas currently disturbed by camping use. Limits on the number of
people in these areas through the implementation of an allocation system would also help to reduce impacts
from this type of use.
There is the potential for construction of 32 new recreation sites disturbing 16 acres in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones (1 16,372 acres). Direct and indirect impacts from construction and use of these facilities would
be as described previously. The small number of new sites and subsequent surface disturbance would not
contribute substantially to direct impacts on special status animal species, but indirect use may affect these
species. For all proposed sites, surveys would be completed prior to construction and special status animal
species and habitats would be considered in facility placement. Sites would not be constructed within Vi mile of
3.59
Chapter 3
Special Status Animal Species - Environmental Consequences
Recreation Facilities and Use cont.
spotted owl nesting areas or 1 mile of peregrine falcon nesting areas without concurrence of the USFWS.
NEPA analysis would be completed on all new recreation facilities, including consultation with USFWS for
those projects that may affect special status animal species. Delineation of these sites and installation offences
and interpretive signs would limit the size of the disturbed area, reducing water quality degradation caused by
erosion.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 35 new primitive camping areas would be designated, disturbing 70 acres.
Most of these areas would be located in areas where primitive camping is already occurring. Direct and indirect
effects of the surface disturbance and use of these areas would be as described previously for other facilities.
Again, these areas would not be located within lA mile of spotted owl nesting areas or 1 mile of peregrine falcon
nesting areas without the concurrence of the USFWS. The delineation and use of areas would affect special
status animal species as described previously for recreation sites.
Riparian Resources Program
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed,
consultation with the USFWS would occur where listed species may be affected, and site specific impacts to
special status animal species would be addressed.
Although there is currently not extensive use of the Monument for rock climbing, criteria for designation of
climbing areas would be established for the Monument. Climbing is currently not permitted on arches, natural
bridges, in archaeological sites or in known special status animal species nest sites. If nest sites are identified in
areas designated for climbing, seasonal or permanent closures would be established in those areas to assure
disturbance of nesting activities does not occur.
Restoration and maintenance of riparian areas to proper functioning condition would enhance habitat for spotted
owls, peregrine falcons, southwestern willow flycatchers, and bald eagles, and would contribute to the overall
protection of these special status animal species dependent on these areas for food and shelter. Impacts to
riparian areas are discussed in the Impacts on Riparian Resources section of this chapter.
BLM policy and provisions in the Endangered Species Act require the protection of listed species from actions
which would lead to further decline or extinction. The BLM would work toward the recovery of species which
are listed as Federally threatened and endangered. The BLM is dedicated to working with the USFWS and
adjacent land managers in the recovery and enhancement of listed species populations and habitat.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2).
This would afford protection to special status animal species from the direct effects of vehicle use off of
designated routes, which include: noise and the presence of people and vehicles in the area, possibly disrupting
3.60
Chapter 3
Transportation cont.
Special Status Animal Species - Environmental Consequences
travel patterns, nesting activities, roosting, foraging, and migration. Protection from the indirect effects, which
include removal and damage to vegetation for forage and habitat, erosion from surface disturbance causing loss
of habitat and degradation of water quality, would also occur as a result of these restrictions. There is the
potential for unauthorized vehicle travel off of designated routes, resulting in the impacts discussed above.
Enforcement, as described the Enforcement section of Chapter 2, would reduce the possibility of unauthorized
use off of these routes.
Use of 888 miles of designated routes may result in indirect impacts to special status animal species due to loss
of habitat from people traveling off of designated routes on foot. This use has the potential to lead to erosion
and surface disturbance causing loss of habitat and degradation of water quality. Additionally, direct physical
disturbance of nesting species (spotted owls, peregrines) may occur as a result of this use. It is assumed that
this type of impact on special status animal species is generally limited to within 'A mile of routes for spotted
owls and 1 mile for peregrine falcons. Projected increases in use would increase the potential for this type of
impact.
Currently there are 9 recorded nest sites within the above distances of designated open routes. Monitoring in
these areas would determine if impacts to these populations were occurring from activities associated with these
routes. Additionally, 70 sightings of bald eagle, southwestern willow flycatcher, and other State sensitive
species have been documented within 'A mile of these routes. Restrictions on foot traffic in these areas would
be implemented if impacts were determined to be occurring to special status animal species.
Temporary, short-term direct impacts may occur from activities associated with the maintenance of designated
routes, as described for other surface disturbing activities such as communication sites and recreation sites.
Maintenance activities would occur on 888 miles of designated routes in the Monument, but these activities
would not be allowed outside the current disturbance on most of the routes. Maintenance activities would not
occur with enough regularity to have a substantial impact on special status animal species. Nonetheless,
potential impacts to special status animal species would be evaluated, and steps taken to minimize impacts, prior
to any maintenance activities.
While motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes, there is a provision for pulling no more
than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking or primitive camping in the Outback Zone (618 miles of
routes). It is expected that this would have little direct or indirect impacts on special status animal species
because habitat requirements and known sites are generally not adjacent to routes. If nest sites were identified
within 50 feet of these routes, the area would be signed to close the area to pulling off routes.
There are 192 miles of administrative routes throughout the Monument which have the potential to indirectly
impact special status animal species by causing erosion. There are 9 recorded nest sites within the above
3.61
Chapter 3
Special Status Animal Species - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
Vegetation Management
Water Issues
distances of administrative routes. There have also been 4 sightings of bald eagle, southwestern willow
flycatcher, and other State sensitive species which have been documented within 'A mile of these routes. Due
to the limited amount of use of the routes it is unlikely that impacts would result from use of the routes. Erosion
control structures would be installed when necessary to minimize these impacts.
This Plan would close approximately 1,087 miles of routes currently open to public travel. Chapter 2 describes
strategy for closing and restoring these routes to conditions present before disturbance, minimizing indirect
impacts from erosion. Although restoration would be a priority for the protection of sensitive resources, not all
sites can be restored simultaneously, which may result in some impacts to special status animal species habitat.
Vegetation manipulation would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed areas to a
natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration work could be
completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would
primarily consist of management ignited fires. These areas would not be located in areas where special status
animal species roost or nest. Restoration of native plant associations would provide foraging areas and habitat
for special status animal species with which they evolved.
Removal of forestry products in the Monument would only occur on 23,950 acres in the Monument, unless
more areas are identified as necessary to meet the objective of having a natural range of native plant
associations. No known nesting or roosting sites for special status animal species would be included in these
areas. Opening of areas through thinning would benefit species dependent on open areas for foraging such as
spotted owls. The small amount of area where these activities would be allowed would not contribute
substantially to impacts on special status animal species.
The information in the Water section of Chapter 2 describes a strategy for assuring water availability. Priority
would be to maintain natural flows and flood events. The measures described in that section would be initiated
to accomplish this goal. In addition, the maintenance of instream flows would provide adequate water for
natural structure and function of riparian vegetation, on which many of these species depend.
It is reasonably foreseeable that up to 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years,
could be permitted when deemed to benefit overall protection of Monument resources. The indirect effects of
surface disturbing activities would be the same as for other surface disturbing activities and associated uses as
described previously. All new water developments would have provisions for special status animal species use.
Maintenance of existing water developments has the potential to cause some minor surface disturbance, but
would also be necessary to adapt current developments to be compatible with special status animal species use.
Project level NEPA analysis and inventories for these resources could be required prior to the authorization of
3.62
Chapter 3
Special Status Animal Species - Environmental Consequences
Water Issues cont.
Weed Management
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wilderness Study Area Protection
maintenance activities. These water developments would most often be used to displace use away from
sensitive riparian habitat, crucial for many wildlife species, including special status species.
Non-native plants and noxious weeds displace native species and affect the structure of plant associations. This
can be more pronounced in areas where water is sufficient to facilitate establishment and maintenance of these
species. Noxious weeds can also impact water quantity and quality and native vegetation by displacing native
species and de-watering these areas. Once established in disturbed sites, weeds may spread into adjacent
undisturbed lands and disrupt natural plant associations. Conversion of vegetation structure by noxious weed
species can make reestablishment of native plant associations difficult if not impossible. These species are
spread by a variety of means, some of which (e.g., foot traffic) are directly attributable to human actions and
were discussed previously.
An active noxious weed control program would focus on the removal of these species in the most sensitive of
habitats, such as special status species populations and riparian areas. The use of chemicals in the treatment of
weed species has the potential to directly impact some non-target species (such as endangered fish), but the
reestablishment of natural vegetation structure and function would increase the habitat conditions for all species
over the long-term. These chemicals would not be used in close proximity to listed species to ensure they are
not affected by these actions. Special care would be taken near streams and watercourses to ensure poisons are
not entering these systems. BLM employees or contractors with appropriate certification would be responsible
for use of these chemicals and would take precautions to prevent possible effects to non-target species. NEPA
analysis would be required prior to project initiation.
Although removal of noxious weed species in the Monument is a priority, not all areas can be targeted for
removal efforts simultaneously. Special status species habitat would be targeted as a top priority for removal of
weed species. There is the potential for continued degradation of special status animal species habitat in areas
left untreated.
There are 223 miles of river recommended suitable in this Plan. These segments would be managed for the
preservation of identified outstandingly remarkable values. This could prevent damming and diversions on
upstream segments (and associated disruption of special status animal species habitat downstream) if such
activities would harm identified outstandingly remarkable values.
Until legislation takes effect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. This would prevent much of the direct and indirect impacts of
surface disturbing activities to special status animal species habitat described previously. Research on
restoration ecology in conjunction with the adaptive management framework (Appendix 3) would provide
mechanisms for restoration of these areas in the future.
3.63
Chapter 3
Water Quality - Environmental Consequences
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Wildlife Services (Animal Damage
Control)
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
Although fire is not a major component of the Monument's ecosystems, natural fires do occasionally occur in
the area. Short-term loss of habitat would result to species dependent on these areas for foraging, such as the
spotted owl. This habitat would quickly return to these areas, as population numbers would rebound for prey
species as forage increased. Most of the Monument is located in fire management areas which have little
suppression activity. This would allow fire to reach a larger size, but would protect special status animal
species from the surface disturbing effects associated with motorized travel off of designated routes.
Emergency use of equipment, such as chaining, for fire restoration has the potential to impact vegetation
associations by clearing vegetation, and biological soil crusts, which allows for erosion. These methods would
not be used for management ignited fires and are only allowed under limited circumstances as described in the
Vegetation Restoration Methods section of Chapter 2. Native species would be used in these areas as a
priority to restore native habitat for prey species.
The use of poisons or methods which target entire populations would not be allowed in the Monument, as
described in the Wildlife Services section of Chapter 2. Restrictions on Wildlife Services activities in the
Monument would prevent inadvertent poisoning of listed species resulting in decreased pressures on these
species populations.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to special status animal species would be expected from proposed decisions
listed under the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, VRM.
IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Water resources within and around the Monument are vital to sustaining many of the Monument's resources.
Among others, these resources include the communities of plants and animals associated with hanging gardens,
seeps, springs, tinajas, and with ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams and ponds. Sensitive plant and
animal species also rely upon scarce water resources, as do the riparian zones and entire natural systems that
support those and other species. The maintenance of water quality is also of great economic importance to the
surrounding communities and the ranching industry within the region.
Negative, short-term impacts to water quality in the Monument could result from activities that decrease
vegetative cover and increase soil erosion. These types of activities would include facilities construction,
maintenance of routes, livestock grazing, increased visitor use, and vegetation restoration. There is a potential
for cumulative surface disturbance of approximately 360 acres from reasonably foreseeable activities such as
recreation facilities, rights-of-way, and water developments over the 15 year planning horizon. Much of the
surface disturbance associated with recreational facilities would occur in areas already disturbed by existing
camping or other uses. Subsequently, acres of disturbance from these activities would likely be less than are
reported here. In addition, visitor and livestock use have the potential to cause surface disturbance, which is
3.64
Chapter 3
Water Quality - Environmental Consequences
Summary of Effects cont.
difficult to estimate. Vegetation restoration methods also have the potential to cause surface disturbance on
20,000 acres over the 1 5 year planning horizon. These methods would be used to restore native plant
associations and would occur primarily in areas already disturbed. Implementation of this Plan would have the
long-term, overall effect of improving water quality to the benefit of other Monument resources. Plan
implementation would result in improved visitor management, reduction in vehicular travel off of designated
routes, and other management practices leading toward restoring natural biophysical systems.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Commercial Filming
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of- Way, and Road Rights-of- Way
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Commercial filming in the Monument would be limited to minimum impact standards, which include
provisions to prevent disturbance which could lead to erosion and water quality degradation. These provisions
include: no use of heavy equipment and no travel off of designated routes. A full list of these restrictions is
found in Chapter 2, Commercial Filming.
Clearing areas for the placement of communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way has the
potential to directly impact water quality through clearing vegetation and biological soil crusts, allowing for
erosion of soil. These sites have the potential, depending on the location and setting, to create temporary
sediment increases to surface streams in the immediate vicinity. However, these sites are typically located in
upland areas along ridge tops or buttes and water quality near the site is usually not an issue. Nonetheless,
before any sites are permitted, an evaluation of impacts to water quality would be made through a NEPA
process, and alterations to the proposal or appropriate water quality protection measures (e.g., sediment and
erosion control) would be taken. It is reasonably foreseeable that 1 large and 22 small communication or utility
rights-of-way facilities, and 3.5 miles of road rights-of-way, would be constructed in the Monument over the
next 15 years disturbing 150, 102, and 8.4 acres respectively. These sites would generally not be allowed on
1,21 1,386 acres of the Monument (except for communication sites, which may be allowed throughout the
Monument for safety purposes only, and road rights-of-way for private inholdings). A feasibility study for
communication sites in the Monument would be completed, identifying appropriate areas for construction of
these facilities.
Non-surface disturbing research activities which focus on increasing knowledge about the conditions of springs,
wells, seeps, diversions, and other water-related features, or which result in stabilizing or preserving at risk
resources, would be encouraged. Monitoring initiated as part of the adaptive management framework
(Appendix 3) would provide information regarding the condition of water quality in the Monument and would
provide a mechanism for alteration in management if degradation was determined to be occurring. Surface-
disturbing research activities on other resources may cause temporary degradation of water quality in the
immediate vicinity. Surface disturbing research projects would be evaluated by the BLM and the GSENM
Advisory Committee would be consulted for recommendations on, whether research proposals warrant
3.65
Chapter 3
Water Quality - Environmental Consequences
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management cont.
Livestock Grazing
Recreational Facilities and Use
exceptions, could be permitted in a manner consistent with the protection of Monument resources, and whether
the methods proposed are the minimum necessary to achieve desired research objectives.
Livestock grazing has the potential to impact water quality through the removal of vegetative cover, which
thereby increases soil erosion and subsequently increases the turbidity of streams. In riparian areas, livestock
waste has the potential to increase the bacterial content of the water in streamcourses. Livestock grazing within
the Monument would be managed in keeping with applicable laws and regulations, and with the statewide
Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management. In evaluation of allotments as part of
the Standards and Guidelines implementation, the effects of livestock grazing on water quality would be
assessed and appropriate actions under the Standards and Guidelines would be taken. Water quality of springs
and water-bodies is currently being monitored in the Monument and would be continued to determine if impacts
are occurring.
Construction of visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking areas, picnic areas, pullouts,
designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets) directly impacts surface water quality by temporarily
increasing sediment load to nearby watercourses. Following construction of facilities, increased visitor use in
and around the site(s) may indirectly degrade water quality within nearby surface water courses and within
shallow ground water aquifers. Impacts to water quality from recreational use would generally occur within V*
mile of areas with water. The BLM is currently embarking on a comprehensive water quality monitoring effort
to ensure that State and Federal water quality standards would be met. Monitoring of other water sources (e.g.,
springs, streams) in the vicinity of facilities would be initiated if degradation to water quality was determined.
Visitor management at the facility could then be modified in order to reduce water quality degradation.
New recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones,
except for those necessary to protect resources. Dispersed primitive camping and pack stock use in these zones
may lead to impacts to water quality from soil destabilization and subsequent erosion. Group size restrictions of
12 and 25 respectively would reduce the potential for these impacts. Where impacts are documented in a given
area, camping may be restricted to a designated and clearly delineated area away from sensitive resources. This
would limit more widespread impacts and disturbance. Such areas would only be used for resource protection
purposes in these zones and would most often be designated in areas currently disturbed by camping use.
Limits on the number of people in these areas through the implementation of an allocation system would also
help to reduce impacts from this type of use.
While new recreation facilities (other than signs and trails) would not be allowed in riparian areas, direct and
indirect impacts to water quality from the use of facilities within % mile of riparian areas (which are indicative
of water resources) may occur. Currently there are 15 recreation sites within V* mile of riparian habitat,
possibly contributing to water quality impacts as mentioned previously. Due to the small number of potential
3.66
Chapter 3
Water Quality - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
Riparian Resources Program
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
new sites (32 over 15 years, all outside riparian areas), impacts to water quality are not expected to be
substantial from these new sites. Some of these facilities would simply be efforts to better delineate existing
parking areas and trailheads to minimize and concentrate disturbance in a smaller area. This would protect
sensitive water resources over a larger area.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 35 new primitive camping areas could be designated in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones, disturbing 70 acres. Surface disturbance would occur as described previously for recreation
sites. The use of these areas and surface disturbance in these areas are not expected to contribute to impacts on
water quality because these sites would be located away from open water. Most of these areas would be
designated where primitive camping currently occurs, so new surface disturbance would actually be less than 70
acres. Camping would not be allowed elsewhere in these two zones (except in existing campgrounds), reducing
the potential for more widespread impacts.
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed and
site specific impacts to water quality would be addressed.
Throughout the Monument, riparian resources would be managed so as to either maintain or improve proper
functioning condition. This overall management goal to improve riparian zones would indirectly improve water
quality throughout the Monument.
Programs to protect and promote the recovery of populations of threatened and endangered plant and animal
habitats within the Monument would both directly and indirectly improve water quality. Because many of the
Federally listed species within the Monument are associated with riparian habitats, the management
prescriptions to protect these species would also help protect the riparian habitat from disturbances. This
would, in turn, provide indirect protection of water quality within the Monument.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2).
This would afford substantial protection from surface disturbance and erosion that could lead to degradation of
water quality. There is the potential for impacts to water quality from unauthorized vehicle travel off of
designated routes in the Monument. Enforcement, as described the Enforcement section of Chapter 2, would
reduce the possibility of unauthorized use off of these routes.
Use of 1,080 miles of designated open routes, including administrative routes, may contribute to impacts on
water quality from erosion and subsequent increases in sedimentation. It is assumed that this type of impact
would occur where routes are in close proximity to watercourses due to the increased potential for erosion.
3.67
Chapter 3
Water Quality - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
Vegetation Management
Water Issues
There are 54 places where designated and administrative routes cross riparian habitat (which is indicative of
sensitive water resources). Projected increases in use would increase the potential for this type of impact.
While motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes, there is a provision for pulling no more
than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking or primitive camping in the Outback Zone (618 miles of
routes). This increased surface disturbance in the Outback Zone has the potential to contribute to water quality
impacts in these areas.
Maintenance of designated routes has the potential to impact water quality as described for other surface
disturbing activities, such as communication sites and recreation sites. Maintenance activities would occur on
888 miles of designated routes in the Monument, and could possibly occur on 192 miles of administrative
routes, but these activities would not be allowed outside the current disturbance on most of the routes (see the
Maintenance section in Chapter 2). In the limited cases where maintenance activities would occur outside of
the existing disturbance, impacts to water quality would be a primary concern, and measures to prevent
temporary and long-term water quality impacts (sedimentation and erosion control measures) would be taken.
This Plan would close approximately 1,087 miles of routes currently open to public travel, eliminating impacts
from those routes crossing riparian habitat and water resources. Chapter 2 describes a strategy for closing and
restoring these routes to conditions present before disturbance, minimizing indirect impacts from erosion in
these areas. Although restoration would be a priority for the protection of sensitive resources, not all sites can
be restored simultaneously, which may result in some impacts to water quality from erosion in the interim until
routes are closed and restored.
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration work could
be completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would
primarily consist of management ignited fires. Although there may be temporary impacts to water quality
immediately after fires, the restoration of a natural range of native plant associations in the Monument would
improve water quality in affected watersheds. Chaining and seeding may be used in limited, emergency
situations after wildfire where loss of soil and degradation of water quality are anticipated.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years, could
be permitted when necessary for the overall protection of Monument resources. The indirect effects of these
activities would be the same as for other surface disturbing activities and associated use as described previously.
Maintenance of existing water developments has the potential to cause some minor surface disturbance. Project
level NEPA analysis would be completed prior to the authorization of any construction activities. One of the
overall goals of prescriptions for water development within the Monument is to improve water quality. Water
3.68
Chapter 3
Water Quality - Environmental Consequences
Water Issues cont.
Weed Management
developments would often be used to displace use away from sensitive riparian habitat where water quality
degradation would be an issue. Impacts that may occur from diverting surface water or taking groundwater
from nearby areas would be assessed during the NEPA process. In general, water developments could only be
allowed if they do not degrade riparian habitat through de-watering of natural springs or perennial streams.
Non-native plants and noxious weeds displace native species and affect the structure of plant associations.
Noxious weeds can also impact water quality by displacing native species and de-watering of streams and
drainages. Control of noxious weeds is a priority of the BLM in order to achieve general vegetation
management objectives. Use of chemicals (aerial spraying, hand spraying, and painting), hand cutting,
biological control agents, and manual pulling are all viable methods for control of noxious weed species. The
long-term effect of the control of weeds within the Monument would be beneficial to water quality as the goal is
to help restore natural systems. Short-term effects of weed control projects in and around riparian zones,
particularly those using chemical agents, may degrade water quality if herbicides wash into stream courses or
enter shallow ground water systems. Aerial spraying could only be used in limited circumstances as described
in Chapter 2. Project level NEPA analysis would be completed prior to initiation of weed control projects.
BLM employees or contractors with appropriate certification would be responsible for use of these chemicals
and would take precautions to prevent possible effects to surface and ground water. Although removal of
noxious weed species in the Monument is a priority, not all areas can be targeted for removal efforts
simultaneously. There is the potential for continued degradation of water quality in areas left untreated.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
There are 223 miles of rivers that would be recommended suitable in this Plan. These segments would be
managed for the preservation of identified outstandingly remarkable values. This could prevent damming and
diversions on upstream segments, and associated effects on water quality and quantity downstream from these
sites, if such actions would harm identified outstandingly remarkable values.
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
Until legislation takes affect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. This would prevent much of the direct and indirect impacts of
surface disturbing activities on water quality, as mentioned previously.
The overall goal of the fire management program would be to help restore native vegetative associations and
natural systems. The long-term effects of this program would be the improvement of water quality through
decreased sediment and salinity loads. Short-term negative effects of management ignited fires and fire
management may include localized increases in turbidity and salinity of nearby streams. Project-level NEPA
analysis would be completed prior to initiation of fire management projects.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to water quality resources would be expected from proposed decisions listed
under the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, Collections, VRM, Wildlife Services.
3.69
Chapter 3
Air Quality - Environmental Consequences
IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Typical of undeveloped regions in the western United States, ambient pollutant levels in and around the
Monument are usually near or below the measurable limits. The entire management area has been designated as
either attainment or unclassified for all pollutants and has also been designated as Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Class II. Nearby PSD Class I areas include Capitol Reef, Canyonlands, and Arches
National Parks to the east and north, Bryce Canyon and Zion National Parks to the west, and Grand Canyon
National Park to the South.
Implementation of this Plan would help maintain the air-shed of the Monument as PSD Class II. Reductions in
the number of routes open to the public and eliminating cross-country vehicular travel would lessen the amount
of fugitive dust across the Monument. Short-term degradation to the air quality could occur from management
ignited fires and surface disturbing activities. The Navajo Generating Station (NGS) at Page, Arizona, a point
source of airborne sulfur compounds to the area, consists of three 750 MW units which burn up to 25,000 tons
of coal per day. The NGS plant has recently completed the installation of the first of three wet limestone
scrubbers which will remove most of the sulfur dioxide from the emission plumes of the plant.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Air Quality Program
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of-Way, and Road Rights-of-Way
The entire management area has been designated as either attainment or unclassified for all pollutants and has
also been designated as PSD Class II. There are no actions proposed in this Plan that would cause long-term
effects to air quality, although increases in vehicular use on designated open and administrative dirt routes (986
miles) has the potential to cause temporary increases in fugitive dust. The BLM would work to maintain the
PSD Class II air-shed, and would work with surrounding land management agencies to prevent deterioration of
their Class I air-sheds. High, short-term, localized concentrations of particulates (primarily wind blown dust),
ozone and carbon monoxide have the potential to occur in the Monument from natural and human disturbance.
Locations vulnerable to decreasing air quality, generally on the periphery of the Monument, include the areas
around mining and farm tilling, local population centers affected by residential emissions, and areas affected by
long-range transport of pollutants.
Clearing areas for the placement of communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way has the
potential to impact air quality by clearing vegetation and biological soil crusts, allowing for wind erosion of soil
and the generation of fugitive dust. It is reasonably foreseeable that 1 large and 22 small communication or
utility rights-of-way facilities, and 3.5 miles of road rights-of-way would be constructed in the Monument over
the next 15 years, disturbing 150, 102, and 8.4 acres respectively. These sites would generally not be allowed
on 1 21 1 386 acres, (except for communication sites, which may be allowed throughout the Monument tor
safely pu'rposes only, and road rights-of-way for private inholdings). This would lessen the generation of
3.70
Chapter 3
Air Quality - Environmental Consequences
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of- Way, and Road Rights-of- Way cont.
Livestock Grazing
Recreational Facilities and Use
fugitive dust from these activities in this part of the Monument. All areas would be reseeded with native
vegetation resulting in a reduction of fugitive dust from the site after completion of the project.
Livestock grazing has the potential to have short term impacts on air quality by trampling and consumption of
vegetation. Additionally, concentrating use around range facilities has the potential to decrease vegetation in
close proximity to these facilities. These activities have the potential to contribute to the generation of fugitive
dust in the area. Livestock grazing uses within the Monument would be managed in keeping with applicable
laws and regulations, and with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. Proper grazing and
vegetation management, as outlined in the Standards and Guidelines, maintains natural vegetation composition,
structure and function of rangelands. Healthy rangelands also prevent wind erosion and the degradation of air
quality by fugitive dust generation.
Clearing areas for the placement of visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking areas, picnic
areas, pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets) have short-term impacts on air quality
through clearing vegetation and biological soil crusts, and from increased visitor use around sites, allowing for
wind erosion of soil and the generation of fugitive dust.
New recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones,
eliminating the generation of fugitive dust from these activities in this part of the Monument. Use in these
zones would be low, due to accessibility and group size restrictions, reducing the potential for trampling and
surface disturbance contributing to the short-term generation of fugitive dust. Although there is the potential for
32 new recreation sites disturbing 16 acres in the Frontcountry and Passage Zones (1 16,372 acres), some of
these sites are already used for this purpose. Better delineation of these sites and installation offences would
limit the size of the disturbed area, resulting in a reduction in wind erosion and air quality degradation. This
small amount of disturbance would not contribute substantially to air quality impacts. For all proposed sites,
restoration activities would reseed disturbed sites in order to reduce continued surface erosion. Concentrating
use into a smaller area, where use could be accommodated without affecting sensitive resources, reduces short-
term impacts to air quality over a larger area of the Monument.
It is assumed that 35 new primitive camping areas could be designated in the Frontcountry and Passage Zones,
disturbing 70 acres. Surface disturbance would occur as described previously for recreation sites. The use of
these areas may contribute to fugitive dust and localized, short-term degradation of air quality. Most of these
areas would be designated where primitive camping currently occurs, so new surface disturbance would
actually be less than 70 acres. Camping would not be allowed elsewhere in these two zones (except in existing
campgrounds), reducing the potential for more widespread impacts.
3.71
Chapter 3
Air Quality - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont
Transportation
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed and
site specific impacts to air quality would be addressed.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2).
This would reduce the amount of short-term air quality degradation by fugitive dust generation over a large area
of the Monument. There is the potential for impacts to air quality from unauthorized vehicle travel off of
designated routes in the Monument. Enforcement, as described the Enforcement section of Chapter 2, would
reduce the possibility of unauthorized use off of these routes.
Of the 888 miles of routes designated open, 794 miles are unpaved. Use of these designated open dirt routes
would contribute to the fugitive dust and short-term air quality degradation. Projected increases in use would
increase the potential for this type of impact. While motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated
routes, there is a provision for pulling no more than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking or primitive
camping in the Outback Zone (618 miles of routes). This has the potential to lead to an increase in fugitive dust
generation in the Outback Zone from increased surface disturbance in this area. Visitors would be encouraged
to use areas that were already disturbed, reducing the amount of new disturbance. Clearing of vegetation for
pulling off routes would not be permitted, further reducing the potential for fugitive dust generation.
Maintenance of designated routes has the potential to result in air quality impacts as discussed for other surface
disturbing activities, such as communication sites and recreation sites. Maintenance activities would occur on
888 miles of designated routes in the Monument, but these activities would not be allowed outside the current
disturbance on most of the routes (see the Maintenance section in Chapter 2). The limited cases where
maintenance activities would occur outside of the existing disturbance would not contribute substantially to
fugitive dust generation and air quality degradation.
There are 192 miles of administrative routes throughout the Monument, all of which are dirt, which have the
potential to contribute to short-term impacts on air quality through fugitive dust generation. Use on these routes
would be limited and infrequent, minimizing the potential for these impacts. Maintenance of these routes would
be the minimum necessary to keep them accessible to high clearance vehicles.
This Plan would close approximately 1,087 miles of routes currently open to public travel. Chapter 2 describes
a strategy for closing and restoring these routes to conditions present before disturbance, minimizing short-term
impacts from fugitive dust generation in these areas. Although restoration would be a priority for the protection
of sensitive resources, not all sites can be restored simultaneously, which may result in continued short-term
fugitive dust generation and air quality degradation in the interim until routes are closed and restored.
3.72
Chapter 3
Scenic Quality - Environmental Consequences
Vegetation Management
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration work could
be completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would
primarily consist of management ignited fires. Restoration of disturbed areas would decrease the amount of
bare ground and allow native vegetation to stabilize the soil, reducing the potential for short-term impacts to air
quality from fugitive dust generation. Since fire would be the primary tool for completion of these projects,
impacts from fire may contribute to air quality as described below.
Management ignited fires have the potential to degrade air quality during the period of the fire, and would cause
some fugitive dust from the burned area. These fires would be initiated in accordance with State air quality
standards and the BLM would obtain appropriate permits. The long-term effects of management ignited fires
would be to reduce levels of particulate matter (due to dust) by restoring native vegetation cover.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to air quality would be expected from proposed decisions listed under the
following sections of this Plan: Collections, Commercial Filming, Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management, Riparian Resource Program, Special Status Species, VRM, Water Issues, Weed
Management, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Study Area Protection, Wildlife Services.
IMPACTS ON SCENIC QUALITY
Introduction
Summary of Effects
The wealth of landforms, geology, colors, elevation changes, and vegetation types in the Monument contribute
to its outstanding scenery. The BLM's objective would be to preserve these spectacular scenic assets by
conforming to assigned Visual Resource Management (VRM) class objectives and meeting other visual quality
objectives such as (1) using natural or natural appearing material, (2) meeting restoration/re vegetation
objectives, and (3) complying with the Monument Facilities Master Plan.
This Plan would provide long-term, overall improvement of the scenic qualities of the Monument. Restoration
of areas containing non-native vegetation would be a focus, as would restoration of closed routes. New visitor
facilities, primarily located within the Frontcountry and Passage Zones (6 percent of the Monument), could
contrast with the surrounding landscape. New facilities such as pullouts, parking areas, and interpretive sites
would be minimal, however, disturbing a total of only 16 acres, and would be designed to meet visual resource
quality objectives as discussed in Chapter 2. Surface disturbing projects would generally not be permitted
within about 65 percent of the Monument (Primitive Zone). Vegetative restoration methods would focus on
restoring the natural vegetation from prior disturbance, also resulting in less contrasting landscapes.
3.73
Chapter 3
Scenic Quality - Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Air Quality Program
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of- Way, and Road Rights-of- Way
Livestock Grazing
Recreational Facilities and Use
Implementation of this Plan would provide for maintenance of a Class II air-shed across the Monument, and no
activities would be permitted that would degrade the Class I air-shed on adjacent land-management units. This
would protect the scenic qualities of the Monument from impacts associated with poor air quality (e.g.,
diminished sight distance).
Clearing areas for communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way has the potential to impact
scenic quality by placement of facilities and clearing of vegetation and biological soil crusts, causing visual
contrasts with the surrounding area. It is reasonably foreseeable that 1 large and 22 small communication or
utility rights-of-way facilities, and 3.5 miles of road rights-of-way would be constructed in the Monument over
the next 15 years, disturbing 150, 102, and 8.4 acres respectively. All sites would have to meet visual resource
quality objectives, and placement would take into account scenic quality impacts in the area (see VRM below).
These sites would generally not be allowed on 1,21 1,386 acres, (except for communication sites, which may be
allowed throughout the Monument for safety purposes only, and road rights-of-way for private inholdings). All
areas would be reseeded with native vegetation, resulting in a reduction of contrast directly surrounding these
sites after completion of the project.
Livestock grazing has the potential to have impacts on scenic quality by causing cattle trails, trampling and
consumption of vegetation. Additionally, concentrating use around range facilities has the potential to impact
sites in close proximity to these facilities, increasing visual contrast around these sites. Livestock grazing
within the Monument would be managed in keeping with applicable laws and regulations, and with the Utah
Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. All new range facilities would be required to meet visual
resource quality objectives. Proper grazing and vegetation management, as outlined in the Standards and
Guidelines, maintains natural vegetation composition, structure and function of rangelands, promoting native
plant growth and reducing visual contrasts.
Clearing areas for the placement of visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking areas, picnic
areas, pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets) and subsequent use of these sites
contributes to visual contrasts and impacts to scenic quality.
New recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones,
except for those necessary to protect resources. Use in these zones would be low due to accessibility and group
size restrictions, reducing the potential for trampling, surface disturbance and scenic quality degradation in
these areas. Although there is the potential for 32 new recreation sites (e.g., picnic areas, parking areas),
disturbing 16 acres in the Frontcountry and Passage Zones (1 16,372 acres), many of these sites are already used
for this purpose. All sites would be required to meet visual resource quality objectives. Better delineation of
3.74
Chapter 3
Scenic Quality - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
Riparian Resources Program and
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
these sites and installation of fences would limit the size of the disturbed area. This small amount of disturbance
would not contribute substantially to scenic quality impacts. For all proposed projects, restoration activities
would reseed disturbed sites in order to reduce contrasts with surrounding areas. Concentrating use into a
smaller area, where use could be accommodated without affecting sensitive resources, reduces visual contrasts
over a larger area of the Monument.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 35 new primitive camping areas could be designated in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones, disturbing 70 acres. Most of these areas would be designated where primitive camping
currently occurs, so new surface disturbance would actually be less than 70 acres. Camping would not be
allowed elsewhere in these two zones (except in existing campgrounds), reducing the potential for more
widespread impacts to scenic quality.
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed and
site specific impacts to scenic quality would be addressed.
The overall objective of restoring riparian habitat to proper functioning condition and protecting special status
species habitat would enhance visual qualities by decreasing vegetation contrasts. Restoring degraded areas
would re-introduce native vegetation that, in the long-term, would blend more favorably with surrounding
habitats.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2).
This would reduce the amount of vehicle tracks in un-roaded areas over a large area of the Monument. There is
the potential for impacts to scenic quality from unauthorized vehicle travel off of designated routes in the
Monument. Enforcement, as described the Enforcement section of Chapter 2, would reduce the possibility of
unauthorized use off of these routes.
The continued presence of 1,080 miles of designated open and administrative routes throughout the Monument
would contribute to the visual impacts. While motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes,
there is a provision for pulling no more than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking, or primitive camping m
the Outback Zone (618 miles of routes). This has the potential to lead to an increase in visual contrast adjacent
to these routes in the Outback Zone from increased surface disturbance in this area. Visitors would be
encouraged to use areas that were already disturbed, reducing the amount of new disturbance. Clearing of
vegetation for pulling off routes in this zone would not be permitted, helping to reduce the amount of visual
contrast.
3.75
Chapter 3
Scenic Quality - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
Maintenance of designated routes has the potential to result in scenic quality impacts if maintenance occurs
outside of the current disturbance. These activities would not be allowed outside the current disturbance on
most of the routes (see the Maintenance section in Chapter 2). The limited cases where maintenance activities
could occur outside of the existing disturbance would not contribute substantially to scenic quality degradation.
This Plan would close approximately 1,087 miles of routes currently open to public travel. Chapter 2 describes
a strategy for closing and restoring these routes to conditions present before disturbance, minimizing visual
contrasts and scenic quality degradation in these areas. Although restoration would be a priority for the
protection of sensitive resources, not all routes can be restored simultaneously, which may result in continued
visual contrasts in the interim until routes are closed and restored.
Vegetation Management
Visual Resource Management
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration work could
be completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would
primarily consist of management ignited fires. These projects may lead to temporary visual contrasts, but
restoration of native plant associations would reduce this contrast in the long-term. For example, a seeding
which is primarily crested wheatgrass may be burned or seeded to restore native plant associations in the area.
Removal of forestry products would only occur on the 23,950 acres designated for that use, unless more areas
are identified as necessary to meet the objective of restoring a natural range of native plant associations. These
activities may create visual contrasts with the surrounding areas, but existing and new areas would take into
account the impacts on scenic quality and the long-term restoration of native vegetation.
Restoration and revegetation provisions, as discussed in Chapter 2, are required for all surface disturbing
activities in the Monument as part of the project planning process. These provisions would decrease visual
contrasts immediately surrounding these projects.
The VRM program for the Monument is designed to reduce the visual impact of past, present, and future
development projects. Scenic quality is affected by surface disturbance, which creates a contrast with the
natural environment as mentioned above. Approximately 68 percent of the Monument is categorized as Visual
Class II, in which the objective is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The remaining 32 percent is
categorized as Visual Class III, in which the objectives are to partially retain the existing character of the
landscape and to prevent management actions from dominating the view. All projects would assess impacts to
visual quality and would have to be designed to create as little visual contrast as possible, regardless of the
VRM classification.
3.76
Chapter 3
Scenic Quality - Environmental Consequences
Water Issues
Weed Management
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
It is reasonably foreseeable that up to 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years,
could be permitted when necessary for the protection of Monument resources. These water developments have
the potential to cause visual impacts, but would be designed to limit visual contrasts as much as possible.
Project level NEPA analysis would be completed, and visual resources would be taken into account prior to the
authorization of any construction activities.
Non-native plants and noxious weeds displace native species and affect the structure of plant associations. The
replacement of native species by noxious weed species often creates a visual contrast in an area, until these
species completely replace native vegetation. Once established in disturbed sites, weeds may spread into
adjacent undisturbed lands causing further visual contrasts. Conversion of vegetation structure by noxious
weed species can make reestablishment of native plant associations difficult, if not impossible. An active
noxious weed control program would focus on the removal of these species. Although removal of noxious
weed species in the Monument is a priority, not all areas can be targeted for removal efforts simultaneously.
There is the potential for continued impacts to scenic quality in areas left untreated.
Scenic quality is one of the outstandingly remarkable values for which rivers were found suitable. Of the 223
miles of river found suitable, approximately 202 miles have scenic quality which would be protected as an
outstandingly remarkable value. This would contribute to the overall scenic quality of the Monument.
Until legislation takes effect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. This would prevent much of the scenic quality degradation from
these activities in WSAs.
Scenic quality could be directly affected both during and following natural or management ignited fires.
During the fires, localized air quality would deteriorate temporarily, and following the fires, vegetation
contrasts would be very noticeable. Natural and management ignited fires, however, have been rare within the
boundaries of the Monument, and restoration of these areas with native species would reduce visual contrasts
over the long-term.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to scenic quality would be expected from proposed decisions listed under the
following sections of this Plan: Collections, Commercial Filming, Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management, Wildlife Services.
3.77
Chapter 3
Wild and Scenic River Values - Environmental Consequences
IMPACTS ON WILD AND SCENIC RIVER VALUES
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Wild and Scenic River (WSR) values are those outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) identified for river
segments in the WSR planning process (Appendix 11). These ORVs include: scenic, recreational, geologic,
fish and wildlife, ecological (riparian), botanical, paleontological, hydrological, and scientific study. Impacts
on each of these values Monument-wide are discussed in individual sections of this chapter. For example,
impacts on paleontological resources are discussed in detail in the Impacts on Paleontological Resources
section. As such, detailed impacts on each of these resources are not repeated here. Instead, general
discussions of overall impacts on suitable WSR segments are included. Actions that may affect the free-flowing
status of suitable rivers are also included. Impacts on identified ORVs for rivers found eligible, but found non-
suitable, are covered under the specific resource impact sections (e.g., riparian, paleontology), since these
values would be protected under general plan provisions.
Impacts to WSR values could result directly from activities such as diverting water from streams, livestock
grazing, and use of routes and trails in riparian areas that lead to impacts on the ORVs for which the streams
were determined suitable. These segments would be protected from these impacts such that the ORVs for
which they were determined suitable are not degraded. Plan provisions such as limiting development and
disturbance in riparian areas would contribute to that protection.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Collections
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of- Way, and Road Rights-of- Way
Livestock Grazing
The unauthorized collection of objects is prohibited by the Proclamation and this Plan. Unauthorized collection
of objects in and around rivers determined suitable for WSR designation may impact ORVs for which these
rivers were determined suitable. Interpretive information would be provided to visitors in high-use areas
concerning the sensitivity of resources and the prohibition on collection.
The placement of communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way would not be allowed in
suitable river segments where ORVs may be affected. Proposed projects in close proximity to these resources
would be evaluated for impacts to ORVs and relocated if necessary to avoid impacts to these values.
Livestock grazing has the potential to impact WSR values directly by trampling vegetation and through bank
erosion, which could degrade the riparian system. This degradation to the riparian system could include
impacts to ORVs such as threatened and endangered plants or animals, archaeological resources, etc.
Management of livestock grazing within the Monument would be in keeping with applicable laws and
regulations, and with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. Each grazing allotment would
3.78
Chapter 3
Wild and Scenic River Values - Environmental Consequences
Livestock Grazing cont.
Recreational Facilities and Use
Riparian Resources Program
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
Visual Resource Management
Water Issues
be evaluated to ensure that grazing management conforms with these Standards and Guidelines and does not
impact ORVs.
New recreation sites (except limited signs and trails for resource protection) would not be permitted in riparian
areas, including suitable WSRs. This would protect the ORVs on these river segments from the direct impacts
from installation activities. There are 10 existing recreation sites within V* mile of suitable river segments,
possibly leading to impacts to ORVs from destruction, collection or degradation. These areas would be
monitored, and restrictions on visitor use (allocations, smaller group size limits, etc.) would be used where
impacts to ORVs are occurring.
The overall objective of the riparian resources program within the Monument would be to manage riparian
areas so as to maintain or restore them to properly functioning condition. This program would enhance the
habitat for ORVs such as southwestern willow flycatcher and Ute ladies '-tresses (special status species). The
riparian resources program would indirectly affect WSR values by improving riparian condition for ORVs in
these areas.
The special status species program within the Monument, as described in Chapter 2, would indirectly affect
WSR values by providing increased protection for listed and sensitive species and their habitat, some of which
are ORVs for suitable river segments. This increased protection, along with implementation of recovery plans,
should result in increased population viability over time.
There are 19 miles of suitable WSRs segments within V* mile of designated open routes and 1 .5 miles of
suitable WSR within % mile of administrative routes. Use on these routes would be unlikely to impact any
ORVs on these river segments, but travel off these routes has the potential to result in destruction, collection, or
degradation of ORVs. These areas would be monitored and protected as described above.
The VRM program for the Monument is designed to reduce the visual impact of development projects. Scenic
quality is one of the ORVs for which rivers were found suitable. Of the approximately 202 miles of suitable
river segments that have scenic quality as an ORV, approximately 201 miles are within a VRM class II category
with an objective of retaining the existing character of the landscape. The remaining 1 mile is within a VRM
Class III, which would allow some changes to the character of the landscape. Regardless of the VRM
classification, the ORVs for suitable segments (including scenic quality) would be considered and protected and
visual resource quality objectives described in Chapter 2 would be met.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years, could
be permitted in cases where an overall benefit to Monument resources could be demonstrated. These water
3.79
Chapter 3
Water Issues cont.
Weed Management
Wilderness Values - Environmental Consequences
developments would not be placed in areas where impacts to the ORVs or the free-flowing status of suitable
segments may occur. These water developments would most often be used to displace use away from sensitive
riparian habitat where ORVs would occur. Water developments would not be allowed to jeopardize or de-water
streams, thus the free-flowing status of these segments would be protected.
An active noxious weed control program would help remove weed species from areas where impacts to ORVs,
such as threatened and endangered plant species may occur. Although removal of noxious weed species in
sensitive habitats is a priority in the Monument, not all areas can be treated simultaneously, leading to possible
effects to ORVs in some areas.
Proposed Actions with No
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
No reasonably foreseeable effects to WSR values would be expected from proposed decisions listed under the
following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, Commercial Filming, Inventory, Monitoring, Research
and Adaptive Management, Vegetation Management, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Study Area
Protection, Wildfire Management, Management Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration, Wildlife Services.
IMPACTS ON WILDERNESS VALUES ("Impacts to Primitive Unconfined Values" in the DEIS)
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Wilderness values include naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and primitive and unconfined
type of recreation opportunities. Values may also include ecological, geological, or other features of scientific,
educational, scenic, or historical value. Wilderness values can be affected by noticeable imprints of humans,
recreation that requires motorized and mechanized equipment or facilities, and the ability of a user to find
solitude. These values were used by the BLM in designating some 880,857 acres of WSAs in the Monument
prior to designation. Recently (1999), the BLM completed a reinventory of potential "wilderness character"
lands within Utah. As a result of this reinventory, an additional 457,049 acres of BLM lands within the
Monument have been noted as possessing "wilderness character," and may eventually become classified as
Wilderness Study Areas. This section discusses impacts on wilderness values of both designated WSAs and
areas found to have wilderness character.
Implementation of this Plan would enhance wilderness values, as management prescriptions call for limited
visitor development and protection of the frontier quality that enhances Monument resources. Restoration
programs would be performed as part of vegetation and riparian restoration. Other prescriptions such as VRM,
route and trail closures, and visitor management would effectively enhance wilderness values.
The largest potential for conflicts between wilderness values and Proposed Plan prescriptions is in the
Frontcountry and Passage Zones (6 percent of the Monument), where facilities such as interpretive signs, pull-
outs, and picnic areas may be allowed. There are 14,228 acres of existing WSAs within these two zones. As
Chapter 3
Summary of Effects cont.
Wilderness Values - Environmental Consequences
discussed in the Wilderness Study Areas section of Chapter 2, where conflicts occur between the zone
prescriptions and existing WSA management under IMP, IMP would take precedence until action is taken by
Congress to either designate them or release them from further protection.
Outside of designated WSAs there are 26,616 acres found to have wilderness character within the Frontcountry
and Passage Zones. The BLM would continue to give careful consideration before acting affirmatively on any
proposals for activities within these areas, and NEPA analysis would be required. In this process, the BLM
would evaluate the potential for harm to wilderness character areas, and proposed actions may be modified or
the "No Action" Alternative would be considered if actions were deemed to have the potential to negate the
area's eligibility for wilderness designation. Nonetheless, actions could be taken in these areas that may impair
their wilderness values.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Commercial Filming
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-
of- Way, and Road Rights-of- Way
Commercial filming activities in the Monument would be limited to minimum impact and are restricted by
many provisions which would prevent surface disturbing impacts from occurring, as discussed in Chapter 2.
Solitude opportunities have the potential to be directly affected during the duration of a particular filming
activity (minimum-impact filming would not continue for more than 10 days). Where there are wilderness
values in the Frontcountry and Passage Zones, there would be a greater possibility for impacts to solitude due to
the large group sizes allowed or lack of groups size restrictions. Minimum-impact filming within all zones
would need to conform to the zone prescription for types of equipment needed, group sizes, and project
duration.
Clearing areas for the placement of communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way has the
potential to directly impact wilderness values by causing surface disturbance. Erosion resulting from biological
soil crust and vegetation loss and soil destabilization during these activities has the potential to further degrade
these areas. It is reasonably foreseeable that 1 large and 22 small communication or utility rights-of-way
facilities, and 3.5 miles of road rights-of-way, would be constructed over the next 15 years, disturbing 150, 102,
and 8.4 acres respectively. These sites would generally not be allowed on 1,21 1,386 acres of the Monument,
protecting wilderness values from these impacts. Areas with wilderness character outside WSAs would be the
most likely to be affected by these activities, but there would be consideration of these values during site
selection. Project level NEPA analysis would be completed for all projects, taking into account impacts to
wilderness values. A feasibility study for communication sites in the Monument would be completed,
identifying appropriate areas for construction of these facilities.
3.81
Chapter 3
Livestock Grazing
Wilderness Values - Environmental Consequences
Livestock grazing has the potential to impact primitive wilderness values through increased soil-erosion due to
vegetation removal. Management of livestock grazing within the Monument would be in keeping with
applicable laws and regulations, and with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. Proper
grazing and vegetation management, as outlined in the Standards and Guidelines, maintains natural vegetation
composition, structure and function of rangelands. Healthy rangelands also prevent erosion and further
degradation of soils. Monitoring in conjunction with grazing management would provide information on
changes in vegetation and soil condition which may affect wilderness values, allowing for changes in grazing
management strategies in conjunction with the adaptive management framework (Appendix 3).
Recreational Facilities and Use
Transportation
New recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones,
which include 98 percent of designated WSAs and 94 percent of areas with wilderness character in the
Monument. Dispersed primitive camping and pack stock use in these zones may lead to impacts to solitude but
group size restrictions of 12 and 25 respectively would reduce the potential for these impacts. Limits on the
number of people in these areas through the implementation of an allocation system would also help to reduce
impacts from this type of use.
There is the potential for construction of 32 new recreation sites, disturbing 16 acres in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones (1 16,372 acres). This could impact wilderness values in wilderness character areas, but would
not impact WSAs directly as long as they are under IMP protection, because such developments are not allowed
under IMP. Increased use associated with sites near areas with wilderness values has the potential to impact
wilderness character areas and WSAs from increased use associated with new sites. Delineation of these sites
and installation of fences and interpretive signs would limit the size of the disturbed area.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 35 new primitive camping areas could be designated in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones, disturbing up to 70 acres. This has the potential to result in impacts to solitude and cause
surface disturbance in areas with wilderness values. Most of these areas would be designated where primitive
camping currently occurs, so new surface disturbance would actually be less than 70 acres. Theses areas would
also not likely be located in WSAs due to IMP protection. Camping would not be allowed elsewhere in these
two zones (except in existing campgrounds), reducing the potential for more widespread impacts.
Prior to the construction of any facility in the Monument, project level NEPA analysis would be completed and
site specific impacts to wilderness values would be addressed.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2).
This would protect WSAs and areas with wilderness character from the intrusions and surface disturbance
3.82
Chapter 3
Wilderness Values - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
Vegetation Management
Visual Resource Management
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
associated with this vehicle use off of routes. There is the potential for direct and indirect impacts to wilderness
values from unauthorized vehicle travel off of designated routes in the Monument. Enforcement, as described
the Enforcement section of Chapter 2, would reduce the possibility of unauthorized use off of these routes.
By definition, areas that have wilderness values do not have routes present. While motorized and mechanized
travel is limited to designated routes, there is a provision for pulling no more than 50 feet off of designated
routes for parking or primitive camping in the Outback Zone (618 miles of routes). This would not be allowed
in areas where WSAs are in close proximity to routes, which only accounts for 2 miles in this zone. This has
the potential to affect areas with wilderness character that abut routes in the Outback Zone (137 miles).
Maintenance of designated routes has the potential to cause surface disturbance and affect solitude in areas
adjacent to routes. Maintenance activities would occur on 888 miles of designated routes in the Monument, but
these activities would not be allowed outside the current disturbance on most of the routes and would not be
allowed where WSAs abut routes (see the Maintenance section in Chapter 2).
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. Due to the surface disturbance associated with previous
vegetation manipulations, these areas generally do not occur within WSAs or areas with wilderness character.
Removal of forestry products would only occur on designated areas and would not occur in WSAs. There are
2,317 acres of forestry product areas in areas with wilderness character.
The VRM program for the Monument is designed to reduce the visual impact of development projects. Scenic
quality is integral to primitive experiences which areas with wilderness values possess. Approximately 662,898
acres of WSAs and 298,5 16 acres with wilderness character are within a VRM class II category with an
objective of retaining the existing character of the landscape. The remaining 217,240 acres of WSA and
157,835 acres with wilderness character are in VRM class III, which would allow some changes to the character
of the landscape. Regardless of the VRM classification, WSA IMP would prevent surface disturbance in areas
designated as WSAs and visual resource quality objectives as described in Chapter 2 would be met in all areas.
Until legislation takes effect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
the 880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. Under this policy, intrusive, mechanized forms of activities
are either prohibited or severely restricted, thereby enhancing opportunities for wilderness experience.
Although fire is not a major component of the Monument's ecosystems, natural fires do occasionally occur in
the area. Short-term loss of vegetation would result from fires, but would quickly regrow in areas with diverse
vegetation within a growing season. Impacts from fire suppression activities can have a profound effect on
3.83
Chapter 3
Research Activities - Environmental Consequences
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
cont.
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
vegetation, changing the way water moves across the landscape and causing erosion. These effects are difficult
to reverse, especially in dry climates such as the Monument's.
Fire would be allowed to play its natural role in most of the Monument, except where noted in this Plan for the
protection of private property or other features. Most of the Monument is located in fire management areas
which have little suppression activity, including most WSAs and areas with wilderness character. Heavy
equipment use in the Monument is only allowed through authorization of the Monument Manager. A resource
advisor familiar with WSA issues would be consulted on all fires in the Monument that involve WSAs.
Emergency use of equipment, such as chaining, for fire restoration could be used under limited circumstances
as described in Chapter 2. This could be done to establish native species and prevent erosion and degradation
of habitat, but would not occur in WSAs unless compatible with IMP.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to wilderness values would be expected from proposed decisions listed under
the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, Collections, Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management, Riparian Resources Program, Special Status Species Program, Water Issues, Weed
Management, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife Services.
IMPACTS ON RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Introduction
Summary of Effects
The primary purpose for establishing GSENM is to protect the scientific and historic resources as described in
the Proclamation. Monument management priorities and budgets would focus on obtaining a comprehensive
understanding of the resources of the Monument, while assisting in the development of improved and
innovative land management. The first priority for conducting BLM-sponsored research would be to study,
collect, or record scientific information that is most at risk of being damaged or lost through disturbance or the
passage of time, including oral histories and ethnologies related to the Monument area. The second priority
would be to continue gathering baseline data on the biological, physical, cultural, and social sciences within the
Monument. A third priority would be to conduct applied research regarding the management of natural
systems, including disturbance and recovery strategies.
This Plan has the potential to affect future research activities within the Monument, affording more
opportunities in some respects, but creating more restrictions for some types of research. Research activities
directed at studying the broad effects of past land management and restoration practices on various resources
would be afforded new opportunities as several new programs are planned. Research activities requiring
vehicular access or use of mechanized equipment may be affected by restrictions on travel off of designated
routes.
3.84
Chapter 3
Research Activities - Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Collections
The unauthorized collection of objects is prohibited by the Proclamation and this Plan. Scientific collection
could be authorized in conjunction with research projects in the Monument. These projects would be evaluated
for their merits and permits would be issued for collection when projects are determined to contribute to the
understanding of the natural, physical and social environment of the Monument and the Colorado Plateau
ecosystems.
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Livestock Grazing
Recreational Facilities and Use
Riparian Resources Program
Non-surface disturbing scientific research would be supported and encouraged, but intrusive or destructive
investigations would be carefully reviewed to avoid conflicts with the BLM's responsibility to protect and
preserve scientific and historic Monument resources. The GSENM Advisory Committee would play a role in
evaluating research proposals and making recommendations to management on projects that may need
exceptions to plan prescriptions. A comprehensive and integrated research and science program would ensure
that scientific resources are not only available for current research opportunities, but that certain scientific
resources are preserved in place for future study. The adaptive management framework described in Appendix
3 may directly affect research activities through increasing the amount of inventorying and monitoring, thereby
increasing opportunities for study.
Livestock grazing has the potential to impact resources as discussed under the impacts for the individual
resources. Degradation of these resources may reduce the potential for scientific study of these affected objects.
Inventories conducted prior to construction of recreational facilities have the potential to indirectly affect
research activities by providing a small amount of new scientific data (paleontology, archaeology, etc.).
Increased visitor use in the immediate vicinity of recreational facilities has the potential to cause surface
disturbance and degradation of resources, resulting in damage and thereby directly impacting some research
opportunities.
The goal of the riparian program is to restore riparian zones to "proper functioning condition." The program
has the potential to directly affect research by providing additional riparian research opportunities. Research
projects requiring surface disturbance would be discouraged or prohibited in riparian zones.
Special Status Species Program
Cooperation with the USFWS has the potential to provide additional research opportunities for management of
threatened and endangered species. Some surface disturbing research projects may be directly affected by
special status species, as intrusive activities would generally be precluded from threatened and endangered
species areas.
3.85
Chapter 3
Transportation
Research Activities - Environmental Consequences
Vegetation Management
Weed Management
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Zone prescriptions, including restrictions on travel off of designated routes, would generally apply to
researchers, except where extremely high-value opportunities for scientific discovery exist (see Management of
Science and Research in Chapter 2). In addition, route closures may preclude access to some areas of potential
research. Thus, routine research projects that require vehicular access may be directly affected by the
prohibition on cross-country travel and route closures. Projects that require motorized or mechanized access
where no designated route exists would have to be evaluated to determine if they warrant exceptions, if the
proposed research could be permitted in a manner consistent with the protection of Monument resources, and
whether the access proposed is the minimum necessary to achieve the desired research objective.
An indirect effect of route closures would be that some types of resources, such as riparian zones or sensitive
soils, would not be degraded further by the action of vehicles and visitor activities. This has the potential to
provide more opportunities for research on restoration strategies. Fewer routes could reduce visitor impacts to
research areas or research sites that previously had vehicle access.
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration could be
completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would
primarily consist of management ignited fires. Opportunities would exist for research on restoration ecology in
the completion of these vegetation projects. Effects of forestry product collection and use of non-natives also
provide opportunities for research.
An active weed removal program would facilitate research in the removal of invasive, non-native plants, and
research in the area of recovery of native plant associations. Opportunities would be afforded indirectly for the
study of the relationships of weed removal to wildlife populations, water quality, and soil stabilization. The
removal of noxious weed species may cause unanticipated effects on plant and animal species, and other
resources, possibly affecting research opportunities for these species or resources.
Until legislation takes effect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. These restrictions provide opportunities for study and research
based on these intact systems, but research relying on surface disturbance or mechanized access could be
prohibited by these restrictions.
Part of the science and research program would be to study the effects of fire on the Monument's native and
non-native plant associations. The opportunities for studying fire ecology within the Monument may occur, but
would not be significant due to the limited amount of natural fire that occurs in the area. The study of
restoration fire ecology would also help to determine appropriate restoration protocols. Fires and suppression
3.86
Chapter 3
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
cont.
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
Recreational Use - Environmental Consequences
activities also have the potential to impact specific sensitive resources, such as archaeological sites. These
activities may destroy these resources, eliminating these resources for comparison study.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to research activities would be expected from proposed decisions listed under
the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, Commercial Filming, Communication Sites, Utility
Rights-of-Way, Road Rights-of-Way, VRM, Water Issues, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife Services .
IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE
Introduction
Summary of Effects
The Monument is outstanding among America's great places where solitude, unconfined experiences, and a
sense of adventure still exist. Visitor use in the area has been steadily increasing. Visitor use peaks in April and
May, and again in September and October.
The BLM provides camping in two small developed areas in the Escalante Canyons region of the Monument.
There are no developed campgrounds in the Grand Staircase or Kaiparowits regions. Most visitors to the
Monument camp in remote, dispersed, primitive areas. There is a developed picnic area at the Paria movie set
and a parking area at Grosvenor Arch.
A variety of recreational opportunities would be available within the Monument. Impacts to recreational use
would result primarily from closing areas to certain types of use (such as prohibiting travel of vehicles off of
designated routes) and from conflicts with other uses (such as livestock grazing, commercial filming, and other
recreational users). It is reasonably foreseeable that 32 new recreation sites and 35 new designated primitive
camping areas would be designated or constructed over the 1 5 year planning horizon. These facilities would
accommodate visitation and provide visitors with educational materials and experiences. These facilities would
generally not be allowed on 1,21 1,386 acres, which would accommodate visitors looking for a primitive and
self-directed experiences. Group size restrictions and allocations would limit the number of people in much of
the Monument, but would also promote primitive experiences. The lack of group size restrictions or allocations
in the Frontcountry Zone would provide large groups with opportunities in the Monument. There would be 888
miles of designated routes for travel by visitors, with 556 of these available for ATV use.
I
I
I
3.87
Chapter 3
Recreational Use - Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Commercial Filming
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Livestock Grazing
Recreational Facilities and Use
Permits for commercial filming in the Monument would continue to be issued for "minimum impact" activities.
Filming activities could lead to conflicts between filming crews and recreational users, although the conflicts
would be only short-term (activities would not be allowed longer than 10 days). Increased filming of the area
could publicize the area, resulting in increased visitation and recreational use of the Monument. This may lead
to fewer opportunities for solitude and primitive experiences in some of the Monument.
Non-surface disturbing research activities which focus on increasing the knowledge of visitor use patterns as
well as impacts created by recreational use would be encouraged. These studies may indicate where and when
use patterns are shifting. Monitoring in conjunction with other resource programs, discussed throughout this
chapter, may indicate that impacts from visitor and recreational use are occurring. These data may lead to
restrictions on visitor numbers in an area, through the implementation of an allocation system, in order to
protect these resources. Seasonal restrictions, physical barriers, interpretive displays and educational material
may also be used to reduce impacts to sensitive resources. The adaptive management framework (Appendix 3)
would provide the mechanism for changes in management based on new data being gathered.
Livestock grazing has the potential to impact recreational use by contaminating water sources and by altering
vegetation. Additionally, although some visitors may enjoy viewing livestock and livestock operations in the
Monument, others may find their presence an aesthetic and physical intrusion. Livestock grazing uses within
the Monument would be managed in keeping with applicable laws and regulations, and with the Utah Standards
and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. In the evaluation of allotments as part of the Standards and Guidelines
implementation, the effects of livestock grazing on other land uses, including recreation, would be evaluated.
Each of the zones provides different types of visitor experiences, as described in the Zone Management
Direction section of Chapter 2. The facilities included in this discussion are: trailheads, interpretive sites,
parking areas, picnic areas, pullouts, designated primitive camping areas, trails, and toilets.
New recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones.
This would limit the amount of directed recreation opportunities in these zones, but would provide for vast
opportunities for solitude and self-directed experiences for which the Monument is known. Dispersed primitive
camping and pack stock use would be permitted in these zones, but resource damage may lead to the
designation of primitive camping areas. Group size restrictions of 12 in the Primitive Zone and 25 in the
Outback Zone would limit the number of large groups in these zones, but self-dnected primitive experiences
would be enhanced by these restrictions. Limits on the number of people in these areas through the
Chapter 3
Recreational Use - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
Riparian Resources Program
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
implementation of an allocation system would also benefit the primitive experiences, but may reduce the
number of people able to access these opportunities.
There is the potential for the construction of 32 new recreation sites in the Frontcountry and Passage Zones
(1 16,372 acres). These sites would be developed mainly in areas already used for these activities or in some
cases in new areas to highlight Monument resources. These sites would provide visitors looking for directed
recreation opportunities with trails, interpretive sites and parking areas. Highlighting Monument resources in
these areas would provide visitors with information and educational experiences. Increased use may lead to
overcrowding in these areas due to the limited number that would be developed.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 35 new primitive camping areas could be designated in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones, disturbing up to 70 acres. Visitors looking for primitive camping areas near the edge of the
Monument would be accommodated by the designation of these camping areas. Most of these areas would be
designated where primitive camping currently occurs, and amenities (such as toilets, water, etc.) would not be
provided. Two existing campgrounds in the Monument and developed campgrounds in areas outside of the
Monument would provide visitors the only developed campground experiences.
The overall objective of the riparian resources program within the Monument would be to manage riparian
areas so as to maintain or restore them to properly functioning condition. This program would enhance these
riparian areas and would provide the widest variety of vegetation and habitat diversity for wildlife and fish, as
well as watershed protection. These objectives would indirectly affect recreational use of the Monument by
providing a more pristine environment for visitors to experience. However, restrictions on recreational use in
these areas may close or limit access to specific areas during restoration. This would reduce the opportunity for
visiting these areas.
The BLM is required to protect these species from impacts. If recreational use is determined to be the cause of
impacts to populations of Federally-listed-species, allocations or barriers may be installed to prevent further
degradation. Interpretive information and educational materials would be provided in order to educate visitors
about the sensitivity of these resources.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2).
This would restrict visitors looking for a motorized experience to the 888 miles of designated routes (543 miles
for non-street legal vehicle use). Visitors looking for a more primitive expenence, away from vehicles, would
find ample opportunity throughout the Monument. There is the potential for unauthorized vehicle travel off of
designated routes in the Monument, affecting visitors looking for a more primitive expenence. Enforcement, as
3.89
Chapter 3
Recreational Use - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
described the Enforcement section of Chapter 2, would reduce the possibility of unauthorized use off of these
routes.
Vegetation Management
Visual Resource Management
Water Issues
While motorized and mechanized travel is limited to designated routes, there is a provision for pulling no more
than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking or primitive camping in the Outback Zone (618 miles of
routes). This would provide visitors with areas for dispersed camping. Visitors would be encouraged to use
areas that were already disturbed, and clearing of vegetation would not be permitted.
All designated open routes within the Monument would be maintained to current conditions, some of which
would be accessible by passenger vehicles, while others would be seasonally available for high clearance
vehicles. Lack of route improvements and development may restrict access for some visitors into areas of the
Monument. See the Maintenance section of Chapter 2 for a full discussion of these activities.
Vegetation restoration methods may be used to restore and promote a natural range of plant associations in the
Monument. Although visitors may notice these treatments, educational materials and interpretive displays
would be used to educate the public regarding restoration projects in the Monument.
Visual resources management can affect recreational experiences within the Monument to the extent that the
character of the landscape is retained or altered. The Impacts on Scenic Quality section in this chapter
discusses the management of scenic quality, including visual resources management.
It is reasonably foreseeable that up to 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years,
could be permitted in cases where an overall benefit to Monument resources could be demonstrated. Water
developments could be provided for recreational use in the Frontcountry and Passage Zones, although the
circumstances in which they would be allowed would be extremely limited since the only facilities that would
be provided are a small number of modest pullouts, parking areas, trailheads, and picnic sites.
Impacts to water quality come from removal of vegetation, displaced soil particles, increased soil compaction,
creation of new flow paths and channels, and increased runoff. These impacts can be caused by a variety of
sources, including vehicles, people, livestock, and wildlife, especially near riparian areas. There is the potential
for degradation of water quality from these uses, making water unavailable or unusable for recreational use.
This degradation of water quality may also require the restriction of these uses, including recreational use, in
order to restore water quality.
3.90
Chapter 3
Weed Management
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Wildlife Services (Animal Damage
Control)
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
Outfitters and Guides - Environmental Consequences
Removal of noxious weeds such as tamarisk and Russian olive would likely increase water in areas where these
plants are removed. A variety of methods may be used to control these invasive species, including use of
chemicals. The use of these chemicals may require the temporary closure of areas to recreational use. Visitors
may also be excluded from treated areas for a period of time in order to ensure the success of weed removal and
the reestablishment of native plant species.
Management ignited fire may be used in order to promote and restore native plant associations. Use of fire
would have short-term impacts on the visitor experience, including smoke and visual effects. Visual effects of
wildfires would occur, but fires occur infrequently in the Monument, reducing the potential for these impacts.
The effects of smoke on visitor experiences would be temporary. Visitors may also be excluded from burned
areas for a period of time in order to facilitate the reestablishment of native plant species.
Animal Damage Control activities could directly impact recreational use if the activities were observed by
visitors. These activities could indirectly impact recreational use by removing animals that are part of the
experience visitors may seek. Wildlife Services activities within the Monument would be limited to the taking
of individual coyotes within the immediate vicinity of verified livestock kills, where reasonable livestock
management measures to prevent predation had been taken and failed. No traps, poisons, snares, or M44s
would be allowed. Limiting the allowable methods would reduce potential conflicts with recreational users.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to recreational use would be expected from proposed decisions listed under
the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, Communication Sites, Utility Rights-of-Way, Road
Rights-of-Way, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Study Area Protection.
IMPACTS ON OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Outfitter and guide services have operated within the Monument area for many years prior to the Monument's
designation. These services provide various types of primitive to catered recreational experiences. Outfitter
and guide operations would be allowed throughout the Monument, in compliance with the constraints of the
zone, and allocation and use limits set by the BLM.
Changes to transportation routes and zone restrictions would have effects on outfitter and guide services
operating within the Monument. Route closures and restrictions on travel off of designated routes could affect
how outfitters and guides shuttle clients and pack stock to ingress and egress points. Zone restrictions such as
group size limits also may require outfitters and guides to alter trip arrangements to accommodate the changes
in management. Further impacts on outfitter and guide operations would be similar to those discussed under
Impacts on Recreational Use section in this chapter. These impacts are not repeated in this section.
3.91
Chapter 3
Outfitters and Guides - Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Recreational Facilities and Use
Pullouts, trailheads and interpretive sites located within 1 16,372 acres of the Frontcountry and Passage Zones
would offer outfitters and guides facilities for assisting with their operations. A lack of such facilities within the
remaining 1,749,048 acres of the Outback and Primitive Zones would provide clients a more remote experience.
Group size restrictions of 25 people (Passage and Outback Zone) and 12 people and 12 pack stock (Primitive
Zone) may affect outfitter and guide operations that cater to larger groups. Most of these services in the
Monument have historically catered to groups equal or smaller than these limits, thus impacts should not be
substantial. An exception to the group size limit in the Paria River corridor in the Primitive Zone (25 people
instead of 12) is included in this Plan. This would allow outfitters and guides operating in that area to continue
to guide larger groups, if consistent with protection of resources.
Other restrictions on recreational activities and visitor use could affect the activities that outfitters and guides
engage in within the Monument. These restrictions include limitations on campfire use, camping, collections,
and other activities. These impacts are discussed in more detail in the Impacts on Recreational Use section of
this chapter. Limits on the overall numbers of people visiting an area (allocations) would also apply to
outfitters and guides if those limits become necessary to protect Monument resources.
Transportation
The changes to transportation and access within this Plan may affect the operations of outfitters and guides
more than any other aspect. As many existing routes would be closed, outfitters and guides may need to alter
trips and itineraries in order to conform to these closures. Outfitters and guides that use OHVs and bicycles as
part of their business would be required to confine these vehicles to the 543 miles of routes designated as open
to their use.
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
No reasonably foreseeable effects to outfitters and guides would be expected from proposed decisions listed
under the following sections of this Plan: Air quality Program, Collections, Commercial Filming,
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-of-Way, Road Rights- of-Way, Inventoiy, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management, Livestock Grazing, Riparian Resources Program, Special Status Species Program,
Vegetation Management, VRM, Water Issues, Weed Management, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Study
Area Protection, Wildfire Management, Management Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration, Wildlife Services.
3.92
Chapter 3
Livestock Operations - Environmental Consequences
IMPACTS ON LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Livestock operations occur throughout the Monument. Livestock use is permitted at different times and seasons
throughout the year, although this use does not occur everywhere or in the same areas every year. The majority
of livestock permittees do not graze on the Monument year-round. There are 73 separate grazing allotments
within the Monument (Appendix 6).
Most impacts to livestock operations would come as a result of actions taken outside the scope of this Plan,
since the Proclamation stated that livestock grazing would be "governed by applicable laws and regulations
other than [the] proclamation." This Plan outlines a process for managing existing permits and levels of grazing
under existing laws and regulations, including the Utah Standards and Guidelines. Some Proposed Plan actions
have the potential to impact livestock operations. For example, policies on the use of non-native species,
vegetation management, and the placement of water developments could have effects on these operations.
Restrictions on visitor use (such as group size) and restoration of native species could offset these impacts to
some extent.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Inventoiy, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Livestock Grazing
Recreational Facilities and Use
Monitoring of rangeland health, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the Utah Standards and
Guidelines for Rangeland Health, would indicate if range conditions were being degraded. Monitoring
activities would continue in the Monument, with adaptive management framework (Appendix 3) providing
information on how to modify management actions to reduce impacts to Monument resources from grazing
activities. Actions taken to change livestock use in response to monitoring and adaptive management would be
initiated through the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. These actions, which would be
determined on a case-by-case basis, may affect livestock operations.
Livestock grazing uses within the Monument would be managed in keeping with applicable laws and
regulations, and with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. The Livestock Grazing section
in Chapter 2 describes a process for implementing the Standards and Guidelines in a separate process from this
Plan. This process would result in the evaluation of allotments, determinations of rangeland health, and the
development of allotment management plans. Since this process is governed by existing laws and regulations,
its impacts on grazing management would be assessed in associated NEPA documents other than this Plan.
Visitor site facilities (trailheads, interpretive sites, parking areas, picnic areas, pullouts, designated primitive
camping areas, trails, and toilets) could directly impact livestock operations through disruption to livestock
movement and/or grazing patterns. Recreational users could also leave gates open, resulting in unscheduled
3.93
Chapter 3
Livestock Operations - Environmental Consequences
Recreational Facilities and Use cont.
livestock use. This occurs particularly in canyons where interactions with humans are more likely to occur. In
addition, use of sites has the potential to degrade surrounding vegetation, allowing for erosion of soil and
further degradation of vegetation/forage.
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
New recreation sites would generally not be allowed on 1,749,048 acres in the Primitive and Outback Zones,
eliminating the impacts to livestock operations in this part of the Monument. Use in these zones would be low
due to accessibility and group size restrictions, reducing the potential for trampling and surface disturbance.
Although there is the potential for 32 new recreation sites, disturbing 16 acres in the Frontcountry and Passage
Zones (1 16,372 acres), many of these sites are already used for this purpose. Better delineation of these sites
and installation of fences would limit the size of the disturbed area, resulting in a reduction in vegetation
degradation in the surrounding areas. This small amount of disturbance would not contribute substantially to
impacts on livestock operations. For all proposed sites, restoration activities would reseed disturbed sites in
order to reduce contrasts with surrounding areas. Livestock would be excluded from restored areas for a period
of time to facilitate establishment of native species.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 35 new primitive camping areas could be designated in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones, disturbing 70 acres. Surface disturbance would occur as described previously for recreation
sites. Most of these areas would be designated where primitive camping currently occurs, so new surface
disturbance would actually be less than 70 acres. Camping would not be allowed elsewhere in these two zones
(except in existing campgrounds), reducing the potential for more widespread impacts to vegetation and
livestock operations.
The BLM, in conjunction with the USFWS, the UDWR and adjacent agencies, is required to protect Federally
listed plant and animal species from actions that would lead to population decline or extinction. Furthermore,
the BLM would work with these agencies to promote the recovery of these species. If livestock grazing was
determined to be the cause of impacts to populations of Federally-listed species, actions would be taken to
eliminate these impacts, including exclusion of cattle from these areas.
The type and availability of access are factors which affect the ability of livestock permittees to operate within
the Monument. Under this Plan, motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be
allowed, except in limited situations (see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management
Exceptions sections of Chapter 2). There are currently 888 miles of designated routes open for public travel;
543 miles of these would be open to OHV use. In addition, administrative use of those routes shown on Map
2.1 would be allowed to certain authorized users, including grazing permittees. Additional access could be
authorized if access is considered necessary for the operation of grazing permits. These access restrictions
3.94
Chapter 3
Livestock Operations - Environmental Consequences
Transportation cont.
Vegetation Management
Water Issues
Weed Management
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
could facilitate livestock operations by reducing vehicular access for the general public. Restricted public
access has the potential to reduce livestock harassment, damage to range improvements, and gate problems.
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration work could
be completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would
primarily consist of management ignited fires. These projects would lead to a long-term restoration of native
plant associations, which may or may not benefit forage for livestock. The increased diversity of native species
in these areas may provide equivalent forage for livestock in these areas. However, livestock may be excluded
from those areas for a period of time after treatment in order to ensure the success of the vegetative treatment
and the reestablishment of native plant species.
Removal of forestry products would only occur on the 23,950 acres of designated fuelwood cutting areas,
unless more areas are identified as necessary to meet the objective of restoring a natural range of native plant
associations. These areas are typically pinyon and juniper woodlands which, as a result of impacts from
livestock, wildlife and fire suppression, have little understory and herbaceous growth. Opening of areas
through thinning would allow shrub, grass and forb species to increase, improving the condition of these
vegetation associations.
Restoration and revegetation provisions, as discussed in Chapter 2, are required for all surface disturbing
activities in the Monument as part of the NEPA process. These provisions would decrease impacts to
vegetation and forage as described previously.
It is reasonably foreseeable that 10 new water developments, disturbing 10 acres over the next 15 years, could
be permitted in cases where an overall benefit to Monument resources could be demonstrated. These water
developments would most often be used to displace livestock use away from sensitive riparian habitat.
Monitoring in conjunction with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health would indicate when
this would be necessary.
Removal of noxious weeds would increase forage in areas that were previously unpalatable to livestock.
However, in order to ensure the success of weed removal and the reestablishment of native plant species,
livestock may be excluded from those areas for a period of time after treatment.
Restoration after fires would include returning disturbed areas to a natural range of native plant associations.
Previously used non-native forage species would not be used in reseeding after fires. Livestock grazing after
native seedings would be modified to ensure the survival of these native species. The livestock exclusion
3.95
Chapter 3 Forestry Product Use - Environmental Consequences
Wildfire Management, Management period required to allow full establishment of native species and recovery after wildfires may be two years or
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration more. Site evaluations would be required to determine when native seedings could be grazed again and the
conf effectiveness of the current or new grazing system on the persistence of native species.
Wildlife Services (Animal Damage Animal Damage Control activities within the Monument would be limited to the taking of individual coyotes
Control) within the immediate vicinity of verified livestock kills, where reasonable livestock management measures to
prevent predation had been taken and failed. This has the potential to reduce predation, which would directly
impact livestock operations by removing animals known to have killed livestock. However, restricting
allowable methods (by not allowing traps, poisons, snares, or M44s) has the potential to impact livestock
operators' ability to control predators.
Proposed Actions with no No reasonably foreseeable effects to livestock operations would be expected from proposed decisions listed
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects under the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, Collections, Commercial Filming,
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-of-Way, Road Rights-of-Way, Livestock Grazing, Riparian Resources
Program, VRM, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Study Area Protection.
IMPACTS ON FORESTRY PRODUCT USE
Introduction Forestry product use in the Monument includes collection of personal use fuelwood, juniper posts, and
Christmas trees. Collecting of dead and down wood would be allowed where campfires are allowed (see the
Camping section in Chapter 2). There are also limited areas currently designated for green fuelwood and post
cutting. Current forestry product collection use is low. No commercial timber harvesting has occurred in the
Monument for decades.
Summary of Effects Removal of forestry products could occur on the 23,950 acres that were already designated as fuelwood cutting
areas prior to this Plan. Restrictions on travel off of designated routes may impact these activities, but
additional areas may also be designated if necessary to meet the objective of restoring a natural range of native
plant associations.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and Research activities which focus on increasing the knowledge of pinyon and juniper woodlands would be
Adaptive Management encouraged and could provide new areas in the Monument where forestry product collection would be allowed.
The adaptive management framework in Appendix 3 would provide the mechanism for designating new
forestry product collection areas in the Monument. These areas would be allowed in conjunction with the
overall vegetation management objective of promoting a natural range of native plant associations. Monitoring
3.96
Chapter 3
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management cont.
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
Vegetation Management
Visual Resource Management
Forestry Product Use - Environmental Consequences
in areas where forestry product collection is currently occurring could indicate impacts to Monument resources,
and restrictions on cutting in these areas may follow.
Collection of forestry products would only occur in areas specifically designated for these activities. No
collection would occur in areas where special status species occur. If a special status species were discovered in
a designated area, that area would be closed, which would impact forestry product collection activities.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations
(see the Transportation and Access and Emergency and Management Exceptions sections of Chapter 2).
There is a provision for pulling no more than 50 feet off of designated routes for parking or primitive camping
in the Outback Zone (618 miles of routes) where current forestry product collection areas are located. These
restrictions would apply to people participating in forestry product collection activities and may limit their
ability to access cutting areas and to haul these products away.
This Plan would close approximately 1,087 miles of routes currently open to public travel, some of which
would be in forestry product collection areas. These routes would not be available for forestry product
collection activities and may impact these activities by restricting access and the ability for these users to haul
products away. The limited number of route closures in these areas would not substantially impact forestry
product collection activities.
Vegetation restoration methods would be used primarily to restore previously seeded or otherwise disturbed
areas to a natural range of native plant associations. It is reasonably foreseeable that this restoration work could
be completed on 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year, or up to 20,000 acres over 15 years. These treatments would
primarily consist of management ignited fires, but could include the removal of pinyon and juniper by other
means. These projects may provide a temporary opportunity for the collection of forestry products in the
Monument.
Removal of forestry products could occur on the 23,950 acres currently designated as fuelwood cutting areas in
the Monument. These areas are the same as they have been for years. Thus, this use would not be substantially
restricted as a result of this Plan. Future reduction of the size of these sites may impact these activities, but
additional areas may be designated if necessary to meet the objective of restoring a natural range of native plant
associations.
Areas cleared of vegetation can be visually obtrusive. VRM classes have been established for the entire
Monument. These would be considered in decisions for designating new areas for forestry product collection.
This could restrict opportunities to add new areas as old areas are harvested.
3.97
Chapter 3
Local Economies - Environmental Consequences
Wilderness Study Area Protection
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
Until legislation takes effect to change their status, the BLM's IMP would prevent most surface disturbance on
880,857 acres currently designated as WSAs. This restricts opportunities to add new areas for the removal of
forestry products.
Areas where wildfires have occurred may provide a temporary opportunity for collection of forestry products, if
such collection would help meet the overall vegetation management objective of promoting a natural range of
native plant associations. While these opportunities would be limited, they would still provide additional areas
where forestry product collection could occur.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to forestry product use would be expected from proposed decisions listed
under the following sections of this Plan: Air Quality Program, Collections, Commercial Filming,
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-of -Way, Road Rights -of -Way, Livestock Grazing, Recreational Facilities
and Use, Riparian Resources Program, Water Issues, Weed Management, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife
Services.
IMPACTS ON LOCAL ECONOMIES
Introduction
Summary of Effects
The Monument Planning Office contracted with the Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget to provide
data and analysis relating to the economic and social impacts of this Plan. The Utah Governor's Office of
Planning and Budget report presented background data on the economics and demographics of the region
surrounding the Monument, and detailed the process and results of the analysis of socio-economic impacts. A
summary of this information is provided below. More detailed information about background data and the
analysis process can be found in Appendix 12.
Overall, the economic impacts of this Plan on local economies are expected to be positive, but small. The
annual growth in visitation is assumed to be 5.2 percent, with 442,633 visitor days in 2012. Regional
population growth attributable to this Plan would be 422 people in 2012. By 2012, the additional employment
generated would be 248 jobs. Employee earnings would reach $6.6 million in 2012 and net revenue to local
governments attributable to implementation of this Plan would be $598,000. Many factors that are not directly
the result of BLM actions, but may be influenced by how the Monument is managed, may also have socio-
economic impacts on the region. These include growth in the region leading to increased needs for local
government services and infrastructure, and changing economies and character of the region due to an ongoing
transition toward a greater reliance on tourism.
3.98
Chapter 3
Local Economies - Environmental Consequences
Economic and Demographic
Context
I
I
I
I
I
Impacts of this Plan
The impacts of this Plan have been modeled at the regional level which includes: Beaver, Iron, Garfield, Kane,
and Washington Counties. This is because the people of the region are interdependent economically and
socially, and the region forms a functional economy. In addition, the region has a closed labor market in the
sense that about 90 percent of the income generated in the region is also received there, and, conversely, about
90 percent of the income received in the region is also generated there.
The Monument is located in both Garfield and Kane Counties. The population in both Kane and Garfield
Counties can be characterized relative to the State as small, sparsely distributed, increasing slowly, and
relatively old. Approximately 10,500 people live in the area. Population growth in the Counties has generally
been lower than the State average, and populations in both Counties are among the oldest in the State.
These unique demographic characteristics are closely associated with the economic realities faced by both
Counties. The population is small because there are relatively few employment opportunities for local
residents. The population is old and net out migration is common because many of those aging into the labor
force have to leave to find work.
The performance of the economies in Kane and Garfield Counties can be characterized as cyclical and sluggish
compared to the vibrant performance of the State's economy in recent years. Both Counties struggle with
unemployment rates higher than the State average, per capita personal income lower than the State average, and
a lack of employment diversity.
Many of the economic problems in both Counties can be explained by a general lack of diversity in the
economic structure. The area relies heavily on the economic performance of just four major industries:
agriculture, government, timber, and tourism. The first three of these industries are fairly stagnant or declining.
For instance, while agriculture is an important economic resource to both Counties, employment in agriculture
has been stagnant and at times declining for many years. Employment in the timber industry has been cyclical
and declining as sawmills have downsized and closed. Employment in local, State, and Federal government has
been increasing, but slowly. It is mainly in the tourism industry that employment growth has been sustained. In
fact, dependence on the tourism industry has steadily increased.
The impacts of this Plan are driven by BLM spending and employment, as well as visitor spending. The direct,
indirect, and induced effects of this employment and spending on population, employment, employee earnings,
and local government revenues in southwest Utah are the focus of this analysis. Key findings of the analysis
follow.
3.99
Chapter 3
Impacts of this Plan cont.
Local Economies - Environmental Consequences
Overall impacts of this Plan on the southwestern Utah population base are relatively small. The largest increase
in population is during construction of new Monument facilities in the year 2000, in which 961 people are
projected. However, in 2001 this number is expected to decline to 284 and then grow slowly each year to reach
422 additional persons to the population base in 2012.
Other Impacts
Employment attributable to Monument activities is expected to peak during facility construction in the year
2000, when Monument activities could add 615 jobs to an employment base of 74,457 in southwestern Utah.
However, in 2001 this number declines to 172 jobs, then increases slowly to 248 jobs in 2012.
For the most part, unchanging direct employment by the BLM results in a fairly steady earnings stream
throughout the study period analyzed. However, during facility construction, the highest earnings ($18.4
million) occur in the year 2000. After construction, earnings stay quite steady, ranging between $4.9 million
and $6.6 million until 2012.
Net revenues to local governments remain relatively small, again with the construction activities in the year
2000 providing the peak revenue stream. In 2000, net revenues are projected to be $565,000, then increasing
steadily from $165,000 in 2001 to $236,000 in 2012. This is a small proportion of expected local government
revenues, which total in the tens of millions of dollars.
The socio-economic impacts reported are driven by two factors: direct BLM spending and employment, and
spending by visitors. The direct, indirect and induced effects of this spending on population, employment,
employee earnings, and government revenues in the southwestern region are the focus of this analysis. The
analysis relies on the current structure of the economy and historical averages to estimate these impacts.
However, the economy in southwestern Utah would be affected by many factors that are not directly the result
of BLM actions, but may be influenced by how the Monument is managed. Some of these factors may have
socio-economic impacts that are even larger than those associated with this Plan analyzed here.
Private enterprises, local government and others make decisions regarding infrastructure, business development,
service expansions and the like. These decisions may result in significant economic impacts. For example, a
decision made by a private business to open a lodging establishment could have the effect of capturing more
visitor spending, employing more people, and generating higher tax revenues. Similarly, decisions made about
restaurants, tow truck companies, car rental companies, outdoor supplies sales/rental companies, grocery stores,
tour guides, and research projects are not decisions made by the BLM, but impact the southwestern economy
and are not captured in this analysis.
3.100
Chapter 3
Adjacent Agencies Management - Environmental Consequences
Other Impacts cont.
Another example of factors beyond the scope of this analysis includes actions taken by local governments.
Local governments may need to increase or decrease levels of services such as emergency search and rescue,
law enforcement, emergency medical services, road maintenance, police protection, fire protection, waste
management services, etc. Decisions about service levels would affect revenues and expenditures.
Many small rural communities in the western United States that have been supported by extractive industries or
agriculture have experienced a transition toward greater reliance on tourism. This of course drives a different
type of development in these communities, bringing in services that had not previously been present and
changing the economies and character of these communities. Property values are often driven upward and
greater demands are made on local governments to provide for the increased infrastructure and service needs.
Adequate data does not exist to systematically evaluate or quantify these potential impacts to the area.
IMPACTS ON ADJACENT AGENCIES MANAGEMENT
Introduction
Summary of Effects
Several Federal land management units border the Monument. On the west side lies Bryce Canyon National
Park, portions of the Dixie National Forest, as well as Kodachrome Basin State Park, and other lands managed
by the BLM. Along the northern boundary lies primarily Dixie National Forest. To the east lies Capitol Reef
National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and to the south lies the southern part of Glen
Canyon National Recreation area and other lands managed by the BLM. Consideration of the management of
these adjacent Federal land units was of primary importance during planning consistency and consultation with
adjacent agencies. A discussion of potential impacts on the Monument from action of adjacent agencies is
included in the Cumulative Impacts section of this chapter.
Implementation of this Plan could result in a wide range of visitation effects on adjacent land management
units. However, because the Monument experiences relatively low visitation compared to most other agencies,
few detrimental impacts on adjacent units would be expected. Recent notoriety concerning the Monument has
resulted in more people becoming aware of its existence. Some people come to the region specifically to spend
time within the Monument, which could result in increases in visitation on adjacent agencies. Other people
wishing to experience the surrounding National Parks may choose to spend time investigating the new
Monument. This could result in visitors spending less time in the National Parks and more time in the
Monument. Other aspects of management concerning environmental programs (e.g., vegetation, riparian, fire)
are generally currently in place and would continue.
3.101
Chapter 3
Adjacent Agencies Management - Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions
Air Quality Program
Collections
Communication Sites, Utility Rights-of-
Way, and Road Rights-of- Way
Inventory, Monitoring, Research and
Adaptive Management
Livestock Grazing
The entire management area has been designated as either attainment or unclassified for all pollutants and has also
been designated as PSD Class II. All BLM actions and use authorizations would be designed or stipulated so as to
protect air quality within the Monument and the Class I areas on surrounding Federal lands. Site-specific project
proposals affecting BLM and adjacent lands would be reviewed for compliance with existing laws and policies
protecting the areas. Projects would be designed to minimize further degradation of existing air quality. There are
no new emission sources proposed in the Monument.
The unauthorized collection of objects, as described in the Collections section of Chapter 2 is prohibited by the
Proclamation and this Plan. These restrictions would help protect areas adjacent to National Park Service lands
where these activities are also prohibited. Due to the fact that collection of some items (e.g., plant parts, rocks) is
permitted on U.S. Forest Service lands and adjacent BLM lands, collections on these lands may increased from the
displacement of these activities.
The placement of communication sites, utility rights-of-way, and road rights-of-way, has the potential to have
visual impacts on adjacent land management agencies if these facilities were visible from adjacent agency land.
These sites or rights-of-way would generally not be allowed on 1,21 1,386 acres, (except for communication sites,
which may be allowed throughout the Monument for safety purposes only, and road rights-of-way for private
inholdings). In areas where they would be allowed, sites or rights-of-way would have to meet visual resource
quality objectives and placement would take into account scenic quality impacts on adjacent land management
agencies.
Inventory and monitoring activities by the BLM within the Monument would be coordinated with adjacent land
management agencies as much as possible. Many of the studies that are initiated by the BLM and adjacent
agencies have application for all agencies administering lands on the Colorado Plateau. The coordination of efforts
for study of resources could take the form of interagency teams, shared resources, and the extension of projects
onto adjacent lands. Any surface disturbing research projects that are in close proximity to adjacent lands, or
which may affect adjacent agencies (i.e., downstream from a surface disturbing activity) would be coordinated
with these agencies to ensure that impacts were not occurring to resources on their lands.
Livestock use has the potential to indirectly impact adjacent agencies lands by accelerating erosion, leading to
degradation of water quality in these areas. Livestock grazing uses within the Monument would be managed in
keeping with applicable laws and regulations, and with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health.
Proper grazing and vegetation management, as outlined in the Standards and Guidelines, maintains natural
vegetation composition, structure and function of rangelands. Healthy rangelands also prevent erosion and
3.102
Chapter 3
Livestock Grazing cont.
Adjacent Agencies Management - Environmental Consequences
degradation of soils and water. Monitoring in conjunction with grazing management, provides information on
changes in condition, allowing for changes in grazing management strategies in conjunction with the adaptive
management framework (Appendix 3).
Recreational Facilities and Use
Riparian Resources Program and
Special Status Species Program
Transportation
I
I
I
I
Visual Resource Management
Water Issues
Although there are 32 recreation facilities and 35 primitive camping areas foreseeable over the next 15 years, these
facilities would occur primarily in areas already used for these purposes and would be on the periphery of the
Monument. More developed campgrounds on adjacent U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service lands would
most likely not be impacted by these facilities. People who otherwise would spend time on surrounding National
Park Service lands or National Forest lands would possibly be attracted to Monument lands due to the new
designation. Five new Monument visitor contact facilities located in gateway communities would provide visitors
with Monument information, and would tend to concentrate visitors in these communities. Conversely,
recreational restrictions such as group size limits within the Monument could cause people to seek recreational
opportunities on adjacent lands such as U.S. Forest Service lands or BLM lands where group sizes limits are larger.
Restoration of riparian areas within the Monument would also help improve water quality downstream within Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area. The protection of special status species would be coordinated across agency
boundaries for those species with distributions beyond the Monument's boundaries. These coordinated activities
would help to protect and restore these species and their habitat on Monument as well as adjacent agency lands.
Motorized and mechanized travel off of designated routes would not be allowed, except in limited situations (see
the Transportation and Access and the Management and Emergency Exceptions sections in Chapter 2). There
are 1,080 miles of designated open and administrative routes. Of these open routes, 543 miles would be open to
use by OHVs. Due to these restrictions on mechanized and motorized use within the Monument, OHV and bicycle
use has the potential to increase on adjacent U.S. Forest Service and other BLM lands where these activities are not
as strictly regulated. However, OHV use is estimated to be fairly low in the Monument based on data collected in
the Recreation Management Information System. Thus, displacement of current use would not be extensive,
although overall increases in use in the region have the potential to disproportionately increase use on adjacent
agency land.
The management of visual resources on the Monument can affect scenic vistas from adjacent land management
agencies. As discussed above in the Communication Sites, Utility Rights-of-Way, and Road Rights-of-Way section,
all developments would have to meet selected VRM classes and objectives. Visual impacts on adjacent agencies
would be taken into account in site specific NEPA analysis for all proposals.
The management of streams and riparian areas has the potential to impact water quality and quantity on
downstream agencies. Construction of recreation sites, management of grazing, and other activities could affect
3.103
Chapter 3
Adjacent Agencies Management - Environmental Consequences
Water Issues cont.
Weed Management
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wildfire Management, Management
Ignited Fires, and Fire Restoration
Proposed Actions with no
Reasonably Foreseeable Effects
water downstream. However, the objective of the BLM would be to protect water quality in the Monument and
ensure that adequate water is available to sustain Monument resources (see the Impacts on Water Quality section
in this chapter). Efforts to meet these objectives would protect water downstream.
The BLM is presently working cooperatively with adjacent agencies toward controlling and managing weed
problems within and around the Monument. These activities would provide increased protection for vegetation
and wildlife species in the Monument and on adjacent agencies lands. Although the removal of noxious weed
species is a priority in the Monument, not all areas can be treated simultaneously. If weed populations in the
Monument are left untreated they may spread onto adjacent agencies lands. Cooperative control programs would
likely reduce these impacts.
In the analysis of stream-course segments within the Monument for recommendations to the National Wild and
Scenic River System, the BLM worked closely with the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service in
determining eligibility of stream segments. Because of this coordinated effort, there are consistent eligibility
determinations for adjacent segments. Differences in management philosophy and agency missions may result in
suitability recommendations that are inconsistent with the BLM's recommendations (although suitability was
coordinated across jurisdictions to the extent possible). Regardless of recommendations for suitability, all river
segments in the Monument would be protected from degradation that would substantially affect adjacent agencies.
The Color Country Fire Management Area includes the agencies of the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park
Service, and the BLM. These agencies work cooperatively on fire management issues throughout the region. The
management of fires in conjunction with these agencies would continue under this Plan.
No reasonably foreseeable effects to adjacent agencies management would be expected from proposed
decisions listed under the following sections of this Plan: Commercial Filming, Vegetation Management,
Wilderness Study Area Protection, Wildlife Services.
3.104
Chapter 3
Cumulative Impacts - Environmental Consequences
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Introduction
Cumulative impacts are the effects on the
environment which result from the
incremental impact of this Plan in
combination with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions outside
the scope of this Plan, either within the
Monument or outside it. Cumulative impacts
are discussed because the quality of the
human environment is the result of many
different factors acting together. The real
effect of any single action cannot be
determined by considering that action in
isolation, but must be determined by
considering the likely effect of that action
when acting in conjunction with other actions.
These involve determinations that are
necessarily complex, and are to some degree
intuitive.
Cumulative impacts on specific resources,
local communities, adjacent agencies, and
other users of the Monument that result from
BLM actions within the scope of this Plan are
included in each of the resource discussions
above under the Summary of Effects sections.
The cumulative impacts discussion below
considers this Proposed Plan in the context of
the broader human environment. It includes a
discussion of factors such as livestock grazing
that have brought that environment to its
current state, and a discussion of factors such
as population growth that could be expected
to influence that environment in the future.
Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
The lands adjacent to the Monument are
generally Federal lands, managed by the
BLM, the U.S. Forest Service, and the
National Park Service. Management of those
lands is likely to protect Monument resources,
particularly biological and visual resources
that benefit from large contiguous tracts of
undeveloped land. However, it is possible
that, in the long term, visitation associated
with the National Parks and National
Recreation Area around the Monument would
affect the Monument, both by "overflow"
visitation, and through visitor-related
developments near the Monument boundary.
This could lead to increased surface
disturbance and other impacts associated with
visitor use described in previous sections.
Water quality within the Monument is, to an
extent, dependent upon land and water-use
management upstream. Land management
practices on adjacent U.S. Forest Service
lands along the northern Monument boundary
could affect water quality within the
Monument. Future logging and road building
operations on U.S. Forest Service lands could
temporarily degrade surface water quality
within the Monument during construction.
Conversely, erosion control practices like
those at Bryce Canyon National Park may
tend to improve overall surface water quality.
Differences in management policies on
adjacent agencies could also cause cumulative
effects on Monument resources. For
example, visitor use on adjacent U.S. Forest
Service and BLM lands where some
collection is permitted could impact
paleontological and biological resources on
the periphery of the Monument where
boundaries and differing policies are not
evident. Likewise, cross-country vehicle use
is allowed on adjacent BLM lands, which
could result in damage to resources on the
periphery of the Monument that are sensitive
to surface disturbance. Information would be
provided to visitors on the prohibition of
collections and cross-country vehicle travel,
which would reduce the potential for these
impacts. In sensitive areas where collections
or cross-country travel occurred before
designation, or where these activities become
a problem, interpretive displays could be
constructed to provide visitors with
information restrictions, and enforcement
patrols would be emphasized.
Private lands can also have effects on
Monument resources. Nearly 15,000 acres of
private land exist within the Monument
boundary, and the boundary abuts private
lands in several areas, largely near adjacent
communities. Private lands within the
boundaries of the Monument are largely
3.105
Chapter 3
Cumulative Impacts - Environmental Consequences
undeveloped and used mainly for livestock
operations. Since private landowners
generally have rights to reasonable access to
their lands across public lands, future requests
for road rights-of-way could impact
Monument resources sensitive to surface
disturbance. These effects should be
minimal, however, because only six private
land inholdings within the Monument do not
have road access. Future needs for utility
rights-of-ways to these lands could effect
resources, depending upon surface
disturbance and visual quality impacts. As
discussed in the Utility Rights-of-Way
section of Chapter 2, the BLM would work
with the sponsor of a project to meet this
Plan's objectives for protecting resources.
Alternative locations for projects would be
identified when unavoidable conflicts arise,
and projects would be focused in appropriate
zones.
Private lands can also have effects on visual
resources in the vicinity of the Monument,
especially on the periphery of the Monument
where housing and other developments could
alter the scenic quality. Water resources
could also be affected by private lands to the
north of the Monument and on inholdings
within the Monument. Private landowners
that have water rights and divert water out of
streams could affect instream flows within the
Monument. Return flow from municipal
water developments within the communities
may also tend to degrade both surface and
ground water quality within the Monument.
The Water section of Chapter 2 discusses a
strategy for ensuring that adequate water is
available to protect Monument resources and
discusses a monitoring strategy to ensure that
water quality is maintained or improved.
Livestock grazing in the region has evolved
and changed considerably since it began in
the 1 860s, and is one factor that has created
the current environment. At the turn of the
century, large herds of livestock grazed on
unreserved public domain in uncontrolled
open range. Eventually, the range was
stocked beyond its capacity, causing changes
in plant, soil and water relationships. Some
speculate that the changes were permanent
and irreversible, turning plant communities
from grass and herbaceous species to brush
and trees. Protective vegetative cover was
reduced, and more runoff brought erosion,
rills and gullies.
In response to these problems, livestock
grazing reform began in 1934 with the
passage of the Taylor Grazing Act.
Subsequent laws, regulations, and policy
changes have resulted in adjustments in
livestock numbers, season-of-use changes,
and other management changes. Given the
past experiences with livestock impacts on the
resources in the Monument and the
cumulative impacts that could occur on the
larger ecosystem from grazing on various
public and private lands in the region,
management of livestock grazing is an
important factor in ensuring the protection of
Monument resources
The Proclamation which established the
Monument stated that "...grazing use shall
continue to be governed by applicable laws
and regulations." Livestock grazing
regulations were most recently revised in
1995, leading to the adoption of the Utah
Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland
Health in 1997, which are now beginning to
be applied Statewide, including within the
Monument. The new regulations, and the
Standards for Rangeland Health and
Guidelines for Grazing Management, give
management priority to maintaining
functioning ecosystems. Although they are
just beginning to be implemented, it is likely
that the new regulations, Standards, and
Guidelines would have a beneficial effect on
Monument resources over time.
The Proclamation closed the Monument to
new mineral entry, but valid rights existing at
the time of the Proclamation may be
exercised. If existing rights were exercised,
effects on Monument resources could occur
from surface disturbance and infrastructure
development. Full development scenarios for
mineral activities are not analyzed as
discussed in the Alternatives Considered
but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis
section in Chapter 2 of the DEIS. Full
environmental analysis would be required at
the time development proposals occur.
3.106
Chapter 3
Cumulative Impacts - Environmental Consequences
The area surrounding the Monument is
currently sparsely populated. Nevertheless,
population growth is among the factors that
would influence the Monument environment
in the long-term. Population growth in the
region is projected to increase by 3 to 4
percent per year over the next 15 years. The
potential for development of retirement
communities is considered high in the
southern part of the region, particularly near
the town of Big Water where large amounts
of State land are available for development.
Tourism in the region, specifically visitation
to the Monument and other public lands, is
expected to continue to grow, which could
add to the level of development beyond that
attributable to population growth alone. Such
development in the communities surrounding
the Monument could lead to more noise and
visual impacts, as well as greater demands for
water, all of which could impair the quality of
the Monument environment.
Several projects have been proposed for
future development in or near the Monument,
all of which could have impacts on
Monument resources. These include the
upgrade of PacifiCorp's Cottonwood Canyon
powerline from 230 kilovolts to 345 kilovolts,
the Lake Powell to Sand Hollow Reservoir
water pipeline, and the Wide Hollow
Reservoir on BLM land north of the
Monument.
The timing and exact specifications for all of
these projects are uncertain. The Cottonwood
powerline proposal refers to a December
1975 application to increase the voltage in
the Cottonwood Canyon powerline from 245-
kilovolts to 345-kilovolts (filed by Utah
Power and Light, a subsidiary of PacifiCorp).
A more specific description of the proposal is
that it would raise the cross arms five feet on
the existing wood towers, add three insulators
to each conductor, bundle the conductors, and
add one X-brace to each existing tower for
increased support. There has been no
subsequent application filed for this proposed
upgrade and no determination of whether
such a proposal would be consistent with this
Plan. As stated in the Rights-of-Way section
of Chapter 2 of this Plan, subsequent
environmental analysis and a determination of
conformance with this Plan would be required
before any action is taken.
No application has formally been filed for the
Lake Powell to Sand Hollow water pipeline.
However, the tentative route would follow
Highway 89 for most of its length. Per Public
Law- 105-35 5, signed by President Clinton on
October 31, 1998, a utility corridor was
designated along Highway 89 in Kane
County, including that portion of Highway 89
within the Monument. The utility corridor
extends 240 feet north from the center line of
the highway, and 500 feet south from the
center line of the highway. The proposed
water pipeline would most likely be built
within this utility corridor. Cumulative
impacts of the surface disturbance associated
with this pipeline, combined with other
surface disturbing activities (such as livestock
grazing and recreational uses), could have
impacts on visual quality, vegetation,
archaeology, and other resources. Given the
lack of a detailed proposal for this pipeline,
and the fact that it is unclear if the project
would be proposed within the next 15 years, it
is difficult to ascertain the exact impacts.
Subsequent environmental analysis would be
required on any specific water pipeline
proposal. A determination as to its
conformance with this Plan would also be
required.
The proposed Wide Hollow reservoir would
be located on BLM land outside of the
Monument boundary. At the time that this
document went to print, there was no detailed
proposal for the project. Subsequent
environmental analysis would be required on
any specific reservoir proposal to determine
the potential impacts, including impacts on
Monument resources downstream.
IRREVERSIBLE AND UlRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
The implementation of actions in accordance
with this Plan is not likely to result in
significant impacts that may be characterized
as irreversible and irretrievable commitments.
However, some small-scale disruption to
resources may occur, which may in turn
prove long-term or permanent. These are
most likely to be associated with this Plan's
concentration of visitation in the
3.107
Chapter 3
Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail - Environmental Consequences
Frontcountry Zone along major roads
(Highways 12 & 89). Provisions for visitor
experience (including day-use) such as trails,
overlooks and interpretive sites could yield
irremediable impacts on resources such as
biological soil crusts. Similarly, increased
visitor access in the Frontcountry and Passage
Zones could increase the risk of spreading
noxious weeds and disrupt the habitat of
certain species. Impacts would be monitored
to determine the extent to which they may
prove irreversible and irremediable, and
adaptive management as described in
Appendix 3 would be employed as
appropriate.
ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT
ANALYZED IN DETAIL
There are several factors that must be
considered in all Environmental Impact
Statements because of laws, regulations, and
executive orders, but which are not
necessarily analyzed in detail. They are
discussed below.
IMPACTS ON AREAS OF CRITICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
There are no existing Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs) in the
Monument and ACECs are not proposed in
this Plan (see the ACEC section in Chapter 2
and Appendix 10). Therefore, there would be
no impact on the relevance and importance
criteria for any ACEC.
IMPACTS ON PRIME AND UNIQUE
FARMLANDS
There are no prime or unique farmlands or
farmland of Statewide or local importance on
public lands in the Monument. None of the
actions proposed in this Plan would disturb
farmlands. Therefore, impacts on prime and
unique farmlands are not analyzed further in
this Environmental Impact Statement.
IMPACTS ON FLOODPLAINS
No projects or activities that would result in
permanent fills or diversions in, or placement
of permanent facilities on special floodplain
areas (as designated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency), would
occur with implementation of this Plan.
Therefore, impacts on floodplains are not
analyzed in detail.
IMPACTS ON GEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
Specific impacts on geological resources are
not identified. This is because impacts on
geology are difficult to separate from impacts
to other resources which the geology of the
Monument supports. Thus, impacts on
geology are discussed elsewhere, either
implicitly or explicitly, in the discussions of
impacts to other resources such as
paleontology and scenic quality.
IMPACTS ON OR FROM HAZARDOUS
AND SOLID WASTES
No hazardous, toxic, or unapproved solid
waste sites are known to occur on public
lands in the Monument. None of the actions,
activities, and uses projected to occur with
implementation of this Plan would require the
handling, storage, or release of large
quantities of these wastes. Therefore, impacts
on or from hazardous and solid wastes are not
analyzed in detail.
IMPACTS ON NATIVE AMERICAN
TRUST RIGHTS
Impacts on Native American Trust Rights are
not analyzed in detail in this Environmental
Impact Statement because no trust rights are
associated with lands inside the Monument.
As described in the Consultation with
Native American Indians section of Chapter
3, the BLM would consult with tribes in order
to minimize impacts on ancestral sites and
traditionally associated resources.
IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
The local communities in and around the
Monument are typically below the State
average per capita annual income of
approximately $17,000 and are almost
3.108
Chapter 3
Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail - Environmental Consequences
exclusively Caucasian. For example, the
percentage of Caucasian people in Garfield
county is about 98 percent. The
implementation of this Plan would have a
greater effect on the well-being of the local
low income populations than on the more
affluent populations in other areas of the State
and Country. However, because the affected
local communities are homogenous and
would be uniformly affected, there would not
be an unequal distribution of risks and
benefits in those communities from
implementation of this Plan.
Native American Indian populations would
not be disproportionately affected by
decisions in this Plan. Exceptions to
restrictions on uses of plants, collection of
natural resources and access to certain
locations would be granted for Native
American traditional practices.
IMPACTS OF VALID EXISTING
RIGHTS ON MONUMENT RESOURCES
AND MANAGEMENT
The effects of valid existing rights on public
lands are not analyzed in detail in this
Environmental Impact Statement for reasons
similar to those explained in Chapter 2 of the
DEIS for Full Field Mineral Development.
Valid existing rights are described in Chapter
2 of this Plan. Refer to the Cumulative
Impacts section above for a general
discussion of impacts of current operations.
3.109
Chapter 4
Public Participation and Coordination
Chapter 4
Public Participation and Coordination
INTRODUCTION
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is
committed to providing opportunities for
meaningful participation in resource
management planning processes. Effective
planning processes provide opportunities for
the public to become involved early, to
comment on draft land use plans, and to ensure
that the BLM has met the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The BLM has maintained an ongoing public
participation process. Examples of these
efforts include:
VISIONS KIT
The first document produced as part of the
scoping process was a "visions kit," designed
to elicit a wide range of ideas regarding
Monument management. It described
Monument landscapes, laid out a set of guiding
principles, and provided a worksheet for
recording ideas. The worksheet allowed
individuals to list what they valued about the
Monument, what purposes the Monument
should serve, what services nearby
communities should provide, and other
concerns. More than 2,000 visions kits were
returned during the scoping phase of public
involvement. These comments were
summarized and provided to the public in
Update Letter No. 5.
SCOPING WORKSHOPS
Fifteen scoping workshops were held between
August and October 1997 in Utah, Colorado,
New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California and
Washington, D.C Each workshop began with
an introductory overview of the Monument
and the planning process, then participants
broke into smaller facilitated groups. In these
smaller groups, members used the visions kit
to record their ideas and concerns. More than
1,100 people attended the workshops. Chapter
5 of the Draft Management Plan/Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DMP/DEIS)
listed the locations and attendance at the
workshops.
SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM
In November of 1997, the BLM, the Utah State
Advisory Council for Science and Technology,
and Southern Utah University sponsored
Learning from the Land - a Science
Symposium in Cedar City, Utah. Scientists
were invited to share information about the
natural and cultural history of the Monument.
Over 200 people attended the symposium. The
information provided by the scientists was
used by the BLM in the development of the
Monument Management Plan.
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND
SCENARIOS
The BLM kept the public involved in the
development of the Management Plan between
the scoping workshops and publication of the
Draft Management Plan/Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DMP/DEIS) by the
development of "management strategies and
scenarios." Management scenarios were short
descriptions of the general approaches that
would guide management actions in each
alternative. Each scenario had a different
emphasis, which resulted in actions that varied
between the alternatives. These scenarios were
meant to provide the philosophy and direction
for each alternative. The public was invited to
comment on draft strategies in Update Letter
No. 6. The resulting scenarios were introduced
in Update Letter No. 7. They provided the
framework for refining the alternatives
presented in the DEIS.
DRAFT PLAN COMMENTS
In addition to printed copies, this Plan was
available for review through the Monument's
website and on CD-ROM in efforts to reduce
paper used in printing. Approximately 2,500
printed copies and 700 CD-ROMs were
distributed.
More than 6,800 comment letters on the
DMP/DEIS were received by March 15, 1999.
About 65 percent of the comments were mailed
to the planning office. Thirty percent were
received by electronic mail, with the remainder
4.1
Public Participation and Coordination
Chapter 4
coming by fax or delivery at open house
sessions. Chapter 5 of this document describes
the comment response process.
DRAFT PLAN OPEN HOUSE SESSIONS
Thirteen open house sessions were held
between December 1998 and January 1999 in
Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona,
California, and Washington, D.C. The dates
and locations of the open house sessions were
announced in the November 12, 1998 Federal
Register (Vol. 63, No. 218, pages 63327-
63329), in local media sources for the city or
town where the meetings were held, on the
Monument homepage, and in Update Letter
No. 9.
Each open house session began with an
introductory video tape presentation of the
Monument planning process and DEIS
alternatives. Then participants were
encouraged to visit with Planning Team
members regarding their questions about the
DEIS. More than 1,000 people attended the
open house sessions.
Open House Session Locations, Dates, and
Attendance:
• Kanab, Utah, 12/1/98, 92 attended
• Albuquerque, New Mexico, 12/1/98, 72
attended
• Escalante, Utah, 12/3/98, 69 attended
• Denver, Colorado, 12/3/98, 109 attended
• Salt Lake City, Utah, 1 2/8/98, 2 1 9 attended
• Tropic, Utah, 12/8/98, 83 attended
San Francisco, California, 12/10/98, 94
attended
Big Water, Utah, 12/10/98, 52 attended
Orderville, Utah, 1/5/99, 19 attended
Panguitch, Utah, 1/5/99, 12 attended
Flagstaff, Arizona, 1/7/99, 102 attended
Cedar City, Utah, 1/7/99, 43 attended
Washington, D.C, 1/12/99, 78 attended
UPDATE LETTERS
From May 1997 through June 1999 ten
Planning Update Letters were sent to
approximately 4,000 people on the mailing list,
distributed to visitors, and posted on our
homepage on the World Wide Web. The
purpose of the letters was to keep the public
informed and involved throughout the
planning process. The update letters contained
information on how to become involved in the
planning process, identified preliminary
planning criteria, announced the call for Areas
of Critical Environmental Concern and Wild
and Scenic River nominations, summarized
comments from scoping, identified planning
issues, outlined management scenarios,
summarized the DEIS open house sessions and
comments.
INTERNET HOMEPAGE
The BLM also maintaines a homepage at
which contains
Monument news and events, visitor
information, education and research
opportunities, and planning information. The
homepage also provides an electronic mail link
to the planning office. The website has
averaged 1,100 "hits" per month. Over 30
percent of the responses to the Draft Plan were
delivered through the Monument electronic
mail address. The entire DEIS was available on
the homepage in digital and down-loadable
formats.
INFORMATION MEETINGS
The BLM established regular opportunities for
interaction with state, local and tribal officials.
State, county, and municipal officials have
participated in extensive and regular
information meetings. Planning Team
members have also attended many tribal
government meetings, in order to consult with
tribal officials regarding the Monument
planning process. The Monument Manager has
directed staff to be available for requests from
organizations to attend informational meetings.
The Manager and staff have attended dozens of
such meetings throughout the Nation and
region to discuss the Monument planning
process and to foster continuing public
involvement.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION
Since Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument is the first BLM Monument, the
BLM sought the advice of other agencies
managing areas of National significance. These
sessions provided valuable information on
involving the public and other "lessons learned"
from their planning efforts.
4.2
Chapter 4
Public Participation and Coordination
To more fully include the State of Utah in the
planning process, Secretary of the Interior
Bruce Babbitt invited Governor Leavitt to
nominate members to the Planning Team. The
Governor proposed five professionals who
became part of the Planning Team. These
professionals include a geologist,
paleontologist, historian, wildlife biologist, and
a community planner. In addition, the State of
Utah Automated Geographic Resource Center
provided support through a cooperative
agreement.
As mentioned above, the BLM consulted with
tribal officials throughout the planning process
via information letters, telephone calls,
meetings, and field trips. The BLM also
conducted consultation on BLM projects,
Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act, and potential interpretive
topics and perspectives. This consultation
effort will continue into the implementation of
this Plan.
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
The following Federal Register Notices were
published, announcing important aspects of the
Plan preparation:
• Federal Register (Vol. 62, No. 130, pages
36570-36571) July 8, 1997 — Notice of
Intent to Prepare a Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement
• Federal Register (Vol. 62, Nol 141, page
39534) July 23, 1997 — Notice of Intent to
Prepare a Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement:
Correction [telephone number correction]
Federal Register (Vol. 62, No. 147, page
41074) July 31, 1997 — Notice of Public
Involvement and Scoping Opportunities for
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument Management Plan and
Associated Environmental Impact
Statement
Federal Register (Vol. 63, No. 31, pages
7820-7822) February 17, 1998 — Call for
Information on the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument Management
Plan Regarding Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) and Wild
& Scenic Rivers (WSR)
Federal Register (Vol. 63, No. 218, pages
63327-63329) November 12, 1998 — BLM
Notice of Availability of the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument
Draft Management Plan and Associated
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Federal Register (Vol. 63, No. 220, pages
63729-63730) November 16, 1998 — EPA
Environmental Impact Statement No.
980457 - Notice of Availability of the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument Draft Management Plan and
Associated Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
• Federal Register (Vol. 64, No. 31, page
7905) February 17, 1999 — Notice of
Extension of Public Comment Period
PLANNING CONSISTENCY
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA), Title II, Section 202, directs the
BLM to coordinate planning efforts with Native
American Indian tribes, other Federal
departments, and agencies of state, and local
governments. To accomplish this directive, the
BLM is directed to keep apprised of state, local,
and tribal land use plans, assure that
consideration is given to those state, local and
tribal plans that are relevant in the development
of land use plans for public lands; and to assist
in resolving, to the extent practical,
inconsistencies between Federal and non-
Federal government plans. The section goes on
to state in Subsection(c)(9) that "Land use
plans of the Secretary under this section shall
be consistent with State and local plans to the
maximum extent he finds consistent with
Federal law and the purposes of this Act. " The
provisions of this section of FLPMA are echoed
in Section 1610.3 of the BLM Resource
Management Planning regulations.
On December 3, 1997 the Planning Team
Coordinator mailed a letter to all known
affected governmental jurisdictions requesting
access to their most current official policy and
planning guidance. The letter also requested a
copy of any formally adopted plan that should
be considered during the development of the
Monument Management Plan. A follow-up
4.3
Public Participation and Coordination
Chapter 4
letter dated April 7, 1998 encouraged the same
jurisdictions to carefully review the
management strategies released in the April
1998 Update Letter No. 6, and to comment on
any perceived inconsistencies with their plans.
A six-person group of planning team members
reviewed available Federal, State and local
plans relating to Monument lands. That group
reviewed ten municipal plans, two county
plans, two regional plans, 16 Utah State agency
plans, and 8 Federal agency plans listed in
Chapter 5 of the DEIS. No major
inconsistencies were identified between the
DEIS alternatives and the plans reviewed.
Six comments to the DEIS included concerns
regarding consistency with other land use
plans. These comments came from the two
counties, three Federal agencies, and the Kane
County Water Conservancy District. Table 4. 1
identifies the applicable land use plan, lists the
issues or conflicts identified, and includes a
response to each issue or conflict.
Since the publication of the DMP/DEIS, a few
additional plans that apply to Monument
management were adopted by various agencies.
These documents were reviewed and no
inconsistencies were identified, and the
remaining jurisdictions have raised no concerns
regarding inconsistencies.
The additional plans evaluated since the
publication of the DMP/DEIS are:
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Strategic Management Plan for Bighorn
Sheep (November 12, 1998)
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Strategic Management Plan for Cougar
(March 17, 1999)
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Strategic Management Plan for Wild
Turkey (November 12, 1998)
United States Fish and Wildlife Services
Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor
Protection from Human and Land Use
Disturbances (January 1999)
4.4
Chapter 4
Public Participation and Coordination
Table 4.1
Plan Consistency Review
Name of Plan
Consistency Issue/Concern
Consistency Finding
Discussion
Federal Land Use Plans
U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Dixie National Forest Land
and Resource Management
Plan (September 1986,
amended 1995)
The proposed Monument management zones are
inconsistent with the Dixie National Forest's Land and
Resource Management Plan allocation decisions of the
MAI (Developed Recreation), MA6A (Livestock
Grazing) and MA7A (Wood Production and
Utilization) zones adjacent to Caanan Mountain.
(Letter 5300)
Consistent
The BLM has not identified any activities on the National Forest that
would be constrained due to the proposed zone configurations in the
vicinity of Caanan Mountain. The proposed management zones were
established by considering dominant terrain, transportation systems,
use patterns, sensitive resources, and existing land disturbances.
Livestock grazing is allowed in all zones. Commercial timber
harvesting is not allowed in any zone. The road network necessary for
the Forest Service to access wood production zones is left intact.
U.S. Department of Energy
Western Regional Corridor
Study (1992)
The Western Regional Corridor Study was formally
endorsed by the BLM in 1993. The Study identifies
the Sigurd-Glen Canyon transmission line alignment in
Cottonwood Canyon as a "strategic corridor," which
was not identified in the DMP/DEIS. (Letters 5769,
6369, 6589)
Consistent
The Western Regional Corridor Study was taken into consideration in
the development of the Proposed Plan. It is important to note that the
study is not a decision document, rather it is a document which the
BLM committed to use as a reference when considering land use
decisions. Given the purposes outlined in the Proclamation,
designating utility corridors in these areas is not considered
appropriate. Existing rights-of-way will be respected. Requests for
additional rights-of-way will be considered on a case-by-case basis
after site specific environmental analysis and a determination of
conformance with the Monument Management Plan.
U.S. Department of the
Interior
Bryce Canyon National
Park
General Management Plan
(1987)
The Yellow Creek and Jim Hollow Roads should be
designated as Administrative Use due to unauthorized
ATV use in southwestern willow flycatcher habitat.
(Letter 6508)
Partially Consistent
The use of the Yellow Creek and Jim Hollow Roads was coordinated
with Dixie National Forest, which is planning an ATV route on these
roads. The National Forest is the land management agency adjacent to
the Monument in this location, and the agency upon which these roads
terminate.
U.S. Department of the
Interior
Capitol Reef National Park
Draft General Management
Plan (March 1998)
The Capitol Reef General Management Plan classifies
the Burr Trail Road as "Dirt - All-Weather Two-Wheel
Drive." The classification given to the Burr Trail Road
inside the Monument should match the classification
given by the National Park Service. (Letter 6508)
Partially Consistent
The Burr Trail Road inside the Monument is subject to a valid RS 2477
right-of-way held by Garfield County. Classification of the road would
be governed by the RS 2477 right-of-way. Currently the road is an all-
weather, 2-wheel-drive hard-surfaced road.
A road in the Circle Cliffs area shown as open to ATV
use in the Monument loops through the National Park,
where ATVs are not allowed. The road should allow
only street-legal vehicles which must remain on the
road.
(Letter 6508)
Consistent
This Plan would close this route leading into Capitol Reef National
Park to ATV use.
4.5
Public Participation and Coordination
Chapter 4
Table 4.1
Plan Consistency Review
Name of Plan
Consistency Issue/Concern
Consistency Finding
Discussion
U.S. Department of the
Interior
Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area
General Management Plan
(July 1979)
The proposed Primitive Zone abuts the NRA
Recreation and Resource Utilization (R&RU) zone
near Big Water to Rock Creek. The R&RU zone
allows mineral development, historical uses, and
special uses such as filming. This may create use
conflicts. (Letter 6508)
Consistent
The Monument boundary near Big Water to Rock Creek typically
follows a major cliff line which divides the Monument from the
National Recreation Area. Recreation Area R&RU zone uses would
not conflict with the Monument Primitive Zone uses due to the major
terrain separations involved. In addition, activities such as minimum
impact filming, grazing and other uses can still occur in the Primitive
Zone. To the extent that valid existing rights exist in that zone, mineral
development may also occur.
The proposed Passage Zone off the Hole-in-the-Rock
Road leading to the NRA boundary allows ATVs and
"rudimentary facilities" which may conflict with the
NRA Natural zone which emphasizes isolation and
natural processes. (Letter 6508)
Partially Consistent
This Plan closes these routes leading into Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area to ATV use. Rudimentary facilities along these roads
could include signs or barriers to better delineate parking areas to
trailheads.
The Smoky Hollow, Smoky Mountain (below Kelly
Grade) and Croton Roads are located in erosion prone
soils, and should be closed to ATV use.
(Letter 6508)
Partially Consistent
The Croton Road would be closed to ATVs in this Plan. The Smoky
Hollow and Smoky Mountain Roads would remain open to ATV use
within the existing road surface. Use off-road that could contribute to
erosion would be prohibited, and maintenance of these roads would be
done to prevent or minimize erosion.
State and Local Land Use Plans
Garfield County, Utah
General Plan (March 13,
1995, as amended)
The consistency requirements of FLPMA, NEPA, and
their implementing regulations, regarding the County's
plan, must be fully complied with by the BLM
(Garfield County, Utah General Plan, Page 6-9).
(Letters 1301, 6525, 5426, 6206)
Consistent
This Plan and the DMP/DEIS recognize the FLPMA mandate to keep
apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans; assure that
consideration is given to those State, local and tribal plans that are
relevant in the development of land use plans for public lands; and to
assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between
Federal and non-Federal government plans. This Plan reflects efforts
to resolve inconsistencies within the constraints of Federal law and
regulation.
To develop an adequate transportation plan, the BLM
must resolve conflicts concerning RS 2477 roads
(Garfield County, Utah General Plan, Page 6-12).
(Letters 6525, 6365)
Partially Consistent
Monument managers initiated a series of discussions with Garfield
County officials regarding a transportation system acceptable to both
the BLM and Garfield County in order to resolve RS 2477 conflicts.
Negotiations had not resulted in an agreement at the time this Plan
went to press.
4.6
Chapter 4
Public Participation and Coordination
Name of Plan
Table 4.1
Plan Consistency Review
Consistency Issue/Concern
Consistency Finding
Discussion
Garfield County, Utah
General Plan (March 13,
1995, as amended) cont.
If a final resolution of the RS 2477 roads issue is not
possible due to litigation or other factors, the
Management Plan must, at a minimum, acknowledge
and address how and when the County's vested rights
within the Monument will be handled (Garfield
County, Utah General Plan, Page 6-12). (Letter 6525)
Partially Consistent
Chapter 2 of this Plan includes a section on Transportation and
Access. This section states that the Plan designates the route system
for the Monument, subject to valid existing rights. It is unknown
whether any RS 2477 claims would be asserted and determined to be
valid which are inconsistent with the transportation decisions made in
the Approved Plan. To the extent inconsistent claims are made, the
validity of those claims would have to be determined. If claims are
determined to be valid RS 2477 highways, the Approved Plan would
respect those as valid existing rights. Otherwise, the transportation
system described in the Approved Plan would be the one administered
in the Monument.
The Management Plan must also contain provisions
which will allow the County, as the entity most
directly responsible and legally liable for road
maintenance, law enforcement, and search and rescue
activities in a large area of the Monument to carry out
these responsibilities in an appropriate manner. This
includes recognition of adequate right-of-way widths
and the placement of law enforcement and emergency
management facilities (Garfield County, Utah General
Plan, Page 6-12). (Letter 6525)
Partially Consistent
Chapter 2 of this Plan includes sections on Cooperation with
Communities and other State and Federal Agencies,
Transportation and Access, and Utility Rights-of-Way and
Communication Sites, which address how the BLM will coordinate
with county transportation, law enforcement, and emergency
management needs. While these sections do not address granting
rights-of-way and authorized emergency management facilities, they
do address how the Monument will cooperate with communities on law
enforcement and emergency issues.
The Management Plan must provide for range
improvements, preservation of current grazing on
public lands, maintenance of county water rights,
continuation of public land timber harvesting, and
consideration and encouragement of mining leases
(Garfield County, Utah General Plan Resolutions,
pages 6-18 to 6-31).
(Letters 6525, 5426, 6206)
Partially Consistent
Chapter 2 of this Plan contains extensive discussions on Livestock
Grazing, Water, and Forestry Products. These sections are
consistent with the County plan in that they state that grazing would
continue to be managed under existing laws and regulations and that
forestry product harvesting could continue, by permit, in designated
areas, if consistent with overall vegetation management objectives.
Water rights are granted by the State of Utah, and the BLM has no
authority to change priority dates or affect perfected water rights. The
Presidential Proclamation closed the Monument to future mineral entry
and leasing, which is at odds with the County plan assertion that
mining leases be considered and encouraged. Valid Existing Rights for
mining are discussed in Chapter 2.
4.7
Public Participation and Coordination
Chapter 4
Name of Plan
Garfield County, Utah
General Plan (March 13,
1995, as amended) cont.
Table 4.1
Plan Consistency Review
Consistency Issue/Concern
Garfield County holds that the establishment of the
Monument created a new Federal obligation to assist
the County in preserving and saving the County's
natural heritage and historic uses of the land as they
presently exist in and around the Monument (Garfield
County, Utah General Plan, Page 6-11). (Letters 6525,
5426, 6324, 6206)
The County has taken positions on no net loss of
private land; on no increases in Federal acreage in the
County; on no net loss of AUMs due to designation of
the Monument; on the creation of new Federal
obligations to reimburse the County for loss of
revenues; on the need for community expansion; on
the protection of water rights and the development of
additional community water sources; against Federal
buffer zones outside designated boundaries; and on
many other issues which involve socioeconomic and
community impacts (Garfield County, Utah General
Plan Resolutions, pages 6-18 to 6-31). (Letters 6525,
5426, 6206)
Consistency Finding
County policy is that the lands in the Monument must
remain open for multiple use activities including
hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and grazing, as well
as for all other grandfathered uses where valid existing
rights exist (Garfield County, Utah General Plan, Page
6-12). (Letter 6525)
Inconsistent
Partially Consistent
Consistent
Discussion
The creation of the Monument did not create a new Federal obligation
to Garfield County. The Federal obligation is that "the public lands be
managed in a manner that will protect the quality of the scientific,
scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric,
water resources, and archeological values" (FLPMA); and "protection
of the objects identified" (Proclamation). This Plan includes a
Monument Management Direction (Chapter 2) which includes the
intent to work with local, State and Federal partners, scientists, and the
public at large to insure protection, facilitate scientific and historic
research, respect authorized uses, and allow appropriate visitation.
Chapter 2 of this Plan describes contains the following sections: Non-
Federal Land Inholdings, Cooperation with Communities, and
Livestock Grazing. This Plan's treatment of these issues is
inconsistent with County positions in some respects, but this
inconsistency is considered necessary to meet the requirements of the
Proclamation and FLPMA. This Plan discusses circumstances where
private inholdings may be acquired or purchased to further the
objectives of the Monument Plan, which could be inconsistent with the
County plan. The section on Livestock Grazing states that grazing
would be managed under existing laws and regulations other than the
Proclamation, thus AUMs would not be decreased as a result of
Monument designation. Assisting local communities financially is
beyond the scope of this Plan. Garfield County has participated in
Assistance Agreements with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and
remains eligible to negotiate other similar agreements within the
constraints of DOI policy. The sections on Cooperation with
Communities and on Utility Rights-of-Ways discuss cooperation and
infrastructure issues which may be inconsistent with County positions.
Water rights are granted by the State of Utah, and the BLM has no
authority (and proposes nothing in this Plan) that could affect perfected
water rights. No "buffer zones" are proposed in the Plan.
Chapter 2 of this Plan, in Monument Management Direction, states
that: "The Proclamation directed that the Monument remain open to
certain specific uses under existing laws and regulations. These
include valid existing rights, hunting, fishing, grazing and pre-existing
authorizations." This direction is consistent with County policy.
4.8
Chapter 4
Public Participation and Coordination
Table 4.1
Plan Consistency Review
Name of Plan
Consistency Issue/Concern
Consistency Finding
Discussion
Garfield County, Utah
General Plan (March 13,
1995, as amended) cont.
Monument staff, both professional and support, should
be located as close to the Monument as possible
(Garfield County, Utah General Plan, Page 6-16).
(Letter 6525)
Consistent
Chapter 2 of this Plan states that "major facilities and the services
associated with them would be located outside the Monument in
nearby communities." This direction is consistent with county policy.
The Management Plan must include provisions for
assisting local communities with impact mitigation
resulting from the designation (Garfield County, Utah
General Plan, Page 6-17). (Letters 6525, 6206)
Partially Consistent
Assisting local communities with impact mitigation is beyond the
scope of a land use management plan. Garfield County has
participated in Assistance Agreements with the Department of the
Interior, and remains eligible to negotiate other similar agreements
within the constraints of Department of the Interior policy.
There are existing needs and there will be future needs
to make improvements on lands now included in the
Monument. It is critical that the Management Plan and
regulations recognize the need for communities to
develop new sources of water, including those which
might lie within the Monument (Garfield County, Utah
General Plan, Page 6-13). (Letter 6525)
Consistent
Chapter 2 of this Plan includes sections on Cooperation with
Communities and other State and Federal Agencies, and Utility
Rights-of-VV'ay and Communication Sites which address how the
BLM will coordinate with county needs. These sections discuss the
potential need for infrastructure, and outline areas where they would be
considered.
Tactics to control water or gain water rights by using
the Endangered Species Act, instream flow arguments,
or other circuitous measures to override existing water
rights will be strongly resisted (Garfield County, Utah
General Plan, Page 6-13). (Letter 6525)
Consistent
Chapter 2 of this Plan includes a section titled Appropriative Water
Rights under State Law which includes the statement: "The
acquisition of water rights will be carefully coordinated with the State
of Utah and local governments." The BLM has no authority to change
priority dates or override perfected water rights.
The Management Plan must recognize and include
provisions for dealing with possible future
development of the coal, oil, uranium, vanadium,
copper, titanium, zirconium, and other minerals which
may be found to exist (Garfield County, Utah General
Plan, Page 6-16).
(Letter 6525)
Partially Consistent
This Plan does include provisions for the holders of valid existing
rights to exercise these rights. This Plan cannot be completely
consistent with this County policy because the Presidential
Proclamation closed the Monument to future mineral entry.
The Management Plan must consider all values and
needs without respect to WSA boundaries. The
County is opposed to the use of the designation of the
Monument as a basis for unilateral wilderness
designation (Garfield County, Utah General Plan, Page
6-15). (Letters 6525, 5426)
Partially Consistent
Wilderness Study Areas and The 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory
and Section 202 Planning Process are discussed in Chapter 2. These
sections state that "recommendations for Wilderness suitability and
additional WSAs are beyond the scope of this Plan." Existing WSA
boundaries are recognized and respected in this Plan, however.
4.9
Public Participation and Coordination
Chapter 4
Name of Plan
Garfield County, Utah
General Plan (March 13,
1995, as amended) cont.
Kane County, Utah
General Plan (June 22,
1998, as amended)
Table 4.1
Plan Consistency Review
Consistency Issue/Concern
Limiting vegetation manipulation appears to be in
conflict with County policy (Garfield County, Utah
General Plan, Page 6-27). (Letter 5426)
Consistency Finding
Partially Consistent
Closing access significantly impacts historic and
traditional relationships between local communities
and surrounding landscapes (Garfield County, Utah
General Plan, Page 6-1 1 ). (Letters 5426, 6206)
We sustain the Kane County General Plan as the
governing document for all public and private lands in
Kane County (Kane County, Utah General Plan, Page
108). (Letter 6142)
Discussion
Chapter 2 includes a section on Vegetation Restoration Methods,
which states: "A wide variety of vegetation restoration methods may be
used to restore and promote a natural range of plant associations in the
Monument. The Vegetation section also states that non-native plants
would not be used to increase overall livestock numbers. Finally, a
Restoration and Revegetation section describes the guidelines applied
to proposed projects. The objective to achieve a natural range of native
plant associations means that non-native forage will eventually be
replaced with native forage. While the vegetation restoration policy
may be inconsistent with County policy in some respects, it is
considered necessary to meet the requirements of the Proclamation.
Partially Consistent Monument managers initiated a series of extensive discussions with
Garfield County officials regarding a transportation system acceptable
to both the BLM and Garfield County. This Plan retains a
transportation system which maintains the primary travel routes
between communities.
Partially Inconsistent
The Plan restricts ranching access and should not be
implemented without agreement and consent of the
affected local governments (Kane County, Utah
General Plan, Page 118). (Letter 6142)
Consistent
The governing authority for managing BLM public lands is FLPMA. It
states that "the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect
the quality of the scientific, scenic, historical, ecological,
environmental, air and atmospheric, water resources, and archeological
values." Chapter 2 of this Plan includes the intent to work with local,
State and Federal partners, scientists, and the public at large to insure
protection, facilitate scientific and historic research, respect authorized
uses, and allow appropriate visitation.
Chapter 2 of this Plan contains extensive discussions on Livestock
Grazing and Transportation and Access. Monument managers
initiated a series of extensive discussions with Kane County officials
regarding a transportation system acceptable to both the BLM and
Kane County. This Plan retains a transportation system which
maintains important ranching access.
4.10
Chapter 4
Name of Plan
Kane County, Utah
General Plan (June 22,
1998, as amended) cont.
Public Participation and Coordination
Table 4.1
Plan Consistency Review
Consistency Issue/Concern
Where conflicts exist between local and Federal plans
that are not inconsistent with Federal law and
regulations, then the Federal plan must be consistent
with local plans (Kane County, Utah General Plan,
Page 101). (Letters 1301, 6142, 6206,6324)
Limiting the development of water resources appears
to be in conflict with county policies (Kane County,
Utah General Plan, Page 128). (Letters, 6142, 6206)
The DEIS analysis appears to be in conflict with
County policy and the intent and purpose of Federal
laws requiring protection of an area's history and
culture (Kane County, Utah General Plan, Page 101).
(Letters 6142, 6206)
Consistency Finding
Partially Consistent
Partially Consistent
Consistent
Closing access significantly impacts historic and
traditional relationships between local communities
and surrounding landscapes (Kane County, Utah
General Plan, Page 129). (Letters 6142, 6206)
Limiting or restricting new or existing public utility
rights-of-way appears to be in conflict with County
policy (Kane County, Utah General Plan, Page 129).
(Letters 6142, 6206)
Partially Consistent
Partially Consistent
Discussion
The Proposed Plan and Draft Plan/DEIS recognize the FLPMA
mandate to keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans;
assure that consideration is given to those State, local and tribal plans
that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands;
and to assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies
between Federal and non-Federal government plans. This Plan reflects
efforts to resolve inconsistencies within the constraints of Federal law
and regulation.
Chapter 2 of this Plan includes sections on Cooperation with
Communities and other State and Federal Agencies and Utility
Rights-of-Way and Communication Sites, which address how the
BLM will coordinate with county needs. These sections address
appropriate areas within the Monument where developments would be
considered. The Proclamation clearly mandates that Monument
resources be protected and directs the BLM to evaluate the need for
water to protect such resources. Limiting development of water
resources is considered essential to this requirement.
Chapter 2 of this Plan includes the intent to work with local, State and
Federal partners, scientists, and the public at large to insure protection,
facilitate scientific and historic research, respect authorized uses, and
allow appropriate visitation. The Plan discusses the protection of
historic and cultural resources pursuant to the Proclamation.
Chapter 2 of this Plan contains extensive discussions on Livestock
Grazing and Transportation and Access. Monument managers had
extensive discussions with Kane County officials regarding a
transportation system acceptable to both the BLM and Kane County.
The transportation system described in this Plan maintains important
access between local communities and surrounding landscapes.
Existing rights-of-way will be respected. Requests for additional
rights-of-way will be considered on a case-by-case basis after site
specific environmental analysis. This Plan outlines areas where new
utility rights-of-way would be considered, consistent with the
protection of resources under the Proclamation.
4.11
Public Participation and Coordination
Chapter 4
Table 4.1
Plan Consistency Review
Name of Plan
Kane County Water
Conservancy District
Master Plan (July 1997)
Consistency Issue/Concern
The DEIS did not utilize the Kane County Water
Conservancy District Master Plan of July 1997.
(Letters 6262, 4890)
COLLABORATIVE
MANAGEMENT
The BLM recognizes that social, economic,
and environmental issues cross land
ownership lines. Extensive cooperation
during the planning stage and beyond is also
needed to address issues of mutual interest.
In keeping with the concepts brought forward
in the Implementation and Adaptive
Management section in Appendix 3, the
BLM would also engage in a collaborative
management process that would seek to:
• For innovative partnerships with local and
State governments, Native American
Indian tribes, qualified organizations, and
appropriate Federal agencies to manage
lands or programs for mutual benefit
consistent with the goals and objectives of
this Management Plan;
• Work with communities, counties, State
and other Federal agencies, and interested
organizations in seeking nontraditional
sources of funding including challenge
Consistency Finding
Consistent
Discussion
The Kane County Water Conservancy District Master Plan of July
1997 was carefully reviewed, and is listed on Page 5.3 of the Draft
Plan/EIS as one of the numerous plans considered. The review of
Chapter 7 (Identified Needs) and Chapter 8 (Description of
Alternatives) of the Master Plan did not result in the identification of
any potential projects which would be hindered by this Plan.
cost-share programs, grants, in-kind
contributions, and allowable fee systems
to support specific projects needed to
achieve plan objectives;
Place greater emphasis, where appropriate,
on contracting with private sector
businesses, nonprofit organizations,
academic institutions, or State and local
agencies to accomplish essential studies,
monitoring, or project development; and
Increase the use of citizen and
organizational volunteers to provide
greater monitoring of resource conditions
and to complete on-the-ground
developments for resource protection,
effective land management, and human
use and enjoyment.
As discussed in Chapter 2, an Advisory
Committee would be chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act to
advise BLM Monument management on
science issues and the achievement of
management of plan objectives. The
group would be comprised of scientists,
elected officials, a State or tribal
government representative, the
environmental community, an educator,
and Monument permit holders.
Where it is found to be mutually
advantageous, the BLM would enter into
cooperative agreements or memorandums of
understanding with Federal, State, local,
tribal, and private entities to manage lands or
programs consistent with the goals and
policies of this Management Plan. Such
agreements could provide for the sharing of
human or material resources, the management
of specific tracts of lands for specific
purposes, or the adjustment of management
responsibilities on prescribed lands. This
would be done in order to eliminate
redundancy and reduce costs.
Non-profit organizations, citizens and user
groups that have adequate resources and
expertise could enter into cooperative
agreements to assist in the management of
public lands in the Monument. Assistance
4.12
Chapter 4
Public Participation and Coordination
could include, but would not be limited to,
resource monitoring, site cleanups, and the
construction of authorized projects.
EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Government Printing Office
Library of Congress
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
Forest Service
Dixie National Forest
Regional Office, Region 4
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Department of the Interior
Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
Minerals Management Service
National Park Service
Bryce Canyon National Park
Capitol Reef National Park
Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area
Grand Canyon National Park
Zion National Park
U.S. Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Energy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Solicitor
Water and Power Resources Service
STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office
Community and Economic Development
Strategy Committee
Utah Automated Geographic Reference
Center (ARGC)
Utah Department of Agriculture
Utah Department of Community and
Economic Development
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Utah Department of Natural Resources
Utah Division of Parks and Recreation
Utah Division of Air Quality
Utah Division of Forestry and Fire
Control
Utah Division of Water Rights
Utah Division of Water Resources
Utah Division of Water Quality
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Utah Geological Survey
Utah Governor's Office of Planning and
Budget
Utah State Clearing House
Utah State Historic Preservation Office
Utah State Institutional and Trust Lands
Administration
Utah Travel Council
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION
Brigham Young University
Dixie College
Northern Arizona University
Southern Utah University
University of Utah
Utah State University Extension Service
Utah State University
TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND
GROUPS
Hopi Tribe
Navajo Nation
Historic Preservation Office
Bodaway & Gap Chapters Navajo Nation
Cameron Chapter Navajo Nation
Kaibeto Chapter Navajo Nation
Lechee Chapter Navajo Nation
Oljato Chapter Navajo Nation
Paiute Tribes of Utah
Kaibab Paiute
San Juan Paiute
Zuni Tribe
Zuni Tribe Cultural Preservation Office
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
COMMISSIONS
Alton Town Council
Antimony Town Council
Big Water Town Council
Boulder Town Council
Cannonville Town Council
Escalante Town Council
Glendale Town Council
Hatch Town Council
Henrieville Town Council
Kanab City Council
Orderville Town Council
Panguitch City Council
Tropic Town Council
Beaver County, UT Board of Commissioners
4.13
Public Participation and Coordination
Chapter 4
Coconino County, AZ Board of Supervisors
Garfield County, UT Board of
Commissioners
Grand County, UT Board of Commissioners
Iron County, UT Board of Commissioners
Kane County, UT Board of Commissioners
Mojave County, AZ Board of Supervisors
Wayne County, UT Board of Commissioners
Washington County, UT Board of
Commissioners
Color Country Resource Conservation and
Development Council
Five County Association of Governments
Kane County Water Conservancy District
Washington County Water Conservation
District
Wide Hollow Water Conservancy District
NON-GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONS
The Access Fund
American Association for the Advancement
of Science
American Canoe Association
American Fisheries Society, Bonneville
Chapter
American Hiking Society
American Horse Protection Association
American Lands Access Association, Inc.
American Mining Association
American Motorcyclist Association
American Outdoors
American Petroleum Institute
American Recreation Coalition
American Rivers
American Whitewater Affiliation
Audubon Society
Backcountry Horsemen of Utah
Black Diamond Equipment, Ltd.
Blue Ribbon Coalition
California Association of 4WD Clubs, Inc.
Council on Utah Resources
Defenders of Outdoor Heritage
Defenders of Wildlife
Dixie Geological Society
Ecological Society of America
Environmental Defense Fund
The Environmental Law Institute
Escalante Cattlemen's Association
Friends of the Earth
Forever Resorts
Garkane Power Association
Grand Canyon Trust
Good Earth
Helicopter Association International
The International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies
International Mountain Biking Association
Izaak Walton League
Kampgrounds of America
Kanab Cattlemen's Association
Kanab/Escalante Livestock Permittees
Mineralogical Society of America
Mountain Recreation
National Association of RV Parks and
Campgrounds
National Association of Counties
National Council of Public Land Users
National Farm Bureau
National Geographic Society
National Mining Association
National Outdoor Leadership School
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Parks and Recreation Association
National Stock Grower's Association
National Trust for Historic Preservation
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Natural Areas Association
Nature Conservancy
Oregon Environmental Council
Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America
Outward Bound
Pacific Legal Foundation
Paleontological Society
Professional Paddlesports Association
Public Lands Council
Public Lands Foundation
Raptor Research Foundation
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Rocky Mountain Center on Environment
Save Our Canyons Committee
Sierra Club
The Soaring Society of America, Inc.
Scenic America
Society for American Archaeology
Society for Range Management
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
Trout Unlimited
Trout Unlimited, Utah Chapter
The Trust for Public Lands
Utah Archaeological Society
Utah Audubon Society
Utah Cattlemen's Association
Utah Farm Bureau
Utah Geological Association
Utah Mining Association
4.14
Chapter 4
Public Participation and Coordination
Utah Nature Study Society
Utah Power & Light
Utah Rivers Council
Utah Sportsmen Association
Utah Wildlife & Outdoor Recreation
Federation
Utah Wool Growers' Association
Weber County Trails
Western History Association
Wilderness Society of America
Wildlife Society
Women's Conservation Council of Utah
UTAH CONGRESSIONAL
DELEGATION
Representative James Hansen
Representative Merrill Cook
Representative Christopher Cannon
Senator Orrin Hatch
Senator Robert Bennett
INTERESTED/AFFECTED
INDIVIDUALS
Permittees
Private Land Inholders
LIST OF PREPARERS
Jerry Meredith
Education:
Experience:
Monument Manager
B.A., Communications
28 years
Kate Cannon - Associate Monument Manager
Education:
Experience:
B.S., Natural
Resource/Wildlife
Management
20 years
Chris Killingsworth - Planning Coordinator
(Feb 99-to present)
Education: B.S., Agriculture
M.S., Planning
Experience: 6 years
Pete Wilkins - Planning Coordinator
(Oct 96-Feb 99)
Education: B.S., Watershed
Experience: 20 years
Elizabeth Ballard - Outdoor Recreation
Planner
B.S., Forestry & Resource
Management
24 years
Wilderness, VRM,
Backcountry Recreation
Education:
Experience:
Contribution:
Robert Blackett - Geologist
Education:
Experience:
Contribution:
B.S., Geology
M.S., Geological
Engineering
21 years
Geology, Minerals
Andrew Dubrasky - Geographic Information
Specialist
Education: B.A., English
Experience: 11 years
Contribution: GIS data development and
analysis
Marietta Eaton - Assistant Monument
Manager for Cultural and Earth Sciences
Education:
Experience:
Contribution:
B.A., Anthropology
M.A., Anthropology
(pending)
19 years
Cultural Resources
Alden Hamblin - Paleontologist
Education:
Experience:
Contribution:
B.S., Geology
M.S., Paleontology,
Museology
24 years
Paleontology
Joel Haynes - Information Management
System Specialist
Education: A.S., Electronics
Technology
B.S., Computer Science
Experience: 2 years
Contribution: Information Management
Marisa Hyatt - Geographic Information
Specialist
B.A., Psychology
3 years
GIS data development and
analysis
Education:
Experience:
Contribution:
4.15
Public Participation and Coordination
Chapter 4
F. Clair Jensen - Wildlife Specialist
Education:
Experience:
Contribution:
Connie Lathrop
Experience:
Contribution:
B.S., Zoology & Botany
M.S., Political Science
(pending)
32 years
Wildlife
Information Receptionist
10 years
Comment Response
Database Management
Jeane Leatherman - Editorial Assistant
Education:
Experience:
Contribution:
B.A., Environmental
Studies
Teaching Credential
3 years
Document Editing and
Layout
Tom Leatherman - Botanist
Education:
Experience:
Contribution:
B.A., Biology-Botany
emphasis
10 years
Botany, Update Letter
preparation
Cara Mollenkopf - Administrative Assistant
Experience: 8 years
Contribution: Office Administration
Bob Nagel - Geographic Information System
Analyst
M.L.A., Landscape
Architecture &
Environmental Planning
13 years
GIS data development and
analysis (ARGC)
Education:
Experience:
Contribution:
Kezia Nielsen
Education:
Experience:
Contribution:
Writer/Editor
B.S., Botany
15 years
Document Oversight
Dennis Pope - Assistant Monument Manager
for Biological Sciences
B.S., Business
Management, Range
Science
M.S., Natural Resource
Management
15 years
Biological Resources;
Rangeland and Riparian
Ecology
Education:
Experience:
Contribution:
Lorraine Pope - Realty Specialist
Education: B.S., Wildlife & Fisheries
Biology
Experience: 12 years
Contribution: Realty/Lands
Jerry Sempek - GIS Database Manager
Education: M.L.A., Landscape
Architecture &
Environmental Planning
Experience: 12 years
Contribution: GIS Data/ Analysis
Barb Sharrow - Assistant Monument
Manager for Visitor Services
Education: B.A., Sociology
Experience: 19 years
Contribution: Visitor Services
Kenneth Sizemore - Community and
Economic Development Planner
Education: B.A., Political Science
Experience: 21 years
Contribution: Planning Consistency,
Socioeconomic Analysis
Kathleen Truman - Historian
Education: B.S., Anthropology
Ph.D., Social Anthropology
Experience: 21 years
Contribution: History, Comment
Response Management
4.16
Chapter 5
Public Comments on the DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This chapter addresses the public comments
received on the Draft Management Plan/Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DMP/DEIS)
and the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)
response to those comments. All written
comments were reviewed and considered.
Comments that presented new data or
addressed the adequacy of the document, the
alternatives, or the analysis are responded to in
this Proposed Plan pursuant to the BLM's
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Handbook (H- 1790-1). There were also many
comments which, although not required to be
addressed, are being clarified in this chapter.
Comments expressing personal opinions or that
had no specific relevance to the adequacy or
accuracy of the Draft Management Plan were
considered but not responded to directly.
Similarly, comments received after the close of
the comment period on March 15, 1999 were
considered, but are not addressed in this
document.
Over 6,800 letters commenting on the
DMP/DEIS were received. Each comment
letter was assigned an identification number
and specific comments from each letter were
organized into appropriate categories. Nine
broad categories or areas of concern were
developed, and specific comments raised under
each category were given a corresponding code
(i.e., ACC-1). The broad categories and
associated codes are listed below in
alphabetical order.
Access and Transportation
ACC-1 to ACC-27
Biological Resources
BIO-1 to BIO- 16
General
GEN-1 toGEN-51
Grazing (livestock grazing)
GRAZ-1 to GRAZ-8
Lands (including rights-of-way)
LAND-1 toLAND-8
Recreation
REC-1 toREC-16
Water Resources
WAT-1 toWAT-7
Wilderness Study Areas
WSA-1 toWSA-3
Wild and Scenic Rivers
WSR-1 toWSR-8
All of the identification numbers, names (or
organizations), and the corresponding
comment response numbers were then entered
into a computerized database. The following
list displays the names of the organizations
and/or names of those individuals who
commented on the DMP/DEIS and the
corresponding comment codes (shown below
the names). Some letters do not have a
comment code because the comments did not
require a response.
ORGANIZATIONS WHO COMMENTED
3R Minerals
GEN-7
4 Wheel Drive Enthusiasts & Concerned Citizens
4 Wheelers, ATV Enthusiasts & Concerned Cit.
ACC-2
Acra Inc.
Advisory Board for National Parks
GRAZ-1; REC-1
American Endurance Ride Conference
REC-8
American Horse Council
REC-1, 8
American Lands Access Association, Inc.
American Lands Alliance
GRAZ-5
American Motorcyclist Association
ACC-2, 1 1
American Rivers
BIO-12; WAT-4; WSR-1, 6
Animal Protection Institute
ACC-1, 10; BIO-1; GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-3; REC-2, 10;
WSA-3
Arctic Connections
GEN-7, 8, 22; WAT-4; WSA-3
The Association of Guides Within the Monument
REC-1, 3, 4
Back Country Horseman of Oregon
REC-8
Back Country Horseman of Utah
ACC-7; BIO-1; REC-1
Back Country Horseman of Utah, Mt. Ridge Unit
REC-8
Back Country Horsemen of America
REC-1
Back Country Horsemen of Nevada
REC-8
Back Country Horsemen of Utah
ACC-7; BIO-1; REC-1
Back Country Horsemen of Utah, Washington Chapter
ACC-7; REC-1
BLM Lands Foundation
ACC-1,5, 9, 10;REC-12, 16, 19
Blue Ribbon Coalition
Bond Energy
ACC-1; BIO-4; GEN-1 ; GRAZ-5; WSR-1
Boss Company
GEN-2; REC-1
Boulder Mt. Ranch
Boulder Outdoor Survival School
ACC-5, 8; GEN-2; REC-1, 3, 18
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
The Boulder Regional Group
ACC-1; BIO-4, 9; GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-3;
LAND-l;REC-l,2;WSR-6
Boy Scouts of America/Panguitch
District
REC-1
Boy Scouts of America/Paria River
District
REC-1
Bullhead 4 Wheelers, Inc.
California Native Plant Society
GEN-1; REC-2;WSA-2
Californians for Utah Wilderness
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1 1, 26; GRAZ-3;
REC-2; WSA-3; WSR-1
The California State Horsemens's
Association
REC-8
Campbell Scientific, Inc
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Canyon 4X4 Club
ACC-2
Canyon Country 4X4 Club
Castlerock 4 Wheelers
ACC-7, 10
Center for Environmental Connections
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Chequamegon Audubon Society
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Citrus Horse Trails Alliance
REC-8
Cline Library
GRAZ-1
The Cobb Land Trust
Colorado Association of 4 Wheel Dr.
Clubs, Inc.
ACC-2, 6, 9, 14, 15; REC-1; WSA-3
Colton 4- Wheelers Jeep Club &
Concerned Citizens
ACC-1 0
Conoco, Inc.
GEN-7, 8, 22, 36
Creeper Jeepers Gang
ACC-2, 10
Deer Creek Ranch Property Owners
ACC-1 8; LAND-1
Deer Springs Ranch
ACC-1 2
Deer Springs Ranch Owners
Association
ACC-1 2
Department of Agriculture, State of
Utah
GEN-1; GRAZ-5
The Desert Protective Council, Inc.
ACC-1; REC-2; WSA-2
Desert Survivors
GEN-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Dinaland Snowmobile Club
Ecology Center of Southern California
GRAZ-3; REC-2
El Dorado Equestrian Trails Foundation
REC-8
Endurance Riders of Alberta
REC-8
Escalante Canyon Outfitters
ACC-1, 5, 8; REC-1, 3, 8
The Escalante Center
ACC-5, 6, 10, 24; GEN-13, 30;
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-1, 4, 8, 10, 19
Escalante Wilderness Institute
ACC-1, 10; BIO-4; GEN-5, 12;
GRAZ-3, 6; LAND-1 ; REC-8;
WSR-1
Falcon Realty and Development Corp
Five County Association of
Governments
ACC-1 0, 20; BIO-4, 5; GEN-1, 2, 9,
11,12, 13, 15,16,36,38,39,41,42,
43, 44, 45; LAND-1 , 4, 5; REC-1 , 8,
10, 17, 18; WAT-1, 2, 5, 6; WSA-2;
WSR-3
Flood Canyon Ranch
GEN-1 ; GRAZ-5
Forest Guardians
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Forests Forever
GRAZ-3
Foundation for North American Wild
Sheep
GEN-1
Friends of the River
WSR-1
Garfield County
ACC-3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 28; BIO-5; GEN-1, 7, 9,
13, 15, 22, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43,
44, 45, 46, 48, 52, 53; GRAZ-7;
LAND-1, 3, 5; REC-1, 4, 10, 12, 19,
25; WAT-4, 8; WSA-2, 3; WSR-1, 3
Garfield County Engineer
ACC-9, 10,12, 13, 14, 16,21,24,27,
28; BIO-5; GEN-1, 5, 6, 7, 30, 32, 36,
48; REC-1, 7; WSR-3
Garfield County Planning Commission
and Town
ACC-20; BIO-4; GEN-15, 36, 38;
LAND-1; REC-1 7
Garfield County Travel Council
ACC-2; GEN-9
Garfield-Kane Grazing Advisory
Committee
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Garkane Power Association
ACC-5, 12; GEN-13, 40; LAND-1, 3, 5
Georgia Bounty Runners 4WD Club
Georgia State, Lieutenant Governor
Grand Canyon Trust
ACC-1; BIO-4, 5; GEN-1, 12, 24, 30;
GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-8; WAT-2;
WSR-3
Grand Canyon Wildlands Council
ACC-1, 10; BIO-4; GEN-1, 5, 11, 13,
24, 49; GRAZ-3, 7; WAT-1; WSA-3;
WSR-1
Grand Staircase-Escalante Outfitters &
Guides
ACC-5; REC-1, 3
Great Old Broads for Wilderness
BIO-4, 8; GEN-21, 24, 26; GRAZ-3, 5,
8; WAT-2, 5; WSR-7
Great Western Trail Assoc, Arizona
Council
Hereford Natural Resource
Conservation District
High Country Citizens' Alliance
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Hondo Rivers and Trails
REC-1
The Honeymoon Trail Company
REC-1
Humane Society of Utah
BIO-2; GEN-1, 17; REC-9
Independent Montana Miners
International Mountain Bicycling
Association
REC-12, 19
Iron County Commission
GEN-13, 15
The Izaak Walton League
GRAZ-1; REC-2
JHA Environmental Consultants, LLC
ACC-3; GEN-1 1
Kane County Sheriff s Office
Kane County
ACC-5, 7, 1 1, 20; BIO-4, 9; GEN-1, 2,
9, 1 3, 25, 30, 36, 42, 45; GRAZ-3, 7;
LAND-1, 3, 5, 6; REC-1, 8, 10, 16, 19;
WAT-5; WSR-3
Kane County Advisory Council
ACC-20; GEN-13; GRAZ-3, 5
Kane County Soil Conservation District
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Kane County Water Conservancy
District
GEN-41; WAT-7; WSR-3, 10
Kaniksu Bioregional Council
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Kerncrest Audubon Society
GRAZ-3
Kettle Range Conservation Group
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2;
WSA-2
Kiava Plateau Archeology
GEN-15
Klamath Alliance for Resource &
Environment
Lake Tahoe Hi-Lo's
Land & Water Fund of the Rockies
BIO-4, 8; GEN-21, 24, 26; GRAZ-3, 5,
8; WAT-2, 5; WSR-7
Land Rover Owners Association of
North America
ACC-1 0
Las Vegas Distance Riders Club, Inc.
5.2
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Leland Haws Cattle Co.
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Lone Peak 4- Wheelers ATV
Enthusiasts
ACC-2, 10
Long Island Off-Road Club
Marinera Ranch
REC-8
Minnesotans for Responsible
Recreation
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Motorcycle Trail Riding Association
ACC-1 0
National Park Service/Utah State Office
ACC-8,10, 19;BIO-4, 8; GEN-1, 2, 5,
11,12, 13, 36; LAND-1; REC-1, 2, 7,
8, 10; WAT-2
National Parks & Conservation
Association
ACC-1, 19; BIO-1; GEN-1, 5, 24, 47;
GRAZ-5; REC-2, 10; WAT-4
National Wildlife Federation
BIO-4, 8; GEN-21, 24, 26; GRAZ-3, 5,
8; WAT-2, 5; WSR-7
Natural Resources Defense Council
BIO-4, 8; GEN-21 , 24, 26; GRAZ-3, 5,
8; WAT-2, 5; WSR-7
The Nature Conservancy
BIO-7, 8
Nevada All State Trail Riders, Inc.
REC-8
Nevada United Four Wheelers
Association
ACC-2, 10
New Mexico 4- Wheelers
ACC-2, 9, 14, 15, 16;WSA-3
New Mexico Touring Society
GRAZ-3
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance
ACC-5; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-2
New York Botanical Garden
GEN-22; GRAZ-5
Oregon Association of Conservation
Districts
Organization of Concerned Citizens
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Outlaw Trail Endurance Arabians &
Historical Ride
REC-1, 8
PacificCorp
ACC-5; GEN-8; LAND-3, 6, 7;
WSR-10
Pass Patrol 4X4 Travel Club
People for the USA
Project Bird Watch
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Public Lands Foundation
Rancho Racemosa
REC-8
Raptor Research Foundation ,Inc.
BIO-2, 6
Red Rock Adventures, Inc.
REC-1, 10
Regional Parks Association
ACC-1; GEN-1; REC-2
Republicans For Environmental
Protection
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1
Riverside Ruff Riders (Cal. 4 Wheel
Assoc.)
Rock Hoppers & Utah 4- Wheel Clubs
Round River Conservation Studies
ACC-1, 3, 5,6, 10, 13, 24; BIO-1, 3, 4,
6,8,12, 14, 16, 17, 18; GEN-1, 7, 13,
21, 24, 31, 33, 43, 49; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1, 3; REC-8, 12, 19; WAT-2, 4,
5
S10 4X4 Club
San Diego Off-Road Coalition
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
San Juan County Commission
Sandy 4-Wheelers ATV Enthusiasts
Scenic America
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Scenic Rim Trail Rides, Inc.
REC-1
Security Energy Company
GEN-7, 8, 22
Sequoia Forest Alliance
GRAZ-3
Sequoia View Vineyards & Farm
GEN-3
Sierra Club
ACC-1, 18; GEN-1; GRAZ-5;
LAND-1; REC-2; WAT-4; WSA-3
Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter
WSA-3
Sierra Club, Rio Grande Chapter
ACC-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA -3
Sierra Club, Utah Chapter
ACC-5, 8, 19, 24; GEN-32, 40;
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-2, 3
Sierra Student Coalition
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Skookumchuck Mud Daubers 4-Wheel
Drive Club
ACC-2
Small Pond Magazine
SOG Investors, LLC
GEN-7, 8, 22
South Central Utah Telephone
LAND-1
South Eastern Utah Assoc of Local
Governments
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
ACC-5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 18, 24; BIO-4, 6,
8; GEN-1, 5, 11, 12,21,22,24,26,39;
GRAZ-3, 5, 8; LAND-1; REC-1, 2, 18;
WAT-1 , 2, 4, 5; WSA-2, 3; WSR-1, 6,
7
Southwest Four Wheel Drive
Association
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
Sport Utility Action Network
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
GEN-1
St. Anselm Exploration Company
GEN-7, 8, 22
Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness
Planning
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Timberline Trailriders, Inc.
ACC-2, 10
Town of Big Water, Utah
ACC-9
Town of Boulder, Utah
ACC-5; GEN-9, 42; LAND-5; REC-1,
2,8
Town of Circleville
Town of Henrieville, Utah
ACC-2; BIO-5; LAND-5
Town of Jerome, Arizona
Town of Kanab City
ACC-10, 15, 20, 24, 25; GEN-1, 2, 13,
15, 42, 45; GRAZ-3; LAND-3, 5, 6;
REC-1, 10;WAT-7, 8
Town of Page, Arizona
Town of Springdale, Utah
GEN-12, 22; WSR-6
Town of Toquerville, Utah
ACC-2; BIO-4; REC-8
Town of Virgin, Utah
ACC-2; BIO-9; REC-8
Town of Washington City, Utah
BIO-4; GEN-43; REC-8
Travelers Aid Society
Tule River Conservancy
Graz-3
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service
ACC-8, 18,21;BIO-3,4,9;GEN-ll,
33,36
U.S. Department of Energy
GEN-36; LAND-1, 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ACC-3,4, 10;GEN-13,22,24;
GRAZ-3; WSA-3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
BIO-1, 4, 8, 9; GEN-1; GRAZ-5;
WAT-2
U.S. Wildlife Services
GEN-1
Uintah ATV Association
Unitarian Universalists for Ethical
Treatment of Animals
GRAZ-3; REC-2
United Four Wheel Drive Associations
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
Utah 4 Wheel Drive Association
ACC-10
5.3
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Utah Association of Conservation
Districts
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Utah Associated Municipal Power
Systems
LAND-1
Utah Community & Economic
Development Team
ACC-2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, 24,
25,28;BIO-4, 9; GEN-1 1, 13, 15,30,
36, 38, 39, 42, 45; GRAZ-3; LAND-1,
3, 5, 6; REC-1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, 19;
WSA-2; WSR-3
Utah Congressional Delegation (Chris
Cannon, James Hansen,
Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch)
ACC-5, 10; BIO-4; GEN-42; REC-1, 8
Utah Environmental Congress
GEN-1
Utah Farm Bureau Federation
ACC-5; GEN-1, 7, 10; WAT-1; WSR-3
Utah Federal Gem & Mineral Society
ACC-10
Utah Shared Access Alliance
ACC-17; GEN-16, 37; REC-14;
WSR-3, 4
Utah Snowmobile Association
Utah State Department of
Transportation
ACC-25
Utah State House of Representatives -
Thomas Hatch
ACC-2; BIO-4; GEN-1; LAND-1;
REC-1; WAT-2
Utah State Governor's Office
ACC-4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 20; BIO-1, 4, 6, 13;
GEN-1, 2, 10, 13, 15,24,30,42;
GRAZ-7; LAND-5, 8; REC-1; WAT-2,
4, 8; WSR-3, 6, 10
Utah Wild Project
ACC-8, 18;WSA-3
Virginia Horse Council Trails
Committee
REC-8
Western Center for Envir. Decision-
Making
REC-1
Western Center for Environmental Info.
The Western Counties' Resources
Policy Institute
ACC-10; GEN-30, 43, 50; WSA-2
Western Horseman Magazine
REC-1
Western Utility Group
LAND-1, 3
Wilderness Medicine Institute
The Wilderness Society
ACC-1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 24;
BIO-8, 12; GEN-5, 9, 11,12, 13,21,
22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 40, 51; GRAZ-1, 3,
5, 8; LAND-1; REC-12, 19; WAT-2, 4;
WSA-1,2, 3; WSR-1,6
Wildlife Damage Review
ACC-17; GEN-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-2
Willow Creek Ecology, Inc.
ACC-3; BIO-4; GRAZ-1
INDIVIDUALS WHO
COMMENTED
Abbott, Vance
Abel, Arthur
GRAZ-3
Abolafia, Andrew
Abrams, Alan
GEN-1
Abrams, Marti
REC-8
Achenla, Ray
Ackerman, Jim
Ackerman, John
GEN-2, 3; REC-2
Ackerman, S. David
Ackley, James and Ruth
Acton, Laurie
GEN-1
Adair, Neil
Adams, Ad
ACC-2
Adams, Byron
WSA-2
Adams, Cameron
Adams, Charles
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Adams, Charles
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Adams, Doug
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; WSR-1
Adams, George
Adams, Kurt
Adams, M.
Adams, Mary Jane
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Adams, Michael
ACC-2
Adams, Richard
Adams, Stan
Adams, Todd
Adams, Vance
Adams, Woody
Adamson, Keith and Christine
Adderley, Charles
Addy, Chris
GEN-1; GRAZ-1
Adelmann, Russ
Adey, Nils
ACC-1
Aengst, Peter
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Aeus, Kent
Agnello, Bob
ACC-2
Ahli, Mark
Ahmann, Shelly
Aiken, Rusty and Family
Ala, Kent
Albert, Diane
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2, 3
Alcock, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Alder, Steve
ACC-1
Alderson, Jay
ACC-10
Aldous, Steve
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Alexander, Andrew
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2
Alexander, Lauren
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Alexander, Sue
Alfred, Gregory
BIO-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2, 10
Alfred, Martin
GEN-1; REC-2
Alger, Rex
Alkire, Matt
Allan, Harry
Alldredge, Craig
Alldredge, Melanie
Alldredge, Nathan
Alleman, Frank
GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; WSR-3
Alleman, Kaye
GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; WSR-3
Alleman, William
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Allen, Duayne
Allen, Edward
GEN-1, 22; WSA-3
Allen, Frank
ACC-2
Allen, Fred
Allen, Greg
Allen, Janet
ACC-1, 5, 10; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Allen, Jennifer
Allen, Katy
Allen, Michael
ACC-10; REC-2
Allen, Ray
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Allen, Sue
ACC-2
Allen, Von
Allerson Jennifer
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-1; WSR-1
Alley, James Jr.
REC-8
Allin, Dave
ACC-6; GEN-2
5.4
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Allison, Jan
ACC-1; BlO-4; GEN-1, 5, 30; GRAZ-
5, 6; LAND-1
Allison, P.
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Allred, Clayton
Allred, Danial
Allred, Dick
Allred, Doyle
Allred, Eric
Allred, Gary
Allred, Kip
Allred, William
Almond, Donna
REC-8
Alongi, Bob
ACC-10;WAT-4;WSA-3
Alper, Gregory
Alpert, Catherin
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Alt, Stuart
ACC-1 0
Alt, Doug
Altman, Allen and Karin
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Alvarez, F.
Alvarez, Felicia
Alvarez, Jose
ACC-1; GEN-1, 2; REC-1, 10;WSR-1
Alvey, Brent
ACC-20; BIO-5; GEN-13; GRAZ-3, 5;
REC-1
Alvey, Sam
Alworth, Brian
Amacher, Peter
Amato, Nicole
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2
Amaya, Yukiko
Ambler, Anne
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Ambrose, Mike
ACC-10; LAND-1; REC-2
Ambrose, James Jr.
GEN-4
Amel, Dean
REC-2; WSA-3
Ames, Carl
Amodt, Gina
BIO-4; REC-8
Amster, Adolph
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Anastassiades, Tassos
GEN-1; REC-2
Ander, Mike
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Andersen, Dave
Andersen, Lila
Andersen, Quinn
Andersen, V.
Anderson, Alan
Anderson, Amy
Anderson, Blaine
Anderson, Boyd
Anderson, Bruce
Anderson, Chris
ACC-1
Anderson, Clifford
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Anderson, Cody
Anderson, Cookie
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WAT-4
Anderson, Darrell and Barbara
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Anderson, Daryl
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Anderson, Gam
Anderson, Gary
Anderson, Glen
Anderson, Gloria
Anderson, Gregory
Anderson, Jeff
Anderson, Joyce and David
REC-8
Anderson, Julie
Anderson, Kathy
ACC-1; GEN-1; REC-2
Anderson, Keith
Anderson, Kenny
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Anderson, Kent Jr.
Anderson, Kent Sr.
Anderson, Larry and Paula
Anderson, Lincoln and Sheila
REC-2
Anderson, Margery
Anderson, Maurice
ACC-10
Anderson, Monte
Anderson, 0. Robert
Anderson, Randy
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Anderson, Reed
GEN-1
Anderson, Richard
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Anderson, Russ
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Anderson, Russell
Anderson, Ruth
Anderson, William
Andrew, Robert
Andrews, Aleda
Andrews, Bob
Andrews, Carol
REC-8
Andrews, Chis
GRAZ-5; WSA-3
Andrews, John
Andrews, Michael
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Andrews, Ryan
Andrulis, Catherine
GEN-1; REC-2
Andrus, Eric
Aney, Janaice
REC-2
Angell, Elissa
BIO-1; GEN-1
Angell, Fabio
ACC-10; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
Angell, Kent
Angenent, Tom and Virginia
Aniello, Pete
Anthony-Cahill, Spencer
ACC-1, 5; REC-1
Antiel, Robert
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Apostola, Nicole
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Apted, Lee
GEN-1
Arbogast, Jim
Arbuckle, Alan
Arbuckle, Cameron
Archibald, Jason
GEN-5; REC-1; WSA-2
Archibald, Keith and Judy
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Archtabel, Douglas
Ardebie, Denice
ACC-10
Argast, Gene and Karen
Armstrong, John
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; WSR-1
Aronow, Kurt
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Arrington, Aubrey
Ashcroft, Michael
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Ashton, Melvin
Ashworth, Gary
Asmussen, Rodney
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Aspuru, Cristina
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Aston, D.
Athavale, Anjali, Neera and Vinayak
ACC-10; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
Atherton, Robert
REC-8
Atkinson, Aaron
REC-2
Atkinson.Tony
Atwood, Maurice
Atwood, Shirley
Auclair, Charles
Augest, Kennie
Augn, Michael
Ausburn, Don
Austgen, Paul
ACC-2
Austin, Kelly
Avery, George
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Avila, Janet
Avila, Yadi
5,5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Await, Charles
GEN-1 ; REC-2
Ayers, Mark
BIO-1 ; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Babbittrn, Ken
Bachman, Stefan
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Bachmann, M and M Thomas
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Bacso, Kenneth
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Baden, Rita
Badgett, Bob
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-5; REC-2, 10
Baer, Adam
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Baer, Cathy
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3,5
Bagley, Charles Jr.
REC-2
Bailey, Greg
Bailey, John and Jennifer
Bailey, Mickey
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Bailey, Tim
Bailey, Tracy
REC-8
Baines, Darwin
Baird, Kellee
Baird, Robert
Bajoravitch, Tori
Bajpai, Anita
Baker, Bruce
GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSA-3
Baker, Dan
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Baker, Gordon
Baker, Michael
GEN-1, 5; REC-1
Baker, William
ACC-1; BIO-5; GEN-1
Balboa, Daniel
Balding, Tom
Baldwin, Martha
REC-1
Baldwin, Roger
Baldwin, Terry
Balentine, John
Bales, Arthur
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Ball, Nancy
ACC-1; GEN-1; WAT-4; WSA-2
Ballantine, A.
GEN-1
Ballantyne, Robert
Banks, Jay
Banks, Koltem
Banks, Leane
Banks, Lyle
Banner, Meredith
ACC-1; GEN-1
Bannon, Barbara
ACC-4; REC-2
Banz, Samuel and Jenifer
Barber, Blair
Bardett, Matthew
Barger, Steven
GEN-5; REC-1
Barkakati, Ivy
Barkdull, Carenlee
Barker, Carol
REC-8
Barker, Steve
Barkume, Tom
ACC-8
Barlow, Al
ACC-2; WSR-1
Barlow, Danny
Barlow, Laurie
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
REC-2; WSA-2
Barmettler, Bill and Patricia
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-1; REC-2;
WSA-3
Barnes, Keith
GRAZ-3
Bamett, Aaron
Bamett, Brian
GEN-1, 5
Bamett, Ron
Barney, Jim
Barney, Robert
Barnson, Charolette
ACC-2; GEN- 13
Barr, Gracia
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Barrell, Jeff
ACC-1; LAND-1
Barres, Michael
Barrett, Clotilde
ACC-1, 3
Barrett, Duane
REC-8
Barrett, Richard
Barrett, Victoria
Barringer, Debra
ACC-10; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; WSA-3
Barrus, E . Sherman
Barstad, Ben
GEN-5; REC-1
Bartelt, Claire
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-5; REC-2
Bartelt, Thomas
ACC-1; GEN-1. 5; GRAZ-3; REC-1, 2
Barthel, John
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Bartholomae, Charlene and Lee
REC-1, 8
Barton, Berdell
BIO-5
Barton, Jeremy
Barton, Lori
REC-1
Barton, Neal
Barton, Richard
Barton, Scott
BIO-5
Bash, James
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Baska, Jai
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Bassewitz, PhD Jon
WSA-2
Batchelor, Emma
ACC-1; BIO-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Bateman, Vesta
GEN-1; REC-1; REC-2
Bates, Barbara
ACC-10
Bates, Bryan
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Bates Sammy
Batey, Kate and Harry
GEN-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Battlalom, Gary
Battle, Cullen
GEN-1; GEN-22
Bauer, Christopher
Baufinson, Irene
Bauhdadi, Sarah
Baum, Mark
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Bauman, Dave and Sue
Beach, Ben
Beal, Scott
Beales, Jean
ACC-2
Beales, Landon
Bealle, Wallace
GRAZ-3
Bean, Darcy
REC-8
Beandon, Kathy
Beard, Chad
Beamson, Robert
Beath, Mary
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5, 24; REC-2, 8
Beatty, Patrick
GEN-1, 5
Beauchaine, Steve and Jayne
Beck, Dudley
WSR-6, 8
Beck, Earl
Beck, Jay
Beck, Terry
Becker, Alan
REC-2
Becker, Andrew
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Becker, Bobbie
LAND-1; REC-2
Becker, Donald
Becket, David
5.6
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Beckett, Tom
GRAZ-l;REC-2
Becking, Rudolf
GEN-24, 33;REC-14
Beckstead, Rex
Beckstead, Richard
ACC-10;LAND-1
Beckstrand, Robert
Beckstrom, Chris
Beckstrom, Sharon
Bedoian, Vic
Bedsworth, F.T.
Bee, Edward
Beecher, Kurt
REC-1
Beers, Randy
Beganie, Larella
GRAZ-l;REC-2
Behan Jeff
GRAZ-3; REC-1 2
Behn, Michael
Behunin, Marilyn
Beleu, Steve
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Belka, Lynn
Bell, David
Bell, David
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Bell, George
GRAZ-1
Bell, Joleen
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Bell, Kim and Tawnee
Bell, Norton and Ann
Bell, Roni
REC-8
Bell, Walter
Belles, Mark
ACC-1; GEN-1, 11, 12; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Belliston, Tex
Bellston, Brent
Belnap, Jane
BIO-6, 7; REC-1 3
Belsky, Joy
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Belsly, Elizabeth
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Beltz, Robert
Bement, Richard
Bemus, Buddy
Bench, Dan
WSA-2
Bender, Andy
REC-8
Benedettie, Tony
Benedict, Jennifer
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Benke, Janet
REC-8
Bennett, Forrest
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Bennett, James
ACC-6
Bennett.Wayne
Bennett, William
Benninghoff, Bruce
ACC-19; GEN-1, 15; WAT-5
Bennion, Lee and Joseph
ACC-1, 10; LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Bens, J.
ACC-1 0
Benson, Pamela
Benson, Ralph
Bentley, Berdell and Mary
ACC-1 0
Bentley, Ray
Benton, Clayton
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Berchell, Dixie
Berenger, Bonnie
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Berg, Lynnae
REC-1, 8
Bergaman, Bob
ACC-1; LAND-1; WAT-4
Berge, Britta
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Berger, Bruce
Bergeron, Joe
ACC-1; GEN-1; WAT-4; WSA-2
Berggren, Elizabeth
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Bergin, Terry
Berkey, Elizabeth
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Berkowitz, Henry
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Berber, Todd
Berling, David
Berman, Michael
GEN-7; GRAZ-1
Berman, Patricia
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Bermond-Hamlet, Aude
ACC-1
Bernardo, Dolores
REC-1, 8; WSA-1
Bernardo, Sharol
ACC-2;GEN-9, 13,16
Bembaum, Bruce
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Berner, Lynn
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Bemer, Murray
WSR-1
Bernet, Alex
GEN-1
Bernstein, Bud
ACC-1; LAND-1; WAT-4
Bernstein, Robert
GEN-1
Berry, David
ACC-4, 10; GEN-7; GRAZ-1
Berry, Kate
ACC-1; BIO-1; LAND-1; REC-2
Bertin, Pamela
REC-1, 8
Berto, Connie
REC-8
Besser, Brian
Best, David
Best, Sat Sansar Singh
GEN-5;REC-12
Beswick, Anya
REC-1, 2
Beutler, Henry
Beweger, Gerogiana
Bezzant, Russ
Bianchi, Peri
Bible, Susan
REC-8
Bickel, Harlow
Bickford, Chris
Bier, Chellney
Bigelow, Boyd
Bigelow, Paul
Bigler, Robert
Bigos, Martin
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-1
BiJones, Eugene
ACC-1; GRAZ-1
Bill, Gary
ACC-1, 4; REC-2
Billings, Deborah
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Bingham, Ken
Bingham, Tad
Binkley, Elizabeth
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Binyon, Michael and Jean
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2
Birch, Darin
Birch, Jack
GEN-1 3, 15; GRAZ-5
Bird, Marsha
Bird, Steve
Bird, Dominique
Birkner, David
ACC-1, 12
Bisbing, Hope and Wes
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Biscoe, Jack
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Bishoff, Bruce
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2
Bishop, Cory
Bishop, Steven
Bitter, Merrill
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Bixby, Tai
GEN-1, 5
Bjomstad, Ginger
ACC-10
5.7
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Black, Devon
Black, Joseph
Black, Keith
Black, Larry
Black, May
Blackburn, Kathy
Blackburn, Patsy
ACC-2; BIO-1; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5;
WSR-3
Blackburn, Scott
ACC-12;GEN-13
Blackburn, Terry
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Blackett, Marlow
Blackett, Tina
Blackledge, Steve
Blain, Richard
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2
Blair, Robert
ACC-2
Blake, Bill
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Blake, John
ACC-2, 7
Blake, Larry
Blake, Linda
Bland, Nancy
GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSA-3
Bland, Nancy
Blar, Gaylen
Blattenberger, Gail
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Blayyard, Clark
Blevins, Darwin
Block, Roxana
Blodgett, Candice
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Blohm, Cal
Blommer, George
ACC-14; BIO-1, 2, 4, 8, 13; GEN-1,
12; WAT-6; WSR-3
Bloom, Stuart
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Blouch, Steve
ACC-l,5;GEN-5
Bloyer, Jerusha
Blue, Jenny
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Bluhm, Jeff
Blumenthal, Carol
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Blumenthal, Tom and Betsy
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Boardman, Carolyn
Boardman, Glennis
BIO-5; GEN-13; REC-1
Boeck, Jim
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Bogart, Douglas
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
Bogart, Susan and Jeff
Boger, Nikki
Bogold, Becky
REC-2
Bogott, Fred
Bohannan, Bill
REC-8
Bohman, Verle and Renee
Boland, Mike
ACC-2
Bolander, Bruce
ACC-2
Bolane, Christopher
GRAZ-1; WSA-2
Bolar, Marlin
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Bolinder, John
Bolinder, Ron
Bollinger, Caralyn
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Bolsover, David
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Bolton, Matthew
Bondar, Eugene and Elsa
BIO-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2, 10
Bondar, Greg and Elisa
BIO-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2, 10
Bonham, Nicole
Bonn, John
Bonnell, Ann
ACC-1
Bonnicksen, Jon
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Bonweusch, Doris
Boone, Lari
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
Boone, Tim
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
Booth, Brian
ACC-10; GEN-1; WSA-2
Booth, David
ACC-8, 10
Boren, Bill
Boren, Ryan
Borg, John
Borne, Michelle
Borris, James
ACC-2
Borune, Allen
Boss, David
Bosworth, Ken
Bott, J.
Bottino, Paul
Boune, Doylene
Bova, V. Arthur
Bove, Clifford
ACC-1; GEN-1, 2, 1 1 ; GRAZ-3;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-1, 2; WSR-1
Bowen, Nick
Bowers, Ross
Bowie, Michael
Bowman, Jane
ACC-1; GEN-5
Bowman, Sylvia
GRAZ-3; WSA-3
Boyce, Joe
Boyd, Elizabeth
ACC-10; WSA-2
Boyd, Wayne
Boyd, Michael, M.D.
GEN-1; GRAZ-1
Boyer, Rick
Boyle, Joseph
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-1;
WSR-1
Bozeday, John
Bradfield, Rod
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5; WSA-2
Bradford, Richard
Bradley, Douglas
Bradley, Richard
Bradshaw, John
Bradshaw, Michael
Bradshaw, Michael
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Brady, Irene
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-1; REC-2
Brady, Susan
ACC-2
Bragg, Laurie
GEN-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Braithwaite, Alan
Bramall, John
Bramlett, Russell
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Brand, Rick
REC-8
Brandlen, Julie
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-3
Brandon, Leslie
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Branton, Gerrald
ACC-10; REC-2; WAT-4; WSA-2
Brauner, Kalman
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Bray, Gene
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Breddan, Joe
ACC-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-1;
WSA-3; WSR-6
Bredeson, Craig
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Breggs, Karen
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Brehm, Susan
REC-8
Breinholt, Vickie
Brelish, Elizabeth
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Bremer, Roger
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Brendle, Daniel
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 ; WAT-4; WSA-2
Brendle, Stefanie
5.8
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Brendler, Candace
Brett, Richard and Lola
GEN-1 ; GRAZ-3; LAND-1 ; REC-2;
WSR-1
Brewster, Michael
ACC-1; BIO-1; GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-3;
REC-2, 10
Brickey, Mike
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Brickson, B.
Bridges, Beu
Bridges, Charles
REC-8
Bridges, Jennifer
REC-8
Bridwell, Doug
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Bridwell, Doug
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Brie, Shail
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Brienholt, Wally
Briggs, Charles
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Briggs, Karen
GEN-1
Briggs, Neal
Bright, Ted
GEN-1; WSA-2; WSR-1"
Brinda, John
ACC-5
Brindle, Jayne
ACC-1; REC-2
Brink, Paul
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Brinkerhoff, Chad
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Brinkerhoff, Ferrell
ACC-17, 18; BlO-5; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Brinkerhoff, Gay and Derik
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Brinkerhoff, Jeff
Brinkerhoff, John
Brinkerhoff, Shirley
Brinkerhoff, William
Bristol, Douglas
Britt, David
ACC-5; GEN- 12
Broadbent, Steven
Broadhead, Kathy
Broder, Melissa
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Brody, J.
Brookman, Gerald
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Broonhead, Al
Brose, Dale
Brose, Dan
Brother, Liz
Brower, Ralph
Brown, Allat
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Brown, Barbara
ACC-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-5
Brown, Bill
Brown, Blair
GEN-22; GRAZ-3, 5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSA-3
Brown, Bruce
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Brown, Bryan
REC-2
Brown, Carl
GEN-1, 5
Brown, Clint
Brown, Cory
Brown, Dave
Brown, David
Brown, Drew
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Brown, Earl
Brown, Gay
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Brown, H. Kirk
GEN-7, 8, 22
Brown, James
Brown, James and Lau
ACC-2; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Brown, Jerry
Brown, Jim
Brown, Josh
Brown, Kevin
Brown, Larry
Brown, Laurene
ACC-20; BIO-5; GEN-13; GRAZ-3, 5;
REC-1
Brown, Mark
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Brown, Maud
GEN-13
Brown, N. Kelly
Brown, Randall and Cheryl
ACC-8
Brown, Richard
Brown, Rick
REC-2; WSA-2
Brown, Sara
Brown, Steve
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Brown, Terry
ACC-1; GEN-1; LAND-1; WAT-4
Brown, Worth
ACC-20; BIO-5; GEN-13; GRAZ-3, 5;
REC-1
Brown, Mark M.D.
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Browne, Thomas
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Browning, Barbara
Bruke, Richard
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Brunetti, David
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Brunvand, Amy
ACC-1; WSA-2, 3
Brush, Sara
Brustman, Thomas
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Bryan, Wayne
Bryce, Gretchen
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Bryer, Elizabeth
B10-l,2;REC-2
Bryner, Gary
Buchanan, Bill
Buchser, John
ACC-1
Buckley, Lauren
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Buckley, Sue
ACC-1, 10; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; LAND-1
Bucolo, Brian
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Buff, Reenee
Bugni, Jefre
Buhler, Dean
Buickerood, Jimbo
GEN-1; REC-1
Buikeet, Tanie
ACC-2
Bulkey, Tery
Bullens, Darryl
GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Bullock, Kay
Bullock, Lyn
Bullock, Scott
Bunch, Van
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Bundy, Clint
Bunker, Brad and Ann
Bunker, LeGrande
Bunting, Bruce
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Bunting, DeRalph and Lynn
ACC-10; GEN-36; WSR-3
Bunting, Desarae
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Bunting, Gavin
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Bunting, JoLynn
Bunting, Leah
ACC-5; GEN-1, GEN-13; GRAZ-5;
REC-1
Bunting, Vivian
Buoy, Bobby
Burak, Greg
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Burch, David
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Burchard, Ann
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Burdick, Adam
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-3 WSR-1
5.9
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Burgener, Donald
Burgess, Jeff
GRAZ-3
Burgon, Janell
Burk, James
Burk, Peter and Joyce
REC-1, 2
Burke, Marilynn
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Burkert, Jay
ACC-2
Burkett, Teresa
ACC-1; GEN-1; REC-2
Burkhart, Brooke
ACC-1;WSR-1,6
Burkhart, Christine
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Burleson, Randy
ACC-2
Burnett, Bill
GRAZ-3, 5
Burnett, Carolyn
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Bumette, Johnny
Bumham, Bruce
REC-8
Burns, Rick
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Burns, Terry
GEN-1 ; GRAZ-1 ; LAND-1 ; WSA-3
Bums, Tim
Bums, Victor
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Burr, Bruce
Burr, Phillip
ACC-12;GEN-13
Burrage, Becky
Burraston, Kurt
Burrell, Buzz
Burrows, Bryan
Burson, Anita
REC-1,8
Burton, Jan
REC-2; WSR-1
Burton, Jennett
Bush, Ken and Pat
REC-1,8
Bush, Michael
GEN-12, 22;WSR-6
Bushell, Robert
Busk, Richard
Busk, Rodney
Buskirk, Bill and Lynn
ACC-l;GEN-5
Buss, William
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Bussio, Jamie
REC-1
Buster, Katey
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Buttar, Shahid
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Button, Rhonda
Button, Van
Button, Wayne
Buxton, Michelle
ACC-1; GEN-1
Bybee, Kyle
REC-1
Bybee, Terrill
Byrne, Dave
GEN-5; REC-1
Byrne, Tom
GEN-1, 5
C. de Baca, Teresa
ACC-1 0
Ca, Randy
Cafaro, Philip
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; WSA-3
Cahill, Gerald
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Cahoon, Alicia
Cahoon, Beth
Cahoon, Fred
Cahoon, Richard
Calderwood, Alan
Calhoun, Julie
ACC-1, 10; GEN-5
Call, Susan
ACC-1 ;WAT-4; WSA-3
Callagan, Charles
ACC-1; WSA-3; WSR-1
Callister, Scott
Cameron, Joe
Cameron, Scott
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Campbell, Charles
REC-1; REC-4
Campbell, David
Campbell, Janet
Campbell, Julie
REC-8
Campbell, Neal
ACC-2
Campbell, Sharon
REC-8
Canaday, Edward
GEN-1; REC-2
Cane, James
ACC-1; GEN-1
Canepa, Chester and Jackie
Canfield, Kerry
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Cannalte Doug
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Canning, Jerry
ACC-5, 10
Canning, Stephen
GRAZ-3, REC-2; WSA-2
Canning, Toni
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Cannon-Geary, Irene
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Canoday, Edward
GEN-1; REC-2
Capozzelli, J.
REC-2
Cappel ,Walt
REC-8
Caprio, Anthony
Car, Shane
Cardella, Richard
GEN-1; REC-2
Caripps, Kaye
Carleton, Lee
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-1
Carlson, Carrol and Bud
Carlson, Lome
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Carlton, Floyd
Carlton, JoAnn and Chris
REC-1,8
Carman, Debbie
REC-8
Carney, Eugene and Marilyn
GEN-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Carpenter, Doyle
Carr, David
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Carriere, Nancy
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Carrigan, Allen
Carrigan, Boyd
Carrigan, Darin
Carrnociron, Joan
Carroll, Mark
Carroll, R.
Carson, William
REC-2
Carter, Ammon
Carter, Brandon
Carter, J.
Carter, Jeffrey
BIO-1, 8; GEN-5; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2
Carter, Larry and Dot
ACC-1; BIO-4; GRAZ-5; WAT-2
Carter, Lesley
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Carter, Michael
Carter, Scott
Caruso, Ver Jean
ACC-10
Casbhuff .Gilbert
Caspar, Cat
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Casper Dan
Casper, Marvin
Casperson, Rich
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Cass, Brian
ACC-1; GEN-2;GEN-2, 5
Cass, Robyn
GEN-5
5.10
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Cassady, Alison
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Castro, Rachel
Cates, Jeremy
Cates, JoEllen
Catton, Steve
WSA-2
Cavid, Harvy
Cazier, Andraya
Ceccardi, Toni
GEN-1; WSA-2
Cecil, Jon
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Cedar, Robert
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Cederburg, Mr. and Mrs. C. W.
REC-1,4
Celona, Michael
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Cemac, Joe
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Cervasio, Darken
REC-8
Chabot, Steve
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Chailos, George
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2
Chak, Amreen
GEN-1
Chamberlain, Bruce
Chamberlain, Cloyd
ACC-2; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Chamberlain, Eric and Lucene
Chamberlain, Karen
REC-2
Chamberlain, Ron
Chamberlin, Susan
ACC-10; GEN-1; WSA-2
Chambers, John
GEN-1, 5; REC-2
Chambers, Reuece
Chambers, Sam
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Chambless, Michaei
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Chamblin, Larry
GEN-1; LAND-1; WSR-1
Chandler, James
Chandler, Ronald
Chappell, Bryce
Chappell, Charles
ACC-2
Chappell, Gwen and Bryce
ACC-2
Chappell, Marion
ACC-12;GEN-13
Chappie, Gordon
REC-1,4
Chamaeski, Christine
GRAZ-3; WSA-2, 3
Chase, Rebecca
BlO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Chasnoff, Beth
ACC-1; GRAZ-5
Chatwin, Jared and Melissa
Chausse, Scott
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-1; WSA-3
Chavez, Jodi
Chen, Allen
ACC-1; WAT-4; WSA-2
Cherry, Russell
Chester, Blair
Chiapella, Lynn
GEN-2, 11;LAND-1;REC-1,8;
WSR-1
Child, Connie
Child, Dean
ACC-2, 5, 8,9, 10, 11
Child, Neil and Regina
ACC-2; GEN-9; WSR-4
Child, Ron
ACC-10
Child, Sandra and Warren
Child, Sue
Childs, Nat
GEN-1
Childs, Ted
ACC-10
Chizewsk, Nicholas
Chong, Michelle
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2 ;
WSR-1
Chrestnos, A.
Christeansen, Steven
Christensen, Boyd
Christensen, Don
Christensen, Dorothy
GRAZ-5; WSR-4
Christensen, Elenore
Christensen, Eric
ACC-1,5;REC-1
Christensen, Gary
Christensen, Gordon
Christensen, Jay
Christensen Jerry
Christensen, Mike
Christensen, Rex
Christensen, Robert and Mary
Christensen, Roger
Christensen, Scott
Christensen, Scott
Christensen, Sean
Christensen, Ted
Christensen, Todd
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-1, 3
Christenson, N.
Christiansen, Jean
Christiansen, Merlin
Christman, Diane
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Christy, Andrea
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Church, Dennis
Church, Elaine
GEN-13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Chynoweth, Klay
Chynoweth, Ralph
GRAZ-5
Chynoweth, Savannah
Chynoweth, Chystal
REC-1
Cicerchi, Michael
ACC-3
Cichowski, Steven and Amy
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Cieply, Peter
GRAZ-3 ; REC-2
Cihmburg, Amy
ACC-1; GEN-1 2, 22; WSR-6
Cimon, Norm and Shelley
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Cinquemani, D.K. and F.L.
ACC-2
Ciolth, Robert
Clancy, Bob
ACC-1
Clapp, Laura and Andrew
Clark, Annie
Clark, Benjamin
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Clark, Camille
Clark, Carolyn
ACC-1, 5; GRAZ-3; REC-1, 2
Clark, Denise
ACC-2; REC-1
Clark, Don
Clark, Douglas
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Clark, Elizabeth
BlO-1 ; GEN-5; GRAZ-5; REC-2, 10
Clark, Jo
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Clark, Jonni
Clark, Karen
REC-8
Clark, L.
Clark, Linda
Clark, Liz
Clark, Scott
GEN-22; REC-2; WSA-2
Clark, Steven
GRAZ-1
Clark, Sueanne
GEN-1; GRAZ-1
Clarkson, Dale
ACC-8
Classen, Thomas
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
5.11
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Clauser, Greg
GRAZ-1;WSR-1
Claybaugh, Donn
Clayton, David
GEN-30; GRAZ-1
Clayton, Scot
Geary, Christopher
ACC-1
Clegg, Andrew
Clements, Brad
Clements, David
Clements, Lane
Clevenger, Matt
ACC-1;GEN-1,5
Clifton, Robert
Clinaid, Sallie
Clinger, Edith
Cloud, Bill and Jane
REC-8
Clove, Randy
Cloward, Brent
Cloward, Steven
Cluff, Kenneth
Coates, Faye
ACC-5;GEN-l;WSA-2
Coates, Randy and Elizabeth
ACC-3; LAND-1
Cobb, Nancy
REC-1
Cobb, Stephanie
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Cobble, Dane
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Cochran, Dennis
BIO-1; GRAZ-1
Cochran, Fay
Cochran, Sioux
GEN-9
Coe, K.H.
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Coelho, Katy
ACC-13;GEN-l;GRAZ-3
Cogen, Janie
Coggin, Mason
Cohen, Andrea
GRAZ-3
Cohen, Catherine
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-3
Cohen, Michael
GEN-31
Cohn, Mike
Cohu, Helen
Colavito, Michael
Gen-12; GRAZ-3; WSA-3; WSR-6
Colby, Donn
ACC-10; GRAZ-3; WSA-3
Colby, Mark
ACC-5
Cole, Roger
REC-2
Coleman, Barbara
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Coleman, Rick
Coleman, Rosco
ACC-2, 7; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Coleman, Wade
GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; WSR-3
Colemen, Gery
ACC-2; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Coley, Phillis
ACC-5
Collard, Curtis
Collet, Bruce
Collett, Shelley
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2, 7; WSR-1
Collings, Howard
Collins, Daniel
REC-2
Collins, David
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Collins, Kenneth
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Collins, Luke
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Collins, Shan
ACC-5, 10; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WAT-4
Colton, Chris
ACC-2, 8
Colton, D
GRAZ-1
Compher, Dean and Mary Louise
REC-1
Con, Pe
Conard, Jonathan
LAND-1; REC-2
Conder, Larry
Condie, Art
Condie, Craig
ACC-1
Condie, Kent
ACC-1
Cone, Frances
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
REC-2; WSA-3
Conk, John
Conklin, Nancy
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Conlee, Jennifer
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Connair, Martin
Connally, James
Connell, Karen
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Conner, Kay
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Connor, Beth
GEN-5; REC-1
Connover, Charlie
Conover, Paul
ACC-10
Contine, Ben
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Contor, Patrick
ACC-1; GEN-1; GEN-22
Conway, Guy
ACC-2
Conway, Mike
ACC-2
Conway, Huey Jr.
Conwell, Robert
Cook, Idonna
Cook, James
GRAZ-3
Cook, Jay
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Cook, Jonathan
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Cook, Lou
Cook, Robert
Cook, Walter
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; WSR-1
Cooley, Alec
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; WSA-2
Coolidge, Hilary
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Coons, Scott
Cooper, Arnold
Cooper, Gerry
Coover, MP and Mae
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3,5
Copelarrd, V.A.
Copley, Jay
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Copoulos, John
ACC-5, 10; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Copple, N.
Coppoletta, Michelle
Corbelletta, Nancy
REC-8
Corbert, Susan
REC-2
Corbett, Given
Corbett, Jack
Cordner, Dean
Corkle, Patrick
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Corkle, Violet
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Corkle, William
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Cornelius, Bruce and Arlene
Corregin, Danial
Correll, Nancy
Corson, Katherine
GRAZ-1
Cortsen, Daniel
Cosgrove, Sean
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-1;
WSR-1
Cosmann, Nicole
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Costello, Joseph and Jamie
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
5.12
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Costigan, Constance
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Cotts, Laura
ACC-1; REC-2; WSA-2
Cou, Joe
Coulter, Bill and Karen
Coulter, Mr and Mrs E. R.
Counrcty, Michael
Courtney, Darril
Courtney, Russ
Courtney, Sara
Cousins, Vera
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Couvillion, Douglas
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Cowan, Greg
Cowan, Jason
Cowan, Mike
Cowdery, Seth
ACC-10; REC-2; WSA-2
Cowell, Andrew
ACC-1; BIO-4; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSA-3; WSR-1
Cowley, Megan
GEN-1
Cowley, Stewart
Cowman, Charles Jr.
Cox, Angel
Cox, Brian
Cox, J.
Cox, Karen
GRAZ-3 ; REC-2
Cox, Lori
REC-8
Cox, Lynn
ACC-10; WAT-4; WSA-2
Cox, Mary
ACC-1 ;GEN-22; REC-2
Cox, Paul
Cox, Sam
Cox, Shauna
Cox, Susan
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Cox, Todd
Cox, William
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSA-2
Crago, Michael
GEN-1, 5; WSA-2
Craig, Marguerite
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Craig, Matt
GRAZ-3
Craighead, Brandon
Crandall, Angela and Dan
ACC-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Crandall, Liz
Cranson, David and Jo
Crapanzano, Joseph and Laura
Crausbay, Shelley
Crawford, Darwin
GEN-1 ; LAND-1 ; WSR-3; WSR-4
Crawford, Nicole
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Crawford, Sam and Patti
REC-8
Creager, Don
Crites, Michael
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Crockett, Kyle
Crockett, Teresa
ACC-1 ; GEN-22, 27, 28; GRAZ-3;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-2
Croft, Carl
Croft, David
ACC-1 1
Croft, Doug
GEN-1
Croft, Linda
Croft, Scott
ACC-2 ; GEN-1
Crofts, Brady
GEN-13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Crofts, Gloria
Cronin, Jim
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Crooks, Koby
GEN-1
Crooks, Charles Jr.
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Cropper, Leigh
Crothe, Shirly
REC-8
Crouse, Stewart
Cruce, Greg
Cruess, Christine
Crui, Bemice
REC-8
Crumal, Chris
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Crupi, Kevin
GEN-1
Cryer, Donna
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Cumine, Sally
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Cunningham, E. Craig and Eileen
BIO-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Cunningham, Marci
REC-1
Cunningham, Tim
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Cuomo, John
ACC-10 ;WAT-4 ; WSA-2
Curran, Edmund and Ann
ACC-1
Curran, Tom
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Curran, Tom
Curtis, Brooks
Curtis, Dennis
Curtis, Vicky
Curtis, Walt
GRAZ-1
Curtwright, George
GEN-13; GRAZ-3, 5; LAND-1
Custer, Bill
Cuthbert, Paul
GEN-5; WSA-2
Cutler, Cathryn
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Cyra, Tom
Czapla, Barbara
GEN-1; WAT-4; WSA-2
D., Vonn
ACC-20; BIO-5; GEN-13; GRAZ-3, 5;
REC-1
D'Aura, Paul
Dahlquist, Shane
Dahms, Cathy
Daines, Andrew
Daines, James
Daines, Jonathon
Daines, Kris
Daines, Mark
Daines, Jonathan 11
Daley, Danny
Daley, John
Dallara, Louis
Dallin, Bob
Dalsemer, Richard
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Dalton, Bryce
Damitz, Sean
ACC-1
Damkier, Kristian
GRAZ-5 ; REC-2
Dangerfield, Wendell
Daniel, Cliff
ACC-2
Daniels, Stephen
Daniels, Art II
Danley, Kim
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1
Dantzler, David
Daponte, Kenneth
REC-1
Darling, Dorothy and George
Darling, Robert
Darnell, Jeff
Darnell, Laura and Carl
Darrell, Steve
Darvill, Fred Jr.
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Darylend, Leeza
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; WSR-1
Dassel, Bruce
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Dattabise, Clair
Daughenbaugh, Clayton
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Daughety, Ernest
5.13
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Davenport, Alisa
Davenport, Tim
Davidson, Alix
GRAZ-3
Davidson, Bruce
Davidson, Sam
ACC-1; BIO-6; REC-10; WSA-2
Davie, Chuck
ACC-10
Davies, Heather
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2 ; WSA-3
Davis, Al
Davis, Allan
Davis, Bill
Davis, Brent
Davis, Chuck
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Davis, Cliff
Davis, Delbert
GEN-1;GRAZ-1; REC-2
Davis, Douglas
Davis, Gary
Davis, Gordon
Davis, Jill
Davis, Jim
Davis, Kathryn
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Davis, Keith and Deborah
Davis, Michael
BIO-4; REC-10
Davis, R. Dennis
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Davis, Randy
ACC-2
Davis, Reginald
Davis, Richard
GRAZ-3 ; REC-2
Davis, Richard
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Davis, Richard
Davis, Rio
Davis, Robert
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Davis, Ron
Davis, Vemon Jr.
Davlanets, Nancy
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; WSA-2
Davvdy, Ken
ACC-1; WSA-1
Dawson, Alexandra
REC-2
Dawson, Ted
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Day, David
Day, Janeen
Day, Jennifer
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Day, Roger and Janice
Dayton, DeAnn
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-5; REC-2, 10
de Bellis, Tony
REC-2
de Nevers, Noel
Dean, Ray
Debirk, Rob
REC-2
Dec, Eric
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Decker, James
REC-2
Deer, Otto
Deeths, Matthew, Ph.D.
DeFever, Drew
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Degenhart, Dick and Sandra
REC-1
DeHaas, Gary
DeHart, Wilbur
Dehority, Michael
DeJamell, Kenneth
DeJong, Connie
REC-1; REC-8
Delano, Joseph
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-3; WSR-1
DeLazzer, David
GRAZ-3
DellBalls, Lew
Demack, Delores
Demack, Jerome
DeMark, Ken
DeMille, Gary
DeMille, Ken
Deming, Rick
Demkowicz, John and Mary
DeMots, Dennis
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; WSR-1
Dempsey, Sean
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Denison, Mr and Mrs James
Denmarsh, T. Alexander
Denver, Lee
Derfler, Brandon
Derksen, Merritt
Derlington, Casey
Derstine, Mary
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
DeRuiter, Darla
DeRuiter, James
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Deruy, Bob
Deshamois, Katherine
GRAZ-3; REC-2
DeShazer, Vince
Despain, Joel
Desrosiers, Tamara
ACC-1; GEN-1; REC-2; WSA-2
DeTour, Darell
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Dettamanti, Michell
ACC-2; BIO-1 ; GEN-7; GRAZ-5
Dettamanti, Mike
ACC-5, 20, 24; BIO-5, 13; GEN-1, 9,
38,45
Deufemia, Larry
Deveraux, Lew
Devoe, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
DeVooght, David and Marilyn
ACC-2; BIO-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5;
WSR-3
DeVries, Cory
Dew, Maggie
REC-2
Dewey, Daryl
Deyl, Susan
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Di Nunzio, John
Diamond, Josh
Dibble, Ken and Angie
DiChiara, Tim
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Dickerman, Pat
GEN-1; REC-1
Dickermann, Jeffrey
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Dickinson, Margaret
Dickson, Fred
Dickson, Sidney
Diegel, Janette
ACC-1
Diegel, Paul
ACC-1
Diehl, Norma
Diernisse, Connie
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2
Dietrich, Robert
GEN-22; GRAZ-5
Digby, Jean
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Diggins, Suzanne
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSR-1
DiGirolamo, Paul
GRAZ-3; WSA-1
DiJulio, Sarah
ACC-1; GEN-1, 22; GRAZ-5;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
WSA-2
Dillenbeck, Vemon
Dimpleton, Jane
REC-2
Dinger, Marilyn
ACC-1, 5, 10, 13; BIO-1; GEN-1, 5;
GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-1, 2, 10;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Dirkx, T
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Divine, Soleil
BIO-1; GRAZ-3
Dixon, Bryan
ACC-1; GRAZ-1
Dobson, Gerald
Dodd, Douglas
Dodson, Susan and Steve
Doelling, Hellmut
ACC-1, 6; REC-1
5.14
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Dolan, John
GEN-3; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Dombek, John
GRAZ-1
Domingos, Randy
ACC-2, 8
Donahue, Michael
GRAZ-3 ; REC-2; WSA-3
Donegan, Ben
GEN-7, 22
Donze, Terry
Dorey, Mike
Dorfman, Bridger
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Dorgan, Gary and Claire
Domeman, Katrina
Dorsey, Bryan
ACC-12;GEN-1,5
Dorthest, Robert
Douglas, Ramey
GEN-1,5
Douglass, Inez
BIO-5;GEN-l, 13
Douglass, Kenst
GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Dove, Eric
Dove, James
REC-1
Dowds, Philip
Downard, Michael
Downer, Lee
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
Downing, McLane
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Downs, Janet
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Downs, Sylvia
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Downward, Terry
Doyle, Kevin
ACC-5 ; WSA-2
Doyle, Lyle
Drake, Dennis
REC-1
Drake, Michael
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Drew, Josh
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Drewes, Warren
Droesbeke, Richard
ACC-12; GEN-1; REC-12
Drollette, Richard
Droubay, Scott
Drown, Dave and Sue
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Drummend, Willa
Drummond, Robert
Drysdale, Jeanne
Duane, Timothy
Duba, Roger
ACC-1; GEN-1 ; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Ducsai, John
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Dudley, Denise
REC-1, 8
Dudley, George
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Dudley, James
Dudman, Barbara
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Dudy, Carolyn
Duff, Jody
Dugger, Donald
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Dull, Jonathan
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Duman, Chris
Dumas, Crockett and Sharon
GEN-1 5; REC-1
Duncan, Douglas
REC-2
Duncan, Elly
ACC-20, 5; BIO-9; GEN-1 2, 22;
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Duncan, Gail
Duncan, Ken
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-
1; REC-2
Duncan, Theresa
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Duncan, Thomas
Duncan, William
Dunn, Alison
REC-8
Dunne, Loretta
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Durbeck, Lisa
GEN-5; GRAZ-1; LAND-1; REC-2
Durbin, Jean
GEN-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2
Durden, Brenda
Durfee, Leisha
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Durrance, Robin
REC-8
Duryee, Kent
ACC-1; WAT-4
Dutamanti, Richard and Evelyn
ACC-2; GEN-1; GEN-15
Dutson, Roberta
Dutton, John
Dyer, D
Dyer, Donald
Dyer, Elizabeth
GRAZ-1
Eaton Jeffrey
ACC-3,4, 5, 6
Eagan, Jeffrey
Earnest, Anita
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Easier, Malcolm
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Easter, Mark
Eaton, Veldon
Ebert, Virginia
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Eberz, Noel
ACC-12
Eckels, Ellen
ACC-1; LAND-1
Economou, Constantina
GRAZ-1, 3, 5; REC-2
Eddy, Kristen
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Eddy, Tyler
REC-1
Edison, John
Edmison, Brad
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSR-1
Edsall, Jane
GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Edsall, John
Edvalson, Beth
Edwards, Michael
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Edwards, Skip
Edwards, Terry
ACC-2; GEN-7; LAND-1
Egan, Veronica
ACC-1 0; GEN-5; GRAZ-3
Egbert, Mark
Egemeier, Robert
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Eggeet, Dee and Debbie
Ehmann, William
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2. 8
Ehrig, John
ACC-5, 10; WSA-2
Eidsmoe, Robert
GEN-1, 22; WSA-2
Eiseman, Robin
REC-2
Eisenberg, Tim
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Eklund, Mark
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 , 5; GRAZ-1 ; REC-2
Elbel, Fred
Elbert, Marlow
Elcock, Eric
Elder, Frank
Elgerd, Katie
Elkind, Linda
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; WSR-1
Ellenberger, David
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Ellenberger, Robert
Elliott, Kenneth
Elliott, Ray
Elliott, Sally
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Ellis, Shawn
Ellison, Suzie
ACC-1; GEN-5, 21; GRAZ-1, 3;
REC-2; WSA-1, 2; WSR-1
5.15
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Ellits, Stephen
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Ellitt, Karen
ACC-12; GEN-13
Elm, Cynthia
REC-2
Elroy, John
Elton, Wally
ACC-1, 10; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; LAND-1
Elwood, David
REC-1
Emery, Joy
ACC-3
Ence, Cathem
Ence, Darryl
Enderle, John
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; WSA-3
Engel, Donald
Engeseth, Clara
Engle, Ron
English, William
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Enlinger, Kenny
GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSA-3
Epstein, Lois
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Epstein, Susan
GRAZ-3
Ercanbrack, Robert
Erger, James
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Erhard, Constance
ACC-1; GRAZ-5
Erickson, Anne
ACC-1; GEN-5; REC-2
Erickson, Barry
Erickson, Dell
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Erickson, Judy
Erickson, Krista
Erickson, Wayne
ACC-2
Erley, David
REC-2; WSA-3
Erskine, L.
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Ervin, Nick
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Ervine, Donald
Esplin, Jeff
Esplin, John
Esplin, Johnny
Esplin, Lola
ACC-2; BIO-4; REC-8
Esplin, Merlin
ACC-5, 20; LAND-5; WAT-5, 6;
WSR-3, 10
Esplin, Tina
Esplin, Virginia
Esplin, Wyatt
Estes, Newt
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Etheridge, Judith
REC-1, 8
Euall, Richard
Evans, Bud
ACC-10; WSA-2
Evans, C.
Evans, Cheryl
Evans, Don
Evans, James
Evans, John, Michele and Brittany
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Evans, Kenneth
GEN-5; REC-1
Evans, Stephen
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Evel, Ed
Evens, Brad
Evenson, William
ACC-5; WSA-2
Everett, Randy
Ewell, Chad
Ewers, Elois
REC-8
Ewert, Sara and Eric
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Eyre, Calvin
Facelli, Julio
ACC-1
Fackrell, Vickie
Faddis, Dewayne
Fager, Steve
ACC-3; GEN-1, 5, 6, 22; WSA-3
Fahrenbruch, Roland
Fairfield, Barbara
ACC-4
Faisy, Roger
Fankuchen, Steve
Farless, Terry
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Farley, Robert
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Farley, William
Farmer, James
Famsworth, Dell
Farquhar, Mark
ACC-2
Farr, David
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Farrell, Timothy
GRAZ-1
Farrin, Alison
REC-1, 8
Fassett, Caleb
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Faucett, Thomas
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Faulkner, Cheryl
REC-8
Faulon, Danny and Joan
Fausett, Blake
Faustine, Pamela
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Favret, Paul, Sylvia, and Jake
Feazel, Elizabeth
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Fedelleck, Neil
Federici, Todd
ACC-1; GEN-1; WSA-2
Fegard, Stephen and Charen
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Fein, Estelle
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Feinsilber, Holly
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Feldman, Alex
REC-2; WSA-3
Feldman, Jane
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Feldman, Mary
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Felt, Sy
REC-2
Feltner, Cheri
Feltner Steven
BIO-4
Feltner, Tari
Felton, Sally
GEN-1; LAND-1; WSR-1
Felts, Carl
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Fencl, Rick
WSA-2
Fender, C.
ACC-10; GRAZ-3
Fenning, Rebecca
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Ferguson, Jason
Ferguson, Jerry
Ferick, John
Ferri, Diane
Ferrin, Calvin
REC-1
Ferris, Jim
REC-8
Ferry, Al
ACC-5; REC-1
Fertal, Andy
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Fetzer, Herold
Fiddler, Richard
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Field, Loyd
Fields, Mary
REC-1, 8
Fifield, Gary
Fillmore, John
Fillmore, Robert
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 , 5; GRAZ-1 ; REC-2
Finch, Shril
Finch, William
Fingerhut, Bert
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-1, 3
5.16
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Finkelstein, Loren
ACC-1;GEN-1
Finkelstein, Michael
Finlayson, Dan
Finucane, Steve
GEN- 1,5
Fischer, Roxy
Fish, Jackie
Fish, James
Fisher, Carrie
Fisher, Dennis
GRAZ-l,3;REC-2
Fisher, Dennis
ACC-13;GEN-l;GRAZ-3
Fisher, Eric
Fisher, Erik
ACC-1, 10;GEN-l;GRAZ-3;
LAND-l;REC-2
Fisher, James
Fisher, Kevin
Fisher, Kim
Fisher, Laura
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3,5
Fisher, Linda
REC-1,8
Fisher, Pete and Joanne
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Fite, Katie
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3, 5
Fite, Richard
GEN-1; REC-2
Fitzpatrick, Eric
Fjelsted, Julia
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Flake, Victor
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Flanderka, Mary
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Flaumenbaum, Steve
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Fleming, Dan
Fleming, Lisa
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Flemmer, Linda
REC-8
Fletcher, Bryce
ACC-2
Fletcher, Colin
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Fletcher, John
Fletcher, Larry
ACC-2, 12
Fletcher, Monica
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Flinchpaugh, Christopher
Flinn, Brian
ACC-10; GEN-1 ; GRAZ-3 ; LAND- 1 ;
REC-2; WSA-2
Flinner, Matt
GRAZ-1
Floor, Jeffrey
ACC-5; REC-1
Floyd, Frederick
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Flynn, Roger
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Fogarty, Pat
Fogelberg, Brent
GRAZ-1
Fogelberg-Billette, Cheryl
GRAZ-5
Foley, William
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Folks, Dawn
Folland, Gerald
REC-2
Follett, Matthew,
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Follis, George
Fong, Mark
ACC-10; WSA-3
Fonger, Eugene
Fonken, Pete
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Fontenot, Donald
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; LAND-1 ; REC-2;
WSR-1
Fonz, Ron
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Forbes, Bruce
Forbes, Lynn
GRAZ-1
Forbes, Rob
Force, Mark
ACC-10
Ford, Elbert
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Ford, Garrett
REC-8
Ford, Jo Ann
Ford, Julie
Ford, Louie
Ford, Norman and Sheila
Ford, Roger
Fordham, Neoma
Forrester, Robert Jr.
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Forsyth, Tori
Fortin, Elizabeth
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSR-1
Fortunato, Nik
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Foster, Dorothy
REC-8
Foster, Grace
WSA-1,2
Foster, Jana
GEN- 15
Foster, John
Foster, Kyle
Foulger, Jeannie and Graydon
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Fowers, Joan
Fowkes, Shawn
Fowler, James
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Fowles, Darryl
Fox, Jeff
Fox, Kyle
Fox, Leigh
GRAZ-3
Fox, Margi
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Fox, Mason
ACC-1; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Fox, Megan
ACC-2; GEN-13; GRAZ-5
Foy, Bernard
GEN-22; WSR-1
Francisco, Frank
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Francoeur, Cleve Jr.
Frandsen, Clay
Frandsen, Elden
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Frandsen, Jan
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Frandsen, Tracy
Frandson, Richard
Frank, Daniel
ACC-5; GEN-1; GRAZ-7; WAT-2, 6;
WSR-10
Frank, Paul
GEN-5; REC-2
Frantzen, Clark
ACC-4, 10,14,17,21,22,23
Franzi, James and family
Fraser, Robert
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Freed, Janis
REC-8
Freeman, Barbara
REC-8
Freeman, Carl
GEN-1; GEN-22
Freeman, Dal
Freeman, Jim
Freeman, Margaret and Alan
Freeman, Nora
Frei, Landon
ACC-2; BIO-4; REC-8
Frei, Robert
French, Mike
Freund, Elizabeth
Freundlich, Craig
Frey, Scott
ACC-2; REC-14
Friant, Kent
Frichknect, Kay
Frick, Richard
ACC-7
Frick, Walter
Friedemann, Bruce
GRAZ-1; WSA-2
Friederici, Peter
ACC-1; GEN-5
5.17
Chapter 5
Genser, Richard and Claire
GRAZ-3
George, William
GEN-5
George, Tommy
Gerard, Jennifer
Gerber, Scott
Gernant, Jo Anne
REC-8
Gemer, Michael, Ph.D.
ACC-1,3
Gerrard, David
Gerstein, Brad
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Gersten, Carey
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2
Gettins, Kim
Gibbins, Gerald
Gibbs, Ennis
Gibson, Neal and Crystal
BIO-1; GRAZ-3
Gibson, Norman
Gibson, Pamela
ACC- 1 ; GEN- 1 ; WS A-2 , 3 ; WSR- 1
Giddings, Anthony
BIO-1; GEN-1, 13
Gidner, Richard
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Giese, Mark
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Gigliotti, James
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Gilbert, Barrie and Kafhy
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3,5
Gilbert, Janet
Gilbert, Kent
Gilbert, Tracy
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Gilbertson, Michael
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Giles, Bill and Ann
GEN-1; REC-1
Giles, Joe
Giles, John
Giles, Kim
Giles, Nathan
Giles, John Jr.
Gillespie, Roger
Gillien, Heather
REC-8
Gillies, Von
ACC-1
Gillispie, Scott
Gilson, Betty, M.D.
Ginsburg, Joe
ACC-1, WAT-4
Giovale, Danny and Melissa
ACC-4; GRAZ-1
Gisler, John and Jan
GEN-1; REC-2
Givens, David
Gjerning, Arne
ACC-2, 10
Glass, George
ACC-2; BIO-4; REC-8
Glass, Thomas
Glazier, Byron and Roanna
Glazier, Greg
GEN-1
Glazier, Karen
GEN-1
Glazier, Kimberly
ACC-2; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Glazier, Trent
BIO-5; GEN-1, 13
Gleason, Peggy
Gleave, Andra
Gledhill, David and Maria
Glen, Donald
GEN-2, 5; GRAZ-3; REC-2, 8
Glenn, Stephen
ACC-1; BIO-4
Glidden, Jock
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Glover, Greg
ACC-2
Glover, Sherie
GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Goddard, Kendall
Godley, Jim and Carrie
Goetsch, Matthew
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Goetz, Patrick
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Friedman, Ann and Joe
GRAZ-3
Friedman, Bob
ACC-10;LAND-1; REC-2
Friedman, Laura
REC-8
Friedman, Laurie
Friel, Robert
Fries, Christopher
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Frisby, Charles
Frohn, Joyce
Fronk, Eric
Frooms, Linda
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Frost, Kit
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Frux, Gregory
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Fuller, Robert
GEN-1 6
Fulmer, Jared
Funk, Kenny
Furman, Mark
ACC-2
Furze, James and Pamela
Gray, Wesley
ACC-10
Gabri, Charles and Nanci
REC-8
Gabriel, Tim
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Gabnelse, D. Randall
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Gaillard, Elaina
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Galbiati, Jim
Gallagher, Eileen
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Gallamore, Elveen
ACC-2
Gallamore, Howard
ACC-2; GEN-1, 13, 15,43,44,45;
GRAZ-3, 5; LAND-1, 5; REC-8;
WAT-2; WSR-3
Gambill, Joan
Gambino, James Jr.
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Gammell, B. Clyde
Gano, David
ACC-1
Gardner, Brian
Gardner, Casey
GRAZ-1
Gardner, Kyle
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Gardner, Leo
ACC-8
Gardner, Mack
Gardner, Shaun and RaNae
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-10
Gardner, Troy
Garmon, Jeff
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Garon, Vemon
REC-2
Garrett, K.A.
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Garrett, Larry
Garrett, Marjorie
Garrigan, Laura
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Garthwait, Shirly and Howard
Gartland, Chris
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Gaskin, David
LAND-1; WSR-1
Gates, Pratt
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Gault, Shelly
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Gavin, P.T.
Gayda, Gabrielle
GEN-5
Gaydos, Bob
Gaz, Gary
Gebauer, Chris
GEN-5; REC-1
Gelb, Richard
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Gendron, Joseph
Genles, Jeffrey
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Goetz, Scott
ACC-13;GEN-l;GRAZ-3
Goggins, Alan
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSR-1
Gokhale, Gauri
GEN-25
Gold, Robert
ACC-10;GEN-5;REC-1
Goldberg, Caren
GEN-1, 5
Goldberg, Ron
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Goldhammer, David
GEN-5;REC-1,2
Goldman, Jeanne
REC-8
Goldschmidt, Karl
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Goldstein, Alexis
Goldstein Rick
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Goller, Linda
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Gomes, Jerry and Pam
ACC-2
Gone, Jim
Gontrum, David
ACC-1
Gonzales, Farrell
Gonzales, Henry
Gooch, James
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-2; REC-2
Good, John
Good-de Lepper, Stormy
GRAZ-1
Goode, Mariah
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Gooding, John
REC-2
Goodwin, Richard
REC-8
Gorby, Ryan
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Gordon, David
Gordon, Greg
ACC-1, 3; GEN-5; WSA-2
Gordon, Ivy
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Gordon, Ivy
ACC-10; WAT-4; WSA-2
Gordon, Michael
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Gordon, Richard
GEN-1, 24
Gorman, M.E.
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
Gorman, D. Sr.
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Gorsetman, Mark
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Gose, Dave and Martha
ACC-1; GRAZ-1
Gottfried, Donald
ACC-1; GEN-22; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Gottschalk, Joy
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Gould, John
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Gove, Walter and Antonia
REC-2
Gower, Steven
Goyer Nate
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 ,5,11; LAND-1 ;
REC-2; WSR-1
Grace, Raymond
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Graff, Jan
Grah, Karen and Oliver
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Grah, Steve
GEN-1; REC-2
Graham, Amanda
Graham, Jim and Barb
ACC-10
Graham, John and Mariam
ACC-10; GEN-1; REC-2
Graham, Joseph
Graham, Mark
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Graham, Susan
REC-2; WSA-2
Gralia, Ross
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Grant, James
ACC-5
Grasseschi, Michael
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Gravina, David
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Gravley, Monique
Gray, Gerald
Greco, Rick
Green, Doug
Green, Guy
Green, Joel
GRAZ-3; REC-1
Green, Robert
ACC-5; WSA-2
Green, Roy
ACC-2
Green, William
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Greenfield, Judy
Greenhalgh, Doug
Greenhalyh, Brad
Greenleaf, Allen
GEN-5
Greenman, Jessea
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Greenstein, George
Greenwood, Kathy and Clyde
ACC-2
Gregerson, Juel and Amy
Gregory, Alan and Monica
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Gregory, Kelly
Gregory, William
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2;
WSA-3
Grenersih, Molly
REC-2
Gridley, Darren
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Griffin, Bryan
Griffin, Clem
Griffin, Melonie
GEN-1; REC-2
Griffin, Quinn
Griffin, Randy
Griffith, Adam
Griffith, Erik
Griffith, Mornll
Griffiths, Jerry
Griffiths, Tad
Grisco, Mary
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Griswold, Stacy
Grizzell, Steve
Gro, Neldon
Groen, John
ACC-2
Gromer, Ray
Groms, Tom
ACC-1; GEN-1
Groo, Dallas
Gross, H
GEN-1
Gross, Mathew
ACC-10; REC-2; WSA-2
Gross, Miriam
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Grossman, Elizabeth
ACC-5; GEN-5
Grosz, Wayne
ACC-7
Grover, Gary
ACC-1, 3, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Grover, Ken
Grover, Kent
Grubbs, Bruce
ACC-1
Guerisoli, Bren
Guilford, Rhonda
REC-8
Guilfoyle, Kelly
GRAZ-3; WSA-3
Guinn, Jim
Gunderson, Bill
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-3
Gunderson, Ed and Gisela
BIO-1; GEN-2, 5; GRAZ-3; REC-2,
Gunderson, Sean
Gunn, David
REC-2
5.19
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Gunter, Ray
Gura, Nick and Catherine
GRAZ-l;REC-2
Gurley, Sara
Gurley, Shane
Gurley, Sherri
Gurley, Steve
Gurney, K
Guthier, Paula
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1
Guthrie, Alice
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Guy, Richard
Guynn, Peter and Caroline
ACC-3; REC-2
Haag, Wyatt
Haas, Duncan
ACC-1
Haas, John
ACC-10; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Habbeshaw, Mark and Judy
ACC-10; BIO-5; GRAZ-5; REC-1, 8
Hackbarth, Randy
Hadenfeldt, Vaughn
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Hadley, Steve
Hafen, Kara
Haggard, Ernest
Hague, David
ACC-1
Hague, Kenneth and Sharon
Hahle, John
Hake, Buff
Halama, Henry
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Halcom, Velva
Hald, Ken
ACC-2, 10; WSA-3
Hale, Jon
LAND-1
Hale, Robert
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-2
Hale, Robert and Ruth
Halford, Larry
GEN-1
Hall, Charles
Hall, Clair
Hall, Donna
Hall, DuRell
Hall, Emily
ACC-l,3;WAT-4
Hall, Gary
Hall, John
ACC-17;WSR-3
Hall, Jon
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hall, Joy
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Hall, Linda
ACC-1; GEN-1
Hall, Lorin
Hall, Roland
ACC-2; BlO-4; REC-8
Hall, Shawn
Hall, Steven
Hall, William
Hallet, Jon
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Halligan, David
ACC-1; GEN-1; LAND-1; WAT-4;
WSA-2
Hallmark, Cullen
ACC-1 ;GEN-5
Hallows, Ted
Halls, Kerry
Halpem, Harvey
WSA-2
Halsey, Sean
Hamed, Michael
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hamilton, Jack
Hamilton, Joan
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hamilton, Karen
GEN-1; GRAZ-1
Hamilton, Patrick and Norma
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-1, 3; REC-2;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Hamilton, Warren
Hamilton, William
Hamlin, Tom
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Hammel, P. Chris
REC-1, 2
Hammer, Joyce
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 ; WAT-4; WSA-3
Hammett, Benjamin and Ruth
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2, 10;
WSA-2
Hammon, James
Hammond, Keith
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-
1; WSA-3; WSR-1
Hammons, William and Lonnda
Hampton, Kristen
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Hampton, Michelle
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hampton, Stephen
Hance, Billie J
REC-1
Hanchett, Brian
Hancock, Coleen
Hand, Stephanie
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Handford, Art
Handley, Vance
GRAZ-3 ; REC-2; WSA-3
Handls, Kristine
Hands, Kathy
ACC-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Handwerger, David
GEN-1; WSA-3
Haney, David
Haney, Jeff
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Hanger, Eric
Hanks, Beryl
Hanks, Jonathan
Hannah, Jim and Shirley
GEN-1, 22; GRAZ-1; REC-1
Hannan, Ciaran
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Hannig, Gary
Hannon, Steven
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Hanrahan John
GEN-5; REC-2
Hansen Adam
Hansen, C. Clayton
Hansen, Coby
Hansen, Evon
Hansen, G. Scott
ACC-1, 10; BIO-4; GEN-1, 11;
LAND-1; REC-2; WAT-2; WSA-3;
WSR-1
Hansen, Gary
Hansen, Howard
Hansen, Jay
Hansen, Jeff
Hansen, Jerry
Hansen, Karen
Hansen, Kevin
Hansen, Marc
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hansen, Michael
Hansen, Ouay
Hansen, Richard
Hansen, Terry
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Hansen, Vanoy
Hanset, Donald
Hanson, Eric and Arsenia
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-1
Hanson, Heath and Cheri
Harbison, Candis
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Hardebeck, Larry
Hardekopf, Douglas
ACC-2
Hardey, John
ACC-1, 5; REC-1
Harding, Brent
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Hardinger, Ray
Hardman, Bill
Hardman, Richard
Hardman, Young
Hardy, Cindy
GEN-1, 5, 11; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
WSR-1
Hardy, Keith
Hardy, Leo, Roberta, Ashley, Jessica
and Jacob
ACC-10; WSA-3
Hardy, Pamela
ACC-10; WSA-2
5.20
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Harford, Larence
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Harling, Cheryl
Harmon, Barbara
Harmon, Ginger
ACC-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-5; WSA-3;
WSR-1
Harms, Bobbie
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Harms, Paul
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Harnsworth, Brad
Harold, Frank and Ruth
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Harper, George
Harper, Monte
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Harriman, Anne
Harris, Cathy
Harris, Craig
Harris, Donald
Harris, Jean
Harris, Jennifer
Harris, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Harris, Kim
Harris, Neil and Pamela
Harris, Roo
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Harris, Scot
Harris, Susan
Harris, Troy
Harris, Laurence Jr.
Harrison, Edward
ACC-10
Harrison, James
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Harrison, Joy
ACC-1
Harrop, Blake
Harsany, John
Hart, David
GEN-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Hart, Timothy
ACC-1; GEN-5
Hartin, Kris
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hartley, Dawn
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Hartley, Mike
REC-2
Hartog, Dale
Harvey, Chuck
Harvey, David
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Harvey, Don
Harvey, Doug and Sheryl
ACC-1, 10; BIO-1; GEN-5; LAND-1;
REC-2, 10
Harward, Velda
Haskamp, Dale
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-3
Haskell, Lee
Haslen, Glen
Hassell, Hank
ACC-12; GEN-36; WAT-3; WSA-2
Hassinger, Phillip
REC-1,8
Hastings, Warren
Hatch, Doxey
Hatch, J
Hatch, Jerald
Hatch, Kent
Hatch, Mac
Hatch, Randy
Hatch, Robert
Hatch, Steven
Hatch, Ted
Hatley, Tom
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Haultain, Sylvia
Hause, Jared
Hauser, Tab
ACC-1
Hautier, Juli
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Hawes, Patty
REC-8
Hawkin, Robert
Hawkins, Barbara
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hawkins, Clyde
Hawkins, Edwin
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Hawkins, Gordon
Hawkins, Jason
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hawley, Steve
Haws, Ann
Haws, Cindra
Haws, Robert
Haws, Val
Hayes, Ann and Bob
REC-8
Hayes, Dave and Jeanette
Hayes, III Charles
Hayhow, Reid
GEN-5
Haymore, Brand and Kay
Haynes, Venna
ACC-2;GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Haynie, Paul
GEN-13; GRAZ-3, 5; LAND-1
Hayt, Kris
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Healey, Richard
Healy, Todd
Heaps, David
Heaps, William
Hearst, Jay
REC-1
Heath, Charles
Heath, Mike
Heath, Steven
ACC-4
Heaton, Tamara
ACC-10; GEN-22; GRAZ-3
Heavner, Brad
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Heck, Larry
Heckenlively, Lee
GEN-1
Hegger, Petra
ACC-1, 5; WSA-2
Heil, Kevin
Heil, Robert
ACC-1
Heil, Rosemary
ACC-1, 12; LAND-1; REC-2
Heilpem, Slim
ACC-5, 10; WSA-2
Heimburger, Matthew
ACC-1
Heineman, Beverly and Robert
Heinman, Angela
GEN-1 5
Heino, Max
Heiple, Tonya
ACC-1
Hellwig, Chris
ACC-10; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hellyard, Paul
Heltor, Ralph
Hemingway, Dezi
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Hemingway, Jim
Hemmon, Michael
Henderson, Bill
ACC-2
Henderson, Carolyn
REC-8
Henderson, DeAnna
ACC-2
Henderson, DeWitt
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Henderson, Karen
ACC-2; GEN-13
Henderson, Rick
Hendrickeson, Mark
Heneri, Max
Henrickson, Margaret
ACC-1; GEN-22; REC-2; WSA-3
Henrie, Thor
Henrikson, Susan and Carl
REC-2
Henry, Jim
Henry, Bob Jr.
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Hensel, David
GEN-1 ; GRAZ-3; LAND-1 ; REC-2;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Henslee, L and P
REC-8
Henson, Stein
Heppler, Julee
Herbert, Jerry
5.21
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Herdliska, Robert
ACC-1;GEN-1,5;GRAZ-1
Herman, Eugene
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1; WSA-3
Herman, John
ACC-3; GRAZ-3; WSA-1
Herman, Max
ACC-1
Hermann, Matthew
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Herr, Brian
Herrick, Shelly
Hertzberg, Scott
ACC-1 ; REC-2
Hess, Jimmy
Hester, John
Hetrick, Elizabeth
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Heydt, Nathan
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Heyer, Raymond
ACC-1; REC-2
Hicken, Beckey
Hicken, James
Hicken, Kerry
Hickman, Greg and MaryAnn
GRAZ-3
Hickok, Brian
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Hicks, Caroline
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Higgins, Scott
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Higgins, Tracy
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Hiipakka, Dennis
Hildabrand, Rick
GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2, 10
Hill, DeMont
Hill, Gese
Hill, Greg
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hill, Janaloo
REC-8
Hill, Ken
ACC-2
Hiller, Kim
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Hillisrd, Edward
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Hills, B
Hillson, Nyle
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
Hilton, Glade
Hilton, David Jr.
Hilton, David Sr.
Himebaugh, Glenn
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Hinchey, Maurice
ACC-1; LAND-1; REC-1; WSR-1
Hines, Cynthia
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hingson, Dick
ACC-1 0; GEN-5, 22; WSA-2
Hinkelman, Carol
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2; WSR-1
Hinkins, Todd
Hinote, Melodie
ACC-2; GEN-13; GRAZ-3, 5; LAND-1
Hinote, Robert
ACC-2; GEN-13; GRAZ-3, 5; LAND-1
Hintze, Darrel
Hintze, Jack
Hintze, Jason
Hintze, Larry
Hirschi, Dennis
Hirst, Wayne
WSA-3
Hiser, Eric
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3,5
Hobbs, A
BlO-4; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-1; WSA-3; WSR-1
Hobbs, Amy
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Hodgkins, T.B.
ACC-1 0
Hodous, Douglas and Janet
GEN-1; WSA-2
Hoenig, Eileen
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Hoffman, Paul
Hoffman, Richard
GRAZ-3; WSA-3
Hoffman, Ross
REC-2
Hoffman, Ted
REC-2
Hoffman, William
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Hofftsen, Michael
Hogan, Michael
Hohenlohe, Paul
ACC-1
Hohmann, Russell
ACC-2
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Holak, Andy
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Holbrook, Stephen
Holcomb, Katherine
Holcomb, Mike
Holiday, Wayne
Holland, John
ACC-1, 8
Holland, Kathleen
Holland, Roger
Hollander, Milton
Hollberg, Steven
Holley, Buddy
Holley, Carole
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Holley, Frank
ACC-10
Hollister, Dashiell
Hollister, Karen
Hollows, Duane and Ruth
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Holmes, Marlee and Dick
REC-1, 4
Holmes, Stanley
GEN-1; WSA-3
Holms, Richard and Marlee
REC-1, 4
Holt, Ann
REC-2
Holt, Jan
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Holt. Jason
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Holt, Sydney
Holton, Jill
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Holton, Jody
Homes, Mike
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-3
Honer, Carolyn
Honey, Bruce
Hood, James
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hook, C.
ACC-2; GEN-13; GRAZ-5
Hook, Lindsay
ACC-2; GEN-13; GRAZ-5
Hook, Lois
ACC-2; GEN-13; GRAZ-5
Hook, Penny
REC-8
Hooley, Roland
Hooper, Bret
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Hooper, John
ACC-1; GEN-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Hoopes, Greg
ACC-10
Hopkins, Fred
Hopkins, Ted and Arlene
GEN-5; REC-2
Hopper, Kay
Hoppes, Greg
Hoppus, Mike
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Hopwood, Doug
Horgan, Chris
Horn, Ronald
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Home, Susan
REC-8
Homiog, Wayne
Hornyak, Jean
GEN-1, 5; REC-1
Horowitz, Tina
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Horrocks, Garwin
5.22
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Horrocks, Ronnie
Horrocks, Trevor
Horton, Paul
Horvitz, Bill
ACC-1,5;REC-1
Hoskisson, Paul
GEN-1,22; WSA-3
Hossell, Annabel
Hough, Manny
RJEC-8
Houghton, Chad
Houghton, David
Houghton, Jack
Housekeeper, Theora
Houser, Debra
REC-1
Houston, Dain
Hovingh, Peter
BIO-1 ,2,3; GEN-8; GRAZ-5; REC-8;
WAT-2
Howard, Gerald
Howard, Harry
Howard, John
Howard, William
Howe, Eric
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Howe, Gordon
ACC-1
Howell, Harold
REC-2
Howells, David
REC-1
Howells, James
WSA-1
Howells, Mary E. M.
Howsden, Freddie and Carolyn
Hoyer, Eric
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hoyt, Caren
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Hoyt, Wendell and Nellie
Hubbard, Gayle
Hubbard, Rick
ACC-2
Hubbard, Robert
ACC-1, 12
Hubbard, Robert
Hudson, Rick
REC-2
Huerta, Juanita
Huet, Douglas
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Huff, Blake
Huff, Delmar
Huff, Alan
Huffman, Becky
REC-8
Huffman, C
Huffman, Ray
Hugentoh, Mark
Huggard, Dan
Huggard, Jamie
Huggart, M
Hughes, Bill
GEN-1; REC-2
Hughes, Bill
GEN-1; REC-2
Hughes, Debra
ACC-10;GEN-16
Hughes, Joseph
ACC-12, 17; ACC-2; BIO-5; GEN-13;
LAND-1
Hughes, Keith
Hughes, Kristine
Hughes, Violet
ACC-12; BIO-5; GEN-13; LAND-1
Hughs, Joshua
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Hugie, Terry
Huhe, Robert
Hule,n Durvis
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Hulet, Daniel
ACC-7; GEN-40; WAT-4; WSR-3
Hullinger, Dennis
Huls, Jeff
Hultquist, Ame
ACC-3; GEN-1 1; GRAZ-3, 5; WAT-5,
6
Humpheys, Brent
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Humphreys, Michael and JanACC-1;
GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Huner, Jerry
Hungiker, Peggy
Hunnel, David and Heather
ACC-2
Hunsaker, William
Hunt, Alden
Hunt, Andrew
Hunt, Bruce
Hunt, George
GRAZ-1
Hunt, Gerald
Hunt, Gorden
Hunt, Stan
Hunt, Stephen
Hunt, Ty
Hunter, Brad
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Hunter, Brent
Hunter, Gloria
Hunter, Lance
Huntington, G.
Huntington, Lowell
GEN-1
Huntsman, Casey
Huntsman, Dan
Huntsman, J.
Hupp, Chet and Teri
Hurley, Robert
ACC-10
Hussey, Dixon
Hutchinson, Derek
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Huthingson, Phillip
Hyman, Ruth
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
labors, Ctristian
Imlay, K.
Imlay, Valerie
Imus Family
Inaba, Nancy
GRAZ-1
Inberg, Carol
Ingalls, Bill
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Ingalls, Libby
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 ; GRAZ-3; WSA-2
Ingman, Alan
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Ingraham, Blake
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Ingram, James
Irwin, Maria
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Isralelsen, Dee
Isreal, Douglas
GRAZ-3
Iverson, Deborah
Iverson, Robert
Ive.s Catherine
Ivins, Jason
Iwerks, Larry
BIO-1 ; GEN-1 ; GRAZ-1 ; REC-2
Jack, Kerin
Jackson, Bruce
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Jackson, Roger
Jackson, Thomas and Marilyn
GEN-2,9, 13,25, 36; REC-1, 8
Jacob, Chris
Jacobel, Robert
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Jacobs, Bart
Jacobs, Chris
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2
Jacobs, Hugh
Jacobs, Lynn
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Jacobsen, Jarvis
Jacobsen, Karon
ACC-12
Jacobson, Chad
Jacobson, Danial
Jacobson, Robert
Jagiella, Tom
Jahn, Greg
GEN-1
James, Tom
Jankord, Mary Ann
GEN-1, 5, 1 1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
WSR-1
Jansen, Ron
5.23
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Janson, Delmar
ACC-10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-2;
REC-2; WSA-2
Jarman, Tom
ACC-2; GEN-1 3, 15; GRAZ-5
Jarrett, Alan
ACC-1; GEN-1
Jarrett, Glen
Jason, Shane
Jaspering, Glenn
Jaussi, Andrea and David
GEN-1, 22
Jayne, Jerry
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; REC-2; WSA-1
Jeffery, Alfred
Jeffs, Jerry
Jeffs, Rick
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Jenkins, Doug
ACC-2
Jenkins, Mark
ACC-10
Jenkins, Thomas
Jenkins, Wendy
Jennings, Bob
ACC-10
Jennings, Linda
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Jensen, Brian
Jensen, Carl
Jensen, Carol
ACC-2
Jensen, Christine
Jensen, Clark
Jensen, David
Jensen, Dennis
Jensen, Jerold
Jensen, John
Jensen, Jonathan
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Jensen, June
Jensen, Justin
Jensen, Kendal
Jensen, Lars
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-1; REC-2; WAT-4
Jensen, Lena
Jensen, Louisa
Jensen, Mark
Jensen, Ned
Jensen, Patrick
Jensen, Paul
Jensen, Payne
Jensen, Ray
Jensen, Scott
Jenson, Emilie
Jenson, Jodi
Jenson, Randy
ACC-2; GEN-1 3, 15; GRAZ-5
Jenson, Theron
Jerard, Al
Jessop, Richard
ACC-2; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; WSR-3
Jessup, George
GEN-1 6
Jettmar, Karen
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSA-2, 3
Jewell, Michael
Jewett, Rick
Jinkes, Kevin
ACC-10
Jinkin, Kim
Jio, Marilyn
ACC-5;GEN-1,5
Johansen, JoAnn
Johns, Clyde
Johnsen, Randall
Johnson, A
Johnson, Ann
ACC-1
Johnson, Barbara
GRAZ-5
Johnson, Carol
BIO-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2, 10
Johnson, Clara
Johnson, Clay
Johnson, Cyle
GEN-1 5
Johnson, Danny
Johnson, David
ACC-1; GEN-12, 22; WSR-6
Johnson, Don
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Johnson, Elizabeth
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Johnson, Eric
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Johnson, Floyd
Johnson, Fred
ACC-2; BIO-4; REC-8
Johnson, Georgia
ACC-2
Johnson, Gerald
GEN-1; REC-2
Johnson, Gerald
Johnson, Glendon
Johnson, Gordon
Johnson, Grant
ACC-8
Johnson, Hank
Johnson, James
Johnson, Janet
REC-8
Johnson, Jaspen
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Johnson, Jeff
Johnson, Jeffrey
Johnson, John
GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSA-3
Johnson, J Leo
Johnson, Ken
ACC-7, 10; WSA-3
Johnson, Kevin
Johnson, Kim
ACC-10; GRAZ-1; REC-2; LAND-1
Johnson, Kim
Johnson, Kirk
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Johnson, Larry
Johnson, Laverna
Johnson, Mary
REC-2
Johnson, Matthew
ACC-1; GEN-1; REC-2; WSA-3;
WSR-1
Johnson, Michael
Johnson, Michelle
Johnson, Mike
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Johnson, Moyle
ACC-5
Johnson, Mr. and Mrs. Richard
Johnson, N.
GEN-5; WAT-4; WSA-3
Johnson, Paul
ACC-1, 5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Johnson, Phillip
Johnson, Richard
REC-8
Johnson, Rick
Johnson, Rick
Johnson, Robert
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Johnson, Rodger
Johnson, Ronald
REC-2
Johnson, Shauna
ACC-2; REC-8
Johnson, Thomas
ACC-1; GEN-1, 22; LAND-1
Johnson, Tim
Johnson, Tim
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1, 23; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Johnson, Troy
GEN-1 3; GRAZ-3
Johnson, Victor
Johnson, Virginia
Johnson, Aubrey Jr.
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2
Jolin, Marc
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Jolley, Evan
Jolly, David
Jonath, Paul
Jones, Allen
Jones, Andrew
GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSA-3
Jones, Andy
ACC-2; GEN-1; REC-2
Jones, B.
Jones, Bob
Jones, Bob and Yvonne
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Jones, Carolyn
5.24
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Jones, Christopher
ACC-3; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-12
Jones, David
REC-2
Jones, DeWitt
Jones, Don
Jones, Eric
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Jones, Frances
Jones, Justin
ACC-1
Jones, Kalen
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Jones, Karen
Jones, Kathi
Jones, Kenneth
Jones, Kirtly
ACC-3; GRAZ-3, 5
Jones, Lynette
Jones, Michael
Jones, Patrick
Jones, R. D.
Jones, R. Merrill
Jones, Rob
ACC-4, 10; GEN-1, 2; GRAZ-3;
REC-2; WAT-4;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Jones, Rob
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2, 3;
WAT-4; WSA-2
Jones, Robert
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WAT-4; WSA-2
Jones, Robert
Jones, Ronald
Jones, Sam and Mary
Jones, Scot
Jones, Stephan
Jones, Stephen
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Jones, Stuart
Jones, Susan
GEN-1,5;REC-1; WSA-2, 3
Jones, Tanya
Jones, Tommy
Jones, Travis
Jones, Virginia
Jones, Wayne
Jones, Weston
Jonsson, Valgard
GRAZ-1, 3; REC-2
Jopling, Blake
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Jordan, Annette
REC-8
Jordan, Robert
ACC-1; GEN-1; REC-2
Jordan, Robert Jr.
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Jorgensen, Brett
Joseph, Alan
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Joseph, Jennifer
Josey, Caren
REC-1
Joslyn, Linda
Jospersen, George
Joss, Murray
Ju, Scott
Judd, Keith and Carol
Judd, Martin
GRAZ-3; WAT-4; WSA-1
Judd, Ora Nell
ACC-2; GEN-1; GRAZ-5
Judd, Rulon
Judd, Vaughn
GEN-1 3; GRAZ-5
Judd, W. Dart
Jump, Robert
Junkin, James
Kaas, Leslie
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Kaczowka, Bob
Kahn, Jeffrey
Kalinowski, Arlene
GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Kalinowski, Joseph
GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Kalkbrenner, Lee
Kalleah, Sis
ACC-2
Kallman, Glenda
ACC-1 ; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; LAND-1 ;
REC-2; WSR-1
Kalmbach, Gregory
GEN-1, 5
Kalt, Nick
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Kaminski, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Kan, Gary
Kane, Jeffrey
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-1;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-3; WSR-1
Kantor, Stanley
Kapover, Emmy
REC-8
Kapp, Melissa
Karl, Kevin
GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-2
Karnia, Judy
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Kams, Mathew
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Kauffman, Steve
GRAZ-1, 3; REC-2
Kaufman, Elinore
ACC-4, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-2; WSR-1
Kavanaugh, Jim
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Kawa, Wendi
Kay, Glendon
Kay, James
ACC-1; GEN-3; REC-2
Kazlow, Lauren
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Keate, K. Brent
REC-2
Keele, Bonnie
Keele, Dan
GEN-1 6
Keesling, Maxine
Kefalas, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Keilty, Maureen
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Keim, Susan
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-3; WSR-1
Keller, Jeff
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Keller, Randall
GEN-5; REC-1
Keller, Ronald
Kellermann, Stephen
Kelley, Jill
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Kelley, Kathleen
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Kelley, Paul
Kellogg, Elizabeth
WAT-4; WSA-2
Kellogg, L.
WAT-4; WSA-3
Kelly, Ann
GEN-1
Kelly, Dana
GRAZ-3
Kelly, George
Kelly, Jean
REC-2
Kelly, Phillip Jr.
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Kelly, Wayne
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2, 3
Kemp, Michael
ACC-10; WSA-3
Kemp, Susan
Kendall, Vaughn
GEN-1; WSR-1
Keniston, Deborah
ACC-1; GRAZ-3, 5; WSA-3
Kennedy, Anne
REC-8
Kennedy, Dennis
ACC-2
Kennedy, Richard
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Kennell, Marsha
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-2; WSR-1
Kenney, Mike
Kennicott, Carol
ACC-2
Kennicott, Philip
ACC-2
5.25
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Kenny, Gail
GRAZ-3; WSA-2
Kenny, Ray
REC-2
Kent, Tim
Kerley, Jay
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Kern, Linda and Robert
Kems, Becky
GRAZ-3; REC-1 2
Kertesz, Johanna
GRAZ-3
Kesler, Gale
Kessler, Bob
GEN-5; REC-1
Kester, Kelly
Kestler, Alean
Ketchner, Tristen
Key, Bill
Keys, John
Keys, Paul
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Kidd, Barron
GEN-7, 8, 22
Kiecker, Alan
ACC-7, 12
Kilb, Harry
Kilmer, K
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Kilmer, Kathy
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSR-1
Kimball, Nancy
REC-1, 8
Kindred, Lee
King, Allen
REC-1
King, D
King, George
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSR-1
King, James
King, Jereym
ACC-1; BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-5
King, Morris
Kingston, Mark
Kirby, Angela
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Kirk, Jeffrey
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Kirker, Donald
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Kirkwood, Jeff
Kirkwood, Kenneth
ACC-1 0
Kirsch, Vicki
Kisling, Scott
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Kissell, Fred
REC-2
Kitson, Judy
Kiver, Eugene
GEN-1; REC-2; WSA-2; WSR-4
Kizer, Ken and Lori
LAND-1 ; REC-2
Klaasen, Larry
ACC-1
Klein, Martin
ACC-5;BIO-4;REC-l,8
Klein, Thomas
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Kleinman, Jeanne
Kline, L. G.
REC-1
Klingener, Elyse
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Klock, Don
Klock, Nancy
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Klyfenstein, Ted
Knight, Mitzi
Knoales, G.
Knorr, Michael
ACC-5
Knowles, Jeff
Knudsen, Anna
ACC-5; WSA-2
Kobe, Kevin
Koedoot, Joel
ACC-5; GEN-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Koeppel, Eric
GEN-1, 5
Kofahl, Nathan
Kofford, Gary
Kohlstedt, B. J.
Kolanski, Kristin
LAND-1; REC-2
Kolosseus, Andrew
GRAZ-3
Kondelis, Michael
Koper, Teresa
ACC-5; REC-1
Kopp, Kenyon
Korfhage, David
ACC-1 0; REC-2; WSA-3
Komblet, Ben
GRAZ-1
Koslen, Danya
GEN-1, 22
Kost, Chris
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Kowallis, Bart
ACC-6; REC-1
Koyle, Curtis
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Koyle, Marcia
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Kraai, Albert
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Krakoff, Sarah
WSA-2
Kramer, Karry
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Kramer, Kenyon M.D.
Kranzler, Rod
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Krasik, Natallie
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Krause, Sarah
ACC-1; GRAZ-3
Krauss, Kathleen
GRAZ-3; WSA-2
Krefting, Steven
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; WSA-3;
WSR-1
Kreidel, Joe
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Kreider, Larry
Kremer, Eugene
ACC-10; WSA-2
Kremer, Mark
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Krems, Mark
Kresge, Gerald
ACC-5; WSA-2
Krils, Gail
Krissoff, William, M.D.
ACC-1
Kruase, Kitry
WSA-3
Krueger, Jay
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Krueger, Michelle
Krueger, Richard
WSA-2
Krupp, Catharine
GEN-5
Kuball, Bud
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Kubisiak, John
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Kuehl, Barbara
REC-2; WSR-6
Kuehl, LeRoy
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Kufe, Kim and David
ACC-2, 9, 15; GEN-7, 13,39
Kuhn, Dianna
Kuhn, Jeanine
ACC-1; GEN-1, 22; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WAT-4; WSA-2
Kuhn, Lisa
GEN-1, 22
Kuhnel, Ron
GEN-5; REC-1; WSA-2
Kuhns, William
ACC-10
Kulatilake, Siranjan
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Kummer, Bob
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Kuntz, William
Kurtz, Barbara
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSR-1
5.26
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Kurtz, Jason
ACC-13;GEN-l;GRAZ-3
Kurz, Jennifer
GRAZ-l;REC-2
Kutz, Julie
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-1, 3; WAT-4;
WSA-2
Kuykendall, Sheri
REC-8
Kwiecien, Jim
Lathell, Mike
LaBarou, Brock
GEN-1 1
Labon, Kimberly
Labouvie, Eric
LaBoyteaux, III John
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Labut, Martin
Ladd, Gary
Ladino, Jennifer
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
LaFevere, Kurt
Laffin, Marion
GRAZ-3
LaFramboise, Greg
GEN-5;REC-1; WSA-2
Lagergren, Henry
GRAZ-3
Lahn, Roger
ACC-1; GEN-1
Laird, Andrew
ACC-1; GEN-1, 22
Lakas, Julie
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Lake, James
Lake, S.
Lakso, John
REC-8
Lam, Howie
LaMar, George
GEN-1 6
Lamb, Alex
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13, 16; GRAZ-5;
REC-1
Lamb, Chaurill
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13, 16; GRAZ-5;
REC-1
Lamb, Sandy
REC-1, 3
Lamberger, Paul
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Lambert, Mark
GEN-1, 5
Lambert, Mary
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Lamborn, Burt
Lambom, Ed
Lambrechtse, Rudolf
ACC-1; GEN-1, 22; LAND-1; WSA-2;
WSR-6
Lamm, Ken and Dorothy
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Lamson, Glenn
Lanasenkamd, Bob
ACC-5; WSA-2
Lancaster, Layne
Lancaster, Sharon
Land, Tracy
REC-1
Landers, Glenn
ACC-10; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
Landretti, John
Landry, Arlene
ACC-1; GEN-1 1; REC-8
Lane, Alan
Lane, Arnold and Barbara
Lane, Earl
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSR-1
Lane, Earl
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-1; WSR-1
Lane, Robert
Lane, Vicky
Lang Pat
Langston, Sherolyn
ACC-12;GEN-13
Lanza, Michael
GEN-1 ; REC-2
LaPlume, Jeff
GRAZ-3; REC-2
LaPorte, Cherrie
REC-1 , 8
LaPorte, Mary
REC-1, 8
Larkin, Michael
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Larkin, Steve
ACC-7, 1 8, 24; GEN-1 1, 12; REC-1,
16, 19; WSR-3
LaRoche, Grant
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Larrabee, Edward
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-5; REC-2
Larrabee, Holly
ACC-2
Larrabee, Jessica
ACC-2
Larrabee, Julie
Larrabee, Steve
ACC-2
Larsen, Byran
ACC-5; GEN-1
Larsen, Curtis
Larsen, Dennis
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Larsen, Franz and Patty
ACC-10
Larsen, Gary
Larsen, Helen
ACC-2; GEN-9
Larsen, Jerry
Larsen, Kent
Larsen, Neil
Larsen, Nils
ACC-1; GEN-1, 22; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Larsen, Randy
Larsen, Rebecca
GEN-22
Larsen, Ronald
ACC-1, 5; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-1, 2
Larson, Craig
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Larson, Darren
GEN-5; REC-1
Larson, Howard
Larson, Keith
Larson, Kris
ACC-10; REC-2
Larson, Myq
Larson, Samuel
Larsson, G. Scott
Larte, William
Lassen, Michael and Wanda
Lauer, Gregg
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Laufer, Ray
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-1; REC-2
Laughlin, Shawn
Lauren, Alie
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Lavagnino Remo
ACC-10; REC-2
Lavery, Danel
GRAZ-3
Law, Wesley
LawTence-Skane, Melanie
REC-8
Lawson, Brian
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Lawson, Doris
GEN-23
Laxar, Daniel
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Lay, Darwin
Leach, Dallin
ACC-18; GEN-1, 13
Leach, Dustin
ACC-18; GEN-1, 13
Leach, Ua
ACC-18; GEN-1, 13
Leach, Ken
ACC-18; GEN- 13
Leach, Nicky
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Leach, Robert
ACC-18
Leach, Robert
GEN-1, 13
Leach, Travis
ACC-18; GEN-1, 13
Leach, Trevor
ACC-18; GEN-1, 13
Leach, Trevor
GEN-1, 13
Leachman, Mark
ACC-10; REC-2
Leautaud, John
Leaveck, Larry
5.27
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Leavitt, Arnold
Leavitt, Paul
Leavitt, Richard
Leavitt, Steve
Leboeuf, Armond
GRAZ-5; REC-2
LeDuc, Michael
Lee, Gayle
Lee, Gwendolyn
BIO-l;GEN-l
Lee, John
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Lee, Kjpp
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Lee, Lean
Lee, Russell
LeFevre, Barbie
LeFevre, Dell
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
LeFevre, Leslie
LeFevre, John
LeFevre, Reed
GEN-9
Lefler, Susan
GEN-7; GRAZ-1
Legel, Pat
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Legendre, Thomas
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Lehmann, David Jr.
Lehr, David
Lehrman, Leslie
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Leigh, Blade
Leister, Leslie
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Leizle, Earl
Lemke, Charles
Lemke, Melvin
Lemon, Ronald
Leno, Michael
Lenz, Dennis
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Leonard, Hal
Leondires, Mark
GEN-1
Lerner, Patti
ACC-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-1
Leston, Paul
Letendre, John
ACC-1, 10, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3;
LAND-1; WSA-2; WSR-1
Leutwyler, Glenda
REC-1, 8
Levering, Ed
REC-2
Levin, Ross
ACC-1; BIO-1; GEN-5; REC-2;
WSA-2
Levin, Steve
ACC-10; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Levine, Elissa
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Levine, Ronald
Levy, Madelyn and Richard
GEN-1, 22; WSA-2
Levy, Norm
REC-1, 4
Lewin, Phillip
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Lewis, James
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; WSA-1;
WSR-1
Lewis, Lance
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Lewis, Luann
Lewis, Marjorie
ACC-1
Lewis, Sam
Lewis, Shawn
Lewis, Stephen
GRAZ-3
Leydsman, E. Kim
Lezette, Janelle
Libengood, Ann
ACC-2
Licciardi, Yvonne
ACC-1
Lichtenstein, Gary
ACC-1; GEN-5
Lieben, Dave
Liebman, Joan
Liechty, Doug
Lien, David
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Lightbum, Robert and Anne
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-3
Lilback, Kenneth
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Lillywhite, Matthew
Limbert, Pat
Lindberg, Rebekah
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-5; REC-2, 10
Lindell, Dorothy
REC-8
Lindepod, Andy
REC-1, 2
Linderman, Curtis
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Lindmark, Sid
GEN-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Lindon, Matthew
Lindsay, Dan
Lindsey, J. Page
ACC-1, 5; REC-1
Linford, Duane
Linford, Fred
Ling-Mullins, Katherine
Linton, Ronald
Linwill, Rick
Lipman, James
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Lipmanson, Don and Joy
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Lippard, Chris
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Lippert, John
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Lippman, Steve
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSA-3; WSR-1
Lips, Chalo
Liscom, Linda
GRAZ-5
Lisiewski, Christine
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Lister, Wayne Jr.
Littell, Todd
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Little, Jamie
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Little, Karren
Little, Kenyon
ACC-2; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Little, Lane
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Littlefield, S.
Livingston, Curt
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Lloyd, R.
Lloyd, Thomas
Locey, Mary
GEN-22
Locker, Eric, M.D., PA.
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Locklear, Alan
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Loeb, David
GEN-1; WSA-2
Loeb, David
GEN-1; GEN-22; WSA-2
Loeb, Jason
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Loeb, Susanna
Loeoman, Carolyn
REC-8
Lofton, Harry
GEN-5; REC-2
Loftus, Robert
Lohmeier, Henry
Lombard, Johanna
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5, 22; WSA-2
London, Robert
GRAZ-3
Long, Bill
ACC-1
Long, David
Long, Ernie
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Long, John
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Long, Kathryne
Long, Randy
Long, Steven
Longson, Barbara
5.28
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Loniak, Walter
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Loomis, Carol
ACC-1
Looser, Mark
Loosli, Joel
Lord, Lynwood
Lorence, Leonard
GEN-1;REC-1,2
Lorton, Molly
GEN-5;REC-1
Loser, Tim
Lott, Anthony
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Louder, Betty
ACC-1
Louise, Kattiana
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Love, William
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Loveless, Bruce
Loveless, Greg
Loveless, Jesse
Low, Jeff
GEN-5; REC-1
Low, Susan
ACC-10
Lowery, Tom
ACC-2
Lowrance, David
ACC-1
Lucas, Kara
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Lucas, Laird
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3,5
Lucas, Lawrence
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Lucas, Mark
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Luccas, Beth
GEN-1, 5
Ludwig, Nephi
Luedecke, Alison
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Lueders, Edward
ACC-10; GRAZ-5
Luke, Leora
Lukens, Paul
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Lukes, Rodney
Lund, Carolyn
Lund, Terry
Lundahl, Miles
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Lundin, Aaron
Lunt, J. R.
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Lupetin, Guerino Jr.
GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Lussier, Christine
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Lut, Drew
Luttrell, Mark
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Lutz, John
Lyman, Clisbee
Lyman, Larry
Lyman, Venice
Lyon, Gary
Lyon, Thomas
REC-2
Lyons, Daniel
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Lyons, Deborah
REC-8
Lyons, Laura
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Lyran, Willie
MacFarlane, Bruce
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Machara, Joe
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Mack, Bobby and Carolyn
Mackelsprang, Roy
GEN-1
MacKenzie, Doug
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Mackey, John
MacLaggan, Andrew
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
MacLaren, Gary
MacNulty, Joy
MacRay, David
Madden, Cher
ACC-10
Maddox, John
Madsen, Chris
WSR-1
Madsen, Lee
ACC-10
Madsen, M
Maestors, Denis
Magleby, Kirk
Magnuson, Launie
Magnuson, Rulon
Maher, Lee
GEN-1; REC-2
Main, Steven
Mainland, Edward
ACC-10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Maino, Michael and Michaeline
REC-1
Maisonpierre, Michael
REC-2; WSA-2
Majewski, Glen
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Major, Lisa
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Majors, Alexa
ACC-5, 1 3 ; GEN-1 ; GRAZ-3 ; WSA-2
Makarick, Lori
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Malavenda, Peter
Malen, Kari
ACC-1
Malkin, Catherine
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Malley, Christopher
Malone, William
REC-10
Maloney, Casey
Maloney, Ken and Julie
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-3
Manaster, Pat
GEN-1; GRAZ-1; WSR-1
Manger, Tiffany
GEN-1, 22
Mangour, Gary
Mangum, Dallas
Mangum, Joe
Mangum, Ron
Maninger, Sarah
WSA-2
Manning, Dan Jr.
Mansfield, Donald
Manskopf, Dirk
Manvel, Evan
ACC-1; WSA-1
Manymules, Jayson
ACC-9
Manzi, Aline
Manzo, Mitchell
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
MaQuarrie, Marty
ACC-7
Marchun, Brian
Marcus, Barbara
REC-8
Marcus, Tom
Maree, Gary and Karla
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Maret, Jack
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Marinelli, Bamey
GEN-7; GRAZ-3; WSA-3
Mark, Linda
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Mark, Robert
GEN-1; WAT-4
Markeloff, Richard
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Marks. Richard
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Marlatt, Jeanne
WSA-2
Marler, Dewey
Marotta, Caroline
ACC-10; WAT-4; WSA-2
Marquardt, Steve
Marquis, Aleura
Marquis, Kaylee
Marquis, Pam
Marquis, Roberta
Marquis, Steve
5.29
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Marrham, Travis
Marsh, Wim
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Marshall, Gwen
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-1 ; REC-2; WSA-3
Marshall, Jon
Marshall, Loren
ACC-1 0
Marshall, Michael
Martell, Craig
REC-1
Martin, Andrew
ACC-1
Martin, Ben
REC-2; WSA-3
Martin, Ben
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Martin, Bennett
Martin, Bill
Martin, Curtis
ACC-1
Martin, Diane
ACC-5
Martin, Dianne
REC-8
Martin, Jeffrey
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Martin, Mike
Martin, Paul
Martin, Reed
Martineau, Valerie
REC-8
Martinez, James
Martinez, Jason
ACC-2
Marvel, Jon
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Maslin, Mindy
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Mason, Jeff
ACC-1
Mason, Marty
Massouh, Paula
GEN-1;LAND-1
Masters, Michael
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Masterson, Raymond
Masvr, David
ACC-1 ;GEN-1; WAT-4
Mathews, David
BIO-5; REC-1
Mathews, Dillon
REC-1
Mathews, Trent
Mathie, Gordon
ACC-1 0
Mathis, Allyson
GEN-1; WAT-4; WSA-3; WSR-1
Mathis, Use
REC-2
Mathis, Jeff
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Matson, Joan
Matsumoto, Sarah
ACC-1 0;WSA-2
Matthews, Christopher
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; LAND-1 ; REC-2;
WSR-1
Matthews, Greg
Matthews, Jaxon
LAND-1 ; REC-2
Matthews, Jonathan
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Matthews, Scott
Mattis, Michelle
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Matula, Arthur
GRAZ-1 ; REC-2
Maugh, Colby
Maure, Frances
GEN-1, 5
Mauren, Charles
Maurer, Richard
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-1; REC-2
Maxwell, Cody and Carl
Maxwell, Richard
REC-8
May, Sharon
ACC-1; BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3;
REC-2
Maycok, Melanie
GRAZ-3
Mayer, Ken
GRAZ-1; REC-7
Mayers, Margaret
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Mayes, David
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Maynard, Paul
REC-8
McAfee, Mary and Chuck
GEN-1 ; GRAZ-3, 4; WSA-3
McAllister, Diane
ACC-1 8; GEN-1; GEN-1 3
McAllister, Evan
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; WSR-3, 4
McAllister, Keith
B10-5;GEN-13
McAllister, Mark
McAllister, Ruby
ACC-10; GEN-22
McAllister, Theo
McAllister, Zona
McAnderews, Pat
REC-8
McArther, Douglas
McArthur, Jim and Angie
McBath, Andrew
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
McBride, Michael
McBride, Rebecca
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
McBride, ST.
McCallan, Norma
REC-2
McCann, Alan
GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
McCann, Gregory
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
McCann.-Sayles Alan
ACC-1; GEN-1; LAND-1; WSR-1
McCarley, Donald
McCart, Tracy
McCarthy, Craig
McCarthy, John
GRAZ-5; REC-2
McCarvill, William
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-2;
REC-8; WAT-2
McClatchie, William
ACC-2
McCleary, John
McCleave, Julie
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
McClellan, Danny
McClellan, H.
McClellan, Sandra
McClellan, Velyn
McClendon, Mike
ACC-2
McCloy, Marjorie
GRAZ-3; REC-2
McCloy, Marjorie
McClure, Dayna
ACC-5; WSA-2
McCollom, Jerome
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
McCord, Marilyn
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
McCowan, Milo
McCowin, Jarred
McCoy, Elizabeth
WSA-3
McCoy, Gordon
McCoy, Jay
ACC-2
McCoy, Jeff
GRAZ-1
McCoy, Katherine and Michael
ACC-1, 10
McCoy, Ted
McCoy, Thomas
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
McCracken, Neil
McCreary, Tom
ACC-5; GEN-2; GRAZ-3, 5
McCue, Frank
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-1
McCue, Joyce
ACC-1; BIO-4; GRAZ-5
McCue, Patrick
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
WSR-1
McCullogh, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
5.30
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
McCullough, Claire
ACC-1;WSA-3;WSR-1
McCullough, Kathleen
BIO-4; GRAZ-3; REC-1 , 8; WSA-3
McCullum, Jerry
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
McDaniel, Larry
McDaniel, Melissa
GRAZ-5; REC-2
McDonald, Elizabeth
GRAZ-3; REC-2
McDonald,.Faye
GRAZ-1; REC-2
McDonald, Hollie
McDonald, Larry
ACC-1
McDonald, S.
ACC-10
McDowell, Terry
McElhaney, Dustin
McElhaney, Richard
McElhaney, Sharon
McElrea, David
McFarland, Brett
McFarland, Donald and Winnie
ACC-2
McFarlane, Kurt
McFarlane, Sadie
McFetridge, Wayne
McGann, Donald
McGhee, Kate
GEN-22
McGlinsky, Al and Lee
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2
McGovem, Tim
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
McGrath, Jill
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
McGregor, Martin
REC-2
McGuire, Matthew
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-5;
LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-1,2;WSR-1
McGuire, Shanna
McHegh, Don
Mclntire, Karen
ACC-10
McKay, Scott
ACC-1; LAND-1
McKee, Dan
McKee, Norman
B10-l,4;GEN-l;WAT-4
McKee, Robert
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Mckeighen, Daniel
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
McKenney, Glen
McKenzy, Mack
REC-1
McKhann, Margie
ACC-1; GRAZ-5
McKiman, David
GEN-1 1; REC-2; WSR-1
McKnight, Terry and Jana
McLain, Sue
REC-8
McLaughlin, Robert
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
McLean, Matt
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5, 11; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
McMenoman, Michael
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
McMichael, Malcolm
McMillen, Kevin
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
McMillian, Laura
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
McMollough, Rayo
GEN-1 2, 22; WSR-6
McMurtry, Duane
McNabb Andrew
ACC-10; LAND-1; REC-2
McNair, Connie
GRAZ-3; REC-2
McNamara, Laura
McNeal, M
REC-1, 8
McNeece, Vivian
GEN-1; GRAZ-1; WSA-2
McNeil, Karlyn
REC-2
McNelis, Richard
REC-8
McNerd, James
McNobb, Alison
LAND-1; REC-2
McNulty, J.P.
GEN-5; REC-1; WSA-2
McNulty, Tim
WSA-2
Mcoy, Ted
McPhail, Michael
ACC-10; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
McQuire, Matt
ACC-10; LAND-1; REC-2
McRae, Marie
REC-8
Meacham, Cristy
Mean, Brad
Meaueau, William
Mecham , A. Quang
Mecham, Brannon
REC-1
Mecham, Christine
GEN-12
Mecham, Donald, Viola, Donald,
Wayne
Mecham, Jerry
Mecham, Lowell
ACC-2, 20; BIO-4, 5; GEN-1 5, 36, 38,
39; LAND-1;
REC-1 7
Mecham, Melain and Merrilie
GEN-1 3
Mecham, Marian and Malen
ACC-2, 12; GEN-1
Mecham, Stan
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Medford, Joan
ACC-10
Medford, Terry
ACC-10
Medley, J. Kyle
Meeds, Debbie
Meeks, Graydon
Mehan, Dave
ACC-1 2; GEN-1; REC-2; WSA-2
Mehl, Harry
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Mehling, Chris
ACC-1
Meigs, James
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WAT-4;
WSA-3
Mekolites, Edward
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Mellard, Jonathan
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Mellinger, J. Carl
Mellor, Reed
Melloy, Mark
Melton, Blake
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Meltzer, William
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Memmer, Marie
Memmott, Kelly
Menon, Gregory
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Merenda, Veronica
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Merges, Valerie
Merrell, Ted
Merrill, Chad
Merrlet, Graig
Meshek, Mike
WSA-2
Messenger, Thomas
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Messenger, Thomas
GEN-1, 5
Messer, John
WAT-4; WSA-2
Messier, Bob
Messmer, Terry
Mesting, Cheua
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Metcalf, Sara
REC-8
5.31
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Metcalf, Tom and Karen
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Mettenheison, Mark
ACC-10
Metz, Patricia
Metzger, Roger
Metzger, Vinnie
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Meyer, Fred
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Meyer, Keith
Micciche, Joe
Michael, Sarah
ACC-1
Micheletti, Garrick
Michie, Bob
Michl, Sara
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Michniewicz, Ed
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Michniewicz, Edward
ACC-1 3; GEN- 1; GRAZ-3
Mickelsen, Mack
Middendorf, John
GRAZ-1
Middendorg, John
GRAZ-1
Middleton, Betsy
Mihailov, Amy
Milby, Lyle
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Miles, Dustin
Miles, Gail
BIO-5
Miles, Martha
Miles, Miranda
Millard, Andrew
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Millard, Andrew
ACC-10; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-2,
3
Miller, Allen
Miller, Anna
Miller, Bob
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3; 5
Miller, Bonnie
REC-8
Miller, Carole
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Miller, Charles
Miller, Conrad
Miller, D
Miller, Dan
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Miller, David
GEN-5, 22
Miller, David
GEN-5
Miller, Dean
REC-1
Miller, Dennis
Miller, Donald
Miller, Donald
ACC-1, 2, 14, 16
Miller, Dusty, Rick, Jane and Lucas
ACC-1 ; GEN-23; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Miller, Dwayne
Miller, Emest
Miller Family
Miller, Gerald
Miller, Howard
ACC-10; WSR-3
Miller, Jack
REC-2
Miller, Jenifer and Neil
ACC-10; GRAZ-1; REC-2
Miller, Lucinda
WSA-3
Miller, Lynn
Miller, Larry
Miller, M. Stephen
REC-2
Miller, Nick
ACC-2
Miller, Norm
ACC-1
Miller, Ray
Miller, Rob
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Miller, Ronda
Miller, Sarah
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Miller, Thomas
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Miller, Tom
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Miller, Wes
Millett, Amanda
Millett, Ammande
ACC-2
Millett, Elsmor
Millett, Linda
ACC-2
Millett, Lloyd
ACC-2, 10; GEN-1 3, 43, 45; GRAZ-3,
5; LAND-1, 4, 5; REC-1; WSA-2
Millett, Lloyd Jr.
Millett, Steve
Milligan, Archie
Millikan, Carol
ACC-1
Millner, Stephen
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Mills, Mathew
Millward, Brent
Millward, Bynn
Milner, Bill
Milner, Doris
ACC-1; WSA-3 ■
Milner, Ernest
Mims, Willa
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Minas, Russell
GEN-1, 5
Minater, Adam
ACC-1; GEN-3
Miner, Glen
Mingo, Richard
ACC-4
Mings, Latricia
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Minkin, Jordan
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Minks, Ron
Minter, Rosemary
REC-1
Minton, Charles
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Minton, Kekuni
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Mintz, Leigh and Carol
Minzer, Sharon
REC-2
Misley, Dan
Missick, Lorn
Mitchell, Albert
Mitchell, Chuck
Mitchell, David
ACC-2, 3; BIO-5
Mitchell, Harvey and Kanna
Mitchell, Heidi
Mitchell, Jim
REC-8
Mitchell, P
Mitchell, Scott
Mitchell, Sherrie
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Mittelstadt, Beverly
ACC-3
Mittelsteadt, Scott
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Mitts, Nancy
REC-8
Mo, Angela
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; REC-2;
WSA-3; WSR-1
Mockler, Amanda
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Moder, Timothy
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Moeller, Shere
WAT-4; WSA-2
Moench, Meredith
Moffat, Paul
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Moffit, Jen
Mofu, W. Mark
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Mohle, James
Moiseyev, Maya
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; WSA-3; WSR-1
Moler, Mary Ann
Molle, Jason
Moller, L. Jack
5.32
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Mone, Carol
WSA-2
Monkman, Jerry
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Monqris, Jerry
Monroy, Julio
Montemayor, Drusilla
REC-8
Montgomery, Paul
Moon, Blake
Moore, Andy
Moore, Barry
ACC-1 0; REC-2
Moore, Bill
REC-2
Moore, Billy
Moore, Charles
GEN-1;GRAZ-1; REC-2
Moore, Erin
ACC-1; GEN-1, 22
Moore, Frankie
REC-7
Moore, Gayle
ACC-2
Moore, James
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Moore, Judith
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Moore, Kitty
,GRAZ-1
Moore, Lula
Moore, Rick
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
Moore, Ryan
ACC-8
Moore, Wade
ACC-8; GRAZ-5
Moore, William
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Moot, Patric
Moraczewski, Jan
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Moretta, Keith
REC-1,3
Morgan, Dave
Morgan, David
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; WSA-2, 3
Morgan, Martin
ACC-1
Morgan, Michael
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Morgan, Rosina
GEN-5; REC-1
Morgan, Sandra
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Morgenstein, David
Morgenthaler, R. D.
Morreale, Raphael
ACC-2; REC-1
Morrell, Christine
Morrill, Ruston
Morrill, Stan
Morris, Arlene
Morris, Daryl
Morris, Frank
Morris, Gary
GEN-1; LAND-1
Morris, Gregg
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Morris, Jim and Lori
Morris, Joy
ACC-1; GRAZ- 1,3, 5
Morrison, Brad
ACC-2, 10
Morrissey-Pulvers, Carrie Ann
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Morse, Milo
Moseley, Carl
REC-2
Moseley, Charles and Marie
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Moser, Richard
GRAZ-1
Moskowitz, Lauren
Mosle, Daniel
Moss, Jacob
REC-1
Moss, Larry
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Moss, Perry and Joan
Mossman, Robert
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Mostek, Mr. and Mrs. Raymond
Motes, Preston Jr.
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Mott, Jenna
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Motter, Joe
GEN-5; GRAZ-1; WSA-3
Mount, Justin
GRAZ-3; WSA-3
Mount, Michael
Movsky, Rick
ACC-1; GEN-1; WSA-2
Moyers, Mitch and Laurie
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13, 16; GRAZ-5;
REC-1
Muelhauser, Steven
ACC-10;GEN-16
Mueller, Gerald
Mueller, Robert
GRAZ-1, 3; REC-2; WSA-3
Muir, Keith
Mujica-Crapanzano, Laura
Mull, Bill
GEN-1; LAND-1
Muller, David
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Mullin, Timothy Jr.
Mulrooney, Garrett III
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Mulvaney, Dustin
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Munger, Maynard
REC-8
Munk, Dave
GEN-1, 5
Munk, Jerry
Munson, Mavis
ACC-1 0;WSR-4
Munson, Robert
ACC-1 0;WSR-4
Murdock, Ken
Murdock, Todd
GEN-22
Murphy, Patricia
GEN-9; LAND-1; REC-1
Murray, Greg
Murray, Maureen
Murray, Michele
ACC-10; REC-2; WSA-2
Murraygreen, Ryo
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Mutel, Robert
ACC-10; GEN-5; WSA-2
Myers, Barbara
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Myers, Mary
REC-8
Myers, Wanda
REC-8
Myers, Wayne
GEN-22
Myes, Rande and Helen
ACC-1; REC-2
Naftel, William, M.D.
REC-1
Nagengast, Derk
Nagler, Marilyn
GRAZ-1
Nagorka, Patricia
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Naille, R. Allen II
ACC-2
Natyle, Noah
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2
Neal, Amber
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Nebeker, Darin, Lori, Jason, Jared,
Kyle and Becky
Nee, Shannon
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Nedeshy, David
Neehart, Mara
Neff, Reta
REC-2
Nefstead, Marjorie
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5, 11; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Nefstead, Paul
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5, 11; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Nehour, Bryant
Neilsen, Neil
Neilson, Jimmy
5.33
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Neiman, Paul
ACC-l,10;REC-2;WSA-2
Nelsen, Tom .
Nelson, Brett
GRAZ-3
Nelson, Cynthia
GEN-l,13;GRAZ-5
Nelson, Dan
Nelson, Dave
REC-2
Nelson, Dick
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Nelson, Don
Nelson, Elisa
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Nelson, Garth
Nelson, Herbert and Mildred
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Nelson, Janet
ACC-1
Nelson, Jeffrey
Nelson, John
Nelson, John
Nelson, Karen
REC-8
Nelson, Karyn and John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Nelson, Kristi
Nelson, Lonnie
Nelson, Scott
ACC-10; REC-2
Nelson, Tresa
Nericand, Rodney
ACC-2
Nesewich, Nancy
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Nesta-Berry, Jean
ACC-1 3; GEN-1
GRAZ-3
Netuschil, Pamela
REC-8
Neunzert, Martin and Arleigh
GRAZ-1
Newbauer, Joanne
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Newcomer, Joseph
REC-2
Newell, Christina
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Newell, Harry
ACC-3
Newell, Robert
Newfarmer, Terry
ACC-2
Newkirk, Lorraine
GEN-1, 5, 11; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
WSR-1
Newman, Brownie
GRAZ-3
Newman, Dave
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Newman, Ezra
GEN-1; WSA-3
Newman, J.
ACC-1; GEN-1
Newman, Michael
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Newson, Valerie
REC-1,8
Nguyen, Emily
Nice, Salim
REC-8
Nicholl, David
GRAZ-3; WSA-3
Nichols, Chuck and Judy
ACC-1, 10; GEN-5; GRAZ-1, 3;
REC-2
Nichols, Gary
WSR-6
Nichols, J.
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Nichols, Lyle
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Nichols, Michael
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Nichols, Nick
BlO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-3
Nickell, Mr. and Mrs. Howard
Nickelson, Lee
Nickles, Duncan
Nicocodemos, Tim
Nielsen, Barry
ACC-1 2
Nielsen, Judith
Nielson, Donna
Nielson, James
Nielson, Jay
Nielson, Stephen
Nielson, Tom
Nielson, Tom and Sherece
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Niles, Kate
GEN-1; REC-2
Nileson, Lowell
Nilson, Ralph
Ninnemann, John and Laura
ACC-10; REC-2; WSA-
Nishio, John
GEN-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2, 12
Nishwander, Ruth
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Nixon, Scott
Noble, Andy
Noirot, L. Deane and Neva
Nonnenna, Amy
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Norine, Jim
ACC-2
Norman, Jon
Norman, Judith
REC-2; WSA-2
Norris, James
ACC-20; BIO-5; GEN-1 3; GRAZ-3, 5;
REC-1
Norris, Susan and Kenneth
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
North, Glenn
Northrop, Clay
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-2
Norton, Daylan
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Norton, Judith
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Norton, Robert
ACC-1 6
Nostier, Mary Ann
Noteboom, Jim and Family
Noteman, A
ACC-2; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Noteman, Laurali
ACC-2; GEN-13; GRAZ-5
Noteman, Rhett
ACC-2; GEN-13; GRAZ-5
Notestine, Jim and Iris
GEN-1; REC-2
Novak, Lisa
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Nowicki, Diane
GEN-5; WSA-3
Noyes, Weston
Numan, David
Nunn, Sarah
ACC-5; WSA-2
Nutting, John
Nye, Rich
Nyland, Bill
Nystrom, David
O'Brien, Bob
O'Brien, James Jr.
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
O'Cannon, David
O'Connor, Kathryn
GEN-5
O'Donnell, Julie
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
O'Donnell, Matt
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
O'Dowd, Bill
O'Hara, Michael
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
O'Herin, Buck
REC-2
O'Keefe, Thomas
ACC-1
O'Leary, Cathy
BIO-4; GRAZ-1
O'Malley, Lauren
ACC-1; GEN-1
O'Malley, Nancy
O'Mara, Philip
O'Neal, Denny
GEN-5; GRAZ-5
ONeil, Lynn and Cindy
ACC-10; WSA-3
5.34
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
O'Neill, Eleni
Oakley, David
Oaks, David
Oates, Doug
REC-19
Oatney, Steve
Oberholtzer, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Oberto, Steve
Oborn, Gordon
Odell, Wesley
ACC-5; REC-2; WSA-2, 3
Oder, Danila
GEN-22
Oestreich, Dennis
ACC-1;GEN-1,5
Ogden, Bryce
Ogden, Darwin
Ogden, Michael
Oglesby, Dave
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Ohanian, Laura
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Ohendalski, David
Ohlsen, William
GEN-1,22
Okerlund, David
Okerlund, Gail
Okin, Greg
Oldroyd, Candace
Oldroyd, Gordon
Oldroyd, Robert
Oldroyel, Fran
Oliver, Charles
Oliver, Thomas
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Olivero, Michael
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Olsen, Brent
Olsen, Connie
Olsen, Darwin
Olsen, David
Olsen, David
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; LAND-
REC-2; WSR-1
Olsen, Gary
Olsen, Ken
Olsen, Marc
GEN-23; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; WSR-1
Olsen, Parry
Olsen, Phillip
Olson, Daniel
Olson, David
Olson, Kelly
Olson, Lonnette
REC-8
Olson, Marc
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Olson, Marcus
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1 ; REC-2;
WSR-1
Olson, Stephen
Olszta, Daniel
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Olyamik, Suzanne
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2
Onks, Mary
Oppenheimer, Jonathan
GRAZ-1
Orcholski, Gerald
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Ordal, Leslie
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Orgain, Peter and Carol
GEN-1
Orme, June
GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Orndorff, Kim
Orr, David
BlO-1 , 4; GEN-1 ; GRAZ-1 ; WSR-1
Orr, Nancy
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Osbom, Julie
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Osborne, Michele
GEN-1, 22; REC-2
Oscarson, Ed
Oss, Earl
Osterhout, Jeff
ACC-10;GEN-1,5
Ostler, Robinson
Oswald, Fred
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2
Oswald, Joyce
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Oswald, Lindsey
ACC-5; GEN-22; REC-2; WSA-2
Oswald, W. Wyatt
ACC-10; WSA-2
Oths, Kathryn
GEN-1, 5
Ott, Charlie
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3; REC-2
Ott, Ecko
REC-1
Ott, J. Robert
ACC-2, 12, 17;BIO-5;GEN-13;
LAND-1
Ott, Kolter
ACC-2
Ott, Mira
ACC-2, 12, 17; BIO-5; GEN-13;
LAND-1
Ott, Patricia
REC-1, 2
Ott, Richard
Ott, Vickie
Ottenberg, Marjorie
ACC-1, 10
Oveson, Paul
Owchar, Ann
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Owen, Bessie
ACC-1 ; WSA-2; WSR-4
Owen, Jennifer
GRAZ-3
Owen, T.
Owen, Langdon Jr.
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Owens, Barbara
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2, 3
Owens, Doug
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Owens, Hunter
ACC-1; WSA-2; WSR-1
Owens, Lorin
Owens, Mark
Owens, Merrill
Oxley, James
Pace, Ben
Pace, Darren
ACC-10; REC-2; WSA-3
Pace, David
Pace, Gordon
Pace, Layne
Pace, Rudolph
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Pack, Russell
ACC-1; WSA-3
Pace, Stephen
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Paentice-Dunn, Steven
GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSA-3
Page, Alan
Pagen, Timothy James
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Pagenstecher, Walemar
ACC-2
Painter, Steve
Painton, Larry
GRAZ-3
Palen, Howard
Palfreyman, Clark
REC-8
Palley, Kenneth
WAT-4; WSA-2
Palm, Jason
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Palmblad, Ivan
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Palmer, Elizabeth
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Pamperin, John
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Pan, David
Pana, Dave
Pankow, Carolyn
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,5; REC-2 ; WSA-3
Pankratz, Scott
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Panter, Adrienne
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-3
Papciak, Mike
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Pardee, Catherine
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
5.35
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Parish, MacDell
Park, Brian
Park, Jen
Park, Robert
ACC-13;GEN-l;GRAZ-3
Park, Kimberly
Parker, Andrew
ACC-1
Parker, Branden
Parker, Elaine
REC-1, 8
Parker, Ellen and Ted
Parker, John
GEN-1
Parker, Margaret
ACC-1
Parker, Tom
REC-8
Parks, David
ACC-1; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSR-1
Parr, Ann
REC-8
Parrish, Linda and Kenneth
REC-8
Parrish, Lye
Parrish, Robert
GEN-5; REC-1
Parry, Ronald
LAND-1; REC-2
Parry, Scott
Parsons, Perry
Parsons, Randy
ACC-2
Parzych, Christopher
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Pasekoff, Dorene
ACC-10; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
Patalik, Edward
GRAZ-4, 5;REC-18
Paterson, Charlie
ACC-10; GEN-1; REC-2
Patrick, Michael
Patten, Jane
Patterson, Dennis
ACC-10
Patton, Hi and Lois
ACC-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-5; WSR-1
Patton, Kristen
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Pau, Paul
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Paull, Steven
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Paulson, Diane
Pavord, Marcy and Tony
REC-1, 8
Pay, Clair
Payne, Cory
Payne, Dwight
Payne, Ray
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Pazich, Michael
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Pearson, Dave
Pearson, Dave
ACC-12; REC-2
Pearson, Mark
ACC-10; REC-2
Pearson, Owen and Carol
BIO-4; REC-8
Pease, Elizabeth
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Peay, Brad
Pech, Nanaye
BIO-1
Peck, Henry
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Peck, Mary and Maurice
Peck, Michael
Pedersen, Megan
REC-1
Pedersen, Preston
ACC-2
Pedersen, Scott
Pedersen, Rex Jr.
Pederson, Joel
Pederson, Rovor
Pedro, LaRee
Peek, Jerry
GEN-1, 22; WSA-2
Peeples, Charles
Pelkey, Jo
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Pen, Charles
Penderey, Bruce
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Penhaligen, Charles
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Pennart, Sherye
Penner, Michele
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Penniston, Gregory
Perkins, Dale
Perkins, Ray
REC-2
Perkins, Leroy
Perkio, Steven
ACC-2
Pero, Dominic
Perri, Chris
REC-2; WSA-3
Perri, Sedren
Perry, Hal
Perry, Seth
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Persons, Wayne
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Petelle, Michael
GRAZ-1
Petencin, Don
GRAZ-1
Peters, Wayne
ACC-1
Petersen, Birk
Petersen, Doug
Petersen, George
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Petersen, Les
Petersen, Mike
GRAZ-1, 4
Petersen, Peggy
Petersen, Rex
Petersen, Sue
ACC-1; GEN-1; LAND-1; REC-2
Peterson, Alan
Peterson, Anna
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Peterson, Anne
GEN-1
Peterson, Blake
Peterson, Bradley
Peterson, Bradley
Peterson, Dewain
Peterson, Donald
ACC-1, 10; GEN-5; GRAZ-5; REC-2;
WSR-1
Peterson, Hillary
GEN-5; GRAZ-3; WSR-1
Peterson, Lori
ACC-10
Peterson, Robert
Peterson, Roger
ACC-5; GEN-29; WSA-2
Peterson, Rollo
Peterson, Steven
Peterson, Thomas
GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Peterson, Troy
Petersons, The
Peterson, Gerold
Petite, Duane
GEN-1; REC-8; WSR-1
Petrich, Shirley
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Petrik, Anne and Gene
Pettegrew, Daniel
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Pettit, Dan
ACC-1; REC-2
Pettit, Daniel
ACC-1; LAND-1; REC-2; WAT-2
Pettit, Marie
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Pettus, D. Lindsay
Petty, Guy
Pham, Phat
ACC-10; GRAZ-3; WSA-3
Phelps, Kelsey
ACC-7
Philion, Jennifer
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Phillips, Robert
Piani, James
Piatt, Robert
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Pickles, Mark
5.36
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Pierce, Melinda
GRAZ-3
Pierson, Dianne
Pierson, Judith
REC-2
Pike, Judy
Pilhoski, Frank
ACC-13; GEN- 1; GRAZ-3
Pillmore, Dorm
GEN-13;REC-1
Pillmore, Melanie
GEN-13;REC-1
Pinder, Maggie
ACC-2, 7
Piper, D.
Piper, Robert
Pitcher, Kory
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3, 5
Pitula, John
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Planck, Rod and Marlene
ACC-1; GEN-3; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Piatt, Dave
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Piatt, Krista
REC-1
Pockman, William
ACC-1; GEN-5; REC-1; WSA-2
Pogliano, Loren
ACC-1 0; REC-2
Poindexter, Charlotte
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Pokomy, Rhea
Pokomy, Steve
GEN-22
Pokomy, Tami
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Pollock, David
BIO-5
Pollock, Lonnie
GRAZ-5
Pollock, Megan
ACC-2; REC-1
Pollock, Shanon
ACC-2
Pollock, Shayne
Pollock, David Jr.
BIO-5; GEN-1; REC-1
Poor, Catherine
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Pope, Judy
ACC-1; WSA-2
Pope, Kelley
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Pope, Alice, Ph. D.
ACC-1 ; BIO-1 ; GEN-5; REC-2;
WSA-2
Popolizio, Carlo
GEN-1, 5
Port, David
ACC-1; GEN-7
Porter, Blain
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Porter, Keneth
Porter, Vergean
ACC-2
Portzi, Pam
Post, Paula
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Poster, Bruce
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Potter, Bernice and James
Potter, Gary
Potter, Holly
WSA-2
Potter, John
ACC-2
Potts, Gail
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Potts, Taylor
Poulsen, Donald
Poulsen, Erin
Poulson, Blaine
Powell, George
Powell, Rod
Pratt, David
REC-2
Pratt, Donna
Pratt, Elizabeth
ACC-1; WAT-4
Pratt, Kathleen and David
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Pratt, Rick
ACC-1; BIO-1; GEN-1
Prescott, Jack
REC-1
Preston, Scott
Prevo, Suzette
GEN-1
Prezulman, Robert
GEN-1
Price, Ed
ACC-1; WAT-4; WSA-2
Price, Evan
Price, Keith
Price, Lisa
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-3
Price, William
Prisbrey, Jay
Pritchett, Clyde
Pritchett, Robert
Probert, David
Probst, Luke
REC-1
Proe, Steven
REC-8
Proescholdt, Kevin
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Proett, Paul
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 ,5,11; LAND-1 ;
REC-2; WSR-1
Promer, Virginia and Wilhelm
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Prose, Doug
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-1
Prosser, Lynn
Provost, John
Pruden, Steven and Michelle
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Pruitt, John
Pugh, Arkay
ACC-5; BIO-1 ; GEN-1 ; GRAZ-5
Pugh, Burt
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Pugh, Ian
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Pugh, Roger and Kathleen
ACC-5, 18; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5;
REC-1
Pugh, Scott
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Pugh, Susan
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Purrington, Mark
Puzey, Kim
Pyne,Todd
Pyper, Mark
Quails, Michael
Queley, Jill
Questad, Erin
ACC-5, 10; WSA-2
Quinn, Adda
REC-8
Quinn, Eunice
REC-8
Quinn, L.
Rabiger, David
GEN-1
Raby, Kim
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Rachel, Naomi
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Rackham, Rick
Radebaugh, Jani
GEN-1; REC-1, 2
Radkowsky, Michael
Radovich, Nicholas
GRAZ-1, 3; WSA-3
Radovich, Nick
Rafferty, Scott
Ramey, Robert
ACC-2
Ramirez, Jessica
ACC-2; REC-1
Ramirez, Michelle
ACC-2; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Rampe, Glenn
GRAZ-3
Ramsay, Grant
ACC-1 6
Ramsey, Robert
ACC-24; GEN-9, 13, 15,30,39,40,43,
44; REC-1, 10, 12, 19;WSR-3
5.37
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Randall, Donna
ACC-2; GEN-13;GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1
Randall, Larry and Maria
REC-1
Randle, David
GEN-9, 15;REC-12
Randolph, Betty
Randolph, Brian
Raney, Bob
ACC-10; GEN-5; REC-2
Rango, William
ACC-1; GEN-1; WAT-4; WSA-2
Ranish, James
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Ransen, Reuben
Ransom, Sara
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Rappaport, Deborah
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-3
Rargel, Ruben
ACC-10
Ras, Ron
Rasaband, P
ACC-3
Rasi, Neil
Rasmussen, Grant
Rasmussen, John
Rasmussen, Lee
Rasmussen, Rue
Rasmussen, Terrill
Rasmussen, Dr. J.
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Rasmusson, Keith
Rasof, Henry
Ratemke, Gordon
ACC-2
Rathman, Justin
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Ratigan, Karen
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Ratoike, Billie
ACC-2
Rauzen, Mark
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Rawling, Geoffrey
GEN-22; WSR-1
Rawlins, Larry
Ray, Duane
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Ray, Gissela
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Ray, Richard
ACC-10; GEN-1; LAND-1 ; REC-2;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Rayboer, Rebecca
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Raymond, Brenden
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Raymond, Julie
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Real, Carolyn
Reardon, David
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Reardon, Scott
REC-2
Rechel, Eric
GRAZ-3; WSA-2
Record, Lucille
Redd, David
Redish, Laura
WSA-3
Redland, Den
Reed, Bob
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Reed, Dawn
ACC-5; REC-1
Reed, Melinda
GEN-1
Rees, Michael
GEN-19, 20, 21; GRAZ-3; REC-2, 10
Reese, David
Reeves, Katherine
Regan, Allison
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Reich, Andrew
ACC-13; GEN-1, 22; GRAZ-3; WSA-2
Reid, Gayle
ACC-1; WAT-4; WSA-2
Reid, Greg
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Reid, Peter
Reiheld, William
Reilly, Scott
GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Reinders, Monte
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Reinsma, Judy
REC-8
Rember, Laurance
Remington, Donald
Rencher, Grant
Reneau, Steven
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Rengers, Edward and Jean
Rennel, C.W.
Renninger, Kim
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1;
REC-2; WSA-3; WSR-1
Resetarts, Mark
REC-2
Revoir, Edwin
Reynolds, Dale
Reynolds, Glade
Reynolds, Lynn
Reynolds, Nikki
REC-8
Rhees, Jeff
Rhoader, Kay
Rhodes, John
Rhodes, Jon
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Rhodes, Kody
Rhodes, Matt
Rhodes, Russel
Rhodes, Will
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Ribe, Tom
GEN-1; GRAZ-1; WSA-3
Rice, Dan
ACC-1; BIO-4, 5; GEN-1, 2, 11, 12;
LAND-1; REC-10; WSA-1, 2, 3;
WSR-1
Rice, Daryl
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-
1; REC-2;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Rice, Kathie and Dave
Rich, Barry
ACC-1; GRAZ-3, 5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-3; WSR-1
Rich, Dave
Rich, Rusty
ACC-2
Richards, Marlowe
Richards, Phillip
REC-1, 5
Richards, Tierney
ACC-2
Richardson, Albert
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Richardson, Ed
Richardson, Gail and John
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Richardson, John
Richardson, Ken
Richardson, Potato
REC-8
Richardson, Shirlene and Le Roy
Richman, Greg
Richter, Roland and Sheila
REC-8
Riday, Heathcliffe
GEN-1
Ridder, Cathy
Rider, Alan
GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Ridge, Roger
ACC-1; WSA-2
Riding, Varl
Ridman, Bruce
Rielle, Jennifer
Riggle, Edward
ACC-10
Riggs, Gina
ACC-1
Riggs, Shirley
REC-2; WSA-3
Rigney, Mark
GEN-1; GRAZ-1; WSA-3
Rigoni, Marie
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Riles, David
GRAZ-1; REC-2
5.38
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Riley, James
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Riley, Rachele
Rino, Justin and Corle
Riosko, Don
Ririe, Bruce
Rishol, Nick
Ristau, Kenneth
Ritter, CD.
REC-2
Rivera, Dion
GEN-1,22
Rivers, Walter
Roadruck, Dr. and Mrs. Davis
Robbins, D. Rodney
Robbins, Kathy
Robbins, Kristen
REC-2; WSA-3
Robbins, Mark
Roberts, Cozette
Roberts, Ed
Roberts, Enis
Roberts, Gwen
Roberts, (Catherine
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Roberts, Kathlene
ACC-l;BIO-l; GRAZ-3
Roberts, Kay
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3,5
Roberts, Larry
Roberts, Michelle
Roberts, Scott
ACC-10; WSA-3
Roberts, Shane and Becky
Roberts, Bruce
REC-2
Robertson, Alan
Robertson, Blaine
Robertson, Gloria
Robertson, Mike
Robey, Waddell
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; 5; REC-2
Robinette, John
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Robinson, Christopher
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Robinson, Eva
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Robinson, Jay
Robinson, Karen
ACC-1, 5; GEN-1; REC-1
Robinson, Kirk
ACC-1; GEN-1
Robinson, Michael
Robinson, Mont
Robinson, Stanley
Robinson, Steven
Robinson, Kirk, Ph.D.
GEN-1
Robison, Jeff
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Robison, Steve
Rocco, Theresa
GEN-1; LAND-1; REC-1
Roche, Lucille
Rock, Jim
Rockwood, Andrew
Rockwood, Emily
Rockwood, James
Rockwood, Katie
Rod, Lu Ann
REC-8
Rodeback, Cecil and Ann
Roderick, Rudi
Rodgers, Andrew
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Rodriguez, Marcel
GEN-1, 11,24, 30; REC-1
Rogalin, Kim
Rogalin, Kim
Rogers, David
Rogers, Stacey
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
RogeVs, Suzanne
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Rogovy, Kathryn
Rohde, Danielle
GEN-1
Rollin, Janet
REC-2
Romander, Linda
REC-8
Romney, Chris
Root, Sue and Robin
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Roper, Joleane
Roscetti, Dennis
ACC-5; REC-1
Rose, Martha
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Rose. Ron
Rosenbaum, D.
Rosenblum, Miriam
ACC-1,5; WSA-2
Rosenmeier, Terry
GRAZ-1
Rosenow, Susan
Rosenthal, Jim
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Rosner, Charles
Rosoff, Matthew
ACC-5
Ross, Eric
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Ross, Howard and Barbara
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Ross, Janet
ACC-10; LAND-1; REC-2
Ross, Jeff
Ross, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Ross, Lanny
Ross, Matthew
Ross, Matthew
Ross, Wendell
Rossborough, Eric
GEN-1,22; WSA-2
Roth, Dr. Andrew
ACC-10; WSA-2
Roth, Martin
Roth, Richard
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Rouillard, Gregory
GEN-5; REC-1; WSA-2
Rouley, Dudley
Roundy, Adrianne
Roundy, Brenda
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13, 16; GRAZ-5;
REC-1
Roundy, Clinton
ACC-5; GEN-13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Roundy, Delin
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Roundy, Jerry and Sherree
Roundy, Kurtis
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13, 16; GRAZ-5;
REC-1
Roundy, Lane
Roundy, Nomond
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Roundy, Reisha
ACC-5; GEN-13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Roundy, Roxie, Gene, Chris, Eddy and
Kyle
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Roundy, Sheldon
ACC-5; GEN-13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Rousculp, Tiffany
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Rouse, Thomas
Routh, Dennis
Rowcroft, Denise
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Rowe, Guy
ACC-2
Rowe, W. Jan
ACC- 1 , 1 6; GEN- 1 ; GRAZ-3 , 5 ;
WSR-1
Rowles, Joie
REC-8
Rowlette, John and Nivian
Rowley, David
Rowley, Dennis
ACC-2
Rowley, Fred and Myrel
Rowley, Robert
Rubenstein, Les
Rubey, Steven
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Rubinstein, Michael
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Rud, John
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Rudnyckyj, Dar
REC-2
5.39
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Rudolph, Gerald
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Rudolph, Joan
Rudolph, Gale, Ph.D.
Ruedy, Brenda
REC-2
Ruiz, John and Hope
Runestad, Todd
WAT-4; WSA-2
Runyan, Curtis
GEN-1
Ruppert, David
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-1; WSR-1
Ruscoe, Dean
ACC-13; BIO-1; GEN-1 ; GRAZ-3;
REC-2; WSA-2
Rushton, Troy
GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Russell, Alexandra
WAT-4; WSA-2
Russell, Greg
Russell, Steven
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Russman, Richard
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Rust, Evelyn
Rust, Terry
ACC-1, 2, 10
Rutkowski, Robert
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Rutter, Stephen
REC-1; REC-8
Ryan, Nicole
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Ryan, Patrick
ACC-1; GEN-1; LAND-1; WSR-1
Ryder, Eileen
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Rytteuski, Evan
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
GRAZ-3
Saccardi, John
GEN-1; REC-2
Sachs, Richard
GEN-1, 22; WSA-2
Safby, Richard
Sage, Gloria
ACC-1 0; WSA-2
Sage, Jeffrey and Deborah
Sage, Peter
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Salazar, Linda
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Salman, W.
Salmon, Bill
REC-1; REC-8
Salter, Grant
Salzman, Steve
Sampson, Garry
Sams, James and Donna
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
Sanbome, Mary Anne
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Sanchez, Alfreno
Sanchez, Rich
WAT-4
Sanders, Chuck
Sanders, Duane
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Sanders, Gary
Sanders, Jeff
Sanders, Jeff
Sanders, Kenny
Sanders, Kir
Sanders, Makai
Sanders, Merill
Sandersen, Jerry
Sanderson, Don
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Sanderson, Wayne
Sandgren, Robert
Sanford, Edgar
Sankranti, Rajiv
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Sanneman, Edward
SantAngelo, Linda
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Samicola, Dan
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Sartori, Craig
ACC-2
Sartori, Eric
Sasser, Loy and Lovell
REC-8
Sauer, David
GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Saul, Jeffrey
ACC-2
Saul, Kim
ACC-2
Saunders, Timothy
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Saunts, Mark
GRAZ-2
Sauter, Allan
ACC-1, 5; REC-1
Savee, Mark
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Savett, Adam
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-10, 2;
WSA-2
Sawyer, Kathryn
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Saxon, E.
REC-2
Saxton, Mary
Sayles, Richard
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
WSA-1 ; WSR-1
Scanlan, Peter
ACC-1; WAT-4; WSA-3
Scarpinatto, Thomas
GEN-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-1; REC-2
Schade, Jim
Schade, Richard
Schadlick, William
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Schaefer, Bradley
Schaefer, Paul
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Schaffermeyer, Roben
Schantz, Michael
Schamak, Lauren
ACC-1; ACC-5; REC-1
Scheid, David
REC-l;REC-4
Schein, David
GEN- 14
Schenk, Sheila
Schepps, Jake
GEN-1; REC-2
Scher, Sarah
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Scheuerman, R. L.
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Schick, Alan
WSA-3
Schiffmiller, Gary
ACC-5; WSA-3
Schiller, Chris
GEN-1; REC-2; WSA-2
Schimkat, Helga
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Schimmel, John
Schimmoeller, Chris
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Schmechel, Ronald
ACC-1, 5; REC-1
Schmidt, Daniel
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Schmidt, Jennifer
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 ; GRAZ-3
Schmidt, Stephen
ACC-10; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Schmierer, Alan and Anna
REC-2
Schmitt, Robert
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Schmitz, Mark
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; GRAZ-3, 5
Schneider, David
Schneidr, Mr. and Mrs. F.
Schneller, Andrew
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Schnepel, Kate
ACC-10; GEN-22
5.40
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Schnieder, David
WSA-1
Schochet, Gordon
Schoen, Mark
Schofield, Douglas
Schonck, Joan
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Schoonbeck, Mark
GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Schow, James
Schroeder, Daniel
Schroeder, Erv
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Schroeder, Todd
Schultz, Mike
REC-2; WSA-2
Schultz-Ela, Dan
Schumaker, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Schuman, William
BIO-1; GRAZ-3
Schumann, Klaus and Mary
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Schutt, Nancy
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Schuurman, Gregor
ACC-1
Schvejda, Kristina
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1 ;
REC-2; WSR-1
Schwartz, Angela
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Schwartz, Bruce
Schwartz, Ephraim
ACC-1
Schwartz, Jeff
ACC-10
Schwartz, Joseph
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Schwartz, Karen
REC-8
Schwartz, Sam
Schwartz, Wayne
REC-1 ; REC-4
Schweigerdt, Stephen and Bronwyn
REC-2; WSA-3
Schweitzer, Eric
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Schwerman, J.
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Schwiesow, Joshua
ACC-2
Scoirl, Roger
Scorsone, Bruce
ACC-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-1, 2;
WSR-1; WSA-2
Scott, Arden
Scott, Gerald
ACC-7
Scott, Janet
ACC-5, 10; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-1, 2;
WSA-3
Scott, John
Scott, John
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-1; REC-2
Scott, Michael
Scott, Patricia
REC-8
Scott, Peter
ACC-1; REC-1
Scow, Bob
Scranton, Robert
Scribner, Jerry and Penny
REC-1; REC-8
Sumsion, Steve
Searle, Michael
Searle, Randy
Searle, Wanda
Seegers, Michael
Seegert, Alan
REC-2
Seeley, Richard
REC-2
Seely, J.A.
Seese, Linda
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Seifert, Barbara
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Seiler, Jon
BIO-5; REC-1
Seilheimer, Titus
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Seimon, Randall
Seko, Julia
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Seliqwan, Dan
Selke, Alia
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Sellers, Joan
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Sells, Clark
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Semler, Dan
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
REC-2; WSA-3
Senft, David
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Senn, Rosemary
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Sennett, Anita
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Serkland, R. C.
Serlin, Steve
Serr, Casey
Serra, Dawn
ACC-1; GEN-1; WAT-4; WSA-2
Sessions, Brook
Severance, David
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Severance, Owen
GEN-12, 26
Sewell, Peter
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Shabel, Lexie
REC-1, 4
Shackleford, Justin
Shakespear, Brady
REC-1
Shakespear, Carl
BIO-5;GEN-15; REC-1
Shakespear, Franz, Ryan, David,
Shelly, John, Jim
GEN-1 3
Shakespear, K M.
Shakespear, Kay
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Shakespear, Kaylynn
REC-1
Shakespear, Ryan
ACC-1 8, 20; ACC -8
Shakespeare, Mary
Sharp, Laura
BIO-4; GRAZ-3; REC-1, 8; WSA-3
Sharp, Marlin
ACC-10; WSA-3
Shate, Barbara
Shauer, Richard
Shaw, James
Shaw, Joe
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Shaw, Joel
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-3; WSR-1
Shea, Lari
REC-8
Sheair, Kot
Sheffield, Deane
Shelberg, Wesley
REC-2
Shelby, Joe
Shelley, Don
Shelton, Allen and Wynse
GRAZ-1
Shelton, Christine
REC-2
Shepard, A.
Shepard, Matthew
Sheperd, Lesley
Shepherd, Brian
Shepherd, Naomi
Shepherd, Shirley
GRAZ-1
Shepherd, Steven
Shepherd, Tracy
Sheriff, Merrill
Sherrard, Kathryn
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Sherson, Marc
ACC-1, 12
Sherwood, Dennis
Sherwood, Scott
5.41
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Sherwood, Tom and Sala
REC-8
Shevtsov, Yevgenya
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Shimada, Michelle
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Shipek, Catlow
Shipley, Robert and Pauline
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Shipp, Cory
GEN-1
Shishim, David and Margaret
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Shishim, Melinda
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Shlander, Sam
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-5
Shroy, Robert Jr.
LAND-1; REC-2
Shuburt, Ron
Shue, Jennifer
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Shuha, Margaret
REC-1,2
Shuiller, Michael
Shuker, Barbara
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Shulstad, Gordon
Shultz, Timothy
GEN-1, 5
Shumaker, Link
ACC-3; WAT-4; WSA-2
Shuman, Derek
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Shumway, Clare
Shumway, DeLynn
Shurman, Mary
GEN-1, 22; WSA-2
Sickel, Kimberly
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Sieburg, Michael
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Sieczkiewicz, Robert
GEN-1, 22; WSA-2
Siegel, Melisa
ACC-1 ;GEN-7
Siegel, Wren
ACC-5
Sierhut, Jerod
Sigler, Larry
Silberman, Hilary
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Silberman, Michael
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; REC-2;
WSR-1
Silk, Harold
REC-1
Sill, R.
Silverstein, Alan
ACC-10; LAND-1; REC-2
Silvestri, Timothy
GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Simister, Alan
Simmerman, Doug
Simmonds, David
GRAZ-4
Simmonds, Don
Simmons, Dave
Simmons, James and Angela
Simmons, Leah
ACC-1; GEN-23; GRAZ-5; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Simmons, Ray
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2, 3
Simmons, Shirl
Simms, Lisa
ACC-1; WSR-1
Simon, Janet
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Simon, Sarah
Simons, Marr
REC-2
Simonson, Patricia
Simper, Wayne
Simpson, Brett
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Simpson, Gary
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Sinderson, Sam
GEN-1 ; GEN-5
Sine, Joe
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Singal, Mitchell
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Singer, Rory
Singh, Khalsa Mha Atma
GRAZ-3
Sipkin, Sandra
REC-1
Sittenfeld, Tierran
ACC-1; WSR-1
Sitterud, Cleriys
Sivley, Steven
BIO-1 ; GRAZ-1 ; LAND-1 ; WAT-4;
WSA-3
Sjogon, Don
Skeen, William
Skelton, William
ACC-10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Skiby, Bob
Skicki, Steve
REC-1
Skousen, Clifford
Skricki, Ed
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Slack, Danny
ACC-2
Slack, Jill
Slack, Penny
Slaff, Craig
Slate, R. Matt
Slattery, Pat
ACC-2
Slattery, Wayne
Slauenwhite, Norm
Slawinski, Maria
ACC-2
Slawson, Thomas
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Slayton, Robyn
ACC-1; WAT-4
Slider, Barbara
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Slider, Francis
ACC-1, 13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Sloane, Kenneth
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Sloat, Joseph
Smethurst, John
ACC-1
Smith, Al
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Smith, Amber
Smith, Ann
ACC-10; GRAZ-3
Smith, B.
Smith, Bret
Smith, Carolyn
Smith, Cheryl
GEN-1, 1 1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3;
LAND-1; WSR-1
Smith, Dale
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Smith, David
ACC-1, 5; WAT-4; WSA-2
Smith, Dean
REC-8
Smith, Dennis
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Smith, Dennis
Smith, Ellen and Dennis
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Smith, Eric
GEN-12, 22; GRAZ-3, 4; WSR-6
Smith, Frank
Smith, Gayle
Smith, Gibbs
ACC-1; GEN-22; REC-2; WSA-2
Smith, Gibbs and Catherine
ACC-10; GEN-1; GRAZ-1; LAND-1;
REC-2
Smith, Glenn and Diana
Smith, Gordon
Smith, Greg
Smith, Hunter
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Smith, James
ACC-1; GEN-1; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-2
Smith, James and Margo
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Smith, Jean
GEN-1, 5
Smith, Jeff and Connie
5.42
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Smith, Jeffrey
ACC-13;GEN-1;GRAZ-3
Smith, Jerry
Smith, John
Smith, June
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Smith, Karl
Smith, Kiek
Smith, Kyle
Smith, Margaret
Smith, Marie
Smith, Mike
Smith, Peter
ACC-10; ACC-5; GEN-1
Smith, Phillip
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Smith, Raldon
Smith, Randy
Smith, Richard
ACC-2
Smith, Ron and Jana
Smith, Roy
Smith, Sandra
Smith, Scott
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Smith, Sean
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Smith, Sharron
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Smith, Stanley
Smith, Susan
REC-l;REC-8
Smith, Susan
Smith, Terri
Smith, Todd
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Smith, Tony
Smith, Vernon
Smith, Yda
Smithson, John
ACC-2
Smock, Michael
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Smock, Sharon
REC-13
Smoot, Mike
GEN-1
Smoyer, Charles
ACC-1, 10; WSA-3
Smyth, Dave
ACC-4, 10; WSA-2
Sneva, Toni
GEN-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1
Snodgrass, Glenda
REC-1
Snopp, Scott
Snorek, Julie
Snow, Darin
Snow, Stanley
Snow, Troy
Snyder, Brian
Snyder, John
Snyder, Ruby
ACC-2
Snyder, Sheldon
Snyder, William
ACC-2
Socha, Walt
GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSA-3
Sochat, Barry
ACC-1, 5; WSA-2
Solano, Marie - Dolores
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Solis, Suzanne
REC-8
Sollo, Patrick
Soloway, Mahlon
Somkin, Anthony, M.D.
Sorensen, Amy
ACC-2
Sorensen, Bernard and Boys
Sorensen, Brent
Sorensen, Carol
Sorensen, Chadette
Sorensen, D. Stephen
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Sorensen, Fred
Sorensen, Jared
Sorensen, Ken
Sorensen, S.
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Sorensen, Seldon
ACC-2
Sorensen, Val
Sorenson, Allen
Sorenson, Casey
Sorenson, Eric
ACC-1
Sorenson, Richard
Sorenson, Russell
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Sorenson, Sunny
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-1
Sornsen, Colby
Somsen, Troy
Sousa, Michelle
Southam, Leslie
Southwick, Robert
Souvigney, Jeanne-Marie
ACC-10; GEN-5; REC-2
Sowell, Clyde
Sowers, David and Rosella
Spanko, Jeffrey, Ann, Max, Laura
ACC-10; GRAZ-3
Spearman, Steven
ACC-1; GEN-1; LAND-1
Spears, Randy
REC-2
Spelts, Gayle
BIO-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Spencer, Boyd
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Spencer, David
Spencer, Derrel
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Spencer, Marjie
ACC-12;GEN-13; GRAZ-5
Spencer, Necolei
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Spencer, Ray
BIO-5; GRAZ-5; WSA-2
Spencer, Terry
Spencer, Vemon
ACC-5, 12; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5;
REC-1
Spenser, Jay
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
Sperling, Tamara
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Spertus, Bob
ACC-10
Spezia, John
ACC-4; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Spielman, Seth
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Spielmann, Dana
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Spigarell, Melissa
Spigarell, Robert and Kay
Spiller, R.
Spiller, Robert
Spink, Troy
Spivey, Karl
Spivey, Mike
Spomer, Dan
GEN-7; GRAZ-3
Spoor, Regina and Dale
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Spore, Gargot
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Spotts, Richard
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Spotts, Richard
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Spreitzer, Francis
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Spriggs, Monty
Springer, Paul
Springman, Roger
Sprinkle, G.
Spurr, John
ACC-1; GEN-1; WAT-4; WSA-2
Squillace, Mark
GRAZ-1
Stachowski, Karen
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Staff, Leonard
Staheli, Mary
ACC-1; GEN-1; REC-2
Stahl, Edgar
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
5.43
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Stahl, J.
Staker, Jack
Stanbury, Marge
ACC-5;LAND-l;REC-2
Standlee, Lassen
Stanger, Garth
Staniforth, Stan
Stanley, Christian
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-
1;REC-2;WSA-2;WSR-1
Stanley, Clyde
ACC-1; REC-2
Stanley, G.
REC-2; WSA-3
Stanley, Jennifer
ACC-1; GEN-1; LAND-1; REC-2
Stanley, Jill
REC-2; WSA-3
Stanley, Patricia
Stapleton, John
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSA-2; WSR-1
Stapley, Charles
Stapley, Richard
Starr, Anthony
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Staton, Audrey
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Stauder, Jack
Stebbins, Robin
Steckel, Eric
GEN-1
Steed, Sam
ACC-2
Steed, Sam
Steel, Curt
ACC-10
Steel, Kathlyn
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Steele, Delan
Steele, Karin
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
Steele, Lindsay
Steele, William
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Steenblik, Valarie
Steenhof, Karen
REC-8
Steenson, Elaine
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Steffenhagen, Bob
Steger, Michael
ACC-10; WSA-2
Stegner, Michelle
ACC-10
Steichen, David
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2
Steinhoff, Nadene and Gordon
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3,5
Steinman, Chris
GEN-5; REC-1; WSA-2
Steitz, Jim
Steitz, Marty
GRAZ-1
Stellner, Richard
Stepelton, Kevin
ACC-1; GEN-1
Stephensen, Rex
Stephenson, Chris
GEN-1
Stem, Adam
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Stem, Brian
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Stem, Marc
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Stevens, Earl
REC-1; REC-2
Stevens, Ed
ACC-1 5
Stevens, Hope and Robert
Stevens, Louis
Stevens, Monique
ACC-10; GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Stevens, Thadin
Stevenson, Kenneth
Stevenson, Robert
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Stewart, Alan
Stewart, Bob
GRAZ-3
Stewart, Dorothy
Stewart, Eddie
Stewart, Floyd
Stewart, Jennifer
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Stewart, Kelly
Stewart, Phyllis
ACC-2
Stewart, Rex
Stickler, Robert
ACC-2, 10
Stiles, Tom
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Still, Chris
ACC-10; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Stilwell, James
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Stiow, Jeff
Stockberger, Randy
Stocker, Nancy
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Stoddard, Brent
Stoker, Janet
Stoker, R.
Stokes, Lynn
ACC-10
Stokes, Tim
ACC-1
Stoltman, Jan
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Stoltz, Jim
GEN-5; REC-1
Stone, David
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Stone, Jim
ACC-5; GEN-1; WSA-2
Stone, Ned
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Stone, Vicky
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Stone-Manning, Tracy
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Storer, Susan
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Storer, Suzanne
ACC-1; GEN-1; GEN-5
Stortroen, Ole
ACC-10
Stortroen, Sherry
Story, Dan
Story, Donald
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-3; WSR-1
Story, Mary
Stowe, David
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Srrader, Lee and Ellen
GRAZ-3, 5; LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Strain, Clint
Strand, Caitlin
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2
Strate, Devin
Stratton, Clay
Stratton, La Wayne and Margo
Stratton, Lois
Strauss, George
REC-2
Strauss, Howard
Strdhan, Richard
Streeter, Sally
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Strem, Arielle
Strobel, Joan and Mark
ACC-10; BIO-4; GEN-1, 2, 5, 13;
WSR-3
Strong, Scott
Strong, Valerie
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Stuart, Linda
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Stuart, Rob
ACC-1; WAT-4; WSA-2
Stuart, Wendy
ACC-2; REC-14
Stubbs, Brent
Sturdevant, Mike
Sturgess, Laurie
REC-8
Sublett, George
REC-8
Sublett, Hampton
REC-8
5.44
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Sublett, Scott
REC-8
Sucec, David
ACC-l;GEN-l;REC-2
Sudnik, Alex
WSA-3
Sudweeks, La Neeta
Sudweeks, Weldon and Carmen
Sugden, Evan
ACC-1 ; GEN-5; REC-1 ; WSA-2
Suhay, Regan
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Suits, Butch
Suk, Tom
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Sullivan, Carol
ACC-2; WSA-2
Sullivan, Edward
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Sullivan, John and Lili
Sullivan, Kim
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Sullivan, LaMar
ACC-2; GEN-13; GRAZ-3; WSR-3;
WSR-4
Sullivan, Timothy
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Summer, Baehuu
Summers, Autumn
Sumner, David
Sumner, Greg
GEN-1, 5
Sumner, Robert
GEN-1; REC-2
Sunderland, William
Sundstedt, David
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Susan, Richard
Sussman, Deb
REC-8
Sutherland, Bernie
Sutherland, Ron
Sutliff, David
Sutten, George Jr.
Sutton, Lorraine
Svella, Cathy
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-1; WSR-1
Swain, Jim
Swain, Patricia
GEN-22
Swaine, Thomas
ACC-1, 5; GEN-22; GRAZ-5; REC-2
Swan, Paul
Swaney, James
LAND-1
Swank, Glen
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
Swanson, Brian
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Swanson, Frederick
ACC-1; GEN-5
Swanson, John
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-1;
LAND-1; REC-2; WSA-3; WSR-1
Swanson, Lisa
GEN-5; REC-1; WSA-3
Swapp, Patricia
Swapp, Richard
ACC-2; GEN-1, 13, 15,43,44,45;
GRAZ-3, 5; LAND1, -5; REC-8;
WAT-1,2, 6; WSR-3
Swartz, Deborah
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
Swartz, Lloyd
ACC-2, 8, 10
Swasey, Duane
Swayze, Gregg
ACC-1; LAND-1; WSA-2; WSR-1
Sweat, Kimberly and Kelly
Sweeney, Alice
BIO-l.REC-10
Sweeney, Kevin
GEN-5
Sweet, Charlie
Swenson, David
GEN-13
Swenson, Gordon
ACC-3
Swinehart, Dave
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-3;
REC-2;
WSA-3; WSR-1
Switzer, Heidy
REC-8
Sykes, Dwane
Symes, Scott and Jean
Symms, William
Syrett, Jentre
ACC-2; REC-1
Syrett, Skyler
ACC-1 2
Tabish, Dave
Tabish, Jason
Tabone, Gerri
Tabone, Jeremy
Tackett, Kara
GEN-1
Taft, Ann
ACC-1, 10
Takaro, Mark
ACC-1, 10; REC-2
Talbot, Ed
ACC-10; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Tamaroff, Ruth
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Tanner, Jeffery
Tanner, Steven
Tanner, Wesley and Myrle
ACC-10
Tanner, William
BIO-1; GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2, 10
Tatton, Richart
Tatum, Sheree
Taylor, Alice and Harry
Taylor, Daniel
Taylor, Dyanna
ACC-1
Taylor, Frank
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Taylor, Frank and Manon
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Taylor, Harold and Christina
ACC-5; GRAZ-3
Taylor, Jack
Taylor, Jeff
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Taylor, Jennifer
Taylor, Melvin
ACC-2; Gen-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Taylor, Michelle
GEN-1, 5
Taylor, Rebecca
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Taylor, Robert
Taylor, Sidney
Taylor, Stuart
ACC-10; WSA-3
Taylor, Suesan
Taylor, Timothy
Taylor, Travis
Teague, Jonathan
ACC-10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1 ;
REC-2;
WAT-4; WSA-2
Teal, Louise
ACC-1; GEN-1
Teeter, Staphanie
REC-8
Telesetsky, Anastasia
GRAZ-1
Tembrock, William
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Tempel, Douglas
ACC-5, 10; WSA-2
Temple, David
Terebey, Nicholas
Terrel, Lark
GEN-13; GRAZ-5
Terry, Kaye
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Terry, Michelle
GEN-1, 22
Terwillinger, James
Thaden, Bob and Marilyn
ACC-1, 5
Thatcher, Curtis
GEN-1
Thaw, Steve
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Thaw, Steven
GEN-1; REC-2; WSA-2
Thayer, Doug
BlO-4; GEN-5 ; LAND- 1 ; WSR-1
5.45
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Thesen, Sven
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Thomas, Barbara
REC-8
Thomas, Bill
REC-2
Thomas, Chris
Thomas, Dan
Thomas, Darrell
Thomas, Dave
Thomas Family
Thomas, J.
Thomas, Jacob
Thomas, John
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Thomas, Karen
ACC-10; WAT-4; WSA-2
Thomas, Lynn
Thomas, Mike
Thomas, Neil
Thomas, Richard
Thomas, Robert
Thomas, Robert and Ursula
GEN- 1; GRAZ-3
Thomas, Verl
Thomas, W.
Thompson, Barbara
REC-2
Thompson, Charles
GEN-1 ; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSR-1
Thompson, Chris
Thompson, Chuck
Thompson, Clyde
Thompson, Craig
Thompson, Darwin
Thompson, David
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Thompson, David
Thompson, Dixie
REC-1
Thompson, Elaine
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 ,11; LAND-1 ; REC-2,
8;
WAT-2;WSR-1,5
Thompson, George
Thompson, Gordon
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Thompson, Greg
Thompson, Guy
ACC-2, 9, 12; BIO-5; GEN-1 5;
LAND-1
Thompson, Hal
Thompson, Heidi
ACC-2
Thompson, James
ACC-3, 10; BIO-4; GEN-1; LAND-1;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Thompson, Jeff
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Thompson, Joe
ACC-2
Thompson, Keith
Thompson, Kevin
ACC-1
Thompson, Larry
Thompson, Lydia
Thompson, Marshall
REC-1
Thompson, Nathan
ACC-1 2
Thompson, Rosa
REC-1
Thompson, Skye
Thompson, Spencer
Thompson, Tom
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSR-1
Thompson, Tommy
Thompson, Dr. Kent
Thomson, Greg
Thomson, Savannah
ACC-2
Thomspson, Christine
Thorley, Todd
Thome, Ned
Thornton, Doug
Thuemler, Ron
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Thurgood, Carl
Thurgood, Lewis
Thurgood, Lynda
Tibbitts, Susan
Tidwell, Tony
Tiemen, Tom
Tietz, Tina
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Tighe, Dennis
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Tillges, Michael
GRAZ-2
Tillinghast. Stephen
Tilton, Buck
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Tilton, Tim
Timmel, Luren
ACC-2; GEN-1 3, 15; GRAZ-5
Timmons, Mike and Leslie
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3,5
Tinklefaugt, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Tipping.Terri
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; WSA-3
Tisdale, Loran
Toback, Andrea
GRAZ-1; WSA-3
Tober, Jeff
Togerson, Justin
Toilike, George and Teri
Tol, Tony
ACC-1; GRAZ-1; REC-2
Tolladay, Joanne
GEN-5; GRAZ-3; WAT-4
Tomicek, Paul
Tomlinson, Trent
Tomshack, Gary
Toombs, Suzanne
Toothaker, Virgil
REC-8
Torbett, Glenn
GEN-5; WSA-2
Torgerson, Dan
ACC-2; GEN-13, 15; GRAZ-5
Torgerson, Rick and Heather
Torgerson, Terry
Torgerson, Troy
Tork, Marcus
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Tombom, Jeff
Torrisi, Gene
Tousley, Walt and Ruth
Toyn, Gary
Trauntvein, Jens
Trearse, A. R.
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Trefonas, Jason
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 ; GRAZ-3; LAND-1 ;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Trejillo, Jesus
Trent, Barry
Trimble, Stephen
ACC-1; GEN-1; REC-2
Triolo, Phil
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Triplett, Eric
Trotter, John
ACC-1
Trowell, Clark
GRAZ-3; REC-1, 2
Troxel, Jeff
ACC-1; WSA-2
Truax, Wayne
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Truex, Ted
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Trumbull, Lucy
REC-8
Tryon, Fred
Tsegi, Coral
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Tseng, Alice
GRAZ-3; WSA-3
Tucker, Dean
Tucker, George
Tucker, George
Tucker, Jeanne and Donald
Tucker, Lynn
Tucker, Pat
Tucker, Patrick
Tucker, Roger and Pamela
GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSA-3
Tueller, Paul
Tuff, Paul
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Tuggle, Melissa
Tuke, Carla
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-3
5.46
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Tull, Mary
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Tulley, Tara
GEN- 1,22
Tullis, Lesley
ACC-10; REC-2; WSA-2
Tuma, Gary
ACC-13;GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Turner, Brad
Turner, Frank
GEN-5
Turner, Michael
GEN- 1,22
Turner, My
Turner, Victor
Turpin, Pete and Nancy
ACC-10; WSA-3
Tuttle, Dell
Twitchell, Cole
Twitchell, Kam
ACC-2
Twitchell, Lamonte
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Twitchell, Nancy
ACC-5; BIO-5; GEN-1 ; WAT-2
Twomey, Ryan
ACC-5; GEN-5; WSA-2
Tyler, John
Udall, Brad
Udy, Rick
Uhlmann, Anne
GEN-5
Ulery, Susan
ACC-1
Ulvang, Myra
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Ulyate, Holly
REC-8
Umnus, Jane
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Underwood, Cathy
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Underwood, Steve
Updike, Mary
Upwall, Gregory
REC-2
Utley, Cheryl
Utley, Jeff
Vagle, Beth and Wade
GEN-1, 22
Vail, Sandra
GEN-5; REC-1
Valdez, Bemice
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Valdez, Connie and Larkey
Valentine, Janet
BIO-1
Vali, Rita
ACC-1, 5; REC-1
Vallone, Cheryl
ACC-1, 13; GEN-1, 23; GRAZ-3, 5;
LAND-1;
REC-2; WSA-3; WSR-1
Van Buren, Renee
ACC-1
Van Every, Marsha
GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2; WSR-1
Van Genderen, Heidi
Van Hann, James
GEN-3
Van Hook, Chris
Van Horn, Paul
ACC-12; REC-1
Van Hove, Teresa
Van Lenven, Ross
Van Ord, Autumn
ACC-1, 10; REC-2; WSA-2
Van Summer, Mark
Van Summern, Gayle
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Van Wagoner, Tim
Vanatta, Yeffi
ACC-1; GEN-1 ;GRAZ-1
Vanderbie, Jan
GRAZ-3; REC-2
VanDerhyden, Clifford
ACC-7
Vane, Joe
Vanko, Peter
Vaslet, Paul
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3,5
Vaughan, Steve
Vaughn, Henry
REC-8
Vaughn, Katie
REC-8
Vdovin, George
ACC-1, GRAZ-5; WSA-3; WSR-1
Veasman, Jean
Vectols, Dermns
Veidmark, Aaron
Veidmark, Abe
Vengco, Ronaldo
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Veranth, John
Verdoom, Heather
ACC-2
Vemon, Ann, Patrick and Charles
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Vemon, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Verzelle, Liza
BIO-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2, 10
Vesco, Richard
Vetter, Jack
Viavant, Bill
GEN-1
Vick, Eckhard
Vignere, Joel
ACC-10; GEN-1, 1 1; GRAZ-3; REC-2,
8; WSR-1
Vignere, Joel
ACC-1
Viles, Aaron
GRAZ-5
Villaggio, Chris
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5, 11; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Vincent, Douglas
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 ,5,11; GRAZ-3;
LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1, 2
Vincent, George
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5, 11; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Vincent, Shirley
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5, 11; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSR-1
Vincent, Thomas
Visor, Bill
Vodraska, Adrienne
Voelkel, Ron
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Vogel, William
ACC-10
Vogler, Glen
Voigt, Linda
REC-1, 8
Vondrak, Andrew
Voorhies, Bill and Marilyn
BIO-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-3
Vos, Biefke
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Voss, Rene
ACC-1; GRAZ-1
Wachenheim, Scott and Beth
GRAZ-1; REC-2, 8
Wade, Catherine
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Wade, Christopher
Wadsworth, Fred
Wadsworth, Shelly
Wagener, Jefferson
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Wagner, Chris
GEN-1, 22
Wagner, Karin
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Wagner, Terry
REC-1, 8
Wagner, Tim
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Wagstaff, D.
Wahl, John
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-3;
REC-2
Wahlstedt, Bob
Wake, Paul
GEN-1
Wakeland, W.M.
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Wald, Michael
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; WAT-4
Waldman, Stephen
ACC-1; GRAZ-1
Walke, Jim
GEN-5; GRAZ-3; REC-2
5.47
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Walkenhorst, Jared
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Walker, Curt
GEN-1
Walker, Ellen
GEN-7
Walker, Faith
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Walker, John
ACC-3; GEN-1
Walker, Karl
Walker, Kent
Walker, Merlin
Walker, Roger
Walker, Theresa
Walker, Tom
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Wall, Cory
Wall, Kenneth
Wall, Toni
Wallace, Anne
Wallace, Carleen
GEN-1
Wallace, Gerald
GRAZ-1; REC-2; WSA-2, 3
Wallace, John
Wallace, Leslie
GEN-1, 5, 11; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
WSR-1
Wallace, Robert
ACC-1, 10
Wallen, Norm
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Wallner, Jack
LAND-1; REC-2
Walls, Barbara
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Walschlager, Gerard
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Walsh, David
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Walter, Debby
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Walter, Leo
ACC-10; REC-2
Walter, Marilyn
ACC-1; GEN-5; GRAZ-5
Walter, Sydney
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Walters, Ralph
Walton, Bryon
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Walton, Sam
REC-2; WSA-2
Walton, Virginia
Warble, Steve
ACC-1; GEN-1, 23; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSA-3; WSR-1
Ward, Bertha
Ward, Clarence
Ward, Clyde
Ward, Craig
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Ward, Eleanor
ACC-1; REC-2
Ward, Everett (Chip)
ACC-1; GRAZ-1
Ward, Jill
ACC-1; WSA-3
Ward, Ronald
Wardell, John
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Warenski, Jerralyn
Warenski, Keith
Warenski, Nicki
Warenski, Randy
Warnell, Ronald
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Wamer, Barbara
GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-3
Wamer, Jeff
Wamer, Weston
Wamick, Kyle
Wamick, Scott
Warren, Dean and Susan
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Warren, Scott
Warren, Weston
Wasinger, Korrinne
ACC-1 ; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Watkins, Kenny
Watkins, Nancy
GEN-5; REC-1; WSA-2
Watkins, Paula
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Watkins, Richard and Paula
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Watson, Alan "Mac"
GEN-1; LAND-1; WSA-2
Watson, Jack
Watson, John
ACC-1; GEN-1
Watson, Kent
Watson, Robert
Watson, Wes
Watters, Brian
Watts, Bob
Watts, Don
Watts, Michael
Watts, Susanna
ACC-7
Way, Bonnie
REC-8
Way, Susan
BIO-4; GEN-1, 2, 30; GRAZ-1
Weathers, Mary
GEN-5; REC-1
Weaver, Joe
Weaver, Lu
Webb, Brian
Webb, Dixie
Webb, Forrest
Webb, Jeff and Michaela
GEN-5; REC-2; WSA-2
Webb, Kent
ACC-1; GRAZ-1, 3, 5
Webb, Rob
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Webber, Jackie
WSA-2
Weber, Bret
Weber, John
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Weberg, Bill
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2; WSA-3
Webster, John
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSA-2; WSR-1
Wechter, Rita
REC-2
Weeden, Catherine
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Weeks, Cynthia
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Weeks, David
Weeks, Ken
ACC-1; GRAZ-1
Weeks, LE.
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Weickhardt, Kathleen
Weide, Bruce
Weidl, Dick
Weikamp, Babara
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Weinstock, Mrs. Robert
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1; REC-2
Weintraub, Marc
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-1, 8
Weirick, Bob
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Weis, Paul
ACC-1, 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
WSA-2
Weiskerger, David
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Weiss, John Jr.
Weissman, Eric and Barbara
GEN-1; REC-2
Weissman, Kerry and David
GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2;
WSR-1
Weitlauf, Paul Sr.
ACC-10
Welch, Marge
Welcker, Kenneth
Welder, Bill
ACC-10
Welder, Chris
ACC-10
Welder, Dean
ACC-2
Welder, John
ACC-10
Welder, Karen
ACC-10
Welder, Leila
ACC-2
5.48
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Welder, Leimin
ACC-10
Welder, Peggy
ACC-10
Weller, Ben
ACC-2
Weller, Fae
Wells, Darrell
Wells, Tom and Becky
ACC-2
Wemple, Bob
ACC-1,5;WSR-1
Wende, Mike and Jody
ACC-13;GEN-l;GRAZ-3
Wendling, Kathy
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2;WSA-1;WSR-1
Wendt, Sharon
GEN-1; REC-1
Wengreen, Earl
Werdinger, Leon
Werkmeister, Mark
ACC-2, 15
Wescot, D.
ACC-5, 8, 18
West, Fay
Westcott, Kenneth
ACC-2
Westendorf, Dr. Craig
ACC-1; REC-1
Westerman, Peter
ACC-1
Westervelt, Dean
Weston, Dan
Weyers, Lori
ACC-1, 10; REC-2;WSA-3
Whalen, Kini
GRAZ-l;REC-2
Whalley, John
Whatcott, Gayle
Wheat, Francis
ACC-1; REC-8; WAT-2; WSA-2
Wheatley, Margaret
REC-2
Whedbee, Donna
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Wheeler, George
Wheeler, J.
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Wheeler, Scott
Whete, John
Whitaker, Howard
ACC-5; GEN-1, 5; GRAZ-3; REC-2;
WSA-2; WSR-1
Whitaker, Jason
White, Alan
GEN-1; REC-2
White, Angela
White, Greg
White, Gregg
White, Jerry
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
White, Joane
REC-8
White, Lance
White, Lornie
GRAZ-3; REC-2
White, Melvin
White, Polly
ACC-18; GEN-1, 13
White, Randall
ACC-1 3; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
White, Robert
White, Shirt and Debbie
ACC-5; GEN-1; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Whitehead, Dennis
ACC-5; REC-1
Whitehead, Ron
Whitehom, Robert
ACC-2
Whiteley, Gary
Whiting, Nicole
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Whiting, Robert
Whitley, Scott
ACC-1, 10; REC-2; WSA-2
Whitman, David
WSR-1
Whitney, Holly
WSA-3
Wickel, Don
Wickham, Leslie Jr.
Wickliffe, C.
ACC-2
Widolf, Bill
GRAZ-1; REC-2
Wiedenhoeft, Dody
Wieder, Mark
Wiener, Howard
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Wiggill, Steven
Wignall, Jerry and Lene
Wilcock, Russ
Wilcox, Bob
Wilcox, Richard
Wilde, Bent
Wilde, Dusay
Wilde, Randy
Wilde, Wendell
Wiley, Alynne
ACC-1; GEN-5
Wilke, John
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Wilkes, Gary
Willard, Page
ACC-5; GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5; REC-1
Willard, Rudy
Willardson, Timothy
Williams, David
GRAZ-1
Williams, D
Williams, Delvin
Williams, Dennis
Williams, Jay
Williams, Lance
Williams, Lance
ACC-5; GEN-5
Williams, Lesley
GRAZ-3, 5; REC-2
Williams, Mark
ACC-10
Williams, Robert
ACC-9, 14, 15, 16; WSA-3
Williams, Robert
REC-8
Williams, Roger
ACC-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2; WSA-2
Williams, Sally
GRAZ-3
Williams, Thomas
Williams, Troy
Williams, Wesley
Williamson, Peter
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Wilson, Bob
Wilson, Brad
Wilson, Brett
GEN-1 ; REC-2
Wilson, Charles
ACC-10
Wilson, Chris
ACC-10; GEN-1; WSA-2
Wilson, Howard
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Wilson, Jack
ACC-2
Wilson, James
GEN-5
Wilson, Joel
Wilson, Leslie
ACC-1; GEN-1, 5
Wilson, Loretta
REC-8
Wilson, Mark
ACC-1
Wilson, Mindy
WAT-4; WSR-1 , 4, 6
Wilson, Patricia
ACC-2
Wilson, Pete and Amelia
Wilson, Robert and Karen
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Wilson, Ronald
ACC-2
Wilson, Russel
Wilson, Sherrill
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Wilson, Tim
REC-1, 2
Winawer, Hank
ACC-10; GEN-1 ; LAND-1 ; WSR-1
Windley, C. Jack
Wingerter, Eric
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; WSR-1
Winkler, James
Winn, Elizabeth
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Winn, Steven
5.49
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Winsemius, Aurelia
ACC-1, 10; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2,
7
Winsett, Oliver
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Winters, Steve
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Winward, LaMar
Wirth, Randolph
Wiscombe, Stephen
Wise, Liz
GRAZ-5
Wiseman, Mollie
GEN-5
Wisemen, Virginia
Wiss, Carrie
ACC-1; GEN-1; REC-2
Woffinden, Jeron
Wolf, Mark
ACC-2
Wolf, Mike
ACC-1; GEN-1
Wolfe, Don
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; LAND-1; REC-2;
WSR-1
Wolfe, Gene
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Wolfgaman, Mavna
Wolking, Corell
ACC-1; BIO-1
Won, Yhoumey
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Wong, Jeffrey
GEN-1, 22; WSA-2
Wood, Blake
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Wood, Dan
Wood, Don
Wood, Donald and Margaret
ACC-1; GEN-5; REC-1
Wood, Gordon
Wood, Heather
Wood, Lester
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Wood, Maynard
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Wood, Peggy
ACC-1;GRAZ-1,3,5
Woodard, Victoria
ACC-10;BIO-4; GEN-1
Woodhouse, Tom
Woods, Darrell
Woods, James
GEN-1 ;GRAZ-4; WSA-2
Woodward, Dian
Woodward, Jewell
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Woodward, Mary
GEN-5; REC-1
Wooton, Charles
Worssam, Geoffrey
Worthen, Ellis
Wouddowski, Lora
Wozny, Kirsten
GRAZ-5; REC-2
Wren, Vicky
Wright, Clay
Wright, David
GEN-5; REC-1 ; WSA-2
Wright, Denise
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Wright, Kris
REC-8
Wright, Norman
Wright, Pearl
Wright, Rhonda
Wright, Ricky
Wright, Stephen
Wright, Terry
Wright, Tony
ACC-7
Wuerthner, George
ACC-1, 10; GRAZ-1, 3; REC-2
Wulfenstein, Bevan
Wybeng, Ken
REC-2
Wycklendt, Anne
Wyeth, George
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Wyeth, Nathan
ACC-1 ; GEN-1 ; LAND-1 ; REC-2;
WSA-2
Wyhlie, B.
Wynn, Daniel and Cindie
ACC-2
Wysopal, George
GEN-1 6
Wyss, Mitch
ACC-10; REC-2
Yaffe, Linda
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Yardley, Russell
Yates, Jeff
ACC-2
Yates, Marlin
Yaur, Cameron
Yazzie, Jane
ACC-1, 10
Yeager, Jodie
Yegian, Jeff
GEN-5; REC-1
Yehle, Fran
ACC-10
Yeske, Allen
Yewell, Susan
GRAZ-1, 3; REC-2; WSR-1
Yiker, Jonathan
GRAZ-3; REC-2
Young, Allen
Young, Bonita
REC-8
Young, Brett
Young, Carl
ACC-1; GEN-1; WSR-1
Young, Dick
ACC-2, 8
Young, Dick
ACC-1 4
Young, Gene
Young, Hugh
ACC-1, 5; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Young, James and Daisy
Young, Jason
Young, Larry
Young, Marilyn
Young, Pamela
GEN-1, 13; GRAZ-5
Young, Paul
Young, Richard
Young, Stan
Young, Susan
ACC-1
Younger, Ronald
ACC-1; BIO-4; GRAZ-5; WAT-4
Zadis, Peter
REC-2
Zadis, Peter
REC-2; WSR-1
Zaffino, Lynda
REC-1, 4
Zane, Janis
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Zarkovich, Josephine
GEN-1
Zaugg, Jared
Zebell, Margie
ACC-1; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; LAND-1;
REC-2; WSA-2; WSR-1
Zebell, Margie
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3
Zehrbach, Thomas
Zeigler, Robert
Zeoli, Len
GEN-5; GRAZ-5; REC-2
Ziler, Larry
ACC-1
Zimmerman, Kyle
Zinn, Robert
ACC-13; GEN-1; GRAZ-3; REC-2
Zinsli, Gabriel
Zobell, Cory
Zoller, Hillary
ACC-1; GRAZ-5; REC-2; WSA-3
Zollinger, Jim
Zufelt, Bob
Zufelt, Sandy
Zumwalt, Glen
Zumwalt, Judy
There were 149 names from comment
letters that could not be read. The
comments from those letters were
reviewed and categorized as described
above.
5.50
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ON THE DRAFT MANAGEMENT
PLAN
This section contains the comments received
from individuals, organizations, and
governmental agencies during the comment
period for the DMP/DEIS. The comments
are organized by the nine categories discussed
previously. Following each comment is the
BLM's response.
ACC-1
COMMENT: An array of comments were
submitted on all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) use
ranging from "prohibit all non-street legal
ATV and dirt bike use" to "allow non-street
legal vehicles," and "clarify the difference
between street legal and non-street legal
vehicles."
RESPONSE: Any motor vehicle properly
registered for highway use is considered
street legal. In Utah, ATVs cannot get safety
inspections, so they cannot be registered for
highway use. ATVs are considered an all
terrain vehicle type 1, which is a motor
vehicle 50 inches in width or smaller,
weighing 700 pounds or less, having 3 or
more low pressure tires, having a seat
designed to be straddled by the operator, and
designed for travel over unimproved terrain.
The management of ATVs is described in
detail in the Transportation and Access
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan. Because use
of ATVs off designated routes has the
potential to damage Monument resources,
their use off of designated routes would be
prohibited throughout the Monument.
Specific routes which could be used by non-
street legal vehicles are shown on Map 2. 1 .
ACC-2
COMMENT: Why can't all existing routes
remain open, including the Paria River/Sheep
Creek route?
RESPONSE: A number of routes are
proposed for closure in this Plan in order to
protect Monument resources. It has been
determined that the access needs of the
surrounding communities and the needs of the
users of the Monument can be met by the
transportation network in this Proposed Plan.
Leaving all routes and trails open could
jeopardize the integrity of the resources
which the Monument was designated to
protect. In particular, allowing vehicle use in
the Paria River/Sheep Creek route has the
potential to damage riparian resources which
comprise less than 1 percent of the
Monument and provide crucial habitat for
nesting birds and vertebrates in the area.
However, many routes would remain open in
this Proposed Plan. Map 2.1 shows the routes
that would be open for public use and those
available for administrative use only.
ACC-3
COMMENT: How is the BLM going to
monitor vehicle use in the backcountry,
including enforcement?
RESPONSE: In order to monitor vehicle use,
additional staff, including law enforcement
personnel, would be hired to patrol by foot,
horse, and vehicle. In addition, the BLM
would be proactive in providing information
to visitors about which routes are open. Refer
to the Enforcement section in Chapter 2 of
this Plan for more information on the
enforcement strategy.
ACC-4
COMMENT: An array of comments were
submitted on ATV use, ranging from "ATVs
should be banned or limited to smaller areas"
to "ATVs should be allowed on more routes."
RESPONSE: As stated in the
Transportation and Access section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan, the unregulated use of
off-highway vehicles (OHV) (both street
legal and non-street legal) off of designated
routes has the potential to damage Monument
resources, cause recreation conflicts, and
cause erosion. Therefore, cross-country
travel by motorized vehicles, as well as
mountain bicycles, would be prohibited. The
use of ATVs has been allowed on most routes
designated for motorized vehicles, except
those where state or local laws prohibit their
use, where the anticipated volume and speed
5.51
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
of larger vehicles makes ATV use unsafe, or
where conflicts with adjacent land
management agencies may occur.
ACC-5
COMMENT: Explain the administrative use
policy for access and who can use these
routes. How will exceptions to motorized
access be determined?
RESPONSE: As stated in the
Administrative Routes and Authorized
Users section in Chapter 2 of this Plan, the
BLM would be responsible for administrative
routes which would be limited to authorized
users. Authorized users could include
grazing permittees, researchers, state or
Federal agency personnel, and others carrying
out authorized activities under a permit or
other authorization. Administrative routes are
existing routes that lead to developments
where the BLM or some permitted users must
have regular access for operation or
maintenance. These authorized developments
include such things as powerlines, cabins,
weather stations, communication sites, spring
developments, corrals, and water troughs.
Access on these administrative routes would
be strictly limited and would only be granted
for legitimate and specific purposes. Beyond
the routes shown on Map 2.1 of this Plan, the
BLM would work with any individual
operating within the Monument under
existing permits or authorizations to
document where access must continue in
order to allow operation of their permit or
authorization.
As stated in Chapter 2 and ACC-20, limited
exceptions to the general management
provisions (including off-highway vehicle
use) could be granted by the Monument
Manger for emergencies or where clearly
essential to serve Monument management
purposes.
ACC-6
COMMENT: Research opportunities may be
curtailed due to route closures. Are there
provisions for special vehicle access for
researchers? How would exceptions for
researchers be made in general?
RESPONSE: In general, researchers would
be required to comply with access restrictions
outlined in this Plan (i.e., travel on designated
routes). The BLM recognizes that some
research opportunities may need to be
accessed via means other than vehicles.
Except where specifically prohibited (e.g.,
relict plant areas), the BLM would evaluate
exceptions to access restrictions during the
special-use permitting process for extremely
high- value research opportunities as
described in the Management of Science
and Research Activities section in Chapter 2
of this document. The BLM would evaluate
whether the proposed research could be
permitted in a manner consistent with the
protection of Monument resources, and
whether the methods (and access) proposed
are the minimum necessary to achieve the
desired research objective.
ACC-7
COMMENT: How does the Plan address the
American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
what, if any, accommodations does the BLM
intend to make so that people of all abilities
can experience the Monument?
RESPONSE: The BLM will comply with the
ADA in the Monument. Both the DEIS and
this Plan would provide access for people of
all abilities and facilities in the Frontcountry
Zone. However, the ADA does not prohibit
the BLM from restricting travel routes or
closing areas to vehicles in order to protect
Monument resources.
ACC-8
COMMENT: Various people requested that
specific routes be kept open or be closed.
General comments that routes should be
closed were also received.
RESPONSE: Every individual request for
keeping specific routes open or closed was
reviewed and evaluated by the BLM, and a
determination was made on their status for
this Plan. Each request was evaluated on the
basis of the considerations stated in the
Transportation and Access section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan. The basic philosophy
in deciding which routes would be left open
was to determine which routes access some
5.52
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
destination (e.g., scenic overlook, popular
camping site, heavily-used thoroughfare), and
present no significant threat to Monument
resources. Routes that were not considered
necessary or desirable (for resource
protection purposes) would not be kept open
for public access.
ACC-9
COMMENT: Why was there no
transportation map for Alternative A in the
DEIS? Why was there no inventory of
existing routes?
RESPONSE: Alternative A (No Action
Alternative) in the DEIS describes current
conditions. A transportation map was not
included for this alternative in the DEIS
because a comprehensive inventory of routes
in the Monument has not been conducted.
The route data (2,176 miles) reported for
Alternative A are based upon United States
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps
prepared in the 1970s. These data were
supplemented by BLM specialists based on
personal knowledge, BLM Surface
Management Status Maps, Forest Service
Cartographic Feature Maps, and other
information available at the time. None of
these sources was considered to reflect the
complete status of the routes within the
Monument. Therefore, a map displaying
these routes was not included in the DEIS
because the data have not been verified and
are likely to include errors. Given that a
comprehensive route inventory would have
delayed the development of this Plan
considerably, and that the USGS route data,
as modified, were the best available data, the
BLM decided to proceed using the 2,176
miles of routes as a best estimate. The
Environmental Consequences section of the
DEIS used this data to describe the relative
impacts from the transportation networks in
each alternative. This analysis has been
supplemented as described in ACC-14. A
map displaying the route network for
Alternative A is not considered necessary to
this analysis. A precise route inventory was
also not necessary for the BLM to develop its
proposed transportation network. As
described in the Transportation and Access
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan, the
transportation network was based on analysis
of which routes access necessary or desirable
destinations (based on existing knowledge
and public input) and which routes present no
significant threat to Monument resources.
The BLM, after public comment, has
concluded that for the proper care of
Monument resources, remaining routes that
were not considered necessary or desirable
would be closed.
ACC-10
COMMENT: What is the
justification/authority for closing routes? The
BLM cannot close routes because many are
RS 2477 assertions. What happens to the
routes that are not designated open? How
will enforcement of these closures be
handled?
RESPONSE: This Plan closes all routes,
unless the BLM designates a route open or
unless a Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) Title V right-of-
way is granted which would allow limited use
of a route by the permitted party (43 USC
sections 1761-1771). The authority for this
action is FLPMA, sections 102(a)(8), 202,
and 302 [43 USC sections 1701(a)(8), 1712
and 1732]. This authority is subject to valid
existing rights (VER), including valid RS
2477 claims, which would be determined on a
case-by-case basis. The BLM will exercise
its authority to close routes after compliance
with the FLPMA land use planning process
found at 43 USC 1712 (regulations found at
43 CFR Part 1600) and NEPA (42 USC
section 4321-4345).
As soon as this Proposed Plan is formally
approved, all routes not on the transportation
system (Map 2.1) would be considered
closed. A discussion of the enforcement
strategy can be found in the Enforcement
section in Chapter 2 in this Plan.
ACC-11
COMMENT: Allow for maintenance and
construction of new trails in all zones as long
as there are no impacts.
RESPONSE: A range of trails could be
developed for a variety of purposes, as stated
in the Facilities section in Chapter 2 of this
Plan. In the Frontcountry Zone, a full range
of trails could be developed and maintained in
5.53
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
order to provide opportunities for visitors or
to protect Monument resources. In the
Passage Zone, trails could be developed and
maintained where needed for protection of
Monument resources, for public safety, or to
interpret Monument resources. Focusing the
development of new trails to provide visitor
opportunities in the Frontcountry and Passage
Zones is part of the overall strategy to protect
resources by directing developed recreational
opportunities to the periphery of the
Monument. Elsewhere, trails could only be
developed or maintained where necessary to
protect Monument resources.
ACC-12
COMMENT: How will routes be maintained,
and how will safety be handled? Various
comments were submitted on route
maintenance, ranging from requests to pave
or upgrade certain routes to requests not to
upgrade any routes.
RESPONSE: Each comment on route
maintenance was considered in developing a
maintenance strategy. The BLM is not
proposing to pave any routes within the
Monument. Refer to the Maintenance
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan for a
discussion of the proposed maintenance
levels. Safety is an important concern on
routes within the Monument. Many
techniques such as speed limits, warning
signs, and repair of washout prone areas
would be used to promote safe use of routes.
ACC-13
COMMENT: There were various comments
that addressed the impact analysis in relation
to OHV and the transportation networks for
the alternatives. These included:
A. Analysis of leaving roads open and
closing roads was not provided in the DEIS,
including the justification of administrative
routes.
B. The analysis provided in the DEIS only
covers impacts from OHV use and does not
take into account impacts from increased
visitor activities such as hiking and
backpacking.
C. The DEIS was inaccurate is stating that
impacts of vehicles on relict plant
communities would be the least in Alternative
D.
RESPONSE:
A. Leaving open existing routes is a current
condition and not an action under this Plan.
The only route actions being considered are
route closures, which differ by alternative in
the DEIS. The impacts of those closures
were discussed in Chapter 4 of the DEIS and
in Chapter 3 of this Plan. In response to
public comment and new information,
additional analysis of routes in relation to
Monument resources has been completed and
is provided in ACC-14. This additional
analysis, and the analysis in this Plan,
includes impacts from administrative routes
on various resources. More information
concerning administrative routes is provided
in ACC-24.
B. The analysis in the DEIS does include a
discussion of impacts from activities other
than OHV use on Monument resources. All
actions which cause surface disturbance, such
as OHV use and visitor use, have the
potential to impact Monument resources as
discussed in Chapter 4 of the DEIS and in
Chapter 3 of this Plan. Both the DEIS and
this Plan include discussions of surface
disturbing activities that would contribute to
impacts on these resources. A reduction of
these surface disturbing activities would
therefore have the potential of reducing
impacts to these resources. Although not all
impacts can be attributed to damage from
surface disturbing activities, the reduction of
these activities in the Monument would
contribute to the protection of these
resources.
C. The DEIS incorrectly states that impacts to
relict plant communities from vehicles would
be the least in Alternative D. In fact, none of
the alternatives should have projected impacts
from vehicles since there are no routes in
known relict plant communities. There are
routes within V* mile of relict plant
communities and a discussion of these
impacts can be found in Chapter 3 of this
Plan. Additionally, a comparison of the DEIS
alternatives in relation to relict plant
communities and routes can be found in
ACC-14.
5.54
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
ACC-14
COMMENT: Why were the impacts of routes on Monument resources not spatially analyzed?
RESPONSE: In response to public comment and new information, more detailed analysis in relation to transportation has been completed for this Plan and
is provided in Chapter 3. Additionally, this analysis has been completed for each of the alternatives in the DEIS and is provided in the table below. The
relative impact of the alternative transportation networks reported here differs slightly from the relative impacts of the alternatives reported in the DEIS.
This is because this analysis is based on more specific aspects of transportation impacts. This would not change the overall relative impact of the
alternatives reported in the DEIS, because transportation is only one component of the overall impact analysis. The miles of designated routes in each of
the alternatives are provided at the end of this table for comparison purposes.
Resource
Alternative A (no
action)
Alternative B
(preferred)
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
Paleontological resources
334 recorded sites
within 'A mile of routes
236 recorded sites
within 'A mile of open
routes
76 recorded sites within
'A mile of admin, routes
235 recorded sites
within 'A mile of open
routes
27 recorded sites within
'A mile of admin, routes
214 recorded sites
within 'A mile of open
routes
5 recorded sites within
'A mile of admin, routes
298 recorded sites
within Va mile of open
routes
8 recorded sites within
'A mile of admin, routes
Archaeological and Historic resources
1,128 recorded sites
within 'A mile of routes
550 recorded sites
within 'A mile of open
routes
126 recorded sites
within 'A mile of admin,
routes
662 recorded sites
within 'A mile of open
routes
72 recorded sites within
'A mile of admin, routes
441 recorded sites
within % mile of open
routes
24 recorded sites within
Va mile of admin, routes
709 recorded sites
within 'A mile of open
routes
16 recorded sites within
'A mile of admin, routes
Special status
plant species
Jones'
cycladenia
no routes within 0.3
miles
no routes within 4 miles
no routes within 7 miles
no routes within 7 miles
no routes within 0.5
miles
Kodachrome
bladderpod
0.18 miles of open route
through population
0.18 miles of admin,
route through
population
0.18 miles of open route
through population
0.18 miles of open route
through population
0.18 miles of open route
through population
Ute ladies'-
tresses
Burr Trail crosses, but
no OHV use
Burr Trail crosses, but
no OHV use
Burr Trail crosses, but
no OHV use
Burr Trail crosses, but
no OHV use
Burr Trail crosses, but
no OHV use
5.55
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Resource
Alternative A (no
action)
Alternative B
(preferred)
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
Relict plant communities and hanging
No routes in relict plant
No routes in relict plant
No routes in relict plant
No routes in relict plant
No routes in relict plant
gardens
communities
communities
communities
communities
communities
861 acres within 'A mile
379 acres within 'A mile
438 acres within 'A mile
369 acres within 'A mile
379 acres within V* mile
of routes
of open routes
of open routes
of open routes
of open routes
92 acres within Vt mile
14 acres within V4 mile
No relict plant
No relict plant
of admin, routes
of admin, routes
communities within 'A
mile of admin, routes
communities within %
mile of admin, routes
Riparian resources
277.4 miles of riparian
51.6 miles of riparian
69.5 miles of riparian
55.6 miles of riparian
75.3 miles of riparian
are within Vt mile of
are within 'A mile of
are within 'A mile of
are within 'A mile of
are within 'A mile of
PFC = Proper Functioning Condition
routes
open routes
open routes
open routes
open routes
NFC = Non-functioning Condition
• 167.7 PFC
• 15.7 PFC
• 23.0 PFC
• 14.7 PFC
• 25.4 PFC
FAR = Functioning at Risk
• 56.1 FAR or NFC
• 14.7 FAR or NFC
• 20.7 FAR or NFC
• 17.0 FAR or NFC
• 24.2 FAR or NFC
ND = No data avialable
• S3.6ND
• 21.1 ND
• 25.9 ND
• 23.9 ND
• 25.7 ND
36.6 miles of riparian
7.9 miles of riparian are
1 .0 mile of riparian are
3.1 miles of riparian are
are within 'A mile of
within 'A mile of admin.
within 'A mile of admin.
within '/a mile of admin.
admin, routes
routes
routes
routes
• 13.5 PFC
• 2.0 PFC
• 1.0 ND
• 0.5 PFC
• 10.7 FAR or NFC
• 3.8 FAR or NFC
• 1.7 FAR or NFC
• 12.5 ND
• 2.1 ND
• 1.0 ND
mule deer
1,459 miles of routes in
555 miles of open routes
812 miles of open routes
513 miles of open routes
808 miles of open routes
habitat
and 162 miles of admin.
and 93 miles of admin.
and 19 miles of admin.
and 38 miles of admin.
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
elk
144 miles of routes in
57 miles of open routes
72 miles of open routes
40 miles of open routes
59 miles of open routes
habitat
and 4 miles of admin.
and 2 miles of admin.
andO miles of admin.
andO miles of admin.
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
bighorn sheep
112 miles of routes in
42 miles of open routes
58 miles of open routes
43 miles of open routes
62 miles of open routes
Wildlife
habitat
and 4 miles of admin.
and 7 miles of admin.
and 1 mile of admin.
and 2 miles of admin.
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
black bear
110 miles of routes in
49 miles of open routes
67 miles of open routes
32 miles of open routes
52 miles of open routes
and 6 miles of admin.
and 4 miles of admin.
and 0 miles of admin.
andO miles of admin.
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
upland birds
159 miles of routes in
72 miles of open routes
105 miles of open routes
73 miles of open routes
88 miles of open routes
and 8 miles of admin.
and 1 mile of admin.
andO miles of admin.
and 1 mile of admin.
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
routes in habitat
5.56
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Resource
Alternative A (no
action)
Alternative B
(preferred)
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
Special status animal species
1 nest sites include peregrine falcon
and Mexican spotted owl
2 observations include bald eagle,
southwestern willow flycatcher and
state sensitive species
33 nest sites' within %
mile of routes
120 observations1 within
'A mile of routes
8 nest sites' within '/,
mile of open routes and
3 nest sites within 'A
mile of admin, routes
60 observations1 within
Vi mile of open routes
and 11 within 'A mile of
admin, routes
15 nest sites' within 'A
mile of open routes and
1 nest site within 'A mile
of admin, routes
73 observations2 within
'A mile of open routes
and 1 1 within Vi mile of
admin, routes
1 1 nest sites' within 'A
mile of open routes and
0 nest sites within Vi
mile of admin, routes
66 observations2 within
'A mile of open routes
and 4 within 'A mile of
admin, routes
15 nest sites' within Vi
mile of open routes and
0 nest sites within Vi
mile of admin, routes
82 observations2 within
Vi mile of open routes
and 4 within 'A mile of
admin, routes
Water quality
1,346 places where
routes cross riparian
areas (The large
number of stream
crossings in this
alternative could be a
function of inaccurate
route data that has not
been verified for
Alternative A.)
50 places where open
routes cross riparian
areas
52 places where open
routes cross riparian
areas
41 places where open
routes cross riparian
areas
82 places where open
routes cross riparian
areas
Air quality
2,073 miles of dirt
routes contributing to
fugitive dust
724 miles of designated
open dirt routes and 310
miles of administrative
dirt routes contributing
to fugitive dust
1,092 miles of
designated open dirt
routes and 179 miles of
administrative dirt
routes contributing to
fugitive dust
666 miles of designated
open dirt routes and 30
miles of administrative
dirt routes contributing
to fugitive dust
1,166 miles of
designated open dirt
routes and 82 miles of
administrative dirt
routes contributing to
fugitive dust
Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR)
no suitable WSR
segments
18 miles of WSR within
% mile of designated
open routes and 4.5
miles of WSR within 'A
mild of admin, routes
no suitable WSR
segments
28.7 miles of WSR
within Vi mile of
designated open routes
and 1.4 miles of WSR
within 'A mild of admin,
routes
23.4 miles of WSR
within Vi mile of
designated open routes
and 0 miles of WSR
within V* mild of admin,
routes
Route
information (for
comparison
purposes)
administrative
310
179
30
82
open
818
1,186
760
1,260
total
2,167
1,128
1,365
790
1,342
5.57
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
ACC-15
COMMENT: Impacts of route closures on
recreation activities and other uses such as
fuelwood cutting, post cutting, and livestock
grazing were not analyzed in the DEIS.
RESPONSE: The primary consideration in
management of the Monument, as stated in
the Monument Management Direction
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan, is to protect
the frontier character of the Monument and
the Monument resources identified in the
Proclamation. The rationale for selection of
specific routes is discussed in the
Transportation and Access section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan. These factors include:
protection of Monument resources,
implementation of planning decisions,
honoring valid existing rights, providing for
the transportation needs of the surrounding
communities, and deciding which routes go to
specific destinations (overlooks, camping
areas, etc.). These same considerations were
included in creating the transportation
networks for the various alternatives of the
DEIS, and varied to provide an array of
alternatives as required by NEPA regulations.
The number of miles of routes open and
closed is discussed in the Environmental
Consequences section (Chapter 4) of the
DEIS for many resources and uses, including
recreation, outfitters and guides, livestock
operations, and forestry product collection.
These numbers illustrate the number of miles
that would no longer be accessible and
therefore may have some impact on these
activities. A discussion of impacts to these
activities from route closures and other
decisions in this Plan is included in Chapter
3.
It is important to note that access for livestock
permittees is provided for in the array of
administrative routes in each of the
alternatives and is discussed on page 2.81 and
2.82 in the DEIS and in the Transportation
and Access section in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
In addition, permittees are provided access
for the proper management of livestock
grazing operation on allotments. These
stipulations are included in permits for each
allotment and are evaluated as permits are
renewed.
Forestry product collection is currently
allowed in two designated areas in the
Monument and is described in Chapter 2 in
the Forestry Products section and on Map
2.2 of this Plan. Access to these areas is
provided. Route closures in these areas
would not substantially affect these activities.
ACC-16
COMMENT: By concentrating OHV use in a
particular area, the BLM is also concentrating
damage to the natural resources in that area.
RESPONSE: As stated in the
Transportation and Access section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan, OHV use would be
limited to designated routes; no cross-country
travel would be permitted. As a general
approach, limiting OHV use to select
regularly used routes minimizes the impacts
to the region as a whole, and to identified
sensitive resources in particular. Limiting
OHV use to designated routes concentrates
impacts on routes which have already been
disturbed and which already have vehicular
use. There is also an advantage in limiting
OHV use on certain routes, in that it can be
better managed and widespread impacts can
be avoided.
ACC-17
COMMENT: Explain what is meant by no
cross-country travel, and why proposals for
cross-country vehicle use for certain areas
and purposes will not be considered.
Justification for prohibiting cross-country
vehicle travel is not adequate. Adaptive
management should be used for the
management of OHVs as proposed for other
activities.
RESPONSE: Impacts from OHV use are
evident on the ground in many places within
the Monument. (See the Transportation
and Access section in Chapter 2 for a
discussion of OHV and bicycle impacts.) In
instances where the authorized officer
determines that OHV impacts would occur in
the future if not curbed, limitations or
closures are allowed as provided in the 43
CFR 8340 Off-Road Vehicles regulations.
Monitoring and adaptive management would
be used to ensure that OHV use on designated
routes continues to be compatible with
5.58
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
resource protection objectives in the
Approved Plan.
ACC-18
COMMENT: Various people requested
administrative access on specific routes,
while others suggested closing specific
administrative routes or questioned why
administrative routes were needed at all.
RESPONSE: Every individual request for
keeping specific administrative routes open or
closed was considered and evaluated on the
basis of a variety of criteria. As stated in the
Administrative Routes and Authorized
Users section in Chapter 2 of this Plan, the
BLM would be responsible for administrative
routes which would be limited to authorized
users. Administrative routes are existing
routes that lead to developments where the
BLM or some permitted user must have
regular access for operation or maintenance.
These authorized developments include such
things as powerlines, cabins, weather stations,
communication sites, spring developments,
corrals, and water troughs. Access on these
administrative routes would be strictly limited
and would only be granted for legitimate and
specific purposes. The BLM would work
with authorized users to determine what
administrative access is necessary to carry out
the provisions of the authorized activity.
Authorized users could include grazing
permittees, researchers, state or Federal
agency personnel, and others carrying out
authorized activities under a permit or other
authorization.
ACC-19
COMMENT: The DEIS stated that "The
BLM, and Kane and Garfield Counties,
would meet periodically to evaluate the routes
designated as open for ATV use." Will there
be provisions for public involvement when
these discussions occur?
RESPONSE: Many public comments were
received on the designation of ATV routes,
including from Kane and Garfield Counties.
After consideration of these comments, in
addition to resource management and safety
issues, the network of routes designated for
ATV use shown on Map 2. 1 was developed.
Any proposed changes to the ATV routes in
the future would provide for public comment
and a plan amendment (except when done
under an emergency closure), including input
from the Counties, as provided for in the
public participation provisions of 43 CFR
8340.
ACC-20
COMMENT: Clarify what is meant by
"authorized users" as identified in the
Management Common to All section of the
DEIS. What kind of emergencies and what
kind of uses would allow exceptions to zone
and off-road vehicle restrictions?
RESPONSE: As discussed in the
Administrative Routes and Authorized
Users section in Chapter 2 of this Plan,
administrative routes are existing routes
which would be closed to the general public,
but lead to developments where the BLM or
some permitted user must have access for
maintenance or operation. These authorized
developments include such things as
powerlines, cabins, weather stations,
communication sites, spring developments,
corrals, and water troughs. Access on these
administrative routes would be strictly limited
and would only be granted for legitimate and
specific purposes. Authorized users could
include grazing permittees, researchers, state
or Federal agency personnel, and others
carrying out authorized activities under a
permit or other authorization. As stated in the
Administrative Routes and Authorized
Users section in Chapter 2 of this Plan,
limited exceptions to the general management
provisions could be granted to authorized
users by the Monument Manager. These
exceptions could allow off-highway vehicle
use, aircraft landing, mechanized access on
closed routes, or use of mechanized
equipment in closed areas. Exceptions could
be made in emergencies (such as search and
rescue), or where clearly essential to serve
Monument management purposes.
ACC-21
COMMENT: Clarify statement on page 2.15
of the DEIS concerning open and closed route
designations: "...approach would be
5.59
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
consistent with that of the State of Utah, the
U.S. Forest Service, and other land managers
in the area."
RESPONSE: This statement in the DEIS was
incorrect. The OHV designations described
in the Transportation and Access section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan are not necessarily the
same as those utilized by other land managers
in the area. The OHV designations described
in this Plan are, however, consistent with
standard BLM designations provided for in
the 43 CFR 8340 Off-Road Vehicle
regulations and the BLM Manual.
ACC-22
COMMENT: The DEIS alternatives do not
adequately plan for current and future OHV
recreation in the Monument, as required by
law. The alternatives should go through a
process to designate open, restricted, and
closed areas for OHVs.
RESPONSE: As described in the
Transportation and Access section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan, OHV designations of
"closed" or "limited to designated routes"
would be made in this Plan. These
designations are based on resource conflicts
and patterns of use, among other issues, and
are consistent with BLM-wide OHV
designations as provided for in 43 CFR 8340
Off-Road Vehicle regulations and the BLM
Manual. The BLM is not required to provide
for all categories of designations.
ACC-23
COMMENT: What is the BLM' s authority to
close OHV trails and cross-country OHV
travel without a specific project document?
RESPONSE: The BLM has the authority to
make OHV designations in all planning
processes. In the Monument, the
designations selected are either "closed" or
"limited to designated routes" as discussed in
the Transportation and Access section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan. These designations
are consistent with standard BLM
designations provided for in 43 CFR 8340
Off-Road Vehicle regulations and the BLM
Manual. The environmental analysis
associated with this Plan serves as the NEPA
document for this decision.
ACC-24
COMMENT: How were open routes (public,
administrative, ATV) decided?
RESPONSE: As stated in the
Transportation and Access section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan, the BLM was
persuaded, as a result of widespread requests
in the scoping process and further
examination, that proper management of the
Monument would be enhanced by making
decisions on access and transportation routes
in the Plan. The specific routes designated
open (for both public and administrative use)
in the DEIS alternatives were determined
based on a variety of considerations. These
include what is needed to protect Monument
resources, implement planning decisions,
honor valid existing rights, provide for the
transportation needs of surrounding
communities, and provide a reasonable range
of transportation networks for NEPA analysis
purposes. These issues, including public
comment were considered in development of
the Proposed Plan transportation system. The
basic philosophy in determining which routes
would be open in the Proposed Plan was to
determine which routes access some
destination (such as a scenic overlook or a
popular camping site) and present no threat to
Monument resources. These routes would be
open to public use. Routes that were not
considered desirable (for resource protection
purposes) would not be kept open for public
use. Additional routes would be designated
open for administrative purposes. See the
Transportation and Access section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan and ACC-20 for a
complete discussion on administrative routes
and authorized users of these routes. A
discussion of the designated routes for ATV
use is provided in ACC-4.
ACC-25
COMMENT: Provisions for maintenance of
state highways should be addressed,
including sources for mineral materials and
gravel. The Plan should also address road
improvements needed for future increases in
traffic.
5.60
Chapter 5
RESPONSE: The BLM would continue to
work with the Utah Department of
Transportation concerning route maintenance
for Highways 12 and 89 as discussed in the
Maintenance section in Chapter 2 of this
Plan. This would cover maintenance and
safety work activities. If BLM approval is
required for improvements to Highways 12
and 89 to handle future increases in traffic,
those could occur following discussions
between the BLM and the State justifying the
need for such improvements. Any new
ground disturbance would require site-
specific environmental analysis.
As discussed in the Energy and Mineral
Activities section in Chapter 2 of this Plan,
the Monument is no longer subject to the
issuance of new mineral material permits.
However, existing material sites authorized
by Title 23 rights-of-way would continue
until lands are returned to BLM jurisdiction
by the Federal Highway Administration.
ACC-26
COMMENT: How do routes and zones fit
together? The zones need to provide for more
improvements to routes.
RESPONSE: The management zones
described in the Zone Descriptions section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan help define permitted
activities and any stipulations pertaining to
them, as well as any excluded activities.
Zones describe the character of visitor
facilities, activities, etc., which are permitted
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
within them. Zones do not dictate the class or
maintenance level of routes located within
them. A discussion of the maintenance level
of routes can be found in the Maintenance
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
ACC-27
COMMENT: Impacts from cross-country
use and from route use should be analyzed
separately.
RESPONSE: The BLM recognizes that
vehicle use on routes and cross-country
vehicle travel have different impacts on
resources and uses. These transportation
impacts were analyzed separately in the
Environmental Consequences section
(Chapter 4) of the DEIS. Chapter 3 of this
Plan also includes a separate discussion of
these issues and the impacts caused by each.
BIO-1
COMMENT: Explain the State of Utah's
role in the management of fish and wildlife
within the Monument, including
reintroduction and introduction (native and
non-native), and hunting and fishing
regulations.
RESPONSE: The Proclamation establishing
the Monument states: "Nothing in this
Proclamation shall be deemed to diminish the
responsibility and authority of the State of
Utah for management of fish and wildlife,
including regulation of hunting and fishing,
on Federal lands within the Monument." As
stated in the Fish and Wildlife section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan, the BLM has the
responsibility to manage the habitat that
supports fish and wildlife species. The
BLM's objective in managing habitat would
be to work in conjunction with the Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) in
managing fish, wildlife, and other animals to
achieve and maintain natural populations,
population dynamics and population
distributions in a way that protects and
enhances Monument resources. To meet
these objectives, the BLM would manage
habitats for the recovery or re-establishment
of native populations through collaborative
planning with UDWR and others.
BIO-2
COMMENT: Various clarifications about
invertebrates, birds, and sensitive fish species
were requested. These included:
A. Is Appendix 15 a literature search, or is
this a result of actual surveys, and why are
there no mollusks listed?
B. Appendix 15 has the wrong genus and
species names for Brewer's blackbird and for
the mallard (pages A15.1 and A15.6).
Brewer's blackbird should be Euphagus
cyanocephalus instead of Euphagus
carolinus. Mallard should be Anas
platyrhynchos instead of Anas platyrinos.
5.61
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
C. There is one UDWR threatened raptor
(ferruginous hawk) using the Monument that
was not recognized in the DEIS.
D. Appendix 16 (page A16.4) erroneously
lists the Colorado squawfish and the
razorback sucker as being in the Monument.
RESPONSE:
A. The list of invertebrate species was
derived by a literature search conducted by
the Utah Natural Heritage Program.
"Invertebrates of the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument: A Review,"
William R. Bosworth, III and George V.
Oliver, Cooperative Agreement Number
UT040-A8-0002, August 31, 1998.
A complete species list of invertebrates was
not available at the time the DEIS was
printed, therefore only a summary sheet was
included. The invertebrate list compiled from
the literature search is available on the
Monument website or can be provided by
request. No crustaceans have been reported
in the literature for the Monument.
B. The scientific names used for Brewer's
blackbird and for the mallard in the DEIS are
in error and are corrected as written above in
the Errata at the end of this document.
C. The ferruginous hawk is identified as a
State and BLM sensitive species in Appendix
15 (page 15.5) and Appendix 16 (page
A16.2)intheDEIS.
D. The Colorado squawfish and razorback
sucker are not found within the Monument at
the present time, but are found in the Lake
Powell system, of which the Escalante River
is a part.
BIO-3
COMMENT: Clarify the reseeding policy
following fires.
RESPONSE: Reseeding after fires would be
used in specific circumstances as described in
the Reseeding After Fires section in Chapter
2 of this Plan. Native plants would be used as
a priority in all except emergency situations,
in instances where reseeding was determined
necessary. All reseeding efforts must meet
the overall objective for vegetation to be
managed to achieve a natural range of native
plant associations.
BIO-4
COMMENT: What are the different types of
vegetation manipulation, and why does it
appear that some alternatives allow more than
others. Clarify your strategy for control of
noxious weed species and the use of non-
native plants. Impacts of vegetation
restoration and the use of non-natives
(seeding) need to be discussed.
RESPONSE: Some form of vegetation
manipulation (chemical, biological,
mechanical or management ignited fire) was
allowed in the DEIS in all but two zones of
two alternatives. Other zones restricted these
activities to specific methods (e.g., biological)
or for specific purposes (i.e., for protection of
Monument resources). Determinations of
which methods would be used in the different
zones and alternatives was representative of
the alternative and zone philosophies and
provided a range of alternative management
scenarios for impact analysis purposes. None
of the alternatives discuss the amount of
vegetation manipulation that would be
allowed since site specific recommendations
for vegetation restoration are not proposed.
The Vegetation section in Chapter 2 of this
Plan provides objectives for vegetation
management within the Monument.
Vegetation restoration methods are discussed
under the Vegetation Management section
in Chapter 2. These sections define the terms,
provide examples of each method, and
describe when methods are restricted to
specific circumstances.
The Monument would have a noxious weed
control program that is described in the
Noxious Weed Control section in Chapter 2
of this Plan. Through cooperation with
adjacent agencies and the Counties, the BLM
is dedicated to control noxious weeds in and
around the Monument.
Native plants would be used as a priority in
all vegetation projects. This policy is
described in the Native vs. Non-native
Plants section in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
5.62
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
As stated in this Plan, vegetation restoration
methods would only be used as a tool to meet
the overall vegetation management objective -
to achieve a natural range of native plant
associations. It goes on to state that
management activities would not be allowed
to significantly shift the makeup of those
associations, disrupt their normal population
dynamics, or disrupt the normal progression
of those associations. With this in mind, any
vegetation restoration projects would be
required to have beneficial effects to the
vegetation associations. General discussions
of vegetation management impacts (including
the use of non-natives) are discussed in
Chapter 3 of this Plan. More specific project
level NEPA analysis would be completed
prior to the use of vegetation restoration in
the Monument.
BIO-5
COMMENT: Clarify the fuelwood cutting
policy and locations.
RESPONSE: As stated in the Forestry
Products section in Chapter 2 of this Plan,
fuelwood cutting is currently allowed in two
areas of the Monument (Rock Springs Bench
and Buckskin Mountain). These areas are
shown on Map 2.2. Other areas of the
Monument may be considered for fuelwood
cutting if determined necessary to achieve the
overall vegetation management objective.
Use of vehicles in association with fuelwood
cutting areas would follow the same
restrictions as other uses as described in
Chapter 2 of this Plan.
BIO-6
COMMENT: Are there restrictions placed on
activities to protect wildlife and plants?
RESPONSE: This Plan describes specific
restrictions as they relate to certain activities.
These can be found in the Fish and Wildlife,
Vegetation Management, and Special
Status Animal and Plant Species sections of
Chapter 2. The Zone Descriptions section
also provides information on restrictions on
activities. Protection of wildlife and plants in
the Monument is a primary concern in the
management of the Monument. In general, if
activities are determined to be harming
wildlife or vegetation, restrictions would be
imposed to minimize or eliminate these
impacts. Standard protection zones exist for
some listed animal species for protection
from specific activities. These are discussed
in the Special Status Animal Species section
in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
BIO-7
COMMENT: What restrictions are proposed
to protect unique sensitive resources such as
relict plant communities?
RESPONSE: Unique and isolated vegetation
communities such as relict plant areas and
hanging gardens, as identified in the
Proclamation, were a primary concern in
development of this Plan. Specific
restrictions for these areas are mentioned in
the Relict Plant Communities and Hanging
Gardens section in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
These areas would be protected from any
surface disturbing activity or any activity that
may directly or indirectly impact the site.
Non-surface disturbing research would be
encouraged as it would increase our
knowledge of these unique associations.
BIO-8
COMMENT: Is there more information
regarding the protection and management of
Federally listed endangered and threatened
species, as well as sensitive species?
RESPONSE: Information on the
management of listed and sensitive species is
provided in the Special Status Animal
Species and Special Status Plant Species
sections in Chapter 2 of this Plan. This
discussion includes information that is
common to all species, as well as information
that is specific to each. The BLM is
dedicated to the recovery and conservation of
all listed species as well as species that are
considered sensitive by the State of Utah.
Cooperating with State and other Federal
agencies is an integral part of sensitive
species protection.
5.63
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
BIO-9
COMMENT: Clarify the fire management
policy. Why would fire suppression take
place in Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs)?
RESPONSE: The objective of fire
management in the Monument is to allow fire
to play its natural role in the ecosystem. All
fire activities would be coordinated with the
Color Country Fire Management Area as
described in the Wildfire Management
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan. As outlined
in the Color Country Fire Management
Operating Plan, fire would be allowed to play
its natural role in the ecosystem in most areas
of the Monument. Areas with facilities,
private property, or areas where public safety
is a concern may have fire suppression
activities. Other areas for fire suppression
activities may be identified for the protection
of wood structures in historic or archaeologic
sites. Changes in the current fire
management zone prescriptions may be
modified through the fire planning process.
Heavy equipment use is only allowed through
authorization of the Monument Manager.
Fire would be allowed to play its natural role
in WSAs, except where noted in the Color
Country Plan for the protection of private
property or other features. A fire resource
advisor familiar with WSA issues would be
consulted on all fires within the Monument
that involve WSAs.
BIO-10
COMMENT: The Plan should provide more
specific information on fish in order to assess
the effects of proposed actions. The BLM
should also coordinate with adjacent land
management agencies where pertinent to
fisheries management. The BLM should
correct inaccuracies, such as identifying the
presence of Bonneville cutthroat trout in the
West Fork of Boulder Creek.
RESPONSE: While the DEIS does not
specifically address fish management, it does
address the habitat components (i.e., water
quality and riparian areas) that affect fish.
Proposed decisions in the DEIS and Proposed
Plan (e.g., water quality, riparian, limiting
surface disturbing activities, and Wild and
Scenic River determinations) provide
protection for fish and fisheries habitat. The
BLM will continue to coordinate with the
UDWR, the U. S. Forest Service, and Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area where
common management of river systems and
associated wildlife, including fish, occur.
Corrections to inaccuracies, such as the
inaccurate reference to Bonneville cutthroat
trout (should be Colorado cutthroat trout)
found in the DEIS, are identified in the Errata
at the end of this document.
BIO-11
COMMENT: The DEIS does not address
aquatic communities in the Monument.
RESPONSE: The BLM recognizes the
importance of aquatic resources in the
Monument. Riparian and wetland systems
provide habitat for plants and animals,
especially in areas such as the Monument
where water is a limited resource. These
systems are also some of the most easily
affected resources in arid ecosystems due to
competing recreation, livestock and wildlife
use and dependence on water. Protection of
these areas is discussed in the Riparian
section in Chapter 2 and is further discussed
in the Strategy for Assuring Water
Availability section in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
Water quality monitoring, which is also
described in the Water section in Chapter 2
of this Plan, is an ongoing program which
would eventually include monitoring of
aquatic invertebrates and key indicators of
water quality such as algal communities.
These issues would also be vital in the study
of hanging gardens. At the time of plan
preparation, the only UDWR management
plan for aquatic communities in the
Monument was in the Aquatic Management
Plan Escalante River Drainage Hydrologic
Unit. This Plan discusses fish, amphibians,
and reptiles. As stated in the Fish and
Wildlife section in Chapter 2 of this Plan, the
BLM would work closely with the UDWR in
the management of wildlife species in the
Monument. Protection of aquatic resources
in the Monument, and the maintenance of
healthy aquatic systems, are a priority in
management of this area.
5.64
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
BIO-12
COMMENT: Clarify the use of Proper
Functioning Condition assessment for
riparian areas in the Monument.
RESPONSE: Proper Functioning Condition
(PFC) assessment protocols were developed
to provide standardized assessment of
riparian areas on public lands. The BLM uses
this process to evaluate three component of a
riparian-wetland area: (1) vegetation, (2)
landform/soils, and (3) hydrology. Although
the standard protocols do not include
evaluation of special status species habitat or
ecological processes, these would be
evaluated in all future riparian assessments.
This is because the recently adopted Utah
Standards and Guidelines for Healthy
Rangelands require evaluation of special
status species habitat and ecological
processes during assessments. Since the
current PFC inventory was completed prior to
implementation of the new Utah Standards
and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands, these
issues were not considered during evaluation.
All segments of riparian habitat previously
inventoried are scheduled to be reassessed as
part of the allotment assessments.
Furthermore, riparian areas that have not been
evaluated are scheduled for assessments
within the next three years. Proposed actions
in this Plan would contribute to an upward or
static, rather than a downward trend in PFC
class as outlined in the Utah Standards and
Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands. This is
true for all of the alternatives in the DEIS as
well as this Proposed Plan.
BIO-13
COMMENT: There are no benefits listed in
the DEIS from water developments
constructed for wildlife.
RESPONSE: Impacts of water developments
were discussed throughout the Environmental
Consequences section (Chapter 4) of the
DEIS. Although not specifically discussed,
there are potential benefits derived from
livestock water developments if they are
constructed in such a way as to provide
accessible water to wildlife. If the water is
not accessible to wildlife or transported by
pipeline where wildlife use the water, then
water developments could be a detriment.
Specific impacts to wildlife would be
assessed through project-level environmental
analysis as specific projects are proposed.
BIO-14
COMMENT: Clarify the Monument's role in
providing landscape connectivity for wildlife.
How will the Monument work with adjacent
agencies on landscape connectivity issues?
RESPONSE: The zones in this Proposed
Plan provide for linkages between adjacent
agency lands by protecting large undisturbed
or primitive areas. These areas include
riparian, as well as upland habitat for wildlife
species.
Interagency coordination and cooperation are
integral to management of biological
resources in the Monument. Many programs
described in this document include
interagency coordination in their discussions.
Examples from the following sections in
Chapter 2 of this Plan include: Fish and
Wildlife, Noxious Weed Control, Wildfire
Management, and Special Status Plant
Species and Special Status Animal Species.
In addition to these discussions, there is an
effort to coordinate research activities with
adjacent agencies, as described in the Science
and Research section in Chapter 2 of this
Plant. All of these activities demonstrate the
BLM's commitment to interagency
coordination and landscape resource
management.
BIO-15
COMMENT: How will the Executive Order
for Invasive Species be incorporated in this
Plan?
RESPONSE: On February 3, 1999 the
President issued Executive Order 11312
regarding invasive species management on
Federal lands. Invasive species management
issues in the Noxious Weed Control and
Native Vs. Non-native Plants sections in
Chapter 2 of this Plan incorporate provisions
from this Executive Order and describe how
the Monument would prevent the introduction
of invasive species and would work to
remove invasive species that are currently
present.
5.65
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
BIO-16
COMMENT: Impacts on wildlife were not
analyzed in relation to routes.
RESPONSE: General analysis of wildlife
impacts from route closures was provided in
Chapter 4 of the DEIS. In response to
comments, additional information has been
analyzed and provided in the impact analysis
in Chapter 3 of this Plan. Additionally,
information regarding wildlife and the
different route networks for the DEIS
alternatives has been completed and is
provided in ACC-14.
GEN-1
COMMENT: Explain the animal damage
control policy and how these activities will be
dealt with in the future. Comments on animal
damage control ranged from "don't allow any
animal damage control including mountain
lions and bears," to "predator control is an
important part of proper livestock
management," and "predator control should
be used only for human safety."
RESPONSE: As stated in the Wildlife
Services section in Chapter 2 of this Plan,
Wildlife Services (formerly Animal Damage
Control) activities within the Monument
would be limited to the taking of individual
coyotes within the immediate vicinity after
verified livestock kills, where reasonable
livestock management measures to prevent
predation had been taken and had failed.
Reasonable livestock management measures
could include experimental, preventive
measures to manage livestock for less
predation. No traps, poisons, snares, or M44s
would be allowed in the Monument due to
safety concerns and potential conflicts with
Monument resources. Pursuant to the
Proclamation, bear and mountain lion
populations are managed under State
regulations for wildlife through the UDWR.
This includes regulations for hunting and
regulations covering depredating bears and
mountain lions.
GEN-2
COMMENT: Filming restrictions in the
DEIS are not clear in regards to who they
apply to and what constitutes commercial and
minimum impact filming.
RESPONSE: Commercial filming activities
that require a permit (and payment of fees)
include:
• commercial moving photography - motion
pictures, television, car and other product
commercials, documentaries, etc. (From
8/10/94 letter signed by the Acting BLM
Director, and IM UT 96-15 dated
12/14/95).
• commercial still photography -
advertisements, brochures, calendars,
postcards, books, photographing public
land users to sell pictures to those same
users, photography featuring a commercial
product for sale using Monument lands as
a background (such as fashion shoots or
magazine advertisements), or any activity
whereby the photographer is under contract
to sell his/her photos (From 8/10/94 letter
signed by the Acting BLM Director, and
IM UT 96-15 dated 12/14/95).
All commercial filming activities permitted in
the Monument must be "minimum impact."
Minimum impact filming has a specific
definition in regards to activities and impacts
to resources as described in the Commercial
Filming section in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
Instruction Memorandum No. 94-59
(1 1/12/93) and 43 CFR 2929.2-2 provide the
basis for determining minimum impact
permits.
Many photographers (both professional and
amateur) are allowed to take still photographs
without a permit or the payment of any fees.
Visitors using cameras and/or recording
devices for their own personal use are also
not required to obtain a permit. All filming
activities would have to comply with zone
prescriptions.
GEN-3
COMMENT: Protecting wilderness character
is the original intent of the designation of the
Monument.
RESPONSE: The Presidential Proclamation
establishing Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument (GSENM) states "The
5.66
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument's vast and austere landscape
embraces a spectacular array of scientific and
historic resources" and specifically notes that
the Monument was "set apart and reserved"
for the "purpose of protecting the objects
identified." The Proclamation also states that
the remote and undeveloped character of the
Monument is responsible for the continued
existence and quality of most of the scientific
and historic resources described. The BLM
recognizes that safeguarding the remote and
undeveloped character of the Monument is
essential to the purposes for which the
Monument was created and this is recognized
in the DEIS and this Proposed Plan.
However, recommendations for Wilderness
designation or the addition of new Wilderness
Study Areas is beyond the scope of this Plan
as discussed in The 1999 Utah Wilderness
Inventory and Section 202 Planning
Process section in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
GEN-4
COMMENT: There is an egregious error in
math on page S.27 under Alternative C in the
DEIS.
RESPONSE: This error has been corrected
and is shown in the Errata at the end of this
document.
GEN-5
COMMENT: How are overflights, aircraft
landing, and natural quiet addressed?
RESPONSE: The DEIS contained a section
on aircraft operations at page 2.75. This
Proposed Plan contains a more detailed
discussion of aircraft operations, aircraft
landing, and noise baseline studies in the
Aircraft Operations section in Chapter 2.
GEN-6
COMMENT: Valid Existing Rights (VERs)
should have been considered as a significant
decision in the DEIS.
RESPONSE: The Presidential Proclamation
which established the Monument states "The
establishment of this monument is subject to
valid existing rights." The DEIS and this
Proposed Plan therefore do not make specific
decisions concerning VERs which may be
asserted in the future under various existing
authorities. Instead, the BLM would
periodically verify the status of VERs and
when an action is proposed pursuant to any of
them, the BLM would analyze the actions
potential impacts in order to provide a basis
for decision making as discussed in the Valid
Existing Rights and Other Existing
Authorizations section in Chapter 2. For
this reason, VER management was not listed
as a significant decision in Chapter 1 in the
DEIS.
GEN-7
COMMENT: Some people commented that
the Plan should address new coal and mineral
leasing, while others commented that new
leasing should not be allowed and that
existing leases should be purchased. How are
VERs addressed in the Plan? Why were no
additional restrictions placed upon them?
How will potential conflicts between Plan
objectives and VERs be handled? How will
access for VERs be provided?
RESPONSE: No new coal or other mineral
leasing will occur within the Monument
because the Proclamation withdraws the
Monument from the location of new mining
claims and new mineral leasing. The
Proclamation also states that "The
establishment of this monument is subject to
valid existing rights." VERs are discussed in
detail in the Valid Existing Rights and
Other Existing Authorizations section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan. This section covers
the treatment of proposed activities that may
conflict with Monument resources. This
section also includes a discussion of Standard
Lease Terms and mentions that they can be
modified by special or supplemental
stipulations and that conditions of approval
can be developed on site specific applications
to meet other resource concerns. The BLM
would consider the use of special stipulations
or other permit conditions on a case-by-case
basis to protect Monument resources. In
addition, the purchase, where authorized, or
exchange of existing mineral interests to
protect Monument resources may be
considered by the BLM on a case-by-case
basis. To the extent that holders of VERs are
entitled to reasonable access, the BLM would
work with the holder of the VER to provide
5.67
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
access consistent with the Proclamation and
to assure that VERs are not impaired.
GEN-8
COMMENT: Explain why there is no full
field development. Why are coalbed methane
resources not covered?
RESPONSE: Full field mineral development
of new and existing Federal mineral leases
was not analyzed as a separate alternative in
the DEIS for several reasons:
• The Monument proclamation closed the
Monument to Federal mineral leasing or
other disposition of Federal minerals.
• From a mineral resource perspective, the
probability of successful development from
exploration to full field development of
mineral resources is low. Recent
exploratory oil and gas wells in and around
the Monument have not disclosed the
existence of commercially recoverable
quantities of oil and gas. As to coal,
although the resources exists on leases
within the Monument and development is
legally permissible, the economics of
producing and transporting coal to distant
markets without established infrastructure
makes future development speculative.
This conclusion is supported by recent
analysis of existing coal leases. As to
coalbed methane, because new mineral
leasing is not allowed within the
Monument which would provide existing
coalbed methane leases the opportunity to
expand and consolidate holdings, it is not
clear that current coalbed methane leases
can be commercially developed. Further, it
is not clear that there have been confirmed
commercially recoverable amounts of
coalbed methane within the Monument,
and until that occurs development would
be speculative.
• Insufficient information is currently
available to analyze the likely impacts of
full field development.
• Direct, indirect, and cumulative analysis
would be required and would occur at the
time that any mineral development is
specifically proposed.
This staged approach to NEPA compliance
has been upheld by the 10th Circuit in Park
County Resource Council v. USDA 817 F2d
609 (10th Cir 1987). Such an approach does
not constitute "piecemealing" of a larger
project. This Plan is independent of, and does
not pre-determine, the result of any future
application for permit to drill (APD) or
development proposal. NEPA compliance
would be conducted at such time that any
future proposal is made; adequate information
would then exist to identify precisely the
proposed activities and to analyze the
proposal and its impacts. The Interior Board
of Land Appeals has upheld approval of an
APD for an exploratory well without analysis
of full field development (see Utah Chapter
of Sierra Club, 120 IBLA 229).
GEN-9
COMMENT: Explain how local interests are
incorporated into the Plan.
RESPONSE: The DEIS contains a section on
Communities in Chapter 2 (page 2.76). That
section states that the BLM has a strong
commitment to work with communities in
managing the Monument, as already
demonstrated in ongoing efforts to consult
with communities on planning and provide
communities with financial assistance on
planning issues associated with the
Monument. It goes on to state that the BLM
will work with communities and utility
companies on infrastructure needs, and
commits the BLM to participation in
community organizations and regional
coordination groups. Major visitor facilities
would be located in the communities to
facilitate community involvement in visitor
services. Further, local elected officials from
each county would be represented on the
GSENM Advisory Committee. Specific
direction for activities such as fuelwood
cutting and collections, and cooperation with
communities are addressed in Chapter 2 of
this Plan.
GEN-10
COMMENT: Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) was not
consulted in the EIS process.
5.68
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
RESPONSE: Under a National
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between Wildlife Services and the BLM, the
BLM is committed to working with "APHIS-
Animal Damage Control to identify areas on
BLM lands where mitigation or restrictions
may be needed to comply with BLM's
Resource and Management Framework
Plans." The BLM considers the Monument a
place where restrictions are appropriate, and
they are reflected in this Plan. The BLM will
continue to discuss appropriate animal
damage control activities with Wildlife
Services in the annual review of wildlife
damage management plans to ensure that they
are consistent with this Plan. Under the
MOU, the BLM is not required to consult
with APHIS on the development of specific
proposals for the DEIS.
GEN-11
COMMENT: Explain Class I airshed
designations. It was suggested that the
Monument pursue Class I designation and
that impacts on air quality from the
alternatives were not considered and
models/formulas were not used to assess air
quality impacts. Others suggested the Class
II designation should be maintained.
RESPONSE: The Clean Air Act of 1977
established three air quality classes for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The
Act established all National Parks of a
particular size (5,000 acres or more) as
mandatory Class I areas; all five National
Parks in Utah are Class I areas. As stated on
page 3.14 of the DEIS, the entire Monument
is classified as a Class II area. To change an
area from one classification to another, the
Utah Air Quality Board submits a
recommendation to the Governor. This
process is the responsibility of the State.
After reviewing comments on air quality,
including suggestions that the Monument
pursue Class I status, and after considering
potential benefits to resources, the BLM has
decided not to pursue Class I designation for
the Monument. Class II status is sufficient to
protect air quality within the Monument since
this Plan does not propose any actions that are
expected to affect air quality standards. The
presence of Class I areas surrounding the
Monument affords additional protection. As
stated in the Air Quality section in Chapter 2
of this Plan, all actions and authorizations
would be designed or stipulated so as to
protect air quality within the Monument and
the Class I areas surrounding the Monument.
A discussion of impacts on air quality is
included in Chapter 4 of the DEIS and in
Chapter 3 of this Plan. Specific formulas and
models were not used for this analysis
because the BLM is not proposing any
actions that would significantly affect air
quality (only temporary localized increase in
fugitive dust from construction and vehicle
use). In addition, sufficient vehicle use data
are not available to estimate levels of such
temporary increases. While ongoing
monitoring of air quality is not occurring, the
State of Utah categorizes the Monument as an
attainment area and estimates air quality
pollution to be low.
GEN-12
COMMENT: The Monument should be
designated Visual Resource Management
(VRM) Class I, especially Wilderness Study
Areas. The VRM Class IV should not be a
designation in the Monument.
RESPONSE: The VRM classes are discussed
in Chapter 2 of both the DEIS and this Plan.
As discussed, VRM classes in the DEIS were
based on an inventory updated after
designation of the Monument. Based on
public comment, including the suggestions
above, and re-evaluation of visual resource
management objectives, the VRM Class IV
areas (where major modification of the
existing character of the landscape are
allowed) have been integrated into
surrounding classes for this Plan. Should
portions of the Monument be designated
Wilderness or added to the Wild and Scenic
River system, the VRM Classes for these
lands would be changed to VRM Class I.
GEN-13
COMMENT: Explain the composition and
role of the advisory committee. Will there be
more than one group?
RESPONSE: The GSENM Advisory
Committee is discussed in Chapter 2 of this
5.69
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Plan. One advisory committee is proposed
and would be charted under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). This
committee would advise on science related
matters and on progress in meeting
management plan objectives in the
Monument. The make-up of the committee is
also discussed in the GSENM Advisory
Committee section in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
GEN-14
COMMENT: There is no table showing how
the DEIS complies with Federal regulations
and executive orders. Executive Order 1 1988
is not mentioned in the DEIS.
RESPONSE: Chapter 1 of both the DEIS and
this Plan discusses the major laws,
regulations, and criteria with which this Plan
must comply. A table of Federal regulations
and executive orders, along with how the
various alternatives comply with each, was
not included in the DEIS because all
alternatives must comply with applicable
laws, regulations, and executive orders. To
list each one individually would
unnecessarily enlarge the document.
Page 4.53 of the DEIS stated that "there are
no floodplains associated with large rivers in
the Monument." However, after consulting
the Federal Emergency Management Agency
maps which show the location of special
flood hazard areas (floodplains), it was
determined that there are a number of
floodplains within the Monument. Therefore,
a policy on floodplains is included in the
Facilities section in Chapter 2 and in the
Issues Considered but not Analyzed in
Detail section in Chapter 3 of this Plan. In
accordance with Executive Order 1 1988
(Floodplain Management), these sections
state that no projects or activities that would
result in permanent fills or diversions in, or
placement of permanent facilities on special
flood hazard areas, would be proposed within
the Monument.
GEN-15
COMMENT: How does the Proposed Plan
address cultural and historic resources? More
emphasis should be placed on cultural and
historic resources.
RESPONSE: The BLM recognizes the
importance of cultural and historic resources
to the cultural heritage of the local
communities and Native American Indian
communities. The objectives set out in the
History and Archaeology sections in Chapter
2 of this Plan are established to support the
preservation, study, and appreciation of the
cultural and historic resources and the cultural
heritage of the peoples of the region. The
BLM is committed to the continuing
consultation with Native American Indian
communities and to continuing and building
on the collaborative history programs already
initiated in the local communities. For
example, the BLM is involved in an ongoing
Oral History Program in cooperation with
local communities. The Oral History
Program focuses on the collection of histones
from local residents and others
knowledgeable about the region in order to
increase understandings of the interactions
between people and the environment of the
Monument.
GEN-16
COMMENT: Clarify "multiple use" as it
relates to the Monument. Multiple use should
be emphasized.
RESPONSE: The term "multiple use" is
defined in Section 103 (c) of FLPMA.
FLPMA defines multiple use as the
"harmonious and coordinated management of
the various resources without permanent
impairment of the productivity of the land and
the quality of the environment with
consideration being given to the relative
values of the resources and not necessarily to
the combination of uses that will give the
greatest economic output or the greatest unit
output." A discussion of multiple use was
included in the DEIS on page 1 . 1 and is
included in Chapter 1 of this Plan. The
Proclamation that established the Monument
governs how the provisions of FLPMA
(including multiple use) will be applied
within the Monument, since the Proclamation
withdraws some uses (e.g., mineral entry) and
states that some uses will continue to be
managed under existing laws (e.g., grazing).
The Proclamation also dictates that the BLM
protect the spectacular array of scientific,
historical, biological, geological,
5.70
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
paleontological, and archeological objects for
which the Monument was created. The
multiple uses that occur on the Monument
must meet this requirement.
GEN-17
COMMENT: A word is missing on page
A6. 1 in the Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern discussion.
RESPONSE: The missing words are "these
resources." This correction is noted in the
Errata at the end of this document.
GEN-18
COMMENT: There is a factual error in the
DEIS (page 3.56 within the section heading
of Oil and Gas) regarding testing of the
Conoco, Inc. Reese Canyon State 32 well.
RESPONSE: This error has been corrected
and is shown in the Errata at the end of this
document.
GEN-19
COMMENT: Will there be Research Natural
Areas designated in the Monument?
RESPONSE: One Research Natural Area
existed prior to Monument designation. This
is the No Mans Mesa Research Natural Area,
designated in 1986. The DEIS recommended
that this designation continue. Designation of
additional Research Natural Areas is not
being recommended in this Plan. The focus
of the entire Monument is on the protection of
the resources identified in the Proclamation
and on the appropriate study of these
resources. Therefore, the use of Research
Natural Areas as a management tool for
further areas is not considered necessary.
GEN-20
COMMENT: How were unavoidable adverse
impacts addressed?
RESPONSE: While there is not a specific
section titled "Unavoidable Adverse Impacts"
in the DEIS, these impacts are included
throughout Chapter 4 in the impacts
discussion. All adverse impacts discussed,
particularly those remaining after application
of mitigation measures, constitute
unavoidable adverse impacts. The
alternatives analyzed in the DEIS and this
Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) represent the range of mitigation
measures to lessen adverse impacts.
GEN-21
COMMENT: Mitigation measures that are
proposed in several places in the DEIS should
be better defined.
RESPONSE: The prescriptions and zone
features of the alternatives in the DEIS are in
themselves alternative mitigation measures to
protect Monument resources. These
measures were discussed throughout Chapter
4 of the DEIS as eliminating or lessening
impacts to resources. The mitigation features
of this Plan are also specifically discussed
throughout Chapter 3. Additional mitigating
measures mentioned in both the DEIS and
this Plan/FEIS documents would be
developed in subsequent project level NEPA
analysis.
Monitoring of all mitigation strategies is
integral to the protection of Monument
resources. Information gained from this
monitoring would be part of the adaptive
management framework discussed in
Appendix 3 of this Plan.
GEN-22
COMMENT: How will the BLM handle oil
and gas exploration and drilling? Why are
impacts from these activities not analyzed for
cumulative effects or direct and indirect
effects?
RESPONSE: A general discussion of
impacts from current operations was included
in the Cumulative Impacts section of the
DEIS, page 4.49. This Plan also includes a
general discussion of these activities in the
Cumulative Impacts section in Chapter 3.
Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from
future oil and gas development are not
analyzed in detail in this Plan because the
BLM does not view such development as
reasonably foreseeable. Although not legally
precluded, assuming the lessees have valid
existing rights, future oil and gas
5.71
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
development appears speculative. A number
of oil and gas exploratory wells have been
drilled in and around the Monument without
the discovery of commercially recoverable
amounts of oil and gas. If commercially
recoverable amounts of oil and gas are
discovered, the impacts would be analyzed in
future NEPA documents.
GEN-23
COMMENT: The Proposed Plan should
include an analysis to address the cost of
implementation of each of the alternatives.
RESPONSE: When this Proposed Plan and
the alternatives in the DEIS were developed,
the BLM considered what would be
reasonable to expect in terms of future
budgets for enforcement, mitigation, and
other implementation measures. While one
aspect of implementation may be more costly
in a certain alternative, there are generally
other aspects that may be less costly. For
example, enforcement measures may be more
costly in one alternative where more
restrictions are used, while provision of
visitor amenities might be less costly.
Overall, the alternatives were designed to be
realistic in terms of budget needs.
A detailed analysis of the cost of each
alternative is unnecessary because the
consideration of lowest cost is not a factor in
selecting a proposed plan. The least
expensive alternative would not always best
meet the requirements of the Proclamation,
FLPMA, and other laws, so budget costs
were not considered necessary to the planning
process.
GEN-24
COMMENT: Explain the "adaptive
management" process. How will monitoring
be incorporated into management?
RESPONSE: The BLM realizes the
importance of developing monitoring and
adaptive management measures for protection
of Monument resources. These programs
would ensure that the most current scientific
understanding is applied to the protection and
management of Monument resources. The
Implementation and Adaptive
Management Framework in Appendix 3 of
this Plan describes the process of how
objectives would be established, monitored,
and evaluated to ensure protection of
resources based on new data and information.
The GSENM Advisory Committee would be
an integral part of the adaptive management
process. In Chapter 2 of this Plan, the
GSENM Advisory Committee section
discusses their role in advising Monument
management on science related matters and
efforts to meet plan objectives.
GEN-25
COMMENT: Explain how the Plan
affects/addresses private property within the
Monument boundary.
RESPONSE: This Plan applies only to public
land within the boundaries of the Monument;
it does not apply to private lands. However,
as stated in the Other Existing Rights or
Interests section in Chapter 2 of this Plan,
the presence of private lands within the
Monument has implications for public land
because landowners are entitled to reasonable
access to their land. Such access is subject to
the rules and regulations governing the
administration of public land. The BLM has
discretion to evaluate and consider such
things as proposed construction methods and
location, reasonable alternatives, and
reasonable terms and conditions as are
necessary to protect the public interest and
Monument resources.
GEN-26
COMMENT: Clarify the Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) process. If
ACECs are not designated, how will areas
nominated for ACECs be protected? Why
was the Scenic Route nomination not
included in the list of nominations in
Appendix 6, page A6.2? Why weren't the
Outstanding Natural Areas (ONA), Research
Natural Areas (RNA), and Wolverine
Petrified Forest Area (WPFA) included in the
ACEC nominations?
RESPONSE: Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern are areas within the
public lands where special management
attention is required to protect and prevent
irreparable damage to important historic,
5.72
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife
resources, or other natural systems or
processes, or to protect life and safety from
natural hazards. The identification of a
potential ACECs shall not, of itself, change or
prevent change of the management or use of
public lands (43 CFR 1601.0-5 and the
FLPMA).
The ACEC process is described in Chapter 2,
page 2.75, and in Appendix 6 in the DEIS, as
well as in the Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern section in Chapter
2 and Appendix 10 of this Plan. ACEC
nominations were considered by an
evaluation team to determine if they met the
relevance and importance criteria described in
43 CFR 1610.7.2. After careful evaluation, it
was determined that the resources identified
in the nominations would be adequately
protected by the management prescriptions
proposed in the alternatives. Therefore, it
was determined that no ACECs would be
proposed through this planning process.
An ACEC designation does not in itself
provide protection. The protection comes
from management prescriptions that the BLM
proposes through the planning process.
Those protective prescriptions can be made
without an ACEC designation. Examples of
proposed management prescriptions that
protect the resources that the Monument was
set aside to preserve include: closing the
Monument to cross-country vehicle use,
limiting or not allowing the placement of
minor facilities (such as pullouts, parking
areas, signs, etc.), limiting group size, and
limiting or not allowing rights-of-ways. A
complete discussion can be found in Chapter
2 of this Plan. The proposed management
prescriptions are similar to those "special
management prescriptions" that could be
proposed for an ACEC, and they are the
prescriptions the BLM considers necessary to
protect resources within the Monument.
Although mistakenly not included on the list
of nominations on page A6.2 of the DEIS, the
Scenic Routes ACEC nomination is shown in
Table A6.1 on the next page. This
nomination was evaluated for relevance and
importance, along with the other nominations.
It was determined that the management
prescriptions provided for the zones
adequately protect the scenic corridors and
that an ACEC designation was not warranted.
As stated on page 2.83 in the DEIS, "All
existing special designations (ONAs, RNA,
WPFA) are consistent with the Proclamation
and the objectives of the alternatives of the
Plan. Thus, these designation would be
continued in all alternatives." These special
designations are discussed in Appendix 1 8 in
the DEIS, and ACEC status is not necessary
to provide further protection.
GEN-27
COMMENT: The cumulative impacts are not
quantifiably distinguished between the
alternatives.
RESPONSE: The Cumulative Impacts
section (Chapter 4) in the DEIS discusses the
cumulative impacts of the five alternatives.
Although Alternatives B, C, D and E are not
discussed separately, impacts that are
different between the alternatives are
discussed qualitatively in the narrative. This
Cumulative Impacts section is organized in
the same manner as the rest of Chapter 4, in
order to facilitate comparison with the other
impact discussions. Quantitative analysis for
cumulative impacts was not always possible
due to the absence of quantitative data upon
which to base the analysis. The level of detail
included in this section is comparable to that
included in the rest of Chapter 4 and to the
specificity of the decisions being proposed.
The Cumulative Impacts section of this
Proposed Plan includes a discussion of
cumulative impacts of the proposed decisions
which is quantified when possible.
GEN-28
COMMENT: In the analysis there are a
number of surface disturbing activities such
as grazing, resource exploration and
extraction, vegetation manipulation, research
and illegal use of ATVs that were not
included in the assumptions for acres of
disturbance. Why?
RESPONSE: Grazing, resource exploration
and extraction, vegetation manipulation, and
surface disturbing research were not included
in the acres of disturbance estimates because
there are no specific proposals for these
5.73
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
activities in the DEIS. These topics are
discussed in the Management Common to All
Alternatives section of the DEIS since
management does not vary by alternative.
Since a more detailed discussion of
circumstances where vegetation restoration
would be used is provided in this Plan,
estimates for acres of disturbance from
vegetation restoration have been included for
analysis purposes in Chapter 3. These
estimates would have been roughly the same
across the alternatives in the DEIS since
management ignited fires would be the
predominate tool used and this tool was
allowed in all alternatives.
Illegal use of ATVs has the same impacts as
allowing cross-country travel. It is assumed
that illegal ATV use levels would not differ
significantly by alternative, so speculating
would not assist with comparisons among
alternatives.
GEN-29
COMMENT: The Summary of
Environmental Consequences Table (pages
S.24 and 4.70) is incorrect when it says
"animal damage control activities would
directly and indirectly impact visitor
experiences in Alternative D."
RESPONSE: The tables are incorrect and
have been changed to "visitor experience
would not be impacted by animal damage
control activities, because these activities
would not be allowed." The text in Chapter
4, page 4.40, is correct. Corrections have
been made on the Errata at the end of this
document.
GEN-30
COMMENT: The DEIS did not seem to
address mitigation or limits on surface-
disturbing research. Will surface disturbing
research be allowed, and if so under what
conditions? What is the definition of "high-
scientific value?" What will the permit policy
be for surface-disturbing or non-surface
disturbing research?
RESPONSE: The section in Chapter 2 on
Management of Science and Research
Activities discusses the management of
research activities in the Monument. All
science and educational related activities
would require special-use permits, and in
general, researchers would need to comply
with the zone prescriptions (group size,
mechanized vs. non-mechanized, etc.). The
BLM would consider exceptions to the zone
prescriptions during the special-use
permitting process for extremely high-value
research opportunities, where opportunities
are not available elsewhere or where research
projects focus on protecting resources at risk.
Because future science activities cannot be
envisioned now, surface-disturbing research
projects would be considered on a case-by-
case basis by the BLM during the permitting
process. This would be done in consultation
with the GSENM Advisory Committee,
which includes eight members from the
scientific community. The research value of
the project and its mitigation potential would
be weighed against the project's impact(s) to
other Monument resources. Surface-
disturbing research activities would be
addressed and mitigated where necessary in
the special-use permit. Some projects, due to
their scope and location, may require NEPA
analysis.
Projects with high-scientific value are those
which have the potential to significantly
enhance the knowledge base and protection of
Monument resources. In general, these are
projects that can help evaluate/stabilize
certain resources at risk (e.g., threatened and
endangered species, riparian zones, geologic
hazards). Projects with high scientific value
also refers to those research projects that are
unique to the Monument and could not be
done elsewhere.
Some people commented that surface-
disturbing research for paleontological or
archaeological studies would destroy
Monument resources in violation of the
Antiquities Act. Artifacts found during such
studies would be collected to standards
established by the GSENM Advisory
Committee, and the artifacts would be
properly curated.
5.74
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
GEN-31
COMMENT: Explain how the science
program would protect Monument resources.
How can science occur without affecting
Monument resources?
RESPONSE: The Monument provides an
unparalleled opportunity for the study of
large-scale scientific and historic resources.
In addition to the study of specific scientific
resources, this setting allows study of such
important issues as: understanding ecological
change over time; increasing our
understanding of the interactions between
humans and their environment; improving
land management practices; and achieving a
properly functioning, healthy, and
biologically diverse landscape. Science
would be supported and encouraged, but
intrusive or destructive investigations would
be carefully reviewed to avoid conflicts with
the BLM's responsibility to protect and
preserve scientific and historic Monument
resources.
Science can aid the BLM in protecting
Monument resources. By conducting
research in the Monument, the best possible
information would be made available to be
used to protect resources. For example,
conducting baseline inventories for hanging
gardens, sensitive areas and areas that may be
potentially affected from proposed activities
can be identified. This would allow for
appropriate measures for the protection of
these resources. All science activities and
programs would have measurable objectives
and would be evaluated as described in the
Implementation and Adaptive
Management Framework Appendix of this
Plan. Chapter 2 of this document also
discusses the idea of leaving some resources
in place for their protection and possible
future study. Although science is an integral
part of the Monument, protection of
Monument resources is the primary concern
in the management of the Monument.
GEN-32
COMMENT: How were the assumptions for
disturbance generated and why did
Alternative D project more disturbance than
other alternatives?
RESPONSE: Each alternative presented in
Chapter 2 of the DEIS includes a discussion
of the guiding philosophy for that alternative.
The assumptions on surface disturbance were
based on these philosophies and any
reasonable foreseeable actions stemming
from them. Alternative D has a philosophy
that discouraged intensive use in the interior
of the Monument, although self-directed
experiences (primitive camping experiences)
would be encouraged. As a result, it was
reasonably foreseeable that more primitive
camping areas would be designated in that
alternative for resource protection purposes.
For example, if dispersed camping were
creating widespread disturbance in a sensitive
area, specific areas could be designated and
the rest of the area closed to camping. While
this may create some surface disturbance at
the designated site, more widespread
disturbance would be avoided.
The estimated acres of disturbance for the
primitive camping areas is based on the
average size of disturbance of existing
primitive camping areas in the Monument.
These primitive camping areas (as they were
referred to in the DEIS) are more than single
sites, but are "areas" where several primitive
sites could be located. The assumptions for
disturbance for this Plan are included at the
beginning of Chapter 3.
GEN-33
COMMENT: The DEIS and Proposed Plan
should include the cumulative effects of
displacing visitors onto lands managed by
adjacent agencies. Adjacent agencies report
increased use from Monument designation.
The impacts of adjacent land management
practices on resources in the Monument
should also be analyzed.
RESPONSE: Due to the limited amount of
current and projected use in the Monument
(discussed in Economic Conditions,
Appendix 19 in the DEIS), displaced use of
activities restricted in this Plan (e.g., OHV
use) is expected to be low on adjacent agency
lands. In order to provide clarity, this Plan
has been expanded to provide an analysis of
the impacts of proposed actions to local, state
and Federal land neighbors including the
potential to displace use.
5,75
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
A general discussion of impacts of adjacent
land management practices on Monument
lands was included in the Cumulative Impacts
section in Chapter 4 of the DEIS. In this
Plan, the Cumulative Impacts sections in
Chapter 3 includes a discussion of impacts
from adjacent agencies land management
practices on resources within the Monument.
GEN-34
COMMENT: The economic analysis should
include impacts associated with the creation
of the Monument.
RESPONSE: The purpose of the
Environmental Consequences section of the
DEIS, including the economic analysis
discussion, is to provide a basis for the BLM
and the public to compare various options for
managing the Monument. The creation of the
Monument itself is outside the scope of this
Plan.
GEN-35
COMMENT: Current data on how many
people visit or go to the Monument and what
uses are occurring on Monument lands should
be provided.
RESPONSE: Chapter 3 of the DEIS included
sections on Visitor Use (page 3.48) and Land
Use Permits and Classifications (page 3.51).
These sections provide the reader with
visitation numbers from 1980 through 1997,
the number and type of outfitter operations,
and a list of existing visitor facilities. The
Land Use section of the same chapter reviews
existing rights-of-way, withdrawals, mineral,
coal and oil and gas leases, grazing
allotments, and transportation system
information.
These sections are not repeated in this
document. However, the background
information in Chapter 3 of the DEIS was
used in the analysis conducted in this
Plan/FEIS.
GEN-36
COMMENT: There is no indication that the
BLM has made any attempt to coordinate
proposed land use practices with the
surrounding lands. The DEIS is inconsistent
with and did not consider numerous Federal,
state, and local plans.
RESPONSE: The DEIS included a section
on Planning Consistency (page 5.2). That
section noted that 10 municipal plans, 2
county plans, 2 regional plans, 16 Utah State
agency plans, and 8 Federal agency plans
were reviewed, and that no major
inconsistencies were identified. Six
comments on the DEIS noted concerns
regarding consistency with specific plans.
Responses to those concerns are found in
Chapter 4 of this Plan. This Plan also
endorses consistency with Federal, state, and
local plans. See the Planning Consistency
section in Chapter 4 of this Plan.
GEN-37
COMMENT: It is unclear how the protest
and appeal process will work if the Secretary
of the Interior signs the Approved
Plan/Record of Decision. Having the
Secretary sign the Plan circumvents the
appeal process.
RESPONSE: The protest and appeals
process will work exactly the same as they
would if an officer of the BLM were signing
the Approved Plan/Record of Decision.
The protest procedures prescribed in 43 CFR
1610.5-2 provide the public with an
opportunity to initiate administrative review
of perceived oversights or inadequacies in a
proposed plan. These procedures are
described at the beginning of this Plan. Any
person who participated in the planning
process and has an interest which is or may
be adversely affected by the approval of the
Plan may protest. A protest may raise only
those issues which are submitted for the
record during the planning process.
An appeal (43 CFR Part 4) is an opportunity,
provided by the Secretary of the Interior, for a
qualified individual to obtain a formal quasi
legal review. The review is performed by an
independent board who analyzes the
procedures followed by an Interior Agency in
making a decision. While many decisions
may be appealed, planning decisions made
under 43 CFR 1600 may not be appealed.
Thus, while land use planning decisions can
5.76
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
be protested, they cannot be appealed,
regardless of who signs the Approved
Plan/Record of Decision.
GEN-38
COMMENT: The issue of cumulative
impacts on communities and community
needs has been inadequately addressed in the
DEIS. A community support alternative
should have been considered.
RESPONSE: Cumulative impacts to the
Monument and to communities are analyzed
in the DEIS in Chapter 4, beginning on page
4.47. Impacts on local economies and
cumulative impacts are also presented with
respect to alternatives in Chapter 4, Table 4.1,
on page 4.73 of the DEIS. Chapter 3 of this
Plan includes similar analysis of impacts on
communities and local economies.
Many of the scoping participants urged the
BLM to support local communities through
such measures as placement of facilities,
funding for infrastructure, providing planning
assistance and loans, hiring local people,
preventing franchise and chain businesses in
local communities, and using local
preferences in providing services such as
guides and outfitters. They also encouraged
the BLM to enter into partnerships with local
governments for support of search and rescue
and other functions. Comments from the
public on the DEIS were similar, and some
encouraged the BLM to examine a
"Community Support" alternative. The BLM
can and does participate in many of these
types of activities such as providing
assistance to communities for planning, and
for search and rescue. However, some of the
suggested activities, such as preventing
franchise businesses in local communities, are
beyond the BLM's authority. The BLM is
committed to supporting and cooperating
with the gateway communities regardless of
the alternative selected. Therefore, a separate
Community Support alternative was not
analyzed.
GEN-39
COMMENT: The range of alternatives for
the DEIS was too narrow and did not cover
the full range of possible alternatives.
RESPONSE: Page 2.1 in the DEIS describes
the approach used for determining the range
of alternatives.
"Alternatives B, C, D, and E describe various
ways the provisions of the Proclamation
would be applied to direct management of the
Monument. Each alternative has a somewhat
different emphasis, primarily defined in terms
of resource focus, but all afford the high
degree of protection of Monument resources
required by the Proclamation. As a result, the
range of alternatives presented in this Plan is
narrower than in standard Bureau of Land
Management plans. The DEIS does represent
a full range of the alternatives possible within
the parameters of the Proclamation."
GEN-40
COMMENT: The following are comments
concerning the economic analysis for the
DEIS.
A. The DEIS analysis contains
unsubstantiated assumptions that bias the
economic analysis in favor of the Preferred
Alternative and against Alternative D. The
impacts seem inconsistent with the data.
B. There is no explanation on page S.27 for
how the impact on local communities changes
from one alternative to the next. Clarification
is needed on growth expenditures and
revenues.
C. Southern Utah and northern Arizona
should be included in the economic analysis.
D. The DEIS misrepresents the economic
significance of "amenity." Amenities are not
merely tourist attractions.
E. The economic analysis deserves
independent review by a number of
economists who work with public land issues.
F. The economic impact of reconstructing
existing powerlines to meet non-electrocution
standards is not addressed.
G. The "visitor activity categories" selected
for economic analysis are biased in favor of
motorized recreation.
5.77
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
H. The estimated growth rates for "visitor
activity category" bias the economic analysis
in favor of motorized use.
I. The DEIS and Utah Governor's Office of
Planning and Budget (GOPB) report are
based on a number of assumptions that appear
to bias the assessment against non-motorized
use and against the selection of Alternative D.
J. The economic analysis fails to account for
economic benefits that occur distant from the
immediate vicinity of the Monument.
K. The economic analysis in the DEIS
contains a number of erroneous or misleading
statements that should be corrected.
L. The DEIS is in need of a sensitivity
analysis of the assumptions used in the
economic analysis.
RESPONSES:
A. The BLM provided the assumptions used
in the economic analysis. The management
focus of each alternative was used to generate
a matrix of assumptions for 16 management
activities ranging from OHV use to regulating
filming. The base budget and personnel
available to accomplish Monument
management activities remained constant
over all alternatives, and does not change for
the analysis of this Proposed Plan. Because
the management focus of Alternative D was
to "maximize protection of the natural
environment, while enhancing its remote
character by limiting travel corridors and
visitation" (DEIS, page 2.39), it was assumed
that group size limitation, miles of routes and
trails, and extensive allocation of visitors
inside the Remote and Rustic Zones would
constrain the amount of visitation to the
Monument to levels below baseline visitation
growth. Under Alternative D, the Monument
would be aggressively managed to
accommodate 1997 visitation levels, except
scenic driving, which was assumed to
increase due to additional motorized use in
the Enhanced Zone. The other alternatives
analyzed anticipated management activities
that would accommodate higher visitation to
a greater extent across the Monument.
B. A more thorough explanation of the
summary information on page S.27 regarding
impact to local economies is included in
Appendix 19 of the DEIS, which reviews an
analysis completed by the GOPB. The
GOPB assisted in the review of comments
regarding the analysis, and revised the
applicable input-output and fiscal impact
models based upon additional data and
assumptions from this Proposed Plan. The
impacts of this Plan are driven by BLM
spending and employment, and spending by
visitors. The direct, indirect and induced
effects of this spending and employment on
population, employment, employee earnings,
and local government revenues in the
Southwest region are the focus of the
analysis. The steady operating budget,
constant employee base, and fixed facility
locations resulted in little variation between
alternatives and over time.
C. The five counties that comprise
southwestern Utah were selected as the
appropriate region for analysis because: (1)
the five counties already form a multi-county
Planning District of the State of Utah; (2)
significant amounts of data have been
collected and analyzed at the southwestern
Utah regional scale; and (3) the southwestern
Utah region has a closed labor market in the
sense that 90 percent of the income generated
in the region is also received there (GOPB,
1998). The northern Arizona communities of
Page, Fredonia and Colorado City were
considered for inclusion in the analysis
because they also influence economic activity
in the region. However, the extent of the
effects were considered too small to have a
significant impact on the analysis.
D. The models used to generate the
socioeconomic impacts identified in the DEIS
contain baseline migration assumptions and
formulas that address the factors that
influence why a county or community is
experiencing population growth or decline.
These factors do not rely solely upon tourism
impacts, but also account for migration due to
other "amenity" variables.
E. The BLM and GOPB recognized the need
for an independent professional review of the
socioeconomic analysis and established a
Technical Review Committee consisting of
six independent economists. This committee
5.78
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
met on three occasions. The committee was
also provided information during the
preparation of the analysis through electronic
mail. The basic components of the models,
the assumptions, and the findings of the
analysis were reviewed and accepted by the
committee prior to the release of the analysis
to the BLM. These economists were: Walter
Hecox, from Colorado College; Frank
Hachman, from the University of Utah; Lecia
Langston, from the Utah Department of
Workforce Services; Ray Rasker, from the
Sonoran Institute; Don Snyder, from Utah
State University; and Gil Miller, from
Economic Associates of Utah.
F. It is not the intent of Monument managers
to require immediate compliance to the raptor
protection standards upon adoption of the
Approved Plan. As powerlines are upgraded
or a raptor problem is documented,
compliance with the standards would be
expected. Therefore, the line upgrades would
be part of ongoing maintenance activities,
which already factor raptor protection into
construction costs.
G. The visitor activity categories are not
biased in favor of motorized recreation; they
simply reflect current information categories
of use within the Monument. The visitor
activity categories were selected by the
Monument Planning Team and economic
analysts from visitor count data provided by
BLM field staff. These counts were based
on: (1) the number of people who signed
registers; (2) back country permit
information; (3) on-site counts conducted by
BLM personnel; (4) traffic counters; and (5)
personal observations by BLM officials at
selected locations. BLM staff recorded the
activities that visitors participated in, as well
as an average amount of time spent pursuing
the activity. In 1997, Oregon State
University conducted an informal survey of
visitors. This survey assisted in better
estimating visitor activities. The categories
selected for analysis were based upon the
visitor count data and informal survey.
Motorized use of 35,000 visitor days in 1997
was included in the "other" category, but not
listed in the text of the analysis. This
omission has been corrected in this Plan.
H. Because the management focus of
Alternative D was to "maximize protection of
the natural environment, while enhancing its
remote character by limiting travel corridors
and visitation" (DEIS, page 2.39), the BLM
assumed that group size limitation, miles of
routes and trails, and extensive allocation of
visitors inside the Remote and Rustic Zones
would constrain the amount of visitation to
the Monument to levels below baseline
visitation growth. Under Alternative D, the
Monument would be aggressively managed to
accommodate 1997 visitation levels, except
for scenic driving, which was assumed to
increase due to additional motorized use in
the Enhanced Zone. The other alternatives
analyzed anticipated management activities
which would accommodate higher visitation
to a greater extent across the Monument.
Eight other National recreation destinations
were selected and visitor counts for those
areas were analyzed, along with a matrix of
management assumptions provided by the
BLM, to provide a basis for establishing the
Annual Average Rate of Change for the DEIS
alternatives.
I. The development of the assumptions are
discussed above in G and H. While the
assumptions were an important part of the
socioeconomic analysis, the results of the
analysis were not the sole factor for selection
of a preferred alternative or this Plan. The
selection of management zones, the
transportation network, and other major
components of this Plan were based upon the
provisions of the Proclamation, FLPMA, the
analysis of environmental consequences, and
public comment.
J. The intent of the GOPB analysis was to
create a comprehensive review of social and
economic baseline and trend data for the area
surrounding the Monument to support the
effects analysis in the DEIS and this Plan.
The geographic extent of the analysis
includes the area where economic effects
could be reasonably assessed with enough
confidence to adequately support subsequent
decision making. Such analysis becomes
overly speculative with greater distance.
An analysis of general benefits and costs that
accrue to Americans outside the region from
management of public lands is beyond the
scope of this Plan, and is addressed in BLM
and other Department of the Interior strategic
5.79
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
planning documents. The non-market
benefits and costs of Monument management
are discussed in the Cumulative Impacts
section in Chapter 3 of this document.
K. The suggested corrections have been
incorporated, where applicable, into the new
socioeconomic evaluation in this Plan.
L. The application of a sensitivity analysis to
consider changes in economic impacts would
not affect the development of this Plan. The
alternatives were not ranked by the results of
the assumptions matrix. Systematically
varying visitor activity categories and growth
rates would not result in significant changes
in results, since the impacts of all of the
management alternatives on local government
revenues and expenditures are relatively
small.
GEN-41
COMMENT: Why was data/information
from the preliminary Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Warm Springs not
used?
RESPONSE: Many sources of information
were utilized in the preparation of the DEIS,
as noted by the reference section. The Warm
Springs document was a preliminary draft,
and had not been released for public review
when the DEIS was completed, and thus was
not referenced in that document. However,
since the preliminary Warm Springs
document covered some area in the
Monument, many of the relevant data sets
such as paleontology, archaeology, and soils
used to develop the Warm Springs document
were also used in the development of this
Plan.
GEN-42
COMMENT: Some communities have a
concern about having a primitive zone
adjacent to their communities.
RESPONSE: The zone boundaries for this
Proposed Plan have been changed from those
that appeared in the DEIS Preferred
Alternative. These zones are based on use,
sensitive resources, topography, and other
criteria as described in the Zone Descriptions
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan. These
criteria resulted in zones other than primitive
in the immediate vicinity of most
communities due to topography, use patterns,
and other factors. However, the Primitive
Zone is still adjacent to some parts of the
town of Boulder because the nature of much
of the landscape (fractured terrain and
remoteness) does not lend itself to more
developed zones. In any case, the Primitive
Zone only overlays lands within the
Monument boundary. The management
prescriptions for the Primitive Zone end at the
Monument boundary. Lands owned by
communities, other land management
agencies, or private individuals are not
subject to the management prescriptions for
the Primitive Zone.
GEN-43
COMMENT: What is the relationship
between the Proclamation and FLPMA? The
principle direction for management of the
Monument should be FLPMA, not the
Proclamation. Multiple use should be
emphasized.
RESPONSE: FLPMA is still the source for
the BLM's authority to manage GSENM.
The Proclamation governs how the provisions
of FLPMA would be applied and how
competing uses would be weighed when
applying FLPMA's multiple use mandate.
For example, the Proclamation withdrew the
entire Monument from mineral entry and
decreed that the over-riding purpose of the
Monument was to "set apart and reserve" the
Monument "for the purpose of protecting the
objects identified." The Proclamation,
FLPMA, and other laws governing
management of the Monument were
discussed throughout Chapter 1 of the DEIS
and again in Chapter 1 of this Plan. A
discussion of multiple use and its relationship
to the Monument was included in both.
GEN-44
COMMENT: Why is the No Action
Alternative more restrictive than the Interim
Management Guidance for the Monument?
RESPONSE: The provisions in the No
Action Alternative are not more restrictive
than this Guidance. Chapter 2, page 2.1, of
5.80
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
the DEIS states, "The No Action Alternative
describes the continuation of the current
management of the Monument, in which the
provisions of the Proclamation and the
Interim Guidance issued by the Director of
the BLM are applied as proposals are
received, and to needs as they occur."
The Interim Guidance did not cover all
actions or management decisions necessary to
operate and manage the Monument. For
actions or issues that were not covered under
Interim Guidance, managers had to make
decisions and seek further guidance about
how to manage the Monument under existing
law and the Proclamation. These decisions
are reflected in the No Action Alternative.
GEN-45
COMMENT: VERs should include
traditional uses, such as grazing.
RESPONSE: This Plan does address uses
such as grazing, but does not characterize all
uses as "valid existing rights." As described
in the Valid Existing Rights and Other
Existing Authorizations section in Chapter 2
of this Plan, VERs are those "rights" in
existence within the boundaries of the
Monument before the Monument was
established. VERs were established by
various laws, leases, and filings through local,
state, and Federal processes. To a large
degree, VERs pertain to mining and minerals
activities. There are, however, other
situations unrelated to minerals (such as
rights-of-way) in which the BLM has
authorized some use of public land, or has
conveyed some limited interest in public land.
These authorizations, where they are valid
and existed when the Monument was
established, would be recognized and their
uses would be allowed to continue, subject to
the terms and conditions of the authorizing
document. By contrast, certain other uses
(such as livestock grazing) are authorized
under permits which convey no right, title, or
interest in the land or resources used. While
the Proclamation specifically mentions
livestock grazing, the Proclamation does not
establish livestock grazing as a "right" or
convey it any new status. Livestock grazing
would therefore "continue to be governed by
applicable laws and regulations other than
[the] Proclamation."
GEN-46
COMMENT: The planning criteria were
never available for public comment.
RESPONSE: The Guiding Principles were
the first step in defining the Planning Criteria.
In Planning Update Letter No. 2 (July 9,
1997), the Guiding Principles were outlined
and the BLM asked for public comment on
those Principles.
The Principles were further refined and sent
out for another public review in Planning
Update Letter No. 3 "Preliminary Planning
Criteria - Scope of the Plan," in August 1997.
As stated in Planning Update Letter No. 4
(November 1997), "Our last mailing included
a preliminary list of planning criteria. This list
is being modified to reflect comments
received during the scoping process."
Planning Update Letter No. 5 (January 1998)
stated, "The Planning Team began the
development of planning criteria early in the
process, with the publication of Preliminary
Planning Criteria on August 14, 1997.
Additionally, a set of Guiding Principles was
published in our July 9, 1997 Update. In
keeping with the direction of 43 CFR 1610.4-
2, we are now publishing the latest set of
Planning Criteria, which combines the
Preliminary Criteria and Guiding Principles,
revised to reflect comments received. These
criteria may be added to as we continue
drafting the Plan."
These Update Letters were sent to over 3,500
individuals, organizations, Federal, state and
local governments on our mailing list at the
time. The initial mailing list was comprised
of known individuals, organizations, and
government agencies (local, state, Federal)
who had an interest in this area. As the
planning process progressed, additional
names were added to this list through
participation in meetings, response to
publications, and other outreach efforts. The
Updates were also posted on our website. We
received many comments on the guiding
principles and planning criteria that assisted
us in finalizing the planning criteria.
5.81
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
GEN-47
COMMENT: The Plan is too general to draw
any adequate conclusions.
RESPONSE: The scope of the DEIS and
Proposed Plan is necessarily broad, since it is
a general framework document that would
guide the overall management of activities
within the Monument, as well as the use and
protection of Monument resources.
Subsequent landscape-level analyses and site-
specific planning (called project plans) would
be tiered from this Plan. Project-level plans
would address specific resource issues in
specific geographic areas. Detailed
environmental analysis would be completed
at the time these site-specific plans were
developed.
GEN-48
COMMENT: The Proposed Plan should
consider the impacts on VERs and
governmental functions (search and rescue,
waste disposal, law enforcement, etc.).
RESPONSE: As discussed in the Valid
Existing Rights and Other Existing
Authorizations section in Chapter 2 of this
Plan, claims for VERs would be evaluated,
and honored when determined valid. Under
BLM regulations, private land owners have
the right to reasonable access to their land,
and this would not change under management
of the Monument. Decisions on route
closures in the Proposed Plan were based on
several criteria (Transportation and Access
section in Chapter 2), one of which was
access to private lands. Therefore, VERs
would not be affected by actions proposed in
this Plan. RS 2477 assertions are discussed in
the Transportation and Access section in
Chapter 2 and in ACC- 10.
The BLM has provided temporary monetary
support for search and rescue and other issues
related to the Monument in both Kane and
Garfield Counties. Long term cooperative
efforts are being discussed, but would at least
be equivalent to the types of cooperation
provided by other public land areas in the
western United States. Solid waste disposal
contracts with the Counties have also been
negotiated and will continue. Support
activities will continue to be coordinated with
the Counties and adjacent land management
agencies to facilitate communication and
shared resource use into the future.
GEN-49
COMMENT: Why was a "Conservation
Biology" alternative not analyzed?
RESPONSE: The DEIS included a
discussion of Alternatives Considered but
Eliminated from Detailed Analysis. One of
these alternatives, on page 2.100 in Chapter 2
of the DEIS, was a "Natural Ecosystem"
alternative. As stated, "All of the alternatives
analyzed provide protection to natural
ecosystems, so a separate Natural Ecosystem
Protection Alternative is not analyzed in
detail." Though not specifically called a
"Conservation Biology" alternative, the
philosophy is similar and the goals of
protecting habitat, looking at long-term
ecosystem viability, and preventing
ecological degradation are the same.
These goals are shared by the BLM, and are
part of all alternatives proposed for
Monument management. The Proposed Plan
includes objectives for biological resources,
including wildlife, vegetation, and special
status species among others. The issues
raised in the goals listed above are covered by
these objectives. For this reason, a separate
conservation biology alternative is not
warranted.
GEN-50
COMMENT: No clear definition of
Monument purposes, resources, and values
has been developed.
RESPONSE: In Chapter 1, page 1.1 of the
DEIS, the Introduction states, "The
Monument was created to protect a
spectacular array of scientific, historic,
biological, geological, paleontological, and
archaeological objects. These treasures,
individually and collectively, in the context of
the natural environment that supports and
protects them, are the 'Monument resources'
discussed throughout this Plan. The terms
'Monument values' and 'Monument objects'
have also been used, but because the term
'Monument resources' may be more easily
5.82
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
understood, it will be used throughout this
document."
GEN-51
COMMENT: Why was spatial analysis and
modeling (including connectivity modeling)
not done for the Plan?
RESPONSE: Spatial analysis was taken into
consideration in the development of the zones
and policies in the DEIS and Proposed Plan
and the connectivity with adjacent agencies
was considered in delineating zone
boundaries. Further spatial analysis of
impacts on Monument resources, including
wildlife, has been completed for the DEIS
and are provided in the answers to ACC-13,
ACC-14, andBIO-16.
Many resources have the potential for
modeling but they require time to develop
and do not always result in reliable
information. Limited time was available for
development of models and evaluation of
their usefulness. While the BLM did not do
specific resource modeling, discussions with
biologists and experts who have worked in
this area for years have provided detailed
information throughout plan development.
This information has been used in the
development of zones and the strategies for
protection of Monument resources.
Additionally, studies have been initiated for
modeling vegetation and other resources in
the Monument. These studies will provide
data that addresses resources specific to the
Monument and will aid future management in
the protection of these sensitive resources
through the Implementation and Adaptive
Management Framework discussed in
Appendix 3 of this Plan.
GRAZ-1
COMMENT: Phase out livestock grazing in
the Monument, or no livestock grazing should
occur within the Monument.
RESPONSE: The Presidential Proclamation
which established the Monument states,
"Nothing in this Proclamation shall be
deemed to affect existing permits or leases
for, or levels of, livestock grazing on Federal
lands within the monument: existing grazing
uses shall continue to be governed by
applicable laws and regulations other than
this proclamation." Therefore, this Plan does
not address grazing, permits, leases, or levels
of livestock grazing. Livestock grazing
would continue to be managed under existing
laws and regulations. The Livestock
Grazing section in Chapter 2 of this Plan has
a discussion of how grazing permit renewals
and allotment management planning would be
handled under existing laws and regulations.
GRAZ-2
COMMENT: None of the alternatives in the
DEIS restrict livestock grazing.
RESPONSE: The Presidential Proclamation
which established the Monument states,
"Nothing in this Proclamation shall be
deemed to affect existing permits or leases
for, or levels of, livestock grazing on Federal
lands within the monument: existing grazing
uses shall continue to be governed by
applicable laws and regulations other than
this proclamation." Therefore, livestock
grazing shall continue to be managed under
existing laws and regulations.
GRAZ-3
COMMENT: Grazing should be regulated
under Federal laws; livestock grazing is not in
compliance with the Proclamation or
Endangered Species Act.
RESPONSE: Livestock grazing within
GSENM is being managed pursuant to a
substantial body of Federal laws and
regulations, such as the Taylor Grazing Act,
FLPMA, and the Endangered Species Act. In
addition, the Utah State Director for the BLM
has developed Standards for Rangeland
Health and Guidelines for Grazing
Management, which were approved by the
Secretary of the Interior in 1997. The Utah
Standards and Guidelines apply to grazing
management statewide and address habitat for
special status species, among other issues.
The authorized officer (Monument Manager)
shall determine rangeland health for each
grazing allotment in the Monument according
to these Standards and Guidelines. Where
allotment assessments determine that
rangeland health is not being achieved, and
livestock grazing is determined to be the
5.83
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
cause, the authorized officer shall take
appropriate action under any applicable legal
authorities (including the Taylor Grazing Act,
FLPMA, the Public Rangelands Improvement
Act, and 43 CFR Subparts 4120, 4130, and
4160). It is under this process that grazing is,
and will continue to be, managed to meet the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act
and other laws and regulations. A discussion
of the management of special status species in
the Monument, and management actions
proposed under this Plan (including surveys)
for such species is described in the Special
Status Animal Species and Special Status
Plant Species sections in Chapter 2 of this
Plan.
GRAZ-4
COMMENT: Has the BLM considered
buying Animal Unit Months (AUMs)? What
happens to allotments that are not being
grazed?
RESPONSE: Grazing permittees pay the
BLM a grazing fee for the privilege of
grazing their livestock on public land. These
fees are based on the amount of livestock
grazed, and the length of time the livestock is
grazed on public lands (Animal Unit Months,
or AUMs). The BLM does not attach
monetary value to these grazing permits.
Thus, there is nothing for the BLM to "buy"
from grazing permittees.
Should an allotment or a portion of an
allotment become available through a
voluntary relinquishment or an operation of
law, it could be considered for grass banking.
Grass banking refers to the setting aside of
lands for future grazing use to offset potential
future reductions in existing allotments or to
facilitate research in grazing methods. The
BLM is not obligated to graze the grass bank
allotment annually, and use of the grass bank
by qualified applicants, permittees, or lessees
is within the discretion of the BLM.
GRAZ-5
COMMENT: How is livestock grazing
handled in the Plan and in the future? Why
wasn't grazing management treated
differently between the alternatives? Why is
the BLM waiting three years after this plan to
address grazing or to remedy any problems?
How is grazing on State lands within the
Monument handled?
RESPONSE: The Proclamation stated that
"Nothing in this Proclamation shall be
deemed to affect existing permits or leases
for, or levels of, livestock grazing . . . existing
grazing uses shall continue to be governed by
applicable laws and regulations ..." Thus,
livestock grazing in the Monument would be
managed in keeping with applicable laws and
regulations, and with the BLM's Standards
for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for
Livestock Grazing (Appendix 5). The
Livestock Grazing section in Chapter 2 of
this Plan describes, in detail, how grazing
uses within the Monument shall be managed.
This Plan describes a process for grazing
management that provides a single schedule
for completion of subsequent NEPA analysis
Monument-wide. Alternative ways of
managing grazing were not presented in the
DEIS, because like other issues (e.g.,
Wilderness Study Areas) in the Management
Common To All Alternatives section of the
DEIS, existing laws govern how they would
be managed.
The schedule for completion of the
assessments and Allotment Management
Plans described in Chapter 2 states that they
would be completed over a three year time
frame. This does not mean that actions
(including assessments and activity planning)
will not occur for three years. Instead, it
means that these grazing management actions
will occur on allotments based on the priority
basis listed in the Livestock Grazing section
in Chapter 2 of this Plan. Efforts are
currently underway to assess allotments. As
stated in the Livestock Grazing section, at
any time an authorized officer (of the BLM)
determines that an area is not achieving the
Utah Standards for Rangeland Health, the
officer shall determine whether or not
existing livestock grazing practices or levels
of use are significant factors in the
inconsistency and shall take appropriate
action under applicable authorities as soon as
possible.
The State lands within the Monument were
acquired by the Federal government under the
Utah Schools and Land Exchange Act (see
Chapter 1 for further discussion). Thus, there
5.84
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
are no longer state-owned lands within the
Monument. Grazing on these former State-
owned parcels will be managed subject to the
terms and conditions of existing State grazing
permits as discussed in the School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration
Lands Acquired section of Chapter 2.
GRAZ-6
COMMENT: Why was there no grazing
allotment map in the DEIS?
RESPONSE: A grazing allotment map was
not included in the DEIS because the
information was not considered necessary for
evaluation of the alternatives presented. A
list of allotments and associated information
was included in Appendix 22 in the DEIS.
This appendix provided the relevant
background information necessary to assess
the current situation, the management of
grazing under existing laws and regulations,
and the Environmental Consequences
described in Chapter 4. In response to public
requests, a grazing allotment map is provided
along with a list of allotments in Appendix 6
of this Plan.
GRAZ-7
COMMENT: Impacts on livestock operators
and restrictions on access and water
developments were not analyzed.
RESPONSE: As stated in the Livestock
Grazing section in the DEIS, livestock
grazing is governed by laws and regulations
other than the Proclamation. For this reason,
discussion of livestock grazing was included
in the Management Common to All
Alternatives section of the DEIS. Likewise,
discussion of impacts across alternatives was
general, but did include analysis of access and
water developments. Page 2.82 of the DEIS
describes special access for livestock
permittees, among others. Access for the
maintenance of livestock range facilities is
allowed, as provided in permits issued for
allotments. Therefore, access restrictions
would not affect a permittees 's ability to
access developments.
Installation and maintenance of water
developments is discussed in each of the
alternatives of the DEIS. Protection of
Monument resources is a primary concern in
management of this area. Maintenance of
existing water developments is allowed in the
alternatives. New water developments,
though limited in the various alternatives,
may be used for better distribution of
livestock when beneficial to Monument
resources as discussed in the Water-Related
Developments section in Chapter 2 of this
Plan. Proper management of grazing
allotments is imperative for the protection of
these resources. If it was determined that
water developments are needed to prevent
degradation of Monument resources, they
may be allowed in any of the alternatives.
Therefore, restrictions on water developments
would not cause significant impacts to
livestock operators. A discussion of impacts
to livestock operators is provided in the
Environmental Consequences section of the
DEIS and also in Chapter 3 of this Plan.
GRAZ-8
COMMENT: The Taylor Grazing Act does
not apply to management of the Monument.
RESPONSE: Section 315 of the Taylor
Grazing Act discusses establishment of
grazing districts. It states that "...the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized.. .to
establish grazing districts.. .from any part of
the public domain... which are not in.. .national
monuments..." The area encompassing
GSENM was included in a grazing district
prior to establishment of the Monument, so
the Taylor Grazing Act does apply.
LAND-1
COMMENT: Explain the utility and water
rights-of-way (ROW) policy in the
Monument. Communication sites and ROWs
should be limited or prohibited. The need for
new utility ROWs should be recognized and
planned for.
RESPONSE: Title 5 of FLPMA allows for
the authorization of new ROWs (including
communication facilities) on public lands.
Nothing in the Proclamation precludes this
from occurring, so long as Monument
resources are protected. Approval of new
ROWs in the Monument would be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
5.85
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
Proposals for new ROWs would be reviewed
for conformance with zone criteria in the
Approved Plan. Where zone criteria do not
prohibit new ROWs, these uses could be
approved through NEPA analysis (see the
Rights-of-Way section in Chapter 2 of this
Plan for a description of the ROW policy in
the various zones).
Utility lines and communication facilities are
authorized under ROW grants which include
a variety of terms, conditions, and
stipulations. These terms, conditions, and
stipulations regulate the construction,
operation, and maintenance activities of the
authorized ROWs and are developed when
site-specific environmental analysis occurs.
LAND-2
COMMENT: Explain the land acquisition
policy in the Monument.
RESPONSE: As stated in the Non-Federal
Land Inholdings section in Chapter 2 of this
Plan, the BLM would consider land
exchanges and acquisitions as long as the
current owner is a willing participant and as
long as the action is in the public interest, and
is in accordance with other management goals
and objectives of this Plan. The action must
also result in a net gain of objects and values
within the Monument, such as wildlife
habitat, cultural sites, riparian areas, live
water, threatened and endangered species
habitat, or areas key to the maintenance of
productive ecosystems. The action may also
meet one or more of the following criteria:
• ensures the accessibility of public lands in
areas where access is needed and cannot
otherwise be obtained
• is essential to allow effective management
of public lands
• results in the acquisition of lands which
serve a national priority as identified in
national policy directives
All land exchanges and acquisitions would be
subject to valid existing rights as determined
by the BLM.
LAND-3
COMMENT: Did the BLM analyze utility
corridors? Why wasn't the Western Utility
Corridor Study considered?
RESPONSE: The Western Regional Corridor
Study (completed in 1992) was taken into
consideration in the development of the DEIS
and this Plan. It is important to note that the
study is not a decision document, rather it is a
document which the BLM committed to use
as reference when considering land use
decisions. The study identified two
recommended corridors within the
Monument: Cottonwood Canyon Corridor
and the Navajo-McCullough Corridor. These
"corridors" are routes with existing utility
lines, but they have not been officially
designated by the BLM. The study
recommending these two corridors was
completed before Monument designation.
Given the purposes outlined in the
Proclamation (to protect scientific and
historic objects), designating utility corridors
in these areas that traverse the core of the
Monument is not considered appropriate.
With passage of Public Law 105-355 on
October 31, 1998, a utility corridor was
designated along Highway 89 in Kane
County. Rights-of-way throughout the
Monument, including within the designated
and recommended corridors, would continue
to be considered on a case-by-case basis after
site-specific environmental analysis and
determination of their conformance with the
Approved Plan.
LAND-4
COMMENT: The provision for one access
route per parcel on page 2.83 of the DEIS
contradicts local safety ordinances.
RESPONSE: The criterion on subdivision
access route(s) has been rewritten in this Plan
to address any conflicts with local codes
and/or ordinances (see the Rights-of-Way
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan). In general,
the BLM would authorize only one access
route to private land parcels unless public
safety or local ordinances warrant additional
routes. Private land owners would be
required to coordinate the development of
access routes across public lands in order to
prevent a proliferation of routes. Site specific
NEPA analysis would be required, including
5.86
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
reasonable terms and conditions as necessary
to protect the public interest and meet the
objectives of this Plan.
LAND-5
COMMENT: How will community
infrastructure needs be accommodated?
RESPONSE: As stated in the Utility Rights-
of-Way and Communication Sites section
in Chapter 2 of this Plan, Monument
managers are committed to working in
cooperation with local communities and
utility providers to identify short-term and
long range community needs which could
affect Monument lands and resources.
Community projects which require public
lands access or use would be subject to
necessary project level environmental
analysis. The BLM would work with the
project applicant to meet the Approved Plan
objectives. Alternate locations for proposed
projects would be identified when
unavoidable conflicts arise. Such projects
would be focused in appropriate zones (as
described in the Utility Rights-of-Way and
Communication Sites section in Chapter 2
of this Plan) in order to protect Monument
resources.
LAND-6
COMMENT: Why was there no assessment
of impacts of existing utilities, including
maintenance and future upgrades?
RESPONSE: Impacts from existing
powerlines and other utility facilities were
evaluated prior to their installation, and prior
to Monument designation. Maintenance of
these existing utilities is allowed for in
accordance with established rights-of-way
agreements. Impacts of existing utilities and
maintenance would not vary by alternative, so
would not facilitate comparison among
alternatives. Future utility rights-of-way are
discussed by zone in this Plan. Regardless of
which zone a project is proposed in, all
projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis with appropriate NEPA analysis as they
are submitted to the BLM. Zone criteria and
utility needs of communities surrounding the
Monument would be taken into consideration
in determining which future projects would
be approved.
LAND-7
COMMENT: The statement that an increase
in voltage of the Cottonwood powerline could
occur on existing structures is incorrect.
RESPONSE: The DEIS stated on page 4.5 1
that "no new structures or installations
[would] be needed" for the upgrade of the
Cottonwood Canyon powerline. This
proposal refers to a December 1975
application to increase the voltage in the
Cottonwood Canyon powerline from 245-
kilovolts to 345-kilovolts (filed by Utah
Power and Light, a subsidiary of PacifiCorp).
A more specific description of the proposal is
that it would raise the cross arms five feet on
the existing wood towers, add three insulators
to each conductor, bundle the conductors, and
add one X-brace to each existing tower for
increased support. There has been no
subsequent application filed for this proposed
upgrade. As stated in the Rights-of-Way
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan, subsequent
environmental analysis and a determination of
conformance with this Plan would be required
before any action is taken.
LAND-8
COMMENT: The Washington County Water
Conservancy District has plans to develop
water from Lake Powell. How will the
pipeline form Lake Powell to Sand Hollow
Reservoir be accommodated?
RESPONSE: No application has formally
been filed for the Lake Powell to Sand
Hollow water pipeline. However, the
tentative route would follow Highway 89 for
most of its length. Per Public Law 105-355,
signed by President Clinton on October 3 1 ,
1998, a utility corridor was designated along
Highway 89 in Kane County, including that
portion of Highway 89 within the
Monument. The utility corridor extends 240
feet north from the center line of the highway,
and 500 feet south from the center line of the
highway. Location of the proposed water
pipeline within this corridor is a possibility.
Subsequent environmental analysis would be
required on any specific water pipeline
proposal. A determination as to their
5.87
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
conformance with this Plan would also be
required.
REC-1
COMMENT: Comments on group size
ranged from "group size limits of 12 people
and/or animals are too restrictive in the
Primitive Zone" to "group size limits are not
restrictive enough."
RESPONSE: Based on public comment and
a re-evaluation of how group size best fits in
with zone criteria, group size limits have been
modified for this Plan. For example, group
size limits in the Frontcountry Zone were
lifted because of the interest in focusing
visitation in this area and the difficulty in
regulating group size on major highways.
Further, group size limits in the Primitive
Zone were changed from 12 people and/or
animals to 12 people and 12 animals. This is
consistent with adjacent National Park
Service units. A discussion of group size
limits for this Plan is included in the Group
Size section in Chapter 2.
REC-2
COMMENT: Clarify what kinds of facilities
will be developed along the Burr Trail,
Cottonwood Wash Road, and in the
Frontcountry Zone. Explain what the
facilities are and explain how decisions to
provide facilities will be made. The Burr
Trail should not be in the Frontcountry Zone.
RESPONSE: A full discussion of facilities
can be found in the Facilities section in
Chapter 2. In the Frontcountry Zone, in
addition to existing facilities, visitor day use
facilities could include pullouts, parking
areas, trailheads, toilets, fences, picnic areas,
and scenic overlooks.
The Burr Trail has been changed from the
Frontcountry Zone to the Passage Zone in this
Plan because the BLM was persuaded by
public comment that its character is more like
that of other routes in the Passage Zone.
Parts of the Cottonwood Wash Road are also
in the Passage Zone. The condition of routes
and/or distance from communities in the
Passage Zone makes it a secondary zone for
visitation, where facilities may occur, but
visitation would not necessarily be directed or
encouraged. Similar facilities as allowed in
the Frontcountry Zone could be provided for
resource protection, visitor safety, and for the
interpretation of Monument resources.
REC-3
COMMENT: Impacts to outfitters and
guides that use pack stock were not
adequately addressed given the group size
restrictions in the Primitive Zone.
RESPONSE: Page 4.41 of the DEIS provides
a discussion of impacts to outfitters and
guides. Although the discussion does not
specifically distinguish between impacts to
outfitters and guides that use pack stock and
those who do not, a discussion of how group
size limits would restrict the size of the
outings that outfitter and guides offer was
included. The BLM does recognize that the
impacts of limiting group size to "12 people
and/or animals" would have been greater on
those outfitters and guides that use pack
stock, and this issue has been taken into
account in developing group size limits for
this Plan. Group size limits in the Primitive
Zone of this Plan have been changed to
provide for 1 2 people and 1 2 animals, as
consistent with backcountry limits for
adjacent National Park units. Chapter 3 of
this Plan includes a discussion of impacts to
outfitters and guides. Limitations on group
size and allocations are discussed in this
section.
REC-4
COMMENT: The statement that group size
is the same as other Federally managed areas
is false in the DEIS.
RESPONSE: Group size limits in the
Primitive Zone have been changed for this
Plan to 12 people and 12 animals. This
makes this zone consistent with the portion of
the Escalante Canyons managed by Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area and with
backcountry limits in Capitol Reef National
Park. Group size limits are not necessarily
consistent with other units such as Dixie
National Forest.
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
REC-5
COMMENT: Horses and llamas have been
restricted even though they do not have as
much impact as vehicles.
RESPONSE: The BLM recognizes that the
impacts of horses and llamas are different
from vehicles. This Plan allows horses and
llamas to travel cross-country, while vehicles
may not. Horses and llamas are permitted in
all zones, except where specifically excluded
such as in relict plant areas. The restrictions
on the number of recreational pack stock in
the Primitive Zone are intended to keep
impacts in these areas low.
REC-6
COMMENT: Why is there no differentiation
in impacts between motorized and
mechanized vehicular use?
RESPONSE: The DEIS discusses motorized
and mechanized use as one type of impact.
While the two modes of transportation are
quite different and the magnitude of impact
may differ, the types of impacts are similar.
Both can cause damage to resources that are
sensitive to surface disturbance, particularly
biological soil crusts, special status plant
species and other vegetation. So, for
purposes of the decision to prohibit cross-
country travel of both modes of transportation
to protect Monument resources, and for
purposes of analyzing that decision's impacts,
the differences are not considered significant.
REC-7
COMMENT: What facilities (such as toilets
and water) will accommodate increased
visitation?
RESPONSE: The Visitor Facilities in the
Monument section in Chapter 2 in this Plan,
describes facilities that would be provided for
each zone. As the focal point for visitation,
facilities in the Frontcountry Zone could
include pullouts, parking areas, trailheads,
toilets, fences, and picnic areas. Similar
facilities could be provided in the Passage
Zone, but only those necessary to protect
resources, educate visitors about Monument
resources, or for public safety. In the
Outback Zone, small interpretive signs to
educate the public about a particular resource
or safety sign may be installed at limited sites.
Other facilities could be allowed for the
protection of resources where other tools to
protect resources could not be used. In the
Primitive Zones limited signs could be
allowed for resource protection or visitor
safety. Such small directional signs may be
needed, but would be rare. Water, toilets, and
other visitor amenities would not be provided
in the Primitive Zone.
REC-8
COMMENT: Various comments on
special/competitive events were received
ranging from "don't allow any
special/competitive events" to
"special/competitive events should be allowed
throughout the Monument." Specific requests
to continue the Outlaw Trail Ride were
received.
RESPONSE: Competitive events would not
be allowed anywhere in the Monument as
described in the Competitive and Special
Events section in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
Special events, such as cultural or educational
events, may be approved if they meet other
zone requirements. The Outlaw Trail Ride is
not considered a competitive event, but is a
special event, under the BLM Special
Recreation Program.
REC-9
COMMENT: Why were outfitters and guides
allowed in the Landscape Research Zone and
not in the Transition Zone in Alternative C of
the DEIS?
RESPONSE: The Transition Zone in
Alterative C was designed to include areas
with little evidence of past disturbance and
use. The management emphasis for this zone
was to keep use low. One way to keep use
low was to not permit outfitter and guide
services in this zone.
REC-10
COMMENT: How will visitor carrying
capacity be determined and what is the
baseline? How will allocation of visitors be
implemented in the future?
5.89
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
RESPONSE: In conjunction with
universities, the BLM is currently assessing
backcountry recreation experiences and also
inventorying backcountry campsites. These
inventories, surveys and studies provide a
baseline in order to develop an ongoing
monitoring program and to assist in
prioritizing areas that may require more
restrictive management. No specific
allocations for visitors are proposed in this
Plan, but this could occur at a future time. In
specific areas where excessive numbers of
visitors would lead to overcrowding or would
damage fragile resources, a limit on the total
number of visitors in a given area at a given
time would be established with appropriate
NEPA analysis. A discussion of how
allocations may be determined in the future is
included in the Recreation Allocations
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
REC-11
COMMENT: Clarify the campfire
restrictions outlined in the DEIS. A variety
of comments on campfires were received
ranging from "campfires should be restricted
further" to "campfires should not be restricted
in the Escalante Canyons."
RESPONSE: Backcountry inventories are
currently underway in the Monument to
determine where and how many campsites are
in the Escalante Canyons and other
backcountry areas. These inventories note
whether campsites are present and what type
of impacts are present or absent. Campfire
evidence, human caused tree damage (such as
chopping), and human waste are some of the
impacts noted.
Campfire impacts are present in many of the
inventoried sites especially those in the
Escalante Canyons and Paria/Hackberry
Canyons. Over 90 percent of campsites
associated with alcoves had campfire impacts.
Campfire impacts have the potential to
adversely impact archaeological sites
associated with alcoves. As a result,
campfires would not be allowed in the
Escalante and Paria/Hackberry Canyons and
in other sensitive areas identified in the Relict
Plant Communities and Hanging Gardens
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan. Given the
focus of visitors in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones, and the potential for
proliferation of campfire impacts, campfires
would only be allowed in designated fire pits,
designated fire grates, or mandatory fire pans
in those zones. Where campfires are allowed,
fire pans would be encouraged in the Outback
and Primitive Zones.
REC-12
COMMENT: What is the mountain bicycle
policy? Why are there no mountain bicycle
trails identified in the Plan, especially because
impacts are lower than motorized vehicles?
RESPONSE: Mountain bicycle use was
carefully considered as part of the overall
transportation system. While the mode of
transportation is quite different than that of
motorized vehicles, mountain bicycles and
other mechanized travel can cause damage to
resources sensitive to surface disturbance,
particularly biological soil crusts, special
status plant species, and other vegetation.
Therefore, use is limited to designated routes
and would not be allowed on trails or cross-
country.
REC-13
COMMENT: Keep trails out of riparian
areas where possible, where not possible;
place away from streams.
RESPONSE: As discussed in the Riparian
section in Chapter 2 of this Plan, where trails
are permitted, they would be kept out of
riparian areas wherever possible. Where this
is not possible, trails would be designed to
minimize impacts. Design provisions may
include: placing trails away from streams,
using soil stabilization structures to prevent
erosion, and planting native plants in areas
where vegetation has been removed.
Vegetation may also be used as a natural
barrier to discourage visitors from leaving
delineated trails in sensitive areas.
To protect areas of critical resources, barriers
may be constructed to prevent entry and/or
trails may be temporarily closed to
restore/revegetate degraded areas.
5.90
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
REC-14
COMMENT: Why are no trails or routes
identified for specific users to create a
complete recreational system?
RESPONSE: While recreation would be
accommodated, and in some areas developed,
within the Monument, the intent of these
activities would be to contribute to the
protection and understanding of Monument
resources. The development of an extensive
recreational system that provides routes and
trails to accommodate each recreational user
group would not meet the overall goals of
limiting developed recreational sites to small
areas of the Monument where visitors can
experience, and come to better understand,
the scientific and historic resources without
serious impacts to the resources themselves.
Recreational uses have been accommodated
in this Plan to the extent considered
consistent with the purposes outlined in the
Proclamation.
REC-15
COMMENT: A "Full Recreational
Development" alternative, or more
economically beneficial alternative, was not
considered. Consequently, Alternatives B
through E have minimal to negative economic
benefit for impacted communities when
compared with the No Action Alternative.
RESPONSE: The DEIS explains on page
2.97 why a "Full Recreation Development"
alternative was not analyzed in detail. The
Proclamation gives foremost regard to the
scientific and historic objects of the
Monument. Visitor use must be secondary to
the protection of Monument resources under
the Antiquities Act mandate to protect objects
of historic and scientific value. While
Alternative E emphasizes opportunities for
visitors, it does so while complying with the
goal of protecting Monument resources. A
"Full Recreational Development" alternative
would heavily emphasize recreation, and
could include development of new
mechanized or motorized trails, construction
of new aircraft landing sites, provisions for
extreme competitive events with
accompanying facilities in the Monument's
interior capable of accommodating large
numbers of people. This scenario would
place Monument resources at high risk of
destruction or degradation. Emphasizing
recreation over protection of Monument
resources is not considered a reasonable
alternative, and is not analyzed further.
REC-16
COMMENT: How far can vehicles be
parked from a designated route for camping?
Will there be other car camping
guidelines/restrictions?
RESPONSE: Except in Wilderness Study
Areas, or other identified areas, motorized or
mechanized vehicles could pull off of
designated routes up to 50 feet to park or
disperse camp in the Outback Zone. Vehicles
would be required to use designated pull-offs
and parking areas in the Frontcountry and
Passage Zones. Camping in developed
campgrounds or in designated primitive
camping areas only would be allowed in the
Frontcountry and Passage Zones. Dispersed
primitive camping would be allowed in the
Outback Zones and Primitive Zones, although
vehicle camping in the Primitive Zone is not
permitted. Permits would be required for all
overnight use. See the Camping section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan for a more complete
description. Group size restrictions for zones
and recommendations for campfires also
apply to car camping.
WAT-1
COMMENT: If the BLM is going to acquire
water, how will it be done? How will the
BLM protect instream flows?
RESPONSE: The BLM could obtain water
for Monument facilities or protection of
Monument resources in several ways. This
topic is discussed in the Water section in
Chapter 2 of this Plan. The reader is urged to
review this section for more details. The
acquisition of water rights will be
accomplished in full compliance with State
and Federal law. The answer to this question,
however, depends in part on the nature of the
intended use. Following is a synopsis.
5.91
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
1. Water needed for Monument facilities.
The BLM may obtain water through the
normal appropriative water rights process
provided under Utah State water law. This
would apply mainly to providing water for
Monument facilities, such as visitor centers,
campgrounds, and administrative offices.
2. Water needed as instream flows for
Monument resources
A summary of the strategy outlined in
Chapter 2 for assuring water availability for
Monument resources is as follows (see the
Water section in Chapter 2 for more detail):
(1) Ensure that land management policies
protect water resources. Since much of the
water important to the Monument falls as
precipitation within the Monument, its
continued availability can be ensured by
appropriate land management policies within
the Monument. The BLM will exercise its
existing land management authorities to
protect and retain all available water and
natural flows in the Monument. Several
decisions described in sections of this Plan
are designed to meet this objective.
(2) Monitor to ensure water flowing into
the Monument is adequate to support
Monument resources. The purpose of the
above measures is to protect water that
originates in the Monument or water after it
enters the Monument boundary. While these
measures are currently considered adequate to
ensure the continued availability of water to
support Monument resources, the BLM will
also assess whether the water flows coming
into the Monument continue to be adequate.
This would be part of an overall strategy to
assess the status of water resources within the
Monument. The BLM would work with the
Water Resources Division of the United
States Geological Survey, the Utah
Department of Natural Resources, and others
to gather comprehensive information
concerning precipitation, surface water flows,
and subsurface water flows into and out of
the Monument. This would include
establishing additional stream-gaging stations
at selected locations, and continued
inventorying of water sources such as seeps,
springs, and wells. Established climate-data
stations would be an integral part of the
hydrologic monitoring network.
(3) Other options for assuring water
availability, if needed. At any point that the
above data collection and assessment effort
suggests that adequate water to protect
Monument resources is not entering the
Monument, or that water is otherwise being
depleted to the detriment of the Monument,
other measures for assuring water availability
would be taken. These include: cooperating
with Federal agencies that may already have
Federal reserved water rights, working with
the State of Utah, and other strategies
described in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
WAT-2
COMMENT: What is your water
development policy? Various comments
ranging from "water developments should not
be allowed" to "water developments should
be allowed for livestock and wildlife
purposes" were received.
RESPONSE: Development of water
resources may be associated with building of
visitor services. Major visitor services and
facilities would be located outside of the
Monument within the communities, thus
water would come from the municipal supply.
Limited visitor facilities (such as toilets)
could be allowed inside the Monument in
certain zones and any water needed for these
facilities would be acquired through the
standard application process through the Utah
Division of Water Rights (discussed in the
Water and Facilities sections in Chapter 2 of
this Plan).
Water developments for community culinary
water needs could be considered in
appropriate zones if the applicant could
demonstrate that the development would not
affect Monument resources. This policy is
discussed in the Utility Rights-of-Way and
Communication Sites section in Chapter 2
of this Plan.
Other water developments could be used as a
management tool for better distribution of
livestock when beneficial to Monument
resources or to restore or manage native
5.92
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
species or populations. These could be done
as long as streams or springs would not be
jeopardized or dewatered and when there is
not other means to achieve the above
objectives (discussed in the Water-Related
Developments section in Chapter 2 of this
Plan).
WAT-3
COMMENT: Explain how the description of
perennial streams was arrived at in the DEIS.
RESPONSE: Determination of perennial
streams and segments is based on historic
data from United States Geological Survey
(USGS) stream-gaging stations, hydrological
observations, and classifications from USGS
topographic quadrangle maps. Following is a
discussion of the perennial streams in the
Monument.
Perennial streams in the Monument within the
Escalante River drainage include the
Escalante River below the town of Escalante,
Mamie Creek, Sand Creek, Calf Creek,
Boulder Creek, and Deer Creek. During drier
years, The Gulch, including Steep Creek, may
become intermittent. The only other perennial
stream within the Escalante River drainage
inside the Monument is the last mile or so of
Harris Wash before the stream leaves the
Monument and passes into the Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area. Comments
received on the DEIS suggest that the lower
part of Horse Canyon, just above its
confluence with lower Death Hollow, may
also be perennial.
Most of the main stem of the Paria River
within the Monument (about 30 river miles)
flows on a perennial basis, but there are small
reaches near the upper and lower extremities
of the portion of the river within the
Monument that are typically dry. The
flowing reaches are fed by subsurface flows,
springs and other groundwater expressions,
and by bank storage after high flows. A
reach of about 4 miles of Cottonwood Creek
is also perennial in this drainage, but this
creek normally is dry about 2 miles above its
confluence with the Paria River. This portion
of Cottonwood Creek is also kept flowing by
springs and other surface expressions of
groundwater. These gaining reaches of the
Paria River and Cottonwood Creek are
followed by losing reaches, however, where
they each become intermittent streams,
flowing only subsequent to precipitation
events. Particularly during the irrigation
seasons, the Paria is depleted seriously but
still flowing when it reaches the northern
Monument boundary. Shortly after entering
the Monument, however, it commonly dries
up for about 1 mile, then reappears and flows
continuously until a point about 4 miles from
where it again leaves the Monument
boundary.
The only perennial streams within the
Kaiparowits composite drainage are an
approximately 8 mile section of Last Chance
Creek (including the lowest 1 mile of one of
its tributaries, Drip Tank Canyon) and a 1
mile stretch in the lower portion of Croton
Canyon.
WAT-4
COMMENT: How will the BLM protect
water quality?
RESPONSE: The BLM would work with the
State of Utah, Department of Environmental
Quality (UDEQ), Utah Division of Water
Quality (UDWQ) to accelerate development
of total maximum daily loads, or TMDL.
TMDL is a quantitative assessment of water
quality problems, contributing sources, and
load reductions or control actions needed to
restore and protect bodies of water as
required by section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act. The BLM is currently engaged in a
water-quality monitoring program at 60 sites
within the Monument, in conjunction with the
UDWQ, to ensure that State and Federal
water-quality standards will be met. The
BLM would partner with UDEQ/UDWQ as
water quality improvement programs are
developed. A discussion on total maximum
daily load and Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act is included in the Assuring Water
Quality section of Chapter 2 of this Plan.
WAT-5
COMMENT: Water rights should also be
regarded as valid existing rights and
described as such in the Proposed Plan.
5.93
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
RESPONSE: Water rights are not included in
the section Valid Existing Rights and Other
Existing Authorizations because they are
granted through Utah State laws and
regulations. All waters in Utah are public
property. A water right is a right to the use of
water based upon (1) quantity, (2) source, (3)
priority date, (4) nature of use, (5) point of
diversion and (6) physically putting water to
beneficial use. Utah water rights are based
upon the Doctrine of Appropriation, which is
first in time are first in right. This means
those with earlier priority dates who have
continuously used the water since that time
have the right to water from a certain source
before others with later priority dates. The
BLM has no authority to change priority
dates or affect existing water rights. Access
to develop water rights may be an issue. If
access is needed across BLM land, such
access would be handled as described in the
Rights-of-Way section in Chapter 2 of this
Plan.
WAT-6
COMMENT: What are 303d waters and how
are they addressed in the Proposed Plan?
RESPONSE: Section 303(d) of the Federal
Clean Water Act addresses water bodies and
courses that are not "fishable, or swimable."
A 303(d) body of water is one that has been
identified as possibly being in violation of
state water quality standards. Section 303(d)
requires each state to identify such waters and
to develop total maximum daily loads
(TMDL) for them, with oversight from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
TMDL is a quantitative assessment of water
quality problems, contributing sources, and
load reductions or control actions needed to
restore and protect bodies of water. A
complete discussion of 303(d) waters is found
in the section on Assuring Water Quality in
Chapter 2 of this Plan.
WAT-7
COMMENT: Why weren't the Kane County
Water Conservancy District Plan (July 1997)
and the Utah State Water Plan - Western
Colorado River Basin Committee Review
Draft (May 1998) reviewed or referenced in
the DEIS?
RESPONSE: The Kane County Water
Conservancy District Plan (July 1997) and
the Utah State Water Plan - Western
Colorado River Basin Committee Review
Draft (May 1998) are referenced in Chapter 5,
page 5.3 (Consultation and Coordination) of
the DEIS. These plans were reviewed for
planning consistency with the DEIS. They
are also considered as part of the consistency
review in Chapter 4 of this Plan.
WSA-1
COMMENT: Manage all Wilderness Study
Areas as Wilderness.
RESPONSE: Wilderness Study Areas
(WSAs) were established under the authority
of Section 603(c) of FLPMA. Through this
law Congress directed the BLM to identify
areas with wilderness characteristics and
report back to Congress with
recommendations. Once Congress designates
an area as Wilderness, the BLM is authorized
to manage it under the provisions of the
Wilderness Act. However, before Congress
takes action to designate a WSA as
Wilderness, the BLM does not have the
authority to manage these areas under the
Wilderness Act.
Section 603(c) of FLPMA states that WSAs
are to be managed in a manner that does not
impair their suitability as Wilderness subject
to the continuation of certain uses such as
grazing. To comply with this mandate the
BLM established Interim Management Policy
(IMP) and Guidelines for Lands Under
Wilderness Review which have been added to
the BLM Manual System (BLM Manual H-
8550-1). This BLM Manual provides
detailed examples of how the Congressional
mandate for WSA management is to be
implemented and all BLM WSAs, including
those in the Monument, must be managed in
accordance with this policy.
WSA-2
COMMENT: How do the zones affect
WSAs? Why aren't all WSAs in the
Primitive Zone?
RESPONSE: Section 603 (c) of FLPMA
requires that WSAs be managed in a manner
5.94
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
that does not impair their suitability as
Wilderness, subject to the continuation of
certain uses such as grazing. To comply with
this mandate the BLM established IMP and
Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness
Review, which have been added to the BLM
Manual System (BLM Manual H-8550-1).
The BLM's IMP Manual provides detailed
examples of how the Congressional mandate
for WSA management is to be implemented.
All BLM WSAs, including those in the
Monument, must be managed in accordance
with this policy. To the extent that zone
management prescriptions are consistent with
the policy in the BLM's IMP Manual,
activities in WSAs would be carried out in
accordance with those zone prescriptions.
However, those activities in WSAs that are
permissible under zone management
prescriptions but do not conform with the
BLM's IMP Manual would not be permitted.
In the future, should Congress legislate the
release of WSAs from the requirements of
section 603 (c) of FLMPA, they would be
either be managed under the Wilderness Act
if Congress designates them Wilderness, or
the zone management prescriptions specified
in the Approved Monument Management
Plan.
WSAs and the Primitive Zone proposed in
this Plan are fundamentally different
designations. The Primitive Zone of this Plan
is a set of management prescriptions that have
been arrived at as a result of the land use
planning process which involves balancing
manageability considerations, competing
resource values, the requirements of the
Proclamation, and applicable laws. The
delineation of the boundaries for this
Primitive Zone were determined by a
combination of landscape and terrain features
which can accommodate the management
prescriptions appropriate to the zone.
The WSAs in the Monument, in contrast, are
the product of an inventory, not a land use
plan. The inventory which established these
WSAs only considered the presence or
absence of wilderness characteristics, not
competing resource values, manageability
considerations or resource quality. The
delineation of WSA boundaries was
determined by the naturalness of the area, not
landscape or terrain features or a need to
exclude incompatible resource uses.
The differences in WSA and Primitive Zone
boundary delineation, designation process,
and purpose, account for boundaries which do
not completely coincide. Further discussion
of WSAs is included in the Wilderness
Study Area section in Chapter 2 of this Plan.
A discussion of the criteria used to delineate
the Primitive Zone can be found in Chapter 2.
WSA-3
COMMENT: Why were new areas of
Wilderness in the Monument not recognized?
Why were WSAs not considered for release
from WSA designation? Wilderness should
be used as management tool.
RESPONSE: The BLM does not have the
authority to designate lands in the Monument
as Wilderness. The Wilderness Act of 1964
states that Wilderness can only be designated
by an Act of Congress. In section 603 of
FLPMA, Congress directed that public lands
which have wilderness characteristics shall be
managed in a manner so as not to impair the
suitability of such areas for preservation as
Wilderness until Congress determines
otherwise. Only Congress may release lands
from WSA status. Section 603 of FLPMA
also authorized the BLM to manage
Wilderness under the provisions of the
Wilderness Act. Should Congress designate
Wilderness in the Monument, the BLM
would manage such areas under the
provisions of the Wilderness Act.
WSR-1
COMMENT: Some people commented that
all 25 eligible river segments should be
determined suitable to protect the rivers and
water resources. Others commented that
none of the eligible segments should be found
suitable.
RESPONSE: The suitability determination
process, while guided by specific factors, is
subjective and left to professional judgement.
The BLM carefully considered all relevant
information, including input received during
public comment, and evaluated segments for
suitability. Although we received comments
stating that all or none of the eligible
segments should be suitable, there was not
5.95
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
enough accompanying documentation to
convince the BLM to make changes. A more
detailed discussion of the factors considered
in the suitability evaluation is included in
Appendix 11 of this Plan.
WSR-2
COMMENT: Various comments/questions
were received regarding the impacts of Wild
and Scenic River (WSR) designation. These
include:
A. Effects of WSR designation on a
permittee's ability to access existing range
improvements, develop new range
improvements, and consequences on other
factors such as forage use limitations should
be discussed.
B. Effects on private lands from WSRs
should be discussed.
C. The DEIS states, "substantial public use
puts Monument resources at high risk" and it
states, "Designation would enhance the
recreation values for this river system by
keeping the canyon system intact and
desirable for hiking." These statements are
contradictory. It should be recognized and
stated that designation may actually have a
negative effect on specific segments.
D. Would Wild or Scenic River designation
for the Paria River or Cottonwood Creek (or
elsewhere) impair PacifiCorp's ability to
operate, maintain, and upgrade facilities?
E. The DEIS states, "Designation would
ensure that our knowledge would be
enhanced by providing an additional reason
for scientific study." How is this statement
true compared to no designation?
F. There is a misleading statement in
Appendix 5 (pages A5.9 and A5.22):
"Designation would enhance the viability of
the riparian communities." Designation alone
would not do anything for the viability of the
riparian communities, and in fact may hinder
the viability of such communities by inviting
increased visitors in the river segments.
G. Justify costs as a reason to drop river
segments.
RESPONSE: It is important to note that this
Plan does not designate any Wild and Scenic
Rivers. WSRs may only be designated by
Congress or the Secretary of the Interior at
the request of the State Governor. This Plan
only makes determinations about which
segments are suitable for recommendation to
Congress. The responses below refer to
potential effects that may occur if Congress
or the Governor requested the Secretary to
designate.
A. Grazing is permitted on rivers designated
as wild, scenic, or recreational, but must be
managed to enhance the values for which the
river was designated. Thus, livestock grazing
and agricultural practices may continue at a
level similar in nature and intensity to those
present in the area at the time of designation,
as long as outstandingly remarkable values
are protected.
B. Under the WSR Act, designation neither
gives nor implies government control of
private lands within the river corridor.
Although Congress (or the Secretary of the
Interior for 2(a)(ii) rivers) could include
private lands within the boundaries of the
designated river area, management
restrictions would not apply.
C. While many of the Nation's rivers
(including Wild and Scenic Rivers) have
received increased use in recent years, the
BLM is unaware of any research indicating
that designation increases use. Even if
designation did increase use, however,
designation could also improve the ability to
manage recreational uses and values through
the increased focus that a WSR management
plan provides.
D. Wild and Scenic River designation seeks
to protect and enhance a river's current
condition. Existing powerline or
communication transmission rights-of-way
could continue to be used and maintained
upon designation. New proposals and
upgrades would be evaluated in light of
impacts to river values.
E. Wild and Scenic River "status" may
provide additional rationale for studying
those outstandingly remarkable values for
which each segment was found eligible.
5.96
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Designated rivers may also help prioritize
research projects.
F. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act states,
"...selected rivers of the Nation which, with
their immediate environments, ... shall be
preserved in free-flowing condition, and that
they and their immediate environments shall
be protected ..." There is a chance that
without wild and scenic river designation,
rivers could be dammed or diverted
jeopardizing the instream flow in downstream
segments. Therefore, designation could
protect the viability of riparian communities
by protecting the instream flow upon which
these "immediate environments" rely.
G. The BLM determined that the Escalante
and Paria river systems could better be
managed by concentrating available
management capabilities on those segments
that contribute most to riverine values.
However, costs were not the major factor in
determining suitability of eligible segments.
The primary factor in finding certain
segments non-suitable was that they did not
make substantial contributions to the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System or had
management conflicts (see Response WSR-
6).
WSR-3
COMMENT: Various comments were
submitted regarding clarifications of the WSR
planning process. These include:
A. Why were Wild and Scenic River studies
included in your planning process?
B. Why were tentative classifications
changed between eligibility and suitability to
be consistent with the zones?
C. How did Wild and Scenic River planning
fit in the Monument Plan process?
D. The Presidential Proclamation states that
the Monument is subject to valid existing
rights and does not reserve water as a matter
of Federal law, so how does a WSR
designation create an instream flow reserved
right?
E. Few WSRs are needed because, like the
ACECs, the general protection provided by
the Monument designation is sufficient.
RESPONSE:
A. BLM Manual Section 8351 directs the
BLM to evaluate all potentially eligible river
segments within the resource management
planning process to determine eligibility,
tentative classification, protection
requirements, and suitability under Section
5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
B. The primary considerations used in
classification changes from the eligibility
phase to the suitability evaluation phase were
management prescriptions proposed for the
segments under the Monument Management
Plan. For instance, much of the Paria River
was classified as "recreational" in the
eligibility phase as opposed to "wild" because
of current motorized use. The DEIS
determined that the Paria River would be
managed in the future to meet certain
prescriptions for primitive recreation and
would not allow motorized access. Therefore,
the recommended classification for much of
the Paria suitability is "wild" in accordance
with proposed management.
C. The eligibility phase of the WSR study
was based on the presence or absence of
outstandingly remarkable values and free
flowing characteristics determined through an
inventory. Preliminary eligibility findings
were released for public review prior to the
release of the DEIS. After review of public
comment, final eligibility findings were
released (see Appendix 4 of the DEIS for
more detail). The suitability phase
considered the eight factors outlined in BLM
Manual Section 8351 and the Wild and
Scenic River Act and management
prescriptions outlined in the DEIS
alternatives. Draft suitability
recommendations were released with the
DEIS in November 1998. Comments on the
suitability phase of the process were received
during the comment period for the DEIS.
After review and consideration of these
comments, the BLM is making
recommendations on suitable segments in this
Plan/FEIS.
D. This Plan does not state that an instream
flow or a Federal reserved water right would
5.97
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
Chapter 5
be established. The DEIS did state that
Congress, or the Secretary of the Interior at
the request of the State Governor, may
designate a Wild and Scenic River within the
Monument. Such a designation could reserve
sufficient water to carry out the purposes of
the designation, including instream flows, but
would not displace any previously established
private rights.
E. Unlike ACECs which the BLM can
establish itself, WSR designations are made
by Congress or by the Secretary of the
Interior upon application of the State
Governor. The BLM must complete its legal
responsibilities required under the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act to allow others to make the
ultimate decision.
WSR-4
COMMENT: A better explanation of how
WSR tentative classifications were made
should be provided.
RESPONSE: Classification for the eligibility
phase of the WSR study was done using
existing conditions and the level of
development along river segments.
Classifications in the suitability phase
considered the factors outlined in the BLM
Manual Section 8351 and Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, but also considered management
objectives outlined by the DEIS alternatives.
WSR-5
COMMENT: Willis Creek should be
determined eligible and suitable to protect
riparian areas.
RESPONSE: Willis Creek has several
diversions above the Skutumpah Road and
was determined not to be free-flowing. This
does not preclude protection of the riparian
values of Willis Creek. As discussed in the
Riparian section in Chapter 2 of this Plan,
riparian resources are important in the
Monument and would be protected under the
Proposed Plan provisions.
WSR-6
COMMENT: Why were eligible river
segments not included in the DEIS
Alternative B suitable segments?
RESPONSE: The suitability determination
process, while guided by specific factors, is
subjective and left to professional judgement.
The BLM carefully considered all the
relevant information, including input received
during the eligibility phase of the study, and
evaluated segments for suitability. Although
comments were received stating that all or
none of the eligible segments should be
suitable, there was not enough accompanying
documentation to convince the BLM to make
changes. A more detailed discussion of the
factors considered in the suitability evaluation
is included in Appendix 1 1 of this Plan.
Cottonwood Canyon, Wolverine Creek, Little
Death Hollow, Phipps Wash, Cottonwood
Creek, parts of Harris Wash (parts that do not
have known southwestern willow
flycatchers), side canyons into The Gulch,
Water Canyon, Blackwater Canyon, Lamanite
Arch Canyon, Bull Valley Gorge, Dry
Hollow Creek and the unnamed tributary west
of Calf Creek were found non-suitable
because the quality of river characteristics in
these segments would not significantly
enhance nor contribute to the National Wild
and Scenic River System. Nevertheless, the
outstandingly remarkable riparian, scenic,
geologic, recreational, cultural, and habitat
values identified for these rivers would be
protected under this Plan.
Lower Horse Canyon, while eligible, was
found non-suitable because of management
conflicts (one of the suitability criteria
identified in BLM Manual Section 8351). An
existing water diversion in that segment of
the river could be used in the future to
remove livestock grazing from the riparian
area, which would conflict with WSR status.
WSR-7
COMMENT: The BLM has added "when
evaluated in the context of an entire region"
to outstanding remarkable values. This has
excluded many segments from eligibility.
The BLM has insufficient information
regarding the presence or absence of
threatened and endangered species to
determine eligibility.
5.98
Chapter 5
Public Comments on DMP/DEIS and Responses
RESPONSE: BLM Manual 8351 states that
the following must be considered in
determining outstandingly remarkable values:
scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife,
cultural, historic, and other similar values. In
addition, the manual also states that BLM
State Directors may prescribe supplemental
standards or criteria for determining
outstandingly remarkable values. An
interagency agreement signed in December of
1994 by the Utah State Director, and a Utah
Interagency Memorandum of Understanding
signed in January of 1998, dictates that
"Resources should be at least regionally
significant to be deemed outstandingly
remarkable. To make this determination, a
region should be explicitly delineated so that
the significance of the rivers under review
can be compared against others in the region.
Selection of a region of an appropriate size
and character is critical in arriving at a
realistic determination of regionally
significant rivers. To fine-tune the resource
assessment, a set of comparative regions can
be delineated according to the specific
resources along the river(s) being evaluated."
The BLM is directed to consider WSR
viability during the land management
planning process. The BLM did so with the
best data available to us at the time. Known
threatened and endangered species sightings
were a factor used to qualify a river segment
as "eligible" in this process.
WSR-8
COMMENT: Explain the difference between
Cottonwood Wash and Cottonwood Creek in
the WSR planning process, and why
Cottonwood Creek along the Cottonwood
Road was not eligible in the DEIS.
RESPONSE: Cottonwood Wash (page 4.9 of
the DEIS) is located east of Highway 12
along the Hogback. Cottonwood Creek,
located along Cottonwood Road, was
determined not to be free flowing on the
upper end and not significant in the region of
comparison and thus was not considered
eligible.
'»'CJB«Jfr**»
5.99
Appendix
Presidential Proclamation
Appendix
Presidential Proclamation
Establishment of the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument by the
President of the United States of America
September 18, 1996
A PROCLAMATION
The Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument's vast and austere landscape
embraces a spectacular array of scientific and
historic resources. This high, rugged, and
remote region, where bold plateaus and
multi-hued cliffs run for distances that defy
human perspective, was the last place in the
continental United States to be mapped. Even
today, this unspoiled natural area remains a
frontier, a quality that greatly enhances the
monument's value for scientific study. The
monument has a long and dignified human
history: it is a place where one can see how
nature shapes human endeavors in the American
West, where distance and aridity have been
pitted against our dreams and courage. The
monument presents exemplary opportunities for
geologists, paleontologists, archeologists,
historians, and biologists.
The monument is a geologic treasure of clearly
exposed stratigraphy and structures. The
sedimentary rock layers are relatively
undeformed and unobscured by vegetation,
offering a clear view to understanding the
processes of the earth's formation. A wide
variety of formations, some in brilliant colors,
have been exposed by millennia of erosion. The
monument contains significant portions of a vast
geologic stairway, named the Grand Staircase by
pioneering geologist Clarence Dutton, which
rises 5,500 feet to the rim of Bryce Canyon in
an unbroken sequence of great cliffs and
plateaus. The monument includes the rugged
canyon country of the upper Paria Canyon
system, major components of the White and
Vermilion Cliffs and associated benches, and
the Kaiparowits Plateau. That Plateau
encompasses about 1,600 square miles of
sedimentary rock and consists of successive
south-to-north ascending plateaus or benches,
deeply cut by steep-walled canyons. Naturally
burning coal seams have scorched the tops of
the Burning Hills brick-red. Another
prominent geological feature of the plateau is
the East Kaibab Monocline, known as the
Cockscomb. The monument also includes the
spectacular Circle Cliffs and part of the
Waterpocket Fold, the inclusion of which
completes the protection of this geologic
feature begun with the establishment of Capitol
Reef National Monument in 1938
(Proclamation No. 2246, 50 Stat. 1856). The
monument holds many arches and natural
bridges, including the 130-foot-high Escalante
Natural Bridge, with a 100 foot span, and
Grosvenor Arch, a rare "double arch." The
upper Escalante Canyons, in the northeastern
reaches of the monument, are distinctive: in
addition to several major arches and natural
bridges, vivid geological features are laid bare
in narrow, serpentine canyons, where erosion
has exposed sandstone and shale deposits in
shades of red, maroon, chocolate, tan, gray, and
white. Such diverse objects make the
monument outstanding for purposes of
geologic study.
The monument includes world class
paleontological sites. The Circle Cliffs reveal
remarkable specimens of petrified wood, such
as large unbroken logs exceeding 30 feet in
length. The thickness, continuity and broad
temporal distribution of the Kaiparowits
Plateau's stratigraphy provide significant
opportunities to study the paleontology of the
late Cretaceous Era. Extremely significant
fossils, including marine and brackish water
mollusks, turtles, crocodilians, lizards,
dinosaurs, fishes, and mammals, have been
recovered from the Dakota, Tropic Shale and
Wahweap Formations, and the Tibbet Canyon,
Smoky Hollow and John Henry members of
the Straight Cliffs Formation. Within the
monument, these formations have produced the
only evidence in our hemisphere of terrestrial
vertebrate fauna, including mammals, of the
Cenomanian-Santonian ages. This sequence of
rocks, including the overlaying Wahweap and
Kaiparowits formations, contains one of the
best and most continuous records of Late
Cretaceous terrestrial life in the world.
Archeological inventories carried out to date
show extensive use of places within the
monument by ancient Native American
cultures. The area was a contact point for the
Anasazi and Fremont cultures, and the
evidence of this mingling provides a significant
opportunity for archeological study. The
cultural resources discovered so far in the
monument are outstanding in their variety of
cultural affiliation, type and distribution.
Hundreds of recorded sites include rock art
panels, occupation sites, campsites and
Al.
Presidential Proclamation
Appendix I
granaries. Many more undocumented sites that
exist within the monument are of significant
scientific and historic value worthy of
preservation for future study.
The monument is rich in human history. In
addition to occupations by the Anasazi and
Fremont cultures, the area has been used by
modern tribal groups, including the Southern
Paiute and Navajo. John Wesley Powell's
expedition did initial mapping and scientific
field work in the area in 1872. Early Mormon
pioneers left many historic objects, including
trails, inscriptions, ghost towns such as the Old
Paria townsite, rock houses, and cowboy line
camps, and built and traversed the renowned
Hole-in-the-Rock Trail as part of their epic
colonization efforts. Sixty miles of the Trail lie
within the monument, as does Dance Hall Rock,
used by intrepid Mormon pioneers and now a
National Historic Site.
Spanning five life zones from low-lying desert
to coniferous forest, with scarce and scattered
water sources, the monument is an outstanding
biological resource. Remoteness, limited travel
corridors and low visitation have all helped to
preserve intact the monument's important
ecological values. The blending of warm and
cold desert floras, along with the high number of
endemic species, place this area in the heart of
perhaps the richest floristic region in the
Intermountain West. It contains an abundance
of unique, isolated communities such as hanging
gardens, tinajas, and rock crevice, canyon
bottom, and dunal pocket communities, which
have provided refugia for many ancient plant
species for millennia. Geologic uplift with
minimal deformation and subsequent
downcutting by streams have exposed large
expanses of a variety of geologic strata, each
with unique physical and chemical
characteristics. These strata are the parent
material for a spectacular array of unusual and
diverse soils that support many different
vegetative communities and numerous types of
endemic plants and their pollinators. This
presents an extraordinary opportunity to study
plant speciation and community dynamics
independent of climatic variables. The
monument contains an extraordinary number of
areas of relict vegetation, many of which have
existed since the Pleistocene, where natural
processes continue unaltered by man. These
include relict grasslands, of which No Mans
Mesa is an outstanding example, and
pinon-juniper communities containing trees up
to 1,400 years old. As witnesses to the past,
these relict areas establish a baseline against
which to measure changes in community
dynamics and biogeochemical cycles in areas
impacted by human activity. Most of the
ecological communities contained in the
monument have low resistance to, and slow
recovery from, disturbance. Fragile
cryptobiotic crusts, themselves of significant
biological interest, play a critical role
throughout the monument, stabilizing the
highly erodible desert soils and providing
nutrients to plants. An abundance of packrat
middens provides insight into the vegetation
and climate of the past 25,000 years and
furnishes context for studies of evolution and
climate change. The wildlife of the monument
is characterized by a diversity of species. The
monument varies greatly in elevation and
topography and is in a climatic zone where
northern and southern habitat species
intermingle. Mountain lion, bear, and desert
bighorn sheep roam the monument. Over 200
species of birds, including bald eagles and
peregrine falcons, are found within the area.
Wildlife, including neotropical birds,
concentrate around the Paria and Escalante
Rivers and other riparian corridors within the
monument.
Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat.
225, 16 U.S.C. 431) authorizes the President, in
his discretion, to declare by public
proclamation historic landmarks, historic and
prehistoric structures, and other objects of
historic or scientific interest that are situated
upon the lands owned or controlled by the
Government of the United States to be national
monuments, and to reserve as a part thereof
parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases
shall be confined to the smallest area
compatible with the proper care and
management of the objects to be protected.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J.
CLINTON, President of the United States of
America, by the authority vested in me by
section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat.
225, 16 U.S.C. 431), do proclaim that there are
hereby set apart and reserved as the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, for
the purpose of protecting the objects identified
above, all lands and interests in lands owned or
controlled by the United States within the
AI.2
Appendix
Presidential Proclamation
boundaries of the area described on the
document entitled "Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument" attached to and forming a
part of this proclamation. The Federal land and
interests in land reserved consist of
approximately 1 .7 million acres, which is the
smallest area compatible with the proper care
and management of the objects to be protected.
All Federal lands and interests in lands within
the boundaries of this monument are hereby
appropriated and withdrawn from entry,
location, selection, sale, leasing, or other
disposition under the public land laws, other
than by exchange that furthers the protective
purposes of the monument. Lands and interests
in lands not owned by the United States shall be
reserved as a part of the monument upon
acquisition of title thereto by the United States.
The establishment of this monument is subject
to valid existing rights.
Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to
diminish the responsibility and authority of the
State of Utah for management of fish and
wildlife, including regulation of hunting and
fishing, on Federal lands within the monument.
Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to
affect existing permits or leases for, or levels of,
livestock grazing on Federal lands within the
monument; existing grazing uses shall continue
to be governed by applicable laws and
regulations other than this proclamation.
Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to
revoke any existing withdrawal, reservation, or
appropriation; however, the national monument
shall be the dominant reservation.
The Secretary of the Interior shall manage the
monument through the Bureau of Land
Management, pursuant to applicable legal
authorities, to implement the purposes of this
proclamation. The Secretary of the Interior
shall prepare, within 3 years of this date, a
management plan for this monument, and shall
promulgate such regulations for its
management as he deems appropriate. This
proclamation does not reserve water as a matter
of Federal law. I direct the Secretary to
address in the management plan the extent to
which water is necessary for the proper care
and management of the objects of this
monument and the extent to which further
action may be necessary pursuant to Federal or
State law to assure the availability of water.
Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized
persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or
remove any feature of this monument and not
to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand this eighteenth day of September, in
the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and
ninety-six, and of the Independence of the
United States of America the two hundred and
twenty-first.
William J. Clinton
AI.3
Appendix 2
Antiquities Act of 1 906
Appendix 2
Antiquities Act of 1 906
Act of June 18, 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433
(Popularly known as the Antiquities Act of
1906)
The following is the text of the Antiquities
Act of 1906, under the authority of which
President Clinton established Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
16 U.S.C. § 431
National monuments; reservation of lands;
relinquishment of private claims:
The President of the United States is
authorized, in his discretion, to declare by
public proclamation historic landmarks,
historic and prehistoric structures, and other
objects of historic or scientific interest that
are situated upon the lands owned or
controlled by the Government of the United
States to be national monuments, and may
reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the
limits of which in all cases shall be confined
to the smallest area compatible with the
proper care and management of the objects to
be protected. When such objects are situated
upon a tract covered by a bona fide
unperfected claim or held in private
ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as
may be necessary for the proper care and
management of the object, may be
relinquished to the Government, and the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
accept the relinquishment of such tracts in
behalf of the Government of the United
States.
16 U.S.C. § 431a
Limitation on further extension or
establishment of national monuments in
Wyoming:
No further extension or establishment of
national monuments in Wyoming may be
undertaken except by express authorization of
Congress.
A2.I
Appendix 3
mplementation and Adaptive Management
Appendix 3
Implementation and Adaptive Management Framework
INTRODUCTION
This appendix addresses the implementation of
decisions that would be approved in the Record
of Decision. Processes for implementation,
monitoring, and adaptive management are
included. This appendix is not intended to be a
plan, but rather a framework to guide
implementation of planning decisions. New
objectives or standards are not proposed here,
but an implementation process is described
which would increase the likelihood of meeting
management direction and objectives described
in the Proposed Plan. This is the start of this
process and is intended to provide insight into
expected implementation actions. It is
anticipated that further refinements of this
process would be necessary as implementation
proceeds. This appendix is composed of four
main sections:
• Time Frames for Implementation
• Consultation, Coordination, and
Collaboration
• Linking Broad-scale Decisions and
Information to Finer Levels: Subsequent
Analysis and Decision making
• Framework for Monitoring, Evaluation, and
Adaptive Management.
TIME FRAMES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of decisions made through this
planning process would occur in several
phases. Although the use of the word "phase"
implies sequential steps, some of the phases
would be implemented concurrently to reduce
the time involved in making the transition from
current operations to Plan decisions and
directions. The various phases involved in
implementation include:
• Pending/Ongoing Actions: Generally, any
ongoing, short-term activity would not be
changed as a result of new direction. Short-
term activities where National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis
has been completed and decisions are
pending would be screened to ensure there
are no conflicts with the decisions in the
Approved Plan/Record of Decision.
Existing, longer-term permitted activities
would be brought into compliance with the
decisions as described below under Longer-
Term Actions.
• Immediate Actions: Actions where
implementation would begin in the
immediate future (i.e., within the first year)
are included in this category. These
include actions such as implementing off-
road vehicle closures, designating primitive
camping areas, initiating a public
information program, establishing criteria
for new outfitters and guides, and other
immediate actions to implement specific
decisions in the Plan. The subsequent
assessment and activity planning processes
described below would also need to be
developed and refined in the immediate
term, including setting geographic priorities
for subsequent analysis and planning. The
monitoring and adaptive management
process would also need to be initiated,
including establishing coordination efforts
and priorities for monitoring and research
programs.
Longer-Term Actions: This phase includes
actions which are needed to implement
decisions over the planning horizon
(between 1-15 years). In addition to
ongoing regulatory requirements, the major
part of this effort would include subsequent
ecosystem analysis and integrated activity
planning on a finer-scale. This step-down
(or hierarchical) process is designed to
ensure that actions prescribed to meet
broad-scale goals and objectives in this Plan
consider local conditions and vice versa.
The subsequent planning involved in this
process would address existing, long-term
permitted activities that need to be brought
into compliance with plan decisions, subject
to valid existing rights. The actual time
frames for compliance would need to be
outlined and prioritized during the
Immediate Actions time-frame above. In
addition, the monitoring and adaptive
management strategy would be
implemented over this longer-term phase,
which may lead to changes in the Plan
through an amendment or revision process
that considers information specific to finer-
scale conditions. This process is discussed
in more detail in the sections below
(Linking Broad-scale Decisions and
Information to Finer Levels and
Framework for Monitoring, Evaluation
and Adaptive Management).
A3. 1
Implementation and Adaptive Management Framework
Appendix 3
CONSULTATION, COORDINATION,
AND COLLABORATION
This Proposed Plan/Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared
with close coordination and collaboration with
other Federal agencies; state, local and tribal
governments; and other interested parties.
Collaborative approaches to implementation
would be necessary to assure success. While
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
retains the responsibility and authority for land
management decisions, these decisions would
be more meaningful, effective, and longer
lasting if done in a collaborative and open
process. Therefore, close working relationships
between management and regulatory agencies
would need to be developed and maintained.
In addition, others outside of the BLM (e.g.,
state and local agencies, universities,
volunteers) should be involved in subsequent
analysis, monitoring, evaluation, research, and
adaptive management processes.
Efforts to involve other agencies and the public
in subsequent analysis, monitoring, research
and adaptive management are included in the
sections that follow and in the Collaborative
Management section in Chapter 4 of this Plan.
These efforts include intergovernmental
participation through the GSENM Advisory
Committee (see Chapter 2 for full discussion)
which would make recommendations on
strategies to meet management objectives. It
also includes forming partnerships in efforts to
complete assessments, establish baseline data,
monitor, and modify management actions as a
result of these processes.
LINKING BROAD-SCALE DECISIONS
AND INFORMATION TO FINER
LEVELS: SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS AND
DECISION MAKING
This Plan/FEIS contains general direction and
context for the entire Monument and makes
decisions on specific actions for some issues
(e.g., access restrictions). Still, many
management actions necessary to achieve
broad-scale objectives (e.g., achieving a
natural range of native vegetation associations)
may require further analysis and additional
decisions. This additional analysis would:
• Validate, refine, or add-to information
concerning current and historical resource
conditions;
• Address issues not appropriately addressed
at the broad scale;
• Prioritize restoration efforts to maximize
the likelihood of meeting management
goals and objectives;
• Guide the type, location, and sequence of
appropriate management activities;
• Identify monitoring and research needs.
This section provides an outline of the
expected types and levels of analysis and
planning that would "step-down" broad-scale
information and decisions in the Plan to site-
specific actions. This step-down process is
designed to ensure that broad-scale decisions
are viewed within the context of site-specific
conditions, and that site-specific decisions are
made within the context of broad-scale goals
and objectives.
Hierarchy of Analysis
Several steps are envisioned to implement the
broad-level decisions made in this Plan. While
these steps may occur sequentially, it is likely
that they would occur simultaneously since the
need for further assessment before project
implementation varies in different areas. Many
actions can take place immediately (as
described in Time Frames for
Implementation), while others would be
considered and scheduled through subsequent
assessments and planning efforts. The process
envisioned includes the following steps:
• Monument-Wide Review: The first step
toward linking decisions to finer scales is to
review existing information for the
Monument to help set the context and
priorities for subsequent analysis and
decision making. The broad overview of
existing information would help identify
appropriate subunits (e.g., physiographic
provinces or watersheds) and establish
priorities for "taking closer looks" within
them. Priorities would be based on a
combination of ecological priorities (i.e.,
considering biophysical and socio-economic
resource conditions, risks to key resources,
and opportunities to protect areas with, or
restore them to, properly functioning
condition) and collaborative priorities (i.e.,
existing deadlines, court mandated actions,
A3 .2
Appendix 3
Implementation and Adaptive Management Framework
collaborator availability to participate in
subsequent analyses or actions).
Sub-unit Ecosystem Assessments: The
review discussed above should identify
priority areas where finer-scale assessments
are considered necessary for scheduling and
designing activities to achieve overall plan
objectives. Such assessments would
develop a "place based" analysis that
provides context for site-scale planning and
actions to implement decisions (see
Subsequent Planning below). Assessments
would focus on interpreting existing
information and trends and identifying
information gaps. Such analysis would also
help refine overall objectives or desired
future conditions to the specific conditions
in the sub-unit and would characterize the
situation and trends in relation to the desired
future condition. If the situation or trend is
negative, the assessment would set the stage
for identifying the management necessary
to move towards desired future conditions.
The Subsequent Planning processes
described below would be significantly
enhanced by the context provided in these
assessments.
Subsequent Planning: Based on the broad-
scale objectives in the Plan, and in some
cases the assessments discussed above,
finer-scale planning may need to be
completed in order to implement decisions.
Such planning could come in the form of
Landscape Plans, Activity Plans and/or
Project-level Plans.
Where the sub-unit ecosystem assessments
indicate a need (e.g., an assemblage of
issues throughout the sub-unit that could be
most efficiently resolved at this scale),
landscape-level planning (i.e., integrated
activity plans corresponding to the sub-unit
assessments) may be done. The purpose of
operational planning at the landscape (e.g.,
watershed, physiographic province, or other
ecosystem unit) level is to determine the
mix of activities and projects needed to
resolve local issues while meeting the
broad-scale objectives in this Plan. This
planning level is important in these
situations because it provides for the
development of projects and activities for
different programs in conjunction with one
another, allowing more effective
consideration of cumulative effects. For
example, planning for recreation,
restoration, and grazing (i.e., incorporating
allotment management plans into the
integrated activity plans) can be done for a
sub-unit to implement integrated decisions
and projects. Planning at this level can be a
key component of the adaptive
management process (described below),
because it would incorporate new
information as applied across the
Monument and could be modified as
monitoring and evaluation suggest changes.
Where planning at the broader sub-unit
level is not feasible or necessary, activity
plans (i.e., planning specific to a particular
resource program, such as a Fee
Management Plan or a Special Recreation
Management Plan) and site-specific project
planning would also be used to implement
decisions. Under the hierarchy of analysis
and planning outlined above, the site-
specific scale of analysis acts as a safety net
for those issues overlooked or appropriately
excluded at broader scales, and provides
site-specific information for determining
effects. This level of analysis has been used
extensively since the inception of NEPA,
and has been proven successful at
identifying and addressing local issues and
concerns. However, as a stand-alone
assessment process, it has often been
ineffective at addressing broad-scale issues.
The site-specific analysis process would be
significantly enhanced where context from
broader scales (e.g., watershed or other
ecosystem unit) of analysis can be brought
to bear for cumulative effects.
Compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act
The FEIS for the Monument Plan provides the
compliance with NEPA for the broad-scale
decisions that would be made in the Record of
Decision. It does not replace the requirement to
comply with NEPA for implementation actions.
The BLM would continue to prepare
Environmental Assessments (EAs) and
Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) where
appropriate as part of the planning and decision
making processes described above.
A3. 3
Implementation and Adaptive Management Framework
Appendix 3
FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING,
EVALUATION, AND ADAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT
Adaptive management, as defined here, is a
formal process for continually improving
management policies and practices by learning
from the outcomes of operational programs and
new scientific information. Under adaptive
management, plans and activities are treated as
working hypotheses rather than final solutions
to complex problems. This approach builds on
common sense, experimentation, and learning
from experience, which is then used to modify
implementation of plans. The process
generally includes four phases: planning,
implementation, monitoring, and evaluation
(see Figure A3. 1). The planning and
implementation phases are discussed above.
This section focuses on monitoring and
evaluation, which would lead to changes in
planning and implementation activities.
f
- Planning ^^^
I
Evaluation
Implementation
J
V
Monitoring -*^^
Figure A3 . 1
Adaptive Management Process
This section provides a framework to develop
a specific monitoring and evaluation program
which would measure the conditions and
trends in the Monument. The information
developed through the monitoring process
would be used to assess management
strategies, alter decisions, change
implementation, or maintain current
management direction.
Monitoring
An initial step in developing a monitoring
strategy is to define the questions which need
to be answered in order to evaluate the
attainment of broad-scale management goals
and objectives in the Plan. These questions
can be used to focus the monitoring strategy on
appropriate issues and avoid gathering
information which has limited value in
answering pertinent questions. The questions
would also be used to help design a system that
can be implemented within agency budgets.
Technical and scientific staffs, in consultation
with managers, need to play a key role in
designing a monitoring strategy. The first step
would be to select key monitoring elements
and indicators that can be statistically sampled
and can provide desired data at a reasonable
cost. A standard core set of data elements
would be collected. Core data, including data
necessary to evaluate achievement of Utah's
Standards and Guides for Rangeland Health,
are the minimum set of variables to be
collected at all scales. Standardized
measurement and reporting protocols would be
determined because of the essential need for
consistency. Where possible, monitoring
protocols would be designed to integrate
existing monitoring efforts, and would address
multiple questions. Also, the design would
allow flexibility to add data elements in order to
answer new questions/objectives raised in
subsequent sub-unit or site-specific planning.
Determining the specific monitoring approach
for any question depends on knowledge of
detailed information on existing conditions.
For example, trend assessment requires first
gathering baseline or status information.
Projects for collection of baseline information
are being conducted in the Monument
currently. Landscape scale vegetation
assessments, overviews for paleontology,
history and archaeology, Monument-wide
surveys for special status species, collection of
meteorological data at weather stations, and
visitor use inventories are just a few of the
multi-year projects that have occurred or are
continuing. Data from these projects are
integral to monitoring trends. A monitoring
strategy must also identify other techniques
(remote sensing, sample-based studies,
modeling) that may be necessary to get a
complete picture of structure and pattern of
Monument resources. Successful
implementation of large-scale monitoring may
require a combination of approaches.
As mentioned above, the design of the
monitoring program would allow flexibility to
add data collection needs identified through the
ecosystem assessments and planning processes.
A3. 4
Appendix 3
Implementation and Adaptive Management Framework
Ecosystem assessments and planning, however,
should also incorporate monitoring and
evaluation information to ensure that the latest
information is used in management actions.
Evaluation
Evaluation is the next key component of the
adaptive management process. Evaluation is
the 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. This portion
of the adaptive management strategy examines
the monitoring data and uses it to draw
conclusions on whether management actions
are meeting stated goals and objectives and, if
not, why. The conclusions are used to make
recommendations on whether to continue
current management strategies or to make
changes in management practices to meet Plan
goals and objectives.
An evaluation schedule needs to be set in
advance to ensure that: evaluations are
conducted at intervals that allow for corrections
in management direction before crises develop;
monitoring data is gathered in advance to be
used in the evaluation process; and the
appropriate evaluation team is assembled to
conduct the evaluation. Management
evaluations made too frequently would not
detect changes in ecosystems because cost-
effective monitoring systems cannot detect
changes at this scale. On the other hand, if
ecosystem management evaluations are not
conducted, or are delayed for too long,
irreversible changes may take place without
detection. To avoid this problem, two periodic
management evaluations are proposed. The
first is a bi-annual implementation evaluation
comparing expected outcomes of projects to
actual results and to ensure that monitoring
results are incorporated into ongoing
assessments and planning. The second is an
evaluation conducted approximately every five
to ten years comparing the overall rate and
degree of movement towards broad-scale
objectives and desired future conditions.
These evaluation steps would be carried out by
the Monument Science Team, in consultation
with the GSENM Advisory Committee
(discussed below).
Adaptive Management
The evaluation process discussed above would
generate new information that needs to be
incorporated into management actions.
Ongoing sub-unit assessments and integrated
activity planning would also uncover new
information that can be used to make changes
to projects, strategies, objectives, and
monitoring elements. New information may
result in any of the following:
• Concluding that management actions are
moving the landscape towards the broad-
scale objectives in the Plan. In this case,
management actions are affirmed and may
not need to be adjusted.
• Concluding that further research needs to
be initiated or that actions must be adjusted
to more efficiently achieve broad-scale
objectives of the Plan. If new information
or research demonstrates better ways to
achieve plan objectives, changes in activity
planning and project implementation can be
made (i.e., plan maintenance). NEPA
analysis may be required depending upon
the nature of the management changes.
• Concluding that broad-scale objectives
should be altered based on new information.
If the new information indicates
reconsideration of Plan objectives, a plan
amendment could be considered to
reexamine targeted future conditions and
pathways to reach those conditions.
Role of the Management Science Team and
the GSENM Advisory Committee
The Management Science Team (comprised of
the Assistant Monument Managers for
Biological Sciences, Cultural and Earth
Sciences, and Visitor Services) would be
responsible for developing monitoring and
adaptive management protocols and ensuring
that documentation is sufficient to facilitate
feedback into the adaptive management
process. This team would also be responsible
for ensuring that monitoring results and other
new information (based on sub-unit
assessments) are compiled and evaluated
according to the two evaluation phases
discussed above.
The credibility of an adaptive management
process rests in part on the routine application
of an outside check on the use of technical and
scientific information, including monitoring.
A3. 5
Implementation and Adaptive Management Framework Appendix 3
Independent reviews can provide verification
that plans, evaluation and changes in
management strategy are consistent with
current scientific concepts. The GSENM
Advisory Committee discussed in Chapter 2 of
this Plan would be used in this role to evaluate
compiled monitoring data in the evaluation
phases discussed above, and would make
recommendations to management regarding
changes to projects, strategies or objectives.
The majority of the committee members would
be scientists, reflecting the Advisory
Committee's science focus. There would be
eight scientists representing the areas of
archaeology, paleontology, geology, botany,
wildlife biology, history, social science, and
systems ecology. In addition, there would be
seven members representing other agencies,
local communities, interest groups, and users of
the Monument.
A3. 6
Appendix 4
Standard Procedures
Appendix 4
Standard Procedures for Surface Disturbing Projects or Proposals
INTRODUCTION
This appendix is a compilation of the standard
procedures for mitigating surface disturbing
activities that have been described throughout
this Plan. It is designed to provide an
understanding of how proposed mitigation in
this Plan would apply to specific projects or
proposals. These standards are not intended to
describe the criteria used to determine whether
projects would be approved. Instead, they
discuss standard procedures for locating,
designing, and stipulating projects where they
could be allowed. These standards are general
in nature, and do not necessarily cover all
concerns or issues that may need to be
addressed in specific National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) documents. Site-specific
stipulations would be developed as part of the
permitting process for any project authorization
or land use/restoration activity.
PROJECT-LEVEL NEPA
DOCUMENTATION AND INVENTORIES
All proposed surface disturbing activities will
be evaluated using NEPA and associated
Bureau of Land Management/Monument
Management guidance. This process requires
that the project site be surveyed for potential
impacts to resources (discussed below) and that
an interdisciplinary approach be used to
analyze and document such impacts.
Monument staff with primary NEPA
compliance responsibilities will review the
project with managers, and document NEPA
compliance prior to initiating or approving any
surface disturbance.
The Monument Plan calls for an on-going
inventory, assessment, and monitoring process
which would continue to identify and
document the presence of sensitive resources.
The results of these processes would be
employed during project-level NEPA
documentation.
MAJOR RESOURCES OF CONCERN
This section includes a listing of major
resources within the Monument that should be
given careful attention through a site inventory
at any proposed project or activity site. Site
inventories would be conducted by qualified
resource specialists for each resource. If such
resources are found at a site, actions would be
taken as described below for each resource.
Additional actions to protect resources could
be identified through the NEPA process.
Geology: If geologic hazards or sensitive
geomorphologic features (e.g., arches, natural
bridges) are identified during site inventories,
the project would be moved or modified to
prevent conflicts or damage.
Paleontology. Areas found to have unique
paleontological resources would be avoided.
In other cases where ubiquitous fossils are
present, samples may be taken to record their
presence and the proposed activity may be
allowed. Measures would be taken to
minimize impacts on the remaining
paleontological resources.
Cultural (Archaeological and Historic)
resources: In the event that archaeologic or
historic artifacts are identified during site
inventories, the location of the proposed project
would be moved to avoid impacts. Where
avoidance is not possible, other measures to
protect the sensitive resource (e.g., construction
of barriers, interpretation) would be used.
Efforts to excavate and curate the resource
could be taken as a last resort. Consultation
with appropriate Native American Indian
communities, and/or the State Historic
Preservation Officer will be required.
Consultation with local communities will also
be a priority.
Riparian: Specific restrictions on projects in
riparian areas include:
• New recreation facilities would be
prohibited in riparian areas, except for small
signs for resource protection.
• Trails would be kept out of riparian areas
wherever possible. Where this is not
possible, or where a trail is necessary to
prevent the proliferation of social trails,
trails would be designed to minimize
impacts by placing them away from streams,
using soil stabilization structures to prevent
erosion, and planting native plants in areas
where vegetation has been removed.
• All other projects would need to avoid
riparian areas wherever possible.
• Vegetation restoration treatments would not
be allowed in these areas, unless needed for
removal of noxious weed species or
restoration of disturbed sites.
A4.
Standard Procedures for Surface Disturbing Projects or Proposals
Appendix 4
Soils (including biological soil crusts): If
sensitive soil resources are identified, project
locations or design would be modified to
minimize impacts to sensitive soil crusts.
Fish and Wildlife: If sensitive wildlife or
wildlife habitat is identified, the location of the
proposed project may be moved or the project
modified to reduce impacts. Seasonal closures
or restrictions may be required. Non-
electrocution standards for raptors on all new
and reconstructed powerlines would be
required. Standards for protection of special
status species (discussed below) would be
required.
Vegetation (including hanging gardens and
relict plant communities) : If sensitive
vegetation is identified, sites may be moved to
avoid impacts, or project design modified to
reduce impacts. Standards for protection of
special status plant species (discussed below)
would be required. Specific restrictions on
projects include:
• No facilities and surface disturbance would
be allowed in hanging garden or relict plant
areas.
• No vegetation restoration methods would be
allowed in hanging gardens or relict plant
areas unless needed for noxious weed
removal.
• Use of certain types of machinery is
prohibited in the Primitive Zone as
described in the Vegetation Restoration
Methods section of Chapter 2.
• Chaining and pushing would only be
allowed in limited circumstances after
wildfires (not for management ignited fires)
as described in the Vegetation Restoration
Methods section of Chapter 2.
Special Status Animal and Plant Species: In
cases where special status species may be
affected by a project, the project would be
relocated or modified to avoid species or their
habitat in consultation with the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Specific
restrictions include:
• Surface disturbing projects or activities
(such as designated fuelwood cutting areas)
would not be allowed in identified special
status plant populations.
• Surface disturbing research would
generally not be allowed in special status
species habitat, except where deemed
appropriate in consultation with the
USFWS.
• Surface disturbing projects or activities
would not be allowed within Vi mile of
Mexican spotted owl nests or within 1 mile
of peregrine falcon nests unless USFWS
consultation shows no impacts would
occur.
• Surface disturbing projects or activities
would not be allowed in areas of known
bald eagle roost sites unless consultation
with the USFWS shows no impacts would
occur.
• No designated climbing areas would be
allowed within known sensitive species
nesting areas.
• Use of chemical substances that may affect
the Colorado pikeminnow or the razorback
sucker downstream may not be used.
Water Resources: Impacts to water resources
would need to be assessed for all projects.
Specific restrictions include:
• Water developments could only be used
when beneficial to Monument resources.
• Water developments could not jeopardize or
de-water springs or streams.
• Water could not be diverted out of the
Monument (exceptions could be made for
local community culinary needs if the
applicant demonstrates no effect on
Monument resources).
• Water quality protection measures would be
required for all projects, including
subsequent monitoring.
Air Quality: All specific proposals would be
reviewed for compliance with existing laws and
policies regarding air quality and would be
designed not to degrade existing quality.
Specific procedures include:
• Coordinating with the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality if an emission permit
is required.
• Management ignited fires must comply with
the State of Utah Interagency Memorandum
of Understanding requirements to minimize
air quality impacts from resulting
particulates. This procedure requires
obtaining an open burning permit from the
State prior to conducting a management
ignited fire.
A4.2
Appendix 4
Standard Procedures for Surface Disturbing Projects or Proposals
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Commercial Filming: Permits for commercial
filming must meet "minimum impact"
standards listed in the Commercial Filming
section of Chapter 2.
Floodplains: No projects or activities resulting
in permanent fills or diversions would be
allowed in Federal Emergency Management
Agency designated special flood hazard areas.
Monument Facilities Master Plan: All
projects, facilities, and signs must be consistent
with the Monument Interpretive Plan, the
Monument Facilities Master Plan, and the
Monument Architectural and Landscape
Theme (all in the process of development).
The Monument Facilities Master Plan would
address compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1973, the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, and the Architectural Barriers Act of
1968.
Native Plant Policy: Native plants would be
used as a priority for all projects in the
Monument. There are limited, emergency
situations where it may be necessary to use
non-native plants in order to protect Monument
resources (i.e., to stabilize soils and displace
noxious weeds). This use could be allowed in
the following circumstances:
• The use complies with vegetation
objectives, Executive Order 11312, and the
Standards for Rangeland Health and
Guidelines for Grazing Management for
BLM Lands in Utah.
• Short-lived species (i.e., nurse crop species)
used in combination with native species to
facilitate the ultimate establishment of
native species
• Non-natives would not be used to increase
forage for livestock or wildlife.
• Monitoring plots must be established to
document changes in vegetation structure
and composition.
Reseeding After Fires: Each fire would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine
the appropriate actions to meet the established
vegetation management objectives, including
the following considerations:
• Areas that had little diversity and little
potential for noxious weed invasions would
be seeded exclusively with native species.
• Areas of low diversity and high potential
for noxious weed invasion would most
likely be seeded, and non-native/native
seed mixes could be used if consistent with
the non-native plant policy.
• The use of aircraft in reseeding operations
could be allowed in areas as appropriate
(timing would be evaluated to eliminate
conflicts with raptor species).
Restoration/Revegetation: Each project and
area must be evaluated to determine
appropriate restoration or revegetation
strategies. General guidelines include:
• Restoration would be the goal wherever
possible.
• Species used in both restoration and
revegetation must comply with the non-
native plant policy described above.
• Revegetation strategies would be used in
areas of heavy visitation, where site
stabilization is desired.
• Restoration/revegetation provisions would
be included in all surface disturbing projects
including provisions for post restoration
monitoring of the area. Costs for these
activities would be included in the overall
cost of the project.
• Priority for restoration and revegetation
would be given to projects where
Monument resources are being affected.
Rights-of-Way: The following criteria apply to
the management of all rights-of way in the
Monument where they are allowed:
• All new and reconstructed utility lines
(including powerlines up to 34.5 kilovolts)
would be buried unless: visual quality
objectives can be met without burying;
geologic conditions make burying
infeasible; or burying would produce greater
long-term site disturbance.
• All reconstructed and future powerlines
must meet non-electrocution standards for
raptors. If problems with existing
powerlines occur, corrective measures
would be taken.
• All new powerlines would be constructed
using non-reflective wire. Steel towers
would be constructed using galvanized steel.
Powerlines would not be high-lined unless
no other location exists.
• Strobe lights would not be allowed at any
communication site. Other methods would
be used to meet aircraft safety requirements.
• Communication site plans would be
prepared for all existing sites before any
new uses or changes in use occur.
• A Monument-wide feasibility study would
be prepared to determine the most
A4.3
Standard Procedures for Surface Disturbing Projects or Proposals
Appendix 4
appropriate location(s) for new
communication sites.
• Only one access route to private land
parcels would be authorized unless public
safety or local ordinances warrant additional
routes.
• Private land owners would be required to
coordinate the development of access routes
across public lands in order to prevent a
proliferation of routes.
Route Maintenance: Most routes would be
maintained within the existing disturbance,
except as provided for in the Transportation
and Access section of Chapter 2. Erosion
control structures may be necessary during or
after maintenance activities.
Visual Resources: All proposed actions must
consider the importance of the visual values
and must minimize the impacts the project may
have on these values. All projects must be
designed to be unobtrusive and follow these
procedures:
• The visual resource contrast rating system
would be used as a guide to analyze
potential visual impacts of all proposed
actions. Projects must be designed to
mitigate impacts and conform to the
assigned Visual Resource Management
(VRM) class.
• Natural or natural appearing materials
would be used as a priority
• Restoration and revegetation objectives
must be met.
• The Monument manager may allow
temporary projects, such as research
projects, to exceed VRM standards if the
project terminates within two years of
initiation. Phased mitigation may be
required during the project to better
conform with prescribed VRM standards.
• Existing facilities would be brought into
VRM class conformance to the extent
practicable when the need or opportunity
arises, such as during reconstruction.
Wild and Scenic Rivers: All proposed actions
must be evaluated to determine potential
impacts on outstandingly remarkable values
for suitable river segments. Projects would be
relocated or modified to avoid impacts to
identified outstandingly remarkable values.
Wilderness Concerns (including Wilderness
Study Areas (WSAs) and areas with
Wilderness Character): Existing WSAs would
be managed under the BLM's Interim
Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands
Under Wilderness Review.
Areas that were found to have wilderness
characteristics during the BLM's 1999
reinventory would not be managed as WSAs,
unless designated as WSAs under the Section
202 Planning Process. In the meantime, the
BLM would continue to give careful
consideration before acting affirmatively on
any proposals for activities within these areas.
In NEPA processes, BLM would continue to
evaluate the potential for harm to wilderness
characteristics, and proposed actions may be
modified or the "no action" alternative would
be considered if actions were deemed to have
the potential to negate the areas 's eligibility for
wilderness designation by Congress.
Weeds: Control of noxious weeds is a priority
in order to achieve the overall vegetation
management objectives. Implications for weed
management must be considered in all projects.
Specific considerations include:
• Chemical treatment methods, including
aerial spraying (see below), would generally
be restricted to control of noxious weed
species. BLM employees or contractors
with appropriate certification would be
responsible for use of chemicals and would
take precautions to prevent possible effects
to non-target plant species. Use of such
chemicals would not be allowed near special
status plant populations.
• Biological control methods would be used
only for the control of noxious or exotic
weed species.
• Aerial chemical applications could only be
used in limited circumstances where:
accessibility is so restricted that no other
alternative means is available; it can be
demonstrated that non-target sensitive
species or other Monument resources would
not be detrimentally affected; and noxious
weeds are presenting a significant threat to
Monument resources.
• All hay used on BLM lands must be
certified weed free.
• All machinery that has been used outside of
the Monument must be cleaned prior to use
within the Monument.
• All projects would contain
restoration/revegetation protocols to
minimize re-colonization of treated areas by
noxious weed species.
A4.4
Appendix 5
Standards & Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands
Appendix 5
Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands
INTRODUCTION
The following policies, practices, and
procedures will be implemented in order to
ensure that Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) lands are healthy. The concept of
healthy rangelands expresses the BLM's desire
to maintain or improve productivity of plant,
animal (including livestock), soil, and water
resources at a level consistent with the
ecosystem's capability.
In order to meet society's needs and
expectations for sustained production and
conservation of natural resources from BLM
rangelands, use of these lands must be kept in
balance with the land's ability to sustain those
uses. Identifying that balance requires an
understanding and application of ecological
principles that determine how living and non-
living components of rangelands interact.
Recognition of the inter-dependence of soil,
water, plants, and animals (including livestock)
is basic to maintaining healthy rangelands and
is the key element in BLM's proposed
Standards and Guidelines.
The policies, practices, and procedures
contained in this document are referred to as
Standards and Guidelines. Standards and
Guidelines will apply to all uses of BLM land
for forage, including livestock, wildlife, wild
horses, and burros.
Standards describe desired ecological
conditions that the BLM intends to attain in
managing BLM lands, whereas Guidelines
define practices and procedures that will be
applied to achieve Standards. While Standards
will initially be applied to grazing, it is the
BLM's intent to eventually apply these
Standards to all rangeland uses that have the
ability to affect or be affected by the ecological
characteristics of rangelands.
FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND
HEALTH
The BLM has defined four Fundamentals of
Rangeland Health, which are the basic
ecological principles underlying sustainable
production of rangeland resources. These
Fundamentals are embodied in the BLM's new
Grazing Regulations (43 CFR, Part 4100),
which became effective in August of 1995.
These four Fundamentals of Rangeland Health,
which also serve as the basis for Standards and
Guidelines for Grazing Management, are as
follows:
1 . Watersheds are in, or are making significant
progress toward, properly functioning
physical condition, including their upland,
riparian/wetland, and aquatic components;
soil and plant conditions support water
infiltration, soil moisture storage, and
release of water that are in balance with
climate and landform, and maintain or
improve water quality, water quantity, and
timing and duration of flow.
2. Ecological processes, including the
hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycles, and
energy flow, are maintained, or there is
significant progress toward their attainment,
in order to support healthy biotic
populations and communities.
3. Water quality complies with state water
quality standards and achieves, or is making
progress toward achieving, established
BLM management objectives, such as
meeting wildlife needs.
4. Habitats are, or are making significant
progress towards being, restored or
maintained for Federal threatened and
endangered species, Federal proposed,
Federal candidate, other special status
species, native species, and for
economically valuable game species and
livestock.
By developing Standards and Guidelines based
on the Fundamentals listed above, and by
applying those Standards and Guidelines to
BLM land management, it is the BLM's intent
to achieve the following:
1 . Promote healthy, sustainable rangeland
ecosystems that produce a wide range of
public values such as wildlife habitat,
livestock forage, recreation opportunities,
wild horse and burro habitat, clean water,
clean air, etc.
2. Accelerate restoration and improvement of
public rangelands to properly functioning
condition, where appropriate.
3. Provide for the sustainability of the western
livestock industry and communities that are
dependent upon productive, healthy
rangelands.
A5.I
Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands
Appendix 5
4. Ensure that BLM land users and
stakeholders have a meaningful voice in
establishing policy and managing BLM
rangelands.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Standards are descriptions of the desired
condition of the biological and physical
components and characteristics of rangelands.
Standards:
• are measurable and attainable;
• comply with various Federal and state
statutes, policies, and directives applicable
to BLM rangelands; and
• establish goals for resource condition and
parameters for management decisions.
Indicators are features of an ecosystem that can
be measured or observed in order to gain an
understanding of the relative condition of a
particular landscape or portion of a landscape.
Indicators will be used by the rangeland
manager to determine if Standards are being
met. The indicators proposed for use are
commonly accepted and used by members of
the rangeland management profession in
monitoring rangelands. Methods and
techniques for evaluating these indicators are
also commonly available. In using these terms,
it should be recognized that not every indicator
applies equally to every acre of land or to every
ecological site. Additional indicators not listed
below may need to be developed for some
rangelands depending upon local conditions.
Similarly, because of natural variability,
extreme degradation, or unusual management
objectives, discretion will be used in applying
Standards. Judgements about whether a site is
meeting or failing to meet a Standard must be
tempered by a knowledge of the site's potential.
Examples of this are thousands of acres of the
Great Basin in western Utah where native
perennial grass species' have been replaced by
cheatgrass, an annual exotic species. It will be
difficult and expensive to return all those areas
to their natural potential because they have
been greatly altered. It may not even be
feasible to restore such areas from such an
altered state to a state similar to "natural"
conditions.
Site potential is determined by soil, geology,
geomorphology, climate, and landform.
Standards must be applied with an
understanding of the potential of the particular
site in question, as different sites have differing
potentials.
Guidelines are management approaches,
methods, and practices that are intended to
achieve a Standard. Guidelines:
• typically identify and prescribe methods of
influencing or controlling specific public
land uses;
• are developed and applied consistent with
the desired condition and within site
capability; and
• may be adjusted over time.
It should be understood that these Standards
and Guidelines are to be applied in making
specific grazing management decisions.
However, it should also be understood that
they are considered the minimum conditions to
be achieved. Flexibility must be used in
applying these policy statements because
ecosystem components vary from place to
place and ecological interactions may be
different.
Standards and Guidelines for use on BLM
Land in Utah are described in the following
pages. Standards and Guidelines, once
approved by the Secretary of the Interior, will
be implemented through subsequent Resource
Management Plans (RMPs) and other decisions
by BLM officials involving matters related to
management of grazing. Where applicable, the
statewide Guidelines may be adopted as terms
and conditions for grazing permits and leases.
Additional Guidelines may be identified and
implemented through subsequent RMPs and
activity plans to address local situations not
dealt with by the statewide Guidelines.
A5.2
Appendix 5
Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands
STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND
HEALTH
Standard 1. Upland soils exhibit permeability
and infiltration rates that sustain or improve
site productivity, considering the soil type,
climate, and landform. This is indicated by:
a. Sufficient cover and litter to protect the soil
surface from excessive water and wind
erosion, promote infiltration, detain surface
flow, and retard soil moisture loss by
evaporation;
b. The absence of indicators of excessive
erosion such as rills, soil pedestals, and
actively eroding gullies; and
c. The appropriate amount, type, and
distribution of vegetation reflecting the
presence of (1) the Desired Plant
Community (DPC), where identified in a
land use plan conforming to these
Standards, or (2) where the DPC is not
identified, a community that equally
sustains the desired level of productivity and
properly functioning ecological processes.
Standard 2. Riparian and wetland areas are in
properly functioning condition. Stream
channel morphology and functions are
appropriate to soil type, climate and landform.
This is indicated by:
a. Streambank vegetation consisting of, or
showing a trend toward, species with root
masses capable of withstanding high
streamflow events, vegetative cover
adequate to protect stream banks and
dissipate streamflow energy associated with
high-water flows, protect against accelerated
erosion, capture sediment, and provide for
groundwater recharge;
b. Vegetation reflecting: DPC, maintenance of
riparian and wetland soil moisture
characteristics, diverse age structure and
composition, high vigor, large woody debris
when site potential allows, and providing
food, cover, and other habitat needs for
dependent animal species;
c. Re-vegetating point bars, lateral stream
movement associated with natural sinuosity,
channel width, depth, pool frequency, and
roughness appropriate to landscape position;
and
d. Active floodplain.
Standard 3. Desired species, including native,
threatened, endangered, and special-status
species, are maintained at a level appropriate
for the site and species involved. This is
indicated by:
a. Frequency, diversity, density, age classes,
and productivity of desired native species
necessary to ensure reproductive capability
and survival;
b. Habitats connected at a level to enhance
species survival;
c. Native species re-occupy habitat niches and
voids caused by disturbances unless
management objectives call for introduction
or maintenance of non-native species;
d. Habitats for threatened, endangered, and
special-status species managed to provide
for recovery and move species toward de-
listing; and
e. Appropriate amount, type, and distribution
of vegetation reflecting the presence of (1)
the DPC, where identified in a land use plan
conforming to these Standards, or (2) where
the DPC is not identified, a community that
equally sustains the desired level of
productivity and properly functioning
ecological processes.
Standard 4. The BLM will apply and comply
with water quality standards established by the
State of Utah (R.3 17-2) and the Federal Clean
Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts.
Activities on BLM lands will fully support the
designated beneficial uses described in the
Utah Water Quality Standards (R.3 17-2) for
Surface and Groundwater. This is indicated
by:
a. Measurement of nutrient loads, total
dissolved solids, chemical constituents,
fecal coliform, water temperature and other
water quality parameters; and
b. Macro invertebrate communities that
indicate water quality meets aquatic
objectives.
GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING
MANAGEMENT
1 . Grazing management practices will be
implemented which:
a. Maintain sufficient residual vegetation
and litter on both upland and riparian
A5.3
Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands
Appendix 5
sites to protect the soil from wind and
water erosion and support ecological
functions;
b. Promote attainment or maintenance of
proper functioning condition
riparian/wetland areas, appropriate
stream channel morphology, desired
soil permeability and infiltration, and
appropriate soil conditions and kinds
and amounts of plants and animals to
support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient
cycle and energy flow;
c. Meet the physiological requirements of
desired plants and facilitate
reproduction and maintenance of
desired plants to the extent natural
conditions allow;
d. Maintain viable and diverse
populations of plants and animals
appropriate for the site;
e. Provide or improve, within the limits of
site potentials, habitat for threatened or
endangered species;
f. Avoid grazing management conflicts
with other species that have the
potential of becoming protected or
special status species;
g. Encourage innovation, experimentation
and the ultimate development of
alternatives to improve rangeland
management practices; and
h. Give priority to rangeland
improvement projects and land
treatments that offer the best
opportunity for achieving the
Standards.
2. Any spring and seep developments will be
designed and constructed to protect
ecological process and functions and
improve livestock, wild horse, and wildlife
distribution.
3. New rangeland projects for grazing will be
constructed in a manner consistent with
the Standards. Considering economic
circumstances and site limitations, existing
rangeland projects and facilities that
conflict with the achievement or
maintenance of the Standards will be
relocated and/or modified.
4. Livestock salt blocks and other nutritional
supplements will be located away from
riparian/wetland areas, other permanently
located, or other natural water sources. It
is recommended that the locations of these
supplements be moved every year.
5. The use and perpetuation of native species
will be emphasized. However, when
restoring or rehabilitating disturbed or
degraded rangelands, non-intrusive, non-
native plant species are appropriate for use
where native species (a) are not available,
(b) are not economically feasible, (c)
cannot achieve ecological objectives as
well as non-native species, and/or (d)
cannot compete with already established
non-native species.
6. When rangeland manipulations are
necessary, the best management practices,
including biological processes, fire, and
intensive grazing will be utilized prior to
the use of chemical or mechanical
manipulations.
7. When establishing grazing practices and
rangeland improvements, the quality of the
outdoor recreation experience is to be
considered. Aesthetic and scenic values,
water, campsites, and opportunities for
solitude are among those considerations.
8. Feeding of hay and other harvested forage
(which does not refer to miscellaneous
salt, protein, and other supplements), for
the purpose of substituting inadequate
natural forage, will not be conducted on
BLM lands other than in (a) emergency
situations where no other resource exists
and animal survival is in jeopardy, or (b)
situations where the Authorized Officer
determines such a practice will assist in
meeting a Standard or attaining a
management objective.
9. In order to eliminate, minimize, or limit
the spread of noxious weeds, (a) only hay
cubes, hay pellets, or certified weed-free
hay will be fed on BLM lands, and (b)
reasonable adjustments in grazing
methods, methods of transport, and animal
husbandry practices will be applied.
10. To avoid contamination of water sources
and inadvertent damage to non-target
species, aerial application of pesticides
will not be allowed within 100 feet of a
riparian/wetland area unless the product is
registered for such use with the
Environmental Protection Agency.
1 1 . On rangelands where a Standard is not
being met, and conditions are moving
A5.4
Appendix 5
Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands
toward meeting the Standard, grazing may
be allowed to continue. On lands where a
Standard is not being met, conditions are
not improving toward meeting the
Standard or other management objectives,
and livestock grazing is deemed
responsible, administrative action with
regard to livestock will be taken by the
Authorized Officer pursuant to CFR
4180.2(c).
12. Where it can be determined that more than
one kind of grazing animal is responsible
for failure to achieve a Standard, and
adjustments in management are required,
those adjustments will be made to each
kind of animal, based on interagency
cooperation as needed, in proportion to
their degree of responsibility.
13. Rangelands that have been burned,
reseeded, or otherwise treated to alter
vegetative composition will be closed to
livestock grazing as follows: (a) burned
rangelands, whether by wildfire or
prescribed burning, will be ungrazed for a
minimum of one complete growing season
following the burn; (b) rangelands that
have been reseeded or otherwise
chemically or mechanically treated will be
ungrazed for a minimum of two complete
growing seasons following treatment.
14. Conversions in kind of livestock (such as
from sheep to cattle) will be analyzed in
light of Rangeland Health Standards.
Where such conversions are not adverse to
achieving a Standard, or they are not in
conflict with land BLM use plans, the
conversion will be allowed.
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
The determination of whether or not a
particular grazing unit, pasture or allotment is
meeting a Standard will be made by the
Authorized Officer based on rangeland
assessments and monitoring.
Monitoring the indicators will be in the form of
recorded data from study sites or transects. It
may be supplemented by visual observations
and other data by BLM or other agency
personnel, ranchers, interested public, wildlife
agency personnel, or other resource data.
Assessments are the interpretation of data,
observations, and related research findings.
Assessments are the usual basis for prescribing
grazing adjustments or practices. In some
cases, such as with threatened or endangered
species, Section 7 consultation with the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service under the
Endangered Species Act will occur. In all
cases, conformance with Standards and
Guidelines is a local decision based on local
circumstances involving a collaborative
process with affected interests
Should an assessment determine that an
allotment is not meeting a Standard and/or
significant progress toward meeting a Standard
is not occurring, the next step is to determine
the cause of failing to meet the Standard. If
that determination reveals that grazing is
involved or partially responsible, the
Authorized Officer, with involvement of the
interested parties, will prescribe actions that
ensure progress toward meeting the Standard.
Those actions may be a part of an activity plan,
a coordinated management plan, or an
administrative decision. Corrective
management actions will be based on actual
on-the-ground data and conditions.
(Standards for Rangeland Health and
Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM
Lands in Utah, USDI, BLM, May 1997)
A5.5
Appendix 6
Grazing Allotments
MM
H
Appendix 6
Grazing Allotments
Table A6.1
Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Map
Number,
Allotment
Management Plan
(AMP)
Grazing Periodj
Active Preference
(Number of animal unit months)
Allotment
Category,
Alvey Wash
1
1990
05/15 through 09/23
1,276
I
Big Bowns Bench
2
1984
10/16 through 04/15
1,275
M
Big Horn
3
1983
11/10 through 06/15
4,392
1
Blackridge
4
No AMP
10/15 through 04/15
848
I
Black Rock
5
No AMP
Year-long
408
I
Boot
6
No AMP
08/01 through 10/31
45
C
Boulder Creek
7
No AMP
10/16 through 11/29
80
C
Bunting Well
8
1981
Year-long
3,307
M
Calf Pasture
9
1991
08/10 -10/15 odd years
176
M
1991
06/10 -08/15 even years
Cedar Wash
10
1984
06/15 through 10/31
898
M
Circle Cliffs
11
1996
11/01 through 03/31
1,050
I
Clark Bench
12
1982
08/01 through 04/30
1,200
1
Cockscomb
13
No AMP
03/01 through 05/31
36
C
Collet
14
No AMP
09/15 through 10/15
92
C
Cottonwood
15
1981
11/10 through 05/31
2,233
1
Coyote
16
1978
11/01 through 05/31
2,044
M
Death Hollow
17
No AMP
11/01 through 05/15
1,002
C
Deer Creek
18
No AMP
11/01 through 04/30
587
M
Deer Range
19
No AMP
08/01 through 10/15
213
M
Deer Spring Point
20
1988
06/10 through 10/07
503
1
Dry Valley
21
No AMP
07/01 through 10/31
531
M
First Point
22
1979
Summer Use
396
M
Five Mile Canyon
23
No AMP
11/01 through 04/30
385
C
Flood Canyon
24
1989
07/01 through 10/31
148
1
Fordwell
25
No AMP
06/10 through 10/09
291
C
Fortymile Ridge
26
1987
11/01 through 06/15
4,155
I
Granary Ranch
27
No AMP
07/01 through 11/30
70
C
Haymaker Bench
28
No AMP
11/10 through 12/31
100
C
Headwaters
29
1982
11/01 through 03/15
3,607
M
Hells Bellows
30
No AMP
05/01 through 10/15
44
C
A6.I
Grazing Allotments
Appendix 6
Table A6.1
Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Map
Number,
Allotment
Management Plan
(AMP)
Grazing Period2
Active Preference
(Number of animal unit months)
Allotment
Category,
Johnson Canyon
31
No AMP
06/10 through 11/15
174
C
Johnson Lakes
32
1986
06/01 through 11/30
319
I
Johnson Point
33
No AMP
11/01 through 03/31
135
C
King Bench
34
1983
11/01 through 03/31
2,414
I
Lake
35
1989
09/01 through 05/01
1,308
1
36
1982
Year-long
3,708
1
Little Bowns Bench
37
No AMP
11/01 through 02/28
130
M
Little Desert
38
No AMP
09/24 through 10/08
107
C
Locke Ridge
39
1986
12/01 through 04/30
145
I
Lower Cattle
40
1967
10/01 through 04/15
6,875
I
41
1981
11/01 through 03/31
435
I
McGath Point
42
No AMP
10/01 through 02/28
60
M
Meadow Canyon
43
1986
09/01 through 11/30
144
I
Mill Creek
44
No AMP
06/01 through 09/30
300
C
Mollie's Nipple
45
1976
Year-long
3,436
M
Moody
46
No AMP
11/01 through 03/31
1,600
C
Mud Springs
47
No AMP
07/15 through 10/15
195
M
Neaf
48
No AMP
03/01 through 11/30
9
C
49
1981
12/01 through 04/30
885
I
50
No AMP
09/01 through 03/31
280
M
Pine Creek
51
No AMP
06/15-06/22,10/01 -10/7
78
C
52
1988
06/16 through 10/15
365
I
53
1982
Year-long
2,100
M
54
1983
11/01 through 03/31
495
I
Roy Willis
55
No AMP
11/01 through 04/30
10
C
56
1982
11/01 through 05/31
247
M
Salt Water Creek
57
No AMP
10/16 through 03/15
120
C
58
No AMP
06/01 through 07/31
2
c
59
No AMP
07/01 through 03/31
21
c
Sink Holes
60
1982
10/15 through 03/31
154
I
Soda
61
No AMP
10/01 through 06/01
2,755
I
A6.2
Appendix 6
Grazing Allotments
Table A6.1
Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Map
Number,
Allotment
Management Plan
(AMP)
Grazing Period:
Active Preference
(Number of animal unit months)
Allotment
Categoryj
State Block
62
1984
03/01 through 02/28
60
C
Steep Creek
63
1969
05/15-06/16,11/10-03/31
318
c
Swallow Park
64
1992
05/10 through 11/10
734
I
Timber Mountain
65
No AMP
06/15 through 10/15
375
M
Upper Cattle
66
1984
11/01 through 06/15
6,297
I
Upper Hackberry
67
1981
11/01 through 06/15
605
I
Upper Paria
68
1976
05/01 through 09/30
2,525
M
Upper Warm Creek
69
1981
11/01 through 05/31
1,477
I
Vermillion
70
1974
Year-long
2,556
M
Wagon Box Mesa
71
No AMP
11/01 through 03/31
633
C
Wahweap
72
No AMP
12/01 through 04/30
400
M
White Rocks
73
1981
12/01 through 01/31
60
C
White Sage
74
No AMP
05/06 through 06/05
75
C
Willow Gulch
75
1983
11/01 through 03/31
404
M
Wiregrass
76
No AMP
11/01 through 03/31
600
M
1 Allotments managed by the Bureau of Land Management Arizona Strip Field Office and un-grazed allotments are not listed here, but are shown on Map A6. 1 .
2 Grazing season-of-use schedules may vary slightly due to yearly climatic conditions, vegetative growth, and availability of livestock water.
3 There are three categories in which allotments are placed. These categories assist in prioritizing the levels and type of resource management applied on each allotment. The "I" (Intensive)
category receives the highest management priority due to identified resource conflicts or multiple resource issues. The "M" (Maintain) category describes allotments in which the current level
of management is satisfactory in order to maintain resource conditions. The "C" (Custodial) allotments are usually small parcels of public land within larger blocks of private land. The level of
management needed is low, provided that resources are not being negatively impacted.
Livestock grazing allotments that are totally or partially within the Monument, and administered by Monument personnel, were placed in an I, M, or C category by analyzing each allotment
using the following categories: range condition; resource potential; present productivity; resource use conflicts; controversy; and present management situation. A number of criteria were used
to further define both resource conflicts and level of controversy. These include: recreation concerns; deer herd management; multiple wildlife species concerns; watershed values; riparian
resources; multiple resource concerns within the allotment; adjacent Federal management within the allotment (Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Capitol Reef National Park, and Dixie
National Forest); vegetation; and archaeological resources. An interdisciplinary team approach was used to categorize each allotment.
A6.3
Map A6.1:
Grazing Allotments
© Principal Communities
Monument Boundary
A/ Highways 89 & 12
I BLM Administered
Allotment
I I Arizona Strip
Administered
Allotment
I I Ungrazed
(Unallotted)
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to atter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
GRAND STAIRCASE
ESCALANTE
=====
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Appendix 7
Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation
h
Si
JMKm
Appendix 7
Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
n Reply Refer To
(CO/KS/NE/UT)
UTAH FIELD OFFICE
LINCOLN PLAZA
145 EAST 1300 SOUTH, SUITE 404
SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84115
April 30, 1998
I GRAND STAIRCASE
• ESCAJLANTE •
MAY 0 1 1998
A. Jerry Meredith, Monument Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
337 South Main Street, Suite 010
Cedar City, Utah 84720
Subject:
Endangered and Threatened Species Consultation for the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument, Garfield and Kane Counties, Utah
Dear Mr. Meredith:
Only a Federal agency can enter into formal Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7
consultation with the Service. A Federal agency may designate a non-Federal representative to
conduct informal consultation or prepare a biological assessment by giving written notice to
the Service of such a designation. The ultimate responsibility for compliance with ESA
section 7, however, remains with the Federal agency.
The draft Environmental Impact Statement should be reviewed and a determination made if the
proposed alternative may affect any listed species or its critical habitat. A determination also
should be made if the proposed alternative is likely to jeopardize a proposed species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of any proposed critical habitat. If the
determination is "may affect" for listed species, formal ESA section 7 consultation should be
requested by the Federal agency to the Field Supervisor at the address given above. In
addition, if a determination is made that the proposed alternative may jeopardize proposed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat, the
Federal agency must confer with this office. At that time, the Federal agency should provide
this office with a copy of a biological assessment or any other relevant information that was
used in reaching its conclusion.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received your letter on April 6, 1998 requesting
a list of threatened and endangered species which may occur in the area of influence of the
subject proposed action. The following species occur in Garfield and/or Kane Counties, and
may occur in the subject project's area of influence:
Common Name
Bald Eagle
California Condor
Colorado Squawfish
Jones Cycladenia
Kodachrome Bladder Pod
Mexican Spotted Owl
Peregrine Falcon
Razorback Sucker
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Ute Ladies '-tresses
Scientific Name Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Gymnogyps californicus Endangered1
Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered
Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii Threatened
Lesquerella tumulosa Endangered
Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened
Falco peregrinus Endangered
Xyrauchen texanus Endangered
Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered
Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened
In addition, the Service requests that you survey for Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni
kanabensis) where suitable habitat conditions exist within the Monument. Although this
species has not been documented within the boundaries of what is now the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument, it may occur there.
Your attention is also directed to section 7(d) of the ESA, which underscores the requirement
that the Federal agency or the applicant shall not make any irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of resources during the consultation period which, in effect, would deny the
formulation or implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives regarding their actions
on any endangered or threatened species.
The Service looks forward to working with you to further recovery of threatened and
endangered species of plants and wildlife found within the Monument. If further assistance is
needed, please contact Ted Owens, Wildlife Biologist, of this office at telephone (801) 524-
5001.
Sincerely,
-^rReed E. Harris
Field Supervisor
'Experimental, Nonessential Population
A7.I
Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation
Appendix 7
(CO/KS/NE/UT)
(6-UT-99-F-002)
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
UTAH FIELD OFFICE
LINCOLN PLAZA
145 EAST 1300 SOUTH. SUITE 404
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115
May 19, 1999
Memorandum
To: Monument Manager, Bureau of
From:
Subject:
*" Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, Utah
anagement, CedaijCity, Utah
Biological Opinion for the Draft Management Plan for the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument
This memorandum constitutes our biological opinion on the subject action in response to your
March 1 1 , 1 999 letter with attached biological assessment requesting initiation of formal
interagency consultation tinder Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.l and the Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR 402).
Your biological assessment states that Alternatives B (the preferred alternative), C, D, and E
(Alternative A is the no action or no management change alternative) are not likely to adversely
affect the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher,
California condor, Kanab ambersnail, Jones' cycladenia, and Kodachrome bladderpod .
Furthermore, the actions described for each species would likely be beneficial to the recovery
and conservation of these species. The endangered fish endemic to the Colorado River, the
Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker are not known from waters within the Monument
nor are any actions covered by the Draft Management Plan expected to affect these species or
their critical habitat The Ute ladies'-tresses may be affected by alternatives B, C, D and E but
would not be adversely affected. To ensure that Ute ladies'-tresses is not aversely affected the
Bureau will implement several conservation measures to provide protection to the species.
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
Based upon the best scientific and commercial information that is currently available, it is the
Service's biological opinion that the implementation of alternatives B, C, D, and E of the Draft
Grand Staircase - Escalante Management Plan (Plan) are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence and will likely enhance the conservation and recovery of the following species:
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida)
southwestern willow flycatcher (Epidonax traillii exlimus)
California condor (Gymnogyps califomianus)
Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis)
Jones' cycladenia Cycladenia humilis jonesi)
Kodachrome bladderpod (Lesquerella tumulosa).
The implementation of the Plan will not affect the following species:
Colorado pikeminnow {Ptychocheilus lucius)
razorback sucker (Xyrauchen cexanus)
The implementation of the Plan will affect the following species but is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the following species provided that the Conservation Measures
described in this document are implemented. These Conservation Measures will contribute to
the conservation and recovery of the species and eliminate any adverse impacts to the species and
its habitat. These Conservation Measures are, also, included in the biological assessment.
Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Draft Management Plan for the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument (Monument)
identifies those criteria which will guide management direction of the natural resources of the
Monument including: vegetation management, livestock grazing management, off-highway
vehicle use management, water use management, and recreation management.
Basis for Opinion - Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid
The Ute ladies'-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) was listed as a threatened species on
January 17, 1992 under the authority of the Endangered Species Act
Spiranthes diluvialis is a perennial, terrestrial orchid that typically grows in relatively low
elevation riparian, spring, and lake side wetland meadows. Populations of S. diluvialis are
known from three general areas of the interior western United States: near the base of the eastern
slope of the Rocky Mountains in southeastern Wyoming and north-central and centra] Colorado;
in the upper Colorado River basin; and in the Bonneville Basin along the Wasatch Front and
westward in the eastern Great Basin.
The Colorado River Basin populations of S. diluvialis occur almost exclusively in riparian
meadows. The principal populations of the species in this area are in the Uinta Basin and along
the Green and Yampa Rivers in adjacent Daggett County Utah and Moffat County Colorado. As
described in the biological assessment Ute ladies'-tresses populations occur within the riparian
meadows along Deer Creek. The population at Deer Creek within the Escalante - Grand
A7.2
I
Appendix 7
Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation
Staircase National Monument is a significant outlier population and the only viable population
within the Colorado Plateau outside of the immediate vicinity of the Uinta Basin.
Spiramhes diluvialis is endemic to moist soils or wet meadows near springs, lakes, or perennial
streams. The range in elevation of known S. diluvialis occurrences is from 1311 to 2134 meters
(4,300 to 7,000 feet) (Stone 1993). Most of the western occurrences are along riparian edges,
gravel bars, old oxbows, high flow channels and backwater areas, and moist to wet meadows
along perennial streams. Jennings (1990) and Coyner (1989, 1990) observed that S. diluvialis
seems to require "permanent sub-irrigation", indicating a close affinity with floodplain areas
where the water table is near the surface throughout the growing season and into the late summer
or early autumn. Soils in occupied habitat are always damp to the surface during the flowering
period. This observation has been corroborated by ground water monitoring research conducted
in Dinosaur National Monument (Martin & Wagner 1992) and in Boulder, Colorado (T.
Naumann, City of Boulder Open Space Department, pers. coram., 1993).
Spiranthes diluvialis occurs primarily in areas where the vegetation is relatively open and not
overly dense or overgrown (Coyner 1989, 1990 and Jennings 1989, 1990). A few populations in
eastern Utah and Colorado are found in riparian woodlands, but S. diluvialis seems generally
intolerant of shade, preferring open, grass, sedge, and forb-dominated sites instead. Typically,
the vegetation is composed of a mixture of obligate-wetland and facultative-wetland species.
Plants usually occur as small scattered groups and occupy relatively small areas within the
riparian system (Stone 1993).
Spiranthes diluvialis appears to be well adapted to disturbances caused by water movement
through flood plains over time (T. Naumann, City of Boulder Open Space Department, pers.
comm., 1992, L. Riedel, National Park Service, pers. coram., 1994). The species often grows on
point bars and stream edges where sediment deposition and re-vegetation is occurring following
recent scour events. Spiranthes diluvialis is tolerant of flooding and flood disturbance. For
example, point bars and backwater areas (old oxbows, side channels, etc.) are often flooded for
several months in the spring during snowmelt.
Very little is known about the life history and demography of 5. diluvialis. Many orchid species
remain below ground for several years in a symbiotic relationship with a mycorhizal fungus.
When mature, they may not emerge aboveground every year. Spiranthes diluvialis first appears
aboveground as a rosette of thickened grasslike leaves that is very difficult to distinguish from
other vegetation. A distinctive flower stalk appears in late summer (July through September),
and location, identification, and population size estimates are typically determined then. Some
individuals remain under ground or do not flower each year. Thus, fluctuations in numbers of
observed flowering individuals do not necessarily correspond to population fluctuations or
indicate habitat alterations.
CONSERVATION MEASURES
The following conservation measures are stated, in the Grand Staircase - Escalante National
Monument Planning Office's "BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THREATENED AND
ENDANGERED SPECIES FOR GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE NATIONAL
MONUMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND DRAFT
MANAGEMENT PLAN".
1 The Bureau will implement an active noxious weed program in the Monument. Areas with
threatened or endangered plants will be targeted for this activity as a first priority.
2. Priorities for grazing evaluation will be given to allotments with sensitive riparian and listed
species.
3. Grazing as it relates to all endangered species will be addressed during this process and will
incorporate the latest research and information in the protection of species. Monitoring plots will
be installed and read monthly to determine density and presence of Ute ladies'-tresses as well as
impacts in this area.
4. If impacts are documented from grazing uses, fences and/or barriers will be established to
prevent entry by people or cattle.
5. Water management priority in Deer Creek will be to maintain natural flows and flood events
6. Surveys forS. diluvialis will be completed during this next growing season (1999) and results
of this survey will be used to determine recreation management actions.
7. If plants are found to be growing in the campground, appropriate actions will be taken to
prevent trampling of the plants by visitors to the campground area. These actions may include
replanting native vegetation or construction of barriers.
8. Individual campground sites may be closed if necessary to protect these plants in the
campground. Barriers will be constructed and restoration work initiated to stabilize the soil and
banks in the campground area and provide the best possible habitat for this plant.
9. No expansion that proposes further impact to the riparian area will be considered, as it would
increase the potential for impacts to this population.
10. The existing trail in Deer Creek will be relocated out of the riparian area for a length of 1 .5
miles below the crossing with the Burr Trail when possible.
1 1 . Barriers will be placed on the creek side of the trail to ensure compliance.
12. Interpretive signs and brochures will be provided along the trail and at the parking area to
educate the public about the species and the actions that are being implemented to protect it.
13. Restoration of the current social trail will be initiated, including obliteration of the trail by
planting native species, and moving soil to return the area to its natural grade. Group numbers
A7.3
Fish and Wildlife Sen/ice Consultation Appendix 7
and allocations may be initiated along this trail if continued monitoring indicates that impacts
from visitor use in the area is still causing impacts.
CONCLUSION
This concludes our biological opinion on the impacts of proposed project. This opinion was
based upon the information described herein. If new information becomes available, new species
listed, or any project change which alters the implementation and operation of the project from
that which is described in the biological assessment and which may affect any endangered or
threatened species in a manner or to an extent not considered in this biological opinion (see 50
CFR 402.16), formal Section 7 consultation should be re-initiated.
A7.4
Appendix 8
Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species
Appendix 8
Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species
INTRODUCTION
The Purpose of the Utah Sensitive Species list
is to identify those species in the State that
are the most vulnerable to population or
habitat loss. This list provides land
managers, wildlife managers, and concerned
citizens with a brief overview of the
conservation status of listed species. By
developing and implementing timely and
sufficient conservation measures for sensitive
species, Federal listing of these species under
the Endangered Species Act may be
precluded.
DEFINITIONS
A. Wildlife: for the purposes of this list,
includes the following groups animals in
Utah that are found in nature: all
vertebrates, crustaceans (including brine
shrimp and crayfish), and mollusks.
B. Extinct Species: any wildlife species that
has disappeared in the world.
C. Extirpated Species: any wildlife species
that has disappeared from Utah since
1800.
D. State Endangered Species (E): any
wildlife species or subspecies which is
threatened with extirpation from Utah or
with extinction resulting from very low or
declining numbers, alteration and/or
reduction of habitat, detrimental
environmental changes, or any
combination of the above. Continued long-
term survival is unlikely without
implementation of special measures. A
management program is needed for these
species if a Recovery Plan has not been
developed.
E. State Threatened Species (T): any
wildlife species or subspecies which is
likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant part of its range in Utah
or the world. A management program is
needed for these species if a Recovery
Plan has not been developed.
F. Species of Special Concern: any wildlife
species or subspecies that: has
experienced a substantial decrease in
population, distribution and/or habitat
availability (SP), or occurs in limited areas
and/or numbers due to a restricted or
specialized habitat (SD), or has both a
declining population and a limited range
(SP/SD). A management program,
including protection or enhancement, is
needed for these species.
G. Conservation Species (CS): any wildlife
species or subspecies, except those
species currently listed under the
Endangered Species Act as threatened or
endangered, that meets the State criteria
of endangered, threatened or of special
concern, but is currently receiving
sufficient special management under a
Conservation Agreement developed
and/or implemented by the State to
preclude its listing above. In the event
that the conservation agreement is not
implemented, the species will be elevated
to the appropriate category.
A8.I
Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species
Appendix 8
Table A8.1
Sensitive Bird Species Found Within The Monument
Bird Species
Agency Listing
Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources
United States Fish and
Wildlife Service
Utah Natural Heritage
Program
Bureau of Land
Management
Condor, California (Gymnogyps californianus)
SD
E/NE
SR
S
Curlew, Long-billed (Numenius americanus)
SP/SD
S3B
S
Eagle, Bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
T
T
SIB, S3N
T
Falcon, Peregrine (Falco peregrinus anatum)
E
E
S2
E
Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow (Empidonax traillii extimus)
E
E
SIB
E
Goshawk, Northern (Accipiter gentilis alricapilhis)
SP
S3
S
Grosbeak, Blue (Guiraca caerulea)
SP/SD
S3S4B
S
Grouse, Sage (Centrocercus urophasianus)
SP/SD
S2S3
S
Hawk, Ferruginous (Buteo regalis)
T
S2N, S2S3B
S
Hawk, Swainson's {Buteo swainsoni)
SP
S3B, SRN
S
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
SD
S1S2B
S
Owl, Burrowing (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)
SP
S3B
S
Owl, Short-eared (Asio flammeus flammeus)
SP
S2S3
s
Owl, Mexican Spotted (Strix occidentalis lucida)
T
T
SI
T
Pelican, American White (Pelecamts erylhrorhynchos)
SD
S2B
s
Sapsucker, Williamson's (Sphyrapicus thyroideus)
SD
S2S3B, SAN
s
Tem, Black (Chlidonias niger)
SP
S2S3B
s
Tern, Caspian (Sterna caspia)
SP
SIB
s
Woodpecker, Lewis' (Melanerpes lewis )
SP/SD
S2S3
s
Yellowthroat, Common (Geothlypis trichas)
SP
S3B
s
A8.2
Appendix 8
Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species
Table A8.2
Sensitive Mammal Species Found Within the Monument
Mammal Species
Agency Listing
Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources
United States Fish and
Wildlife Service
Utah Natural Heritage
Program
Bureau of Land
Management
Bat, Allen's Big-eared (Idionycteris phyllotis)
SD
SI
S
Bat, Big Free-tailed (Nyctinomops macrotis)
SP/SD
S2
S
Bat, Brazilian Free-tailed (Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana)
SP/SD
S3S4
s
Bat, Spotted (Euderma maculaium)
SP
S2
s
Bat, Townsend's Big-eared (Plecotus lownsendii)
SP/SD
S2
s
Bat, Western Red (Lasiurus blossevillii)
SP/SD
SI
s
Myotis, Fringed (Myotis thysanodes)
SD
S3
s
Myotis, Western Small-footed (Myotis ciliolabrum)
SD
S3S4
s
Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus)
SD
S4
s
Vole, Virgin River Montane (Microtus montanus rivularis)
SP/SD
S2
s
Table A8.3
Sensitive Fish Species Found Within the Monument
Fish Species
Agency Listing
Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources
United States Fish and
Wildlife Service
Utah Natural Heritage
Program
Bureau of Land
Management
Chub, Roundtail {Gila robusta)
T
S2
S
Pikeminnow, Colorado (Ptychocheilus lucius)
E
E
SI
E
Sucker, Bluehead (Catostomus discobolus)
SP
S4
S
Sucker, Flannelmouth (Catostomus latipinnis)
SP
S3S4
S
Sucker, Razorback (Xyrauchen texanus)
E
E
SI
E
Trout, Colorado River Cutthroat (Oncorhvnchus clarki pleuriticus)
CS
S2
S
A8.3
Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species
Appendix 8
Table A8.4
Sensitive Amphibian Species Found Within The Monument
Agency Listing
Amphibian Species
Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources
United States Fish and
Wildlife Service
Utah Natural Heritage
Program
Bureau of Land
Management
Toad, Arizona (Bufo microscaphus microscaphus)
SP
S2
S
Table A8.5
Sensitive Reptile Species Found Within the Monument
Reptile Species
Agency Listing
Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources
Chuckwalla, Glen Canyon {Sauromalus obesus multiforaminatus)
Kingsnake, California (Lampropeltis getula califomiae)
Kingsnake, Utah Mountain (Lampropeltis pyromelana infralabiaiis)
Lizard, Desert Night (Xantusia vigilis vigilis)
Lizard, Utah Night (Xantusia vigilis utahensis)
Snake, Mojave Patch-nosed (Salvadora hexalepis mojavensis
Snake, Painted Desert Glossy (Arizona elegans philipi)
Snake, Southwestern Black-headed (Tantilla hobartsmithi)
Whiptail, Plateau Striped (Cnemidophorus velox)
SP/SD
SD
SP
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SP/SD
United States Fish and
Wildlife Service
Utah Natural Heritage
Program
S2
S3
S2S3
S2S3
S2S3
S2S3
S2
S2
S3
Bureau of Land
Management
S = Utah BLM sensitive species (IM UT 97-66, 1997) E = Federally listed endangered species T = Federally listed threatened species
Utah Natural Heritage Program definition of ranks:
SI critically imperiled SA accidental
SR reported
-B breeding rank
-N non-breeding rank
S2
S3
S4
S5
imperiled
rare or uncommon
common
abundant and secure
As defined in the Natural Heritage Program Operations Manual, a numeric rank (1 through 5) is assigned to indicate the status of a species at the State level.
These ranks are based primarily on the number of occurrences of the species, along with other factors such as overall abundance extent of geographic
range, population trends, and threats. The range in number of occurrences suggested for each numenc rank below is not an absolute guideline, but only the
starting point in the ranking process.
A8.4
Appendix 8 Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species
51 Indicates extreme rarity or other factor(s), making the species especially vulnerable to extinction or extirpation (typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very
few remaining individuals or acres).
52 Indicates rarity or other factor(s), making the species very vulnerable to extinction or extirpation (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or
acres).
53 Indicates a species that is either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) within a restricted
range, or vulnerable to extinction or extirpation because of other factors (21 to 100 occurrences).
54 Indicates a species that is widespread, abundant, and apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery
(usually more than 100 occurrences).
55 Indicates a species that is demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range.
A range spanning two (or even three) of the numeric ranks denotes a range of uncertainty about the exact status of the species (e.g., S1S2); ranges cannot
skip more than one rank (e.g., S1S4 is not allowed).
As more information is gathered, some species are added to the tracking list and some are dropped from the list. Our increasing understanding allows the
ranks to be reevaluated and adjusted periodically.
A8.5
Appendix 9
Special Status Plant Species
Appendix 9
Special Status Plant Species
Table A9.1
Special Status Plant Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
BLM1
Federal1
UNHP2
Atwood's camissonia
Camissonia atwoodii
S
Gl/Sl
Slender camissonia
Camissonia exilis
S
Gl/Sl
Jones' cycladenia
Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii
T
T
G3G4T2/S2
Higgins biscuitroot
Cymopteris acualis var. higginsii
S
G5T1/S1
Hole-in-the-rock prairie clover
Dalea flavescens var. epica
S
G5T1Q/S1
Zion daisy
Erigeron sionis var. sionis
S
G2G3/S2S3
Alcove daisy
Erigeron zothecinus
S
G1Q/S1
Spiny gilia
Gilia latifolia var. imperialis
s
G4T2/S2
Alcove bog-orchid
Habenaria zothecina
s
G2S2
Kodachrome bladderpod
Lesquerella tumulosa
E
E
G1Q/S1
Kane breadroot
Pediomelum epipsilum
s
Gl/Sl
Sandloving penstemon
Penstemon ammophilus
s
G2G3/S2S3
Ute ladies '-tresses
Spiranthes diluvialis
T
T
G2/S1
Cronquist's woody aster
Xylorhiza cronquistii
s
G1QS1
1 . S = Utah BLM sensitive species ( 1 996) E = Federally listed endangered species T = Federally listed threatened species
2. Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP) Status Rank (Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, U.S. Department of the Interior, Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources. 1997. Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah - Endemic and Rare Plants of Utah: An Overview of Their Distribution and Status)
A9.I
Special Status Plant Species = APPendix 9
A numeric rank (1 through 5) is assigned to indicate the status of a species at both the Global or rangewide level (G) and at the State level (S ). Where
appropriate, a Trinomial rank ( T ) is also assigned to indicate the rangewide distribution and abundance at the infraspecific (variety or subspecies) level.
These ranks are based primarily on the number of occurrences of the species, along with other factors such as overall abundance, extent of geographic
range, population trends, and threats. The range in number of occurrences suggested for each numeric rank is not an absolute guideline, but only the
starting point in the ranking process:
GI or TI or SI Indicates extreme rarity or other factor(s), making the species especially vulnerable to extinction or extirpation (typically 5 or
fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres).
G2 or T2 or S2 Indicates rarity or other factor(s), making the species very vulnerable to extinction or extirpation (6 to 20 occurrences or few
remaining individuals or acres).
G3 or T3 or S3 Indicates a species that is either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its
locations) within a restricted range, or vulnerable to extinction or extirpation because of other factors (21 to 100 occurrences).
G4 or T4 or S4 Indicates a species that is widespread, abundant, and apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range,
especially at the periphery (usually more than 100 occurrences).
G5 or T5 or S5 Indicates a species that is demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range.
A range spanning two (or even three) of the numeric ranks denotes a range of uncertainty about the exact status of the species (e.g., S1S2); ranges cannot
skip more than one rank (e.g., S1S4 is not allowed). A qualifier of "Q" is added to a rank to denote a taxonomic question.
A9.2
Appendix 10
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
v_ _Ju^~;i
Appendix 10
Introduction
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Evaluation Criteria:
Importance
Nominations for Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) were
considered by an evaluation team to see if
they met the designation criteria.
Nominations were also considered in light of
the special management attention they would
receive through the establishment of the
Monument. The Monument is unique in the
realm of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
public lands administration in regards to the
need for ACECs. After careful evaluation of
the resources recognized in each of the
nominations, it was determined that the
protection of these resources would be
substantially equivalent under either
Monument authority or ACEC designation.
Therefore, it was concluded that no ACECs
would be designated under the Monument
Management Plan.
Existing special management areas such as
Outstanding Natural Areas (ONAs) and
Research Natural Areas (RNAs) were also
considered for ACEC protection. The
original designations are recommended to be
preserved because of the historical context of
these units to Monument lands and to Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area, and also
due to public recognition through time.
To be considered for designation as an
ACEC, an area must meet the requirements of
relevance and importance as described in the
Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR
1610.7.2). The definitions for the criteria of
relevance and importance are as follows:
Relevance
An area is considered relevant if it contains
one or more of the following:
1 . A significant historic, cultural, or scenic
value (for example: rare or sensitive
archeological resources and religious or
cultural resources important to Native
American Indians).
2. A fish and wildlife resource (for example:
habitat for endangered, sensitive, or
threatened species, or habitat essential for
maintaining species diversity).
3. A natural process or system (for example:
endangered, sensitive, or threatened plant
species; rare, endemic, or relict plants or
plant communities; rare geologic features).
4. A natural hazard (for example: areas of
avalanche, dangerous flooding, landslides,
unstable soils, seismic activity, or
dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by
human action may meet the relevance
criteria if it is determined through the
resource management planning process
that it has become part of a natural
process.
The value, resource, system, process, or
hazard described above must have substantial
significance to satisfy the importance criteria.
This generally means it is characterized by
one or more of the following:
1 . Has more than locally significant qualities
which give it special worth, consequence,
meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for
concern, especially compared to any
similar resource.
2. Has qualities or circumstances that make it
fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable,
exemplary, unique, endangered,
threatened, or vulnerable to adverse
change.
3. Has been recognized as warranting
protection in order to satisfy national
priority concerns or to carry out the
mandates of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act.
4. Has qualities which warrant highlighting
in order to satisfy public or management
concerns about safety and public welfare.
5. Poses a significant threat to human life and
safety or to property.
ACEC Nominations
The following nominations were received as
of June 23, 1998:
• Owen Severance - Scenic Routes (received
December 22, 1993)
• Owen Severance - Fourmile Bench Old
Tree Area (Received March 2, 1998)
AIO.I
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
• Utah Farm Bureau (John B. Keeler) - 48
Grazing Allotments (received March 3,
1998). A second letter received April 15,
1998 from John B. Keeler stated that the
Farm Bureau felt that Monument
designation provides adequate protection
without ACECs.
• The Nature Conservancy of Utah (Joel S.
Tuhy) - Nomination "that the existing No
Mans Mesa Research Natural Area (RNA)
be formally designated as an ACEC
through the Monument planning process
that is now underway." (1994 nomination,
received again March 16, 1998)
• Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance - A
nomination requesting that the HR1500
areas within the Monument (see discussion
below under HR 1500 Areas) become
ACECs to protect wilderness values. (1994
nomination, received again March 19,
1998)
• Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance -
Nominated the entire Monument for
protection under the ACEC category.
They asked that previous SUWA
correspondence on this issue be
disregarded, (received March 23, 1998)
Another letter, received April 9, 1998,
discussed the use of ACECs in protecting
Wilderness Values in the Monument
• The Wilderness Society - Nomination
incorporated by reference the ACEC
nominations made in 1994 by SUWA, plus
Fortymile Gulch and Hurricane Wash (see
HR 1500 Areas below for a discussion of
these nominations) (received March 23,
1998)
Appendix 10
• Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (Kelly
Burke) - They "maintain that ACEC
criteria applies to, and is met by, the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument as
an ecological whole." "...The Grand
Canyon Wildlands considers the entire
Monument an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern. When applied to
smaller units, it seems problematic
whether ACEC status would provide an
additional meaningful layer of protection,
and such designations may prove
counterproductive in protecting the
Monument." (received March 20, 1998)
• John R. Swanson - Urges that the entire
Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument become an ACEC. (received
March 23, 1998)
Table A10.1 provides an evaluation of the
nominations received.
HR 1500 Areas
Nominations for HR 1500 areas were
received from Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance (SUWA) during the earlier 1994
planning process for the Escalante/Kanab
Resource Management Plan (RMP) and from
more recent 1998 correspondence from both
SUWA (nomination subsequently withdrawn)
and from the Wilderness Society. In their
correspondence, these organizations
requested the protection of areas being
proposed in legislation for wilderness
designation. Specifically noted were the
protection of wilderness values. It is explicit
in the current BLM Planning Manual
(1613.06) that ACECs are not to be
designated to protect areas for wilderness
values:
"The FLPMA requires that priority shall be
given to the designation and protection of
ACECs. The ACECs are identified,
evaluated, and designated through BLM's
resource management planning process. An
ACEC designation is the principal BLM
designation for public lands where special
management is required to protect important
natural, cultural and scenic resources, or to
identify natural hazards. Therefore, BLM
managers will give precedence to the
identification, evaluation, and designation of
areas which require "special management
attention" during resource management
planning. "An A CEC designation will not be
used as a substitute for wilderness suitability
recommendations." (Italics added)
In compliance with this policy, nominations
of HR1500 areas were not considered since
the values to be protected were wilderness
values. Wilderness suitability is being
considered outside this Plan.
AI0.2
Appendix 10
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Table A10.1
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECS)
Resource Value
Location
Evaluation/Comments
Entire Monument
Area within Monument
The entire Monument was found to qualify under both relevance and importance. Monument
designation already gives authority to provide special management emphasis. Designating the
entire Monument as an ACEC would be duplicative.
Grazing Allotments
All allotments within the Monument
Grazing allotments may have historical relevance, but do not qualify under the criteria for
importance. Consensus by evaluators that they do not need special management. Nominations
subsequently withdrawn by nominee.
Scenic Access Routes
US-89; Utah 12, 9, and 143; Cottonwood Wash Road from Utah
12 to US 89; the road to Pahreah Townsite from US 89; the Bun-
Trail from Boulder to Capitol Reef; and the Hole-in-the-Rock
Road from Utah 12 to Glen Canyon NRA.
Scenic Access Routes are historically relevant. U-12, Cottonwood, Old Pahreah, Burr Trail, and
Hole-in-the-Rock Trail have more than local significance. Historic and scenic significance would
be protected under the provisions of the Monument Management Plan. (See the History and
Visual Resource Management sections in Chapter 2.)
Fourmile Bench Old
Tree Area
Fourmile Bench
The Old Tree area is relevant as a natural system and is of more than local significance. It is also
irreplaceable, and vulnerable to adverse change. The significance of these trees would be
managed and protected under the Monument Management Plan.
No Mans Mesa
About 30 miles northwest of Kanab.
No Mans Mesa is an historically relevant natural system, and relict plant community. It is also
irreplaceable and vulnerable to adverse change. The designation as a Research Natural Area.
Further protection is provided through the decisions in this Plan, thus ACEC designations is not
necessary.
AI0.3
Appendix
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Appendix
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
INTRODUCTION
This Proposed Plan makes Wild and Scenic River
(WSR) suitability recommendations pursuant to section
5(d)(1) of the WSR Act. WSR designations are made by
Congress, or the Secretary of the Interior upon
application of a State Governor. As described in the
Draft Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), representatives from Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Bryce Canyon
National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area,
and Dixie National Forest worked together to discuss
suitability recommendations made in this document.
Land managers responsible for managing the various
segments came to consensus on segments which
overlapped jurisdictions. They also made decisions for
segments that were under their own jurisdictions. Due to
differing agency mandates and stages in the study
process, those segments lying within GSENM, as well as
river segments found eligible between the Monument
boundary and the Arizona State line, are assessed in this
report. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Dixie
National Forest, and Bryce Canyon National Park are
currently working on suitability assessments for the
segments within their jurisdictions.
Input was given by Kane County Water Conservancy
District, the office of the Governor of Utah, Utah
Division of Natural Resources, and Utah Division of
Water Resources, pursuant to the statewide
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) described in the
DEIS. All meetings held in regards to the MOU were
open and announced to the public.
The suitability assessment is divided into two parts for
GSENM. The first part assesses the Escalante River
system, which includes the main stem of the Escalante
River and many of its tributaries. The second part
assesses the Paria River system and several of its
tributaries.
Interim Management
Until a Record of Decision is signed for the Approved
Plan, protection of segments found eligible (regardless
of suitability finding) would be addressed on a case-by-
case basis. This means that whenever any proposed
action would affect these values, impacts would be
analyzed through the NEPA process, mitigation and
alternatives would be considered to avoid such impacts.
Once a Record of Decision is signed, segments
recommended as non-suitable would be dropped from
special management, and would be managed under the
provisions of the Monument Management Plan.
Segments recommended as suitable would be managed
for the preservation of outstandingly remarkable values,
the tentative classifications, and their free-flowing status.
Escalante River System
The Escalante River System begins on the Aquarius
Plateau. The river system extends from the top of
Boulder Mountain south into the Colorado River (Lake
Powell). The river system lies within the Colorado
Plateau Physiographic Province, Canyonlands, and
Southern High Plateaus subprovinces. Dominant
vegetation zones change with elevation and precipitation
levels. Headwaters begin in the Montane Zone, which
contains forests of ponderosa pine, Douglas fir,
Englemann spruce, and blue spruce. The Pifion and
Juniper Zone follows, blending eventually with the
Sagebrush Zone, and ending in the lower Shadscale
Zone. It flows through the Plateau Uplands water
province and is in the Escalante River Drainage Basin.
Although the main stem of the Escalante begins
northwest of the town of Escalante, most of the flow
comes from its side tributaries such as Boulder Creek,
Pine Creek, Death Hollow, Sand Creek, The Gulch, and
Calf Creek. These tributaries are located downstream
from the town of Escalante. Boulder Creek and Deer
Creek flow through or near the town of Boulder.
The headwaters of the Escalante River are composed of
several tributaries in the Escalante Ranger District of
Dixie National Forest. From there, the river flows
through the BLM-managed GSENM, and then enters
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. It ends at
Coyote Gulch, near Lake Powell. The Escalante River
System within GSENM contains 215 river miles, 21 1
miles (or 99 percent) of which are on public lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
This suitability assessment covers that portion of the
river and its major tributaries within the boundaries of
GSENM.
The Escalante River was first identified by the
Departments of Interior and Agriculture as a candidate
"inventory" river to be studied as a possible addition to
the National Wild and Scenic River System on
September 11, 1970. It was later identified as part of the
Nationwide Rivers Inventory by the NationalPark
Service.
As prescribed in the WSR Act and by BLM policy, the
area included in this evaluation is the river area and its
adjoining tributaries within the river corridor.
Generally, the corridor width cannot exceed an average
of 320 acres per mile, which is usually measured
approximately 1/4 mile from the mean high-water mark
on both sides of the channel. Few designated WSR have
a boundary that is exactly 1/4 of a mile from the
ordinary high water mark along their entire length.
Corridor boundaries for Federally designated and
administered WSRs may vary based on a number of
conditions, but are usually delineated by legally
identifiable lines (survey or property lines). They may
also be identified by some form of on-the-ground
physical features (i.e., topography, natural or man-made
features such as canyon rims, roads, etc.), which provide
the basis for protecting the river's identified values and
practicality in managing those values.
Suitability Recommendations for the Proposed Plan
About 143 miles would be considered suitable for
inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System (NWSRS).
The following segments are recommended as non-
suitable and would be released from further WSR
consideration: the upper part of Harris Wash, Dry
Hollow Creek, Cottonwood Canyon, Blackwater
Canyon, Lamanite Arch Canyon, Water Canyon, west
fork of Steep Creek, Lower Horse Canyon, Wolverine
Creek, Little Death Hollow, unnamed tributary west of
Calf Creek, Phipps Wash and tributaries, and the upper
part of Twentyfive Mile Wash and north tributary.
All.
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Appendix
Cottonwood Canyon, Wolverine Creek, Little Death
Hollow, Phipps Wash, Cottonwood Creek, parts of
Harris Wash (the parts that do not have known
southwestern willow flycatchers), side canyons into the
Gulch, Water Canyon, Blackwater Canyon, Lamanite
Arch Canyon, Dry Hollow Creek, and the unnamed
tributary west of Calf Creek were determined non-
suitable because the quality of river characteristics in
these segments would not significantly enhance nor
contribute to the NWSRS. Nevertheless, the
outstandingly remarkable riparian, scenic, geologic,
recreational, cultural, and habitat values identified for
these rivers will be protected under the Monument Plan.
Lower Horse Canyon, while eligible, was determined to
be non-suitable because of management conflicts (one of
the suitability criteria identified in BLM Manual Section
8351 ). An existing water diversion in that segment of
the river could be used in the future to remove livestock
grazing from the riparian area, which would conflict
with WSR status.
The following factors (which are outlined in the WSR
Act) were analyzed for the Escalante River System as a
whole. Specific facts and concerns pertaining to
individual segments are presented in Table Al 1 . 1 and
A11.2.
Characteristics which do or do not make the area a
worthy addition to the NWSRS:
The segments identified in this report are on the
Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province, Canyonlands
and High Plateaus subprovinces. Currently, there are no
designated components of the NWSRS within this
province. The Escalante River and Calf Creek Falls were
specifically listed as objects of historic or scientific
interest when the Monument was designated.
The Escalante River System is considered a worthy
addition to the NWSRS based on the following
outstandingly remarkable values:
• Scenic - Throughout the spectacular Escalante River
system, rugged canyons, colorful outcroppings, and
imposing cliff faces provide unique opportunities for
sightseeing and photography. The river has carved a
sheer-walled canyon that reaches depths of 1,100 feet.
Recreational - The Escalante River and major
tributaries provide outstanding opportunities for
hiking, backpacking, boating, visiting cultural sites,
photography and nature viewing. The canyons and
colorful sandstone outcroppings, known as slickrock,
attract visitors from throughout the United States and
other countries. Water sources are plentiful in the
Escalante Canyons, allowing easier travel. Canyons
with similar geology are difficult to experience in
other parts of the Colorado Plateau due to lack of
water.
Geological - Colorful canyon walls composed of
layers of sandstone, siltstone, and limestone record the
geologic past, including extensive sand dunes,
invasions by seaways, and deposits made by broad
river systems. Tens of thousands of years of
weathering and erosion have resulted in the formation
of numerous natural bridges and arches throughout the
river corridor area. The canyons vary in width from a
mile to only inches wide. These narrow canyons are
commonly called slot canyons and number in the
hundreds in this river system. Although these features
are common to the Colorado Plateau, the number and
variety of natural bridges, arches, and slot canyons
make this area distinctive and exceptional.
Riparian - The river segments provide unique riparian
corridors through an otherwise and region. A variety
of wildlife species, both aquatic and terrestrial, rely
upon the river for habitat. The riparian area contains
occupied or suitable habitat for numerous sensitive or
special status wildlife and plant species. The
Escalante River System is home to the following
documented wildlife groups: 8 amphibians, 190 birds,
54 mammals, 20 fishes, and 20 reptile species. Among
these are the threatened and endangered southwestern
willow flycatcher, peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted
owl, and wintering bald eagles.
• Historic - The Escalante River system has provided
water for humans in a relatively arid environment for
at least 10,000 years. Prehistoric Native American
Indian sites are prolific throughout the system. It
continues to provide water for humans today.
Other values that support the addition of the Escalante
River to the NWSRS are significant paleontological
values, including fossil trackways and petrified wood,
and cultural sites that would be enhanced and protected
by designation.
The Escalante River, Boulder Creek, Deer Creek, Sand
Creek, Twentyfive Mile Wash, Calf Creek, The Gulch,
Steep Creek, Coyote Gulch, Harris Wash, Mamie Creek
and Death Hollow were included in A. Citizen 's Proposal
to Protect the Wild Rivers of Utah.
Current Uses and Land Ownership Concerns:
• Energy and Minerals: There are 2 oil and gas leases
within the river area near the confluence of Phipps
Wash and the Escalante River (atT35S, R5E, SI 8),
and an active lease on a small portion of Mamie
Creek. There are no mining claims, mineral sites, or
coal leases in the river area. Existing valid claims or
leases within the river boundary remain in effect, and
activities may be allowed subject to regulations that
minimize surface disturbance, water sedimentation,
pollution, and visual impairment. To the extent that
the holders of valid existing rights are entitled to
reasonable access, the BLM would work to provide
access consistent with the Proclamation and the
protection of outstandingly remarkable values.
• Water Resource Developments, Water Rights and
Instream Flow: Existing water developments and
rights held on the river area are associated with
livestock, agricultural and domestic use. Ninety-nine
surface, 6 underground, and 8 spring water rights
within 1 mile of each stream course in the Monument
are on record with the State of Utah. Of these, the
BLM holds the rights to 40 surface, 0 underground,
and 4 springs. Utah Division of Water Rights reports
a total of 1.55 cfs surface diversions in the Escalante
River, Calf Creek, Lower Deer Creek, and The Gulch.
Most of the surface diversions are located on private
land or on segments classified as Recreational. WSR
designation would not affect these existing water
Al 1.2
Appendix
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
rights as they are senior to any rights acquired
through designation.
There is some concern from local water conservancy
districts and potential users over the possible effects
designation could have on proposed or potential
projects. This concern should be addressed by
Congress upon WSR designation. No action taken in
this Plan or WSR recommendation can establish an
appropriation or Federal reserved water right. A
Congressional Act designating a WSR may or may
not establish a Federal reserved water right. If
Congress creates a reserved right, the BLM or the
State of Utah may establish instream flows necessary
to meet the purposes of the designation. The nature
of such a condition would depend on the wording in
the Act. Protective management for suitability could
affect specific proposals if the BLM would have to
issue a right-of-way across BLM managed lands. At
this time, there are no project proposals on suitable
river segments.
Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Grazing:
There are no forested lands within the study area.
Agriculture in the form of irrigated farmlands occurs
near the communities of Escalante and Boulder.
These areas of agricultural use are not within the
study area. However, farming has an impact on the
river study area. Water is diverted out of the channels
to irrigate the farmland and the runoff returns to the
river bed. When this water returns, it can carry
residues of agricultural chemicals, nutrients, and salts.
Livestock grazing is permitted on public lands
throughout the river area. There are 1 3 allotments in
the study area. Grazing along the river and on the
uplands is primarily a fall/winter/spring operation.
The rivers provide a significant source of water in this
area for livestock. Grazing would continue to be
governed by applicable laws and regulations.
Several fences cross the rivers within their corridors.
These include allotment boundary fences, pasture
fences, and state section line fences. If not removed
after use, these wire fences typically wash out or are
taken up during high flows but are rebuilt each year as
flows recede or grazing operations start up for the
season. Landowners and ranchers are concerned that
they will not be able to maintain these fences with
designation. WSR designation would not affect the
ability of landowners or ranchers to maintain fences.
• Recreation Use and Facilities: The Escalante River
and major tributaries provide outstanding
opportunities for recreational activities. These include
hiking (canyoneering), backpacking, bird-watching,
photography, viewing cultural sites, camping, and
nature study. Recreational use is estimated to be
29,300 visits per year (based on 1997 RMIS data).
Developed or semi-developed trail heads and trails are
located at Calf Creek Lower and Upper Falls, Deer
Creek, Escalante River outside of the town of
Escalante, Highway 12, Harris Wash, and The Gulch.
The BLM operates Calf Creek Campground along
Calf Creek, and Deer Creek Campground along Deer
Creek. These sites received a total of 30,210 visits in
FY 1997. Access to Calf Creek Falls, Deer Creek and
other river-based activities is available at these sites.
• Transportation/Utility Facilities: Utah State Route
12 travels over the Escalante at the dividing point
between segments 1 and 2. Along tributaries, dirt
roads approach the water's edge and in some places,
ford the river bed. An overhead utility line crosses
over the river near State Route 12. Another line
crosses Lower Sand Creek near its northern end.
WSR designation would not affect the ability to
maintain these lines.
• Private and Commercial Development: Protective
management for suitable segments only applies to
BLM managed lands. Private and commercial
development is not a concern for river management on
public lands. There are 843 acres (2.6 miles) of
private land within the river area.
Resources and uses that would be enhanced or
curtailed by designation:
• Scenic - Approximately 140 river miles provide
outstanding scenery. Deep, narrow canyons, colorful
rock walls, numerous interesting geologic features,
and waterfalls provide exceptional opportunities for
sightseeing and photography. During a BLM visual
resources inventory, the river corridors were
determined to have scenic quality A. This indicates
that scenic qualities of the landforms, vegetation, and
waterform are extremely high ,with great variety and
distinction. Designation would ensure that the scenic
values of this river system would not be impaired by
additional water diversions or dams.
Recreational - The Escalante River and major
tributaries provide outstanding opportunities for
hiking, backpacking, photography, and nature
viewing. The canyons and colorful sandstone
outcrops, known as slickrock, attract visitors from
throughout the United States and other countries.
Canyons of the Escalante and its tributaries are well
known for canyoneering (seeking out and hiking
narrow slot canyons). Designation could improve the
ability to manage recreational uses and values through
the increased focus that a WSR management plan
would provide.
Geological - The Colorado Plateau is a region of
generally horizontal geologic strata where plateaus
and mesas are separated by deep canyons. The
meandering Escalante River has become deeply
incised or entrenched into the Jurassic Navajo
Sandstone in some places. Small side canyons within
the 1/4 mile boundary to segments such as Little
Death Hollow or the Escalante River are called slot
canyons. Colorful canyon walls composed of layers
of sandstone, siltstone, and limestone record times in
the geologic past of extensive sand dunes, invasions
by seaways, and deposits made by broad river
systems. Tens of thousands of years of weathering
and erosion have resulted in the forming of natural
bridges and arches, water carved alcoves, rincons, and
oxbows throughout the river area. Designation would
ensure that our knowledge would be enhanced by
providing an additional reason for scientific study.
Wildlife and Riparian Habitat - The river and
tributaries provide riparian corridors through an
otherwise semi-arid region that support a wide variety
of wildlife. As typical of wetland areas, the diversity
of plants and wildlife around the washes and streams
is greater than in the surrounding uplands. Various
wildlife species rely upon the outstandingly
All. 3
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Appendix I I
remarkable riparian and wildlife habitat values of the
river area for food, water and other requirements. The
Escalante river supports a variety offish species.
Special status wildlife species include bald eagles,
southwestern willow flycatcher, Mexican spotted owl
and peregrine falcons. The riparian area is potential
habitat for spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and
golden eagle. Canyons of the Escalante could provide
habitat for the recently reintroduced California
condor. Other wildlife include bighorn sheep, mule
deer, raccoons, bats, reptiles, amphibians, waterfowl,
raptors, neotropical species, and other birds. WSR
designation would ensure that habitat for these
species would continue to be protected and would
provide an additional reason to conduct scientific
studies.
• Vegetative Composition Varies Greatly Depending
on the Zone: Riparian communities associated with
the river are composed largely of tamarisk stands with
narrow corridors of native willows, ash, bulrushes,
cattails, and cottonwoods. Mature cottonwood and
willow galleries occur along the Escalante, and at
scattered springs in tributaries. Stretches that receive
disruptive, scouring floods on a regular basis may
remain in a disclimax successional stage. Other
vegetation includes rushes, sedges, and a variety of
grasses and forbs. Algal mats are found in some quiet
pools. Upland vegetation is described as a mixture of
desert shrub, sagebrush, pifion and juniper,
grasslands, mountain shrub, and coniferous
woodlands. The distribution of these associations is
determined largely by elevation and precipitation.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act states "...selected
rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate
environments, ...shall be preserved in free-flowing
condition, and that they and their immediate
environments shall be protected ...". There is a
chance that without WSR designation, rivers could be
dammed or diverted upstream, jeopardizing the
instream flow in downstream segments. Therefore,
designation could protect the viability of riparian
communities by protecting the instream flow upon
which these "immediate environments" rely.
• Cultural Resources - There is evidence to suggest
that cultural properties and features representing the
entire time span of human occupation of the region are
present along or immediately adjacent to the study
area. This should not be surprising since water is a
limiting factor to all human activity. The probable
span of use of the riverine habitat covers from about
1 1 ,000 years before present to the most recent
activities of our own time. Numerous prehistoric sites
can be attributed to several Native American Indian
cultures: Anasazi and Fremont, Hopi, Zuni, Paiute,
and possibly Navajo. The riverine system continues
to be important to modern societies. Cultural
properties likely to be encountered along the river
could include rock art sites, agricultural features,
storage cists, rock shelters, habitations, artifact
scatters, and pioneer-era homesteads, ranches, and
travel routes. These cultural properties exhibit a
challenge in balancing conservation and utilization,
but also offer great opportunities for scientific study,
education, and interpretation. WSR designation
would enhance the BLM's ability to further study
these cultural resources and may help prioritize
research projects in these segments.
• Wilderness Study Areas - 82 percent of the Escalante
River and major tributaries run through Wilderness
Study Areas (WSA) or Instant Study Areas (ISA). The
river and/or tributaries flow through Phipps-Death
Hollow ISA Complex, North Escalante Canyons/The
Gulch ISA Complex, Escalante Canyons Tract 5 ISA
Complex, Steep Creek WSA, and Scorpion WSA.
There are no designated wilderness areas in the study
area. WSR designation would complement the BLM's
management of the WSAs if classified as wild.
• Streamflow and Water Quality - The Escalante
River and tributaries meet the definition of free-
flowing. A mean flow of 1 1 .4 cfs is recorded at the
USGS gauging station located at the Escalante
River/Pine Creek confluence and 22.5 cfs are recorded
in Boulder Creek above the Escalante River. Data
was collected from 1950-1955 which showed a mean
flow of 82.2 cfs at the mouth. High flows typically
occur during the spring runoff period and as a result of
summer thundershowers. Scouring of the river beds as
a result of high flows can affect channel morphology
and riparian ecosystems.
Utah Division of Water Quality has classified the
Escalante River and tributaries from Lake Powell to
the confluence with Boulder Creek as 2B, protected
for secondary contact recreation (boating, wading),
and 3C, protected for non-game fish and other aquatic
life. The Escalante River and tributaries from the
confluence of Boulder Creek to the headwaters and
Deer Creek and tributaries, from confluence with
Boulder Creek to headwaters are classified as 2B,
protected for secondary contact recreation (boating,
wading), 3A, protected for cold water fish and other
cold-water aquatic life, and 4, protected for
agricultural use.
The Utah Division of Water Quality defines anti-
degradation segments as high quality waters with
exceptional recreational or ecological significance or
waters that require protection and are to be
maintained at their existing quality. New point
sources are prohibited and non-point sources shall be
controlled to the extent feasible through best
management practices. Calf Creek, Sand Creek,
Mamie Creek, and Deer Creek are anti-degradation
stream segments in the Monument. WSR designation
would further protect streamflow and water quality.
Designation would not significantly restrict, foreclose, or
curtail any activities currently occurring or proposed
within the Escalante River System.
Federal, Public, State, Tribal, Local, or Other
Interests
Garfield County was primarily concerned about the
effect that WSR designation would have on their
proposal for Wide Hollow reservoir, which is located
above the suitable WSR segments. The existing
reservoir currently holds about 1,100 acre feet although
it originally held 2,400 acre feet when it was built in
1 956. The county is proposing a new location for the
reservoir because the existing location has filled with
sediments. The proposed reservoir would be located on
BLM land outside of the Monument boundary. At the
time that this document went to print, there was no
Al 1.4
Appendix I I
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
detailed proposal for the project. Subsequent
environmental analysis would be required on any
specific reservoir proposal to determine the potential
impacts, including impacts on Monument resources
downstream. WSR designation may affect this project,
depending upon impacts to outstandingly remarkable
values, although additional environmental review would
be needed to assess impacts and the ability to mitigate
such impacts.
Garfield County is also concerned that the segments
immediately downstream from Hole-in-the-Rock Road
would curtail the ability to improve that road. The upper
part of Harris Wash, which is adjacent to the road, is
considered non-suitable for this Plan.
Another concern expressed by Garfield County was for
private landowners. It was suggested that the BLM
exclude those river segments from being suitable.
Private landowners have 0.9 acres along the Escalante
River upstream and downstream of the Highway 12
bridge and 1 .7 miles along Deer Creek upstream of the
Burr Trail. Under the WSR Act, designation neither
gives nor implies government control of private lands
within the river corridor. Although Congress (or the
Secretary of the Interior for 2(a)(ii) rivers) could include
private lands within the boundaries of the designated
river area, management restrictions would not apply.
Escalante and Boulder are the only communities within
the river area. It is anticipated that these communities
would be most affected by possible designation of the
river. Much of the economy of Escalante is dependant
on agriculture and the scarce water supplies available.
The viability of Escalante is dependant of the
continuation of existing water diversions (Franson and
Noble). These diversions are upstream from the river
study area.
Native American Indian tribes are concerned about rock
art in the canyons. WSR designation could contribute to
the protection of the rock art and surrounding area.
Ability to Manage
The Escalante River system is considered to be
manageable based on the current level and type of
activities taking place, and adequate staff and funding is
available to carry out management of a designated WSR.
The free-flowing character and outstandingly remarkable
values identified in the determination of eligibility can be
protected through management actions. If the river
segments are designated, a management plan would be
developed within three years pursuant to the WSR Act.
This would be done in order to determine management
objectives and strategy for long-term protection of the
river's outstandingly remarkable values to the full extent
oftheWSRAct.
About 87 percent of the river segments are on public
land. River protection measures are being applied in
environmental assessments of proposed projects and
considered in all land use and activity plans.
All river segments are within GSENM or on BLM lands
directly south of the Monument. Almost half of the river
mileage is in Outstanding Natural Areas (ONA) which
became ISAs in the wilderness study process. These
other administrative designations, including wilderness
study areas, would complement WSR designation and
provide specific authority and guidance for the BLM to
protect and manage the rivers.
Historical or Existing Rights That Could be Adversely
Affected by Designation
No impact on existing or historical rights would occur as
a result of designation, although there is a perception that
existing water rights could be adversely affected.
Section 13 (b) of the Act states that jurisdiction over
waters is determined by established principles of law.
Existing, valid water rights are not affected by
designation.
Alterations to existing irrigation or water withdrawal
facilities may be approved under Section 7 of the Act as
long as there is no direct adverse effect to the values for
which the river was designated. The valid and existing
rights of present land owners to use water and shorelines
are not affected.
Estimated Cost
No additional easements or land acquisitions are
anticipated as a result of NWSRS designation. Section
6(b) of the National WSR Act specifically prohibits the
use of condemnation for fee title purchase of lands if 50
percent or more of the acreage within the river area
boundary is in public ownership (Federal, state or local
government). This is the case with both the Escalante
and Paria River Systems. It is estimated that an
additional $70,000 or 1 FTE would be needed to
develop, implement, and maintain actions identified in
the river plans.
All. 5
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Appendix
Table All.l
Escalante River System Suitable Segments
Segment
Segment Description
Length
Tentative
Characteristics which
Current uses and land
Resources and uses that
Federal, public,
(Nearest
Classification
make the area a worthy
ownership concerns
would be enhanced or
state, tribal, local,
0.1 mile)
addition to NWSRS
curtailed by designation
or other interests
Escalante River-1
Confluence with Pine
13.8
Wild
• High scenic quality,
• 2 powerlines, 1
• Garfield County
Creek (T35S, R3E,
high recreational use,
pipeline, and 1
is concerned
S9) to Highway 12
numerous geologic
telephone line cross
about their
(T35S, R4E, S12)
features, important fish
and wildlife habitat,
the Escalante River
and Calf Creek near
ability to replace
Wide Hollow
Escalante River-2
Highway 1 2 to east
1.1
Recreational
prehistoric sites, historic
their confluence,
Reservoir
side of private land
homestead and roads,
T35S, R4E, S12.
upstream of this
(T35S, R4E, SI 3)
riparian area, fossil
tracks, petrified wood
make this a worthy
There is also a ROW
for State Route 12
near Escalante River
segment.
Escalante River-3
Private land to
19.2
Wild
boundary (T36S,
addition to the NWSRS.
and Calf Creek
R6E, S4)
confluence.
Harris Wash
T36S, R5E, S35 to
Monument boundary
(T36S, R5E, S36)
1.2
Wild
• High quality scenery,
recreational attraction,
southwestern willow
flycatcher habitat,
historic road, prehistoric
sites, scientific study
opportunities are the
characteristics that make
the lower section a
worthy addition to the
NWSRS.
• 1 mile Federal
public water
reserve. Garfield
County
concerned that
WSR designation
would curtail
improving Hole-
in-the-Rock
Road.
Lower Boulder
Downstream side of
13.6
Wild
• High quality scenery,
• 0.5 miles runs through
• Fisheries could be
Creek
state section (T34S,
high recreational use,
private ownership.
enhanced with
R4E,Sll)to
part of the Escalante
• A pipeline ROW
designation
Escalante River
Canyons ONA and
exists along the north
(T35S, R5E, S22)
prehistoric sites.
endT34S, R4E.S11
&12
Slickrock Canyon
Monument boundary
(T33S, R5E, S22)to
Deer Creek (T33S,
R5E, S33)
2.8
Wild
• High quality scenery,
recreational values,
prehistoric sites, and
riparian areas make this
a worthy addition to the
NWSRS.
Al 1.6
Appendix I I
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Table All. 1
Escalante River System Suitable Segments
Segment
Segment Description
Length
Tentative
Characteristics which
Current uses and land
Resources and uses that
Federal, public,
(Nearest
Classification
make the area a worthy
ownership concerns
would be enhanced or
state, tribal, local,
0.1 mile)
addition to NWSRS
curtailed by designation
or other interests
Lower Deer
Slickrock Canyon
3.8
Recreational
• High quality scenery,
• 1.7 miles of the
• Fisheries could be
• Part of this
Creek-1
(T33S, R5E, S33)to
Deer Creek Recreation
section of Deer Creek
enhanced with
segment is in the
Burr Trail Road
Area, Escalante
between Slickrock
designation. A
Escalante
(T34S, R5E,S16)
Canyons ONA,
southwestern willow
flycatchers, prehistoric
sites, threatened plant,
and riparian area.
and the Burr Trail is
on private land.
Irrigation pipeline and
ROW for maintenance
of water system on
part of pubic land,
Federally threatened
species, the Ute-
ladies' tresses
orchid, is found in
the Deer Creek
drainage and could
Canyons ONA.
Lower Deer
Burr Trail Road to
7.0
Wild
Creek-2
Lower Boulder Creek
(T35S, R5E, S9)
water right to approx
1.5 cfs for irrigation
and non-consumptive
use through this
section. This is not a
significant diversion
for this stream.
be further protected
by WSR
designation.
The Gulch-1
Monument boundary
(T32S, R6E, S32)to
Burr Trail Road
(T34S, R5E, SI 3)
11.0
Wild
• High quality scenery,
outstanding recreation,
natural arch, peregrine
habitat, Traditional
• ONA
Cultural Property,
The Gulch-2
Along Burr Trail
Road to T34S, R5E,
S13)
0.6
Recreational
riparian area and
petrified wood
The Gulch-3
Below Burr Trail
13.0
Wild
Road to Escalante
River (T35S, R5E,
S36)
Steep Creek
Monument boundary
(T33S, R5E, S24) to
The Gulch (T34S,
R5E, S12)
8.9
Wild
• High quality scenery,
recreational values, and
riparian areas.
Al 1.7
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Appendix I I
Table All. 1
Escalante River System Suitable Segments
Segment
Segment Description
Length
(Nearest
0.1 mile)
Tentative
Classification
Characteristics which
make the area a worthy
addition to NWSRS
Current uses and land
ownership concerns
Resources and uses that
would be enhanced or
curtailed by designation
Federal, public,
state, tribal, local,
or other interests
Lower Sand
Creek and
tributary Willow
Patch Creek
Sweetwater Creek
(T34S, R4E, S8) to
Escalante River
(T35S, R4E, S10)
13.2
Wild
• High scenic quality, part
of an ONA, fish habitat,
southwestern willow
flycatcher habitat,
historic trail, and
riparian area.
• A utility line crosses
the north end of
Lower Sand Creek,
T34S, R4W, S8.
Mamie Creek and
west tributary
Monument Boundary
(T34S.R3E, S16)to
Escalante River
(T35S, R4E, S7)
9.2
Wild
• High scenic quality, part
of an ONA, high
recreational use, natural
bridge, fish and wildlife
habitat, prehistoric and
historic sites including
an historic mail trail,
and riparian area.
• Part of Phipps
Death Hollow
ONA.
Death Hollow
Creek
Monument boundary
(T34S, R3E, S3) to
Mamie Creek (T34S,
R3E, S36)
9.9
Wild
• High scenic quality, part
of an ONA,
southwestern willow
flycatcher habitat,
prehistoric sites,
dinosaur tracks, and
riparian area.
• This segment is
in the North
Escalante
Canyons ONA.
CalfCreek-1
Headwaters (T34S,
R4E, S10) to Lower
Calf Creek Falls
(T34S, R4E, S24)
3.5
Wild
• High scenic quality,
Calf Creek Recreation
Area, bird habitat,
prehistoric site, and
riparian area
• Public campground,
diversion on lower
end. 2 powerlines, 1
pipeline, and 1
telephone line cross
the Escalante River
and Calf Creek near
their confluence,
T35S, R4E.S12.
There is also a ROW
for State Route 12
near Escalante River
and Calf Creek
confluence.
• Recreation could be
enhanced
• This segment is
in an ONA and
Recreation Area
CalfCreek-2
Lower Falls to Calf
Creek Recreation Site
(T35S, R4E, SI)
3
Scenic
CalfCreek-3
Recreation Site to
Escalante River
(T35S, R4E, S12)
1.5
Recreational
Al 1.8
Appendix
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Table Al 1.1
Escalante River System Suitable Segments
Segment
Segment Description
Length
(Nearest
0.1 mile)
Tentative
Classification
Characteristics which
make the area a worthy
addition to NWSRS
Current uses and land
ownership concerns
Resources and uses that
would be enhanced or
curtailed by designation
Federal, public,
state, tribal, local,
or other interests
Twenty-five Mile
Wash
T37S, R6E, S2 to
Monument boundary
(T37S, R6E, S25),
does not include
unnamed tributary on
north side
6.8
Wild
• High scenic quality,
high recreation use,
bird habitat, rock art,
prehistoric structures,
and riparian
• ONA
Note: Short segments of Scorpion Gulch, Fools Canyon, Coyote Gulch and Willow Gulch may be on Monument lands. These segments will be managed and suitability recommendations made
with the remainder of the named segments by Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
Table Al 1.2
Escalante River System Segments Determined Non-Suitable
Segment
Segment Description
Length
(Nearest
0.1 mile)
Characteristics which do or do
not make the area a worthy
addition to NWSRS
Current uses and land
ownership concerns
Resources and uses that
would be enhanced or
curtailed by designation
Federal, public, state, tribal,
local, or other interests
Harris Wash
Tenmile Crossing
(T365S, R4E, S17)to
west side State section
(T36S, R5E, S36)
14.4
• This upper section was found
non-suitable because the
values identified, with the
exception of the historic road,
apply primarily to the lower
section and the portion that
flows through the National
Recreation Area
• The BLM felt that the quality
of river characteristics in this
segment would not
significantly enhance nor
contribute to the NWSRS
• 1 mile Federal public water
reserve
• Garfield County concerned
that WSR designation
would curtail improving
Hole-in-the-Rock Road.
Dry Hollow
Creek
Monument boundary
(T34S, R4E, S3) to
Lower Boulder Creek
(T34S, R5E, S30)
4.3
• High quality scenery
• The BLM felt that the quality
of river characteristics in this
segment would not
significantly enhance nor
contribute to the NWSRS
All.
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Appendix I I
Table All. 2
Escalante River System Segments Determined Non-Suitable
Segment
Segment Description
Length
(Nearest
0.1 mile)
Characteristics which do or do
not make the area a worthy
addition to NWSRS
Current uses and land
ownership concerns
Resources and uses that
would be enhanced or
curtailed by designation
Federal, public, state, tribal,
local, or other interests
Cottonwood
Canyon
Monument boundary
(T33S, R5E, S22) to
Lower Deer Creek
(T34S, R5E, S4)
4.4
• High quality scenery, high
recreational attraction, cultural
sites
• The BLM felt that the quality
of river characteristics in this
segment would not
significantly enhance nor
contribute to the NWSRS
Blackwater
Canyon
Entire (T34N, R5E,
S23)
0.6
• High quality scenery,
outstanding recreation, natural
arch, peregrine habitat,
Traditional Cultural Property,
riparian area, petrified wood.
• The BLM felt that the quality
of river characteristics in this
segment would not
significantly enhance nor
contribute to the NWSRS
• These are short, side
tributaries to the
Gulch whose
outstandingly
remarkable values are
scenery, and a natural
arch. Although they
are beautiful canyons,
they contribute little
to the riverine values
of the Escalante River
system. They are not
in and of themselves
worthy additions to a
national river system.
Lamanite Arch
Canyon
Monument boundary
(T32S, R6E, S31)to
The Gulch (T33S,
R6E, S8)
2.4
Water Canyon
Headwaters (T33S,
R6E, S7) to Forest
Service boundary
(T32S, R5E, S13);
Forest Service
boundary to The
Gulch (T33S, R6E,
S30)
3.5
• High quality scenery,
outstanding recreation, natural
arch, peregrine habitat,
Traditional Cultural Property,
riparian area, petrified wood.
• The BLM felt that the quality
of river characteristics in this
segment would not
significantly enhance nor
contribute to the NWSRS
Lower Horse
Canyon
T35S, R6E, S29 to
Escalante River
(T35S, R6E, S32)
3
< High quality scenery, ONA,
high recreational use,
international use,
paleontology.
• There is a diversion
pipe at the top of this
section, and although
it is not currently
being used, it could
be used in the future
to remove livestock
from riparian areas.
• ONA
All. 10
I
Appendix
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Table Al 1.2
Escalante River System Segments Determined Non-Suitable
Segment
Segment Description
Length
(Nearest
0.1 mile)
Characteristics which do or do
not make the area a worthy
addition to NWSRS
Current uses and land
ownership concerns
Resources and uses that
would be enhanced or
curtailed by designation
Federal, public, state, tribal,
local, or other interests
Wolverine Creek
Entire (T34S, R7E,
S20) to (T35S, R6E,
S16)
9.7
• Scenery was the only
outstandingly remarkable
value identified for this
segment.
• The BLM felt that the quality
of river characteristics in this
segment would not
significantly enhance nor
contribute to the NWSRS
Little Death
Hollow
Entire (T34S, R7E,
S28) to (T35S, R6E,
S28)
14.8
• Scenery was the only
outstandingly remarkable
value identified for this
segment.
• The BLM felt that the quality
of river characteristics in this
segment would not
significantly enhance nor
contribute to the NWSRS
Phipps Wash and
tributaries
Headwaters (T35S,
R4E, S22) to
Escalante River
(T35S, R5E, SI 8)
6
• Scenery and recreation were
the outstandingly remarkable
values identified for this
segment.
• The BLM felt that the quality
of river characteristics in this
segment would not
significantly enhance nor
contribute to the NWSRS
Unnamed
tributary west of
Calf Creek
Headwaters (T34S,
R4E, S35) to
Escalante River
(T35S, R4E, Sll)
2.6
• High quality scenery,
recreational attraction,
geologic features, cultural
sites.
• The BLM felt that the quality
of river characteristics in this
segment would not
significantly enhance nor
contribute to the NWSRS.
Al I.I
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Appendix I I
Paria River System
The Paria River System begins on the Paunsaugunt
Plateau near Bryce Canyon. The river system flows
through the White Cliffs and the Vermilion Cliffs, and
carves its way through the Paria Canyon/Vermilion
Cliffs Wilderness Area to the Colorado River. The Paria
River and tributaries are in the Colorado Plateau
Physiographic Province and in the Canyonlands and
High Plateaus subprovinces. Dominant vegetation zones
change with elevation and precipitation levels. These
zones start in lower elevations with shadscale, then
blend with sagebrush, and eventually pifion and juniper
zones. Headwaters of some tributaries are in the
Montane Zone. The Paria is a significant tributary in the
Colorado River Basin and joins the Colorado at Lees
Ferry in Arizona. It flows through the Plateau Uplands
water province.
The headwaters of the Paria River are composed of
several tributaries in Dixie National Forest and Bryce
Canyon National Park. From there, the Paria flows
through the BLM managed GSENM and then leaves the
study area at the Arizona State line. The Paria River
System studied in this document covers 1 1 7 river miles,
of which 1 1 1 miles (86 percent) are on public lands
managed by the BLM. This suitability assessment
covers the river and major tributaries within the
boundaries of the Monument, as well as designated
BLM wilderness outside the Monument boundaries.
As prescribed in the Wild and Scenic River (WSR) Act
and by BLM policy, the area included in this evaluation
is the river area and its adjoining tributaries within the
river corridor. Generally, the corridor width cannot
exceed an average of 320 acres per mile, which is
usually measured approximately 1/4 mile from the mean
high-water mark on both sides of the channel. Few
designated WSRs have a boundary that is exactly one-
quarter of a mile from the ordinary high water mark
along their entire length. Corridor boundaries for
Federally designated and administered WSRs may vary
based on a number of conditions, but are usually
delineated by legally identifiable lines (survey or
property lines). They can also be delineated by some
form of on-the-ground physical features (i.e.,
topography, natural or man-made features such as
canyon rims, roads, etc.), which provide the basis for
protecting the river's identified values and practicality in
managing those values.
Suitability Recommendations for the Proposed Plan
106 miles of the Paria River System would be
considered suitable for inclusion into the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS).
The Paria River and selected tributaries would be worthy
additions to the WSR system because they contain
outstandingly remarkable river values that require
special protective measures. These values are scenic,
recreational, wildlife, geological, historic, and riparian.
Unique natural and human resources would benefit from
the protection and enhancement afforded by NWSR
designation.
Bull Valley Gorge is considered non-suitable for
inclusion in the NWSRS. The rationale for dropping this
5.9 mile segment is that, while this segment has
outstandingly remarkable values, the watershed for this
tributary is small and the outstandingly remarkable
values are derived from its geology rather than being a
riverine system. The recreation interest lies in the
tributary as a slot canyon. The BLM felt that the quality
of river characteristics in this segment would not
significantly enhance nor contribute to the NWSRS.
Threats to the Paria River or tributaries within the study
area could come from diverting or impounding water for
use or modifying stream channels. However, there are
no major developments or actions being proposed that
would significantly alter the river system's values.
The following factors were analyzed generally for the
Paria River System as a whole. Additional specific facts
and concerns are addressed in Tables Al 1 .3 and Al 1.4.
Characteristics Which do or do not Make the Area a
Worthy Addition to NWSRS
The segments identified in this report are in the
Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province, Canyonlands
and High Plateaus subprovinces. Currently, there are no
designated components of the NWSRS within this
province. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory identified
the Paria River from the Colorado River to its source as
possessing values of national significance as identified
by the National Park Service (NPS) (NPS, 1982, 1986,
1988). The Paria was listed as an object of historic or
scientific interest when the Monument was designated.
The adjacent Arizona Strip District identified the
segment of the Paria River within designated wilderness
(in Utah) and it was determined suitable. This
determination (although in the administrative record)
was not included in the Arizona statewide WSR review
in 1994-1996.
The Paria River, Hackberry Creek and Bull Valley
Gorge were nominated as eligible rivers in A Citizen 's
Proposal to Protect the Wild Rivers of Utah.
The Paria River system would be a worthy addition to
the NWSRS based on the following outstandingly
remarkable values:
• Scenic - Throughout the spectacular Paria River
Gorge, rugged canyons, colorful outcroppings and
imposing cliff faces provide unique opportunities for
sightseeing and photography.
• Recreational - The Paria River and major tributaries
provide outstanding opportunities for hiking,
backpacking, photography, and nature viewing. The
canyons and colorful sandstone outcroppings, known
as slickrock, attract visitors from throughout the
United States and other countries.
• Geologic - The Paria River cuts through strata of
successively older rocks ranging in age from
Cretaceous through Permian, a time span of more than
150 million years, as it descends toward the Colorado
River.
• Riparian - The river provides a unique riparian
corridor through an otherwise arid region. This
corridor provides habitat for 329 species of wildlife:
7 amphibians, 242 birds, 59 mammals and 21 reptiles.
Among these are the threatened and endangered
southwestern willow flycatcher, peregrine falcon,
Mexican spotted owl, and wintering bald eagles.
All. 12
Appendix I I
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
There are documented nests in the riparian vegetation
along the banks of the Paria. This is also important
historic habitat for the population of reintroduced
bighorn sheep.
< Historic - The Paria River system has provided water
for humans in a relatively arid environment for at
least 10,000 years. Prehistoric Native American
Indian sites are prolific throughout the system. The
river system continues to provide water for humans
today.
Current Uses and Land Ownership Concerns
• Energy and Minerals: An existing oil and gas lease
is within the river area on the north end of Hackberry
Creek. There are no oil or gas wells within the river
area. There are no mining claims. All Federal lands
in the Monument are withdrawn from new mineral
entry. Existing valid claims or leases within the river
boundary remain in effect, and activities may be
allowed, subject to regulations that minimize surface
disturbance, water sedimentation, pollution, and
visual impairment.
• Water Resource Developments, Water Rights and
Instream Flow: Existing water developments and
rights within the river area are associated with
livestock, agricultural, and domestic use. Sixty four
surface, 6 underground, and 7 spring water rights
within the river corridor are on record with the State
of Utah. Of these, the BLM holds the rights to 3 1
surface, 2 underground, and 7 springs. Utah Division
of Water Resources reports a total of 3 . 1 4 cfs surface
diversions in Buckskin Gulch, Hackberry Creek,
Hogeye Creek, Lower Paria River, and the Upper
Paria River. Three of these cfs are held by private
landowners primarily on the upper Paria, with some
on the lower Paria. Existing, valid water rights would
not be affected by designation. Future water
developments on or above public land segments
would be subject to environmental analysis where
Federal permits, approval, or funding would be
involved.
There is some concern from Kane County Water
Conservancy Districts and potential users over the
possible effects designation could have on proposed
or potential projects. This concern should be
addressed by Congress upon WSR designation. No
action taken in this plan or WSR recommendation can
establish an appropriation or Federal reserved water
right. A Congressional Act designating a WSR may
or may not establish a federal reserved water right. If
Congress creates a reserved right, the BLM or the
State of Utah may establish instream flows necessary
to meet the purposes of the designation. The nature
of such a condition would depend on the wording in
the Act. Protective management for suitability could
affect specific proposals if the BLM would have to
issue a right-of-way across BLM managed lands. At
this time, there are no project proposals on suitable
river segments.
• Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Grazing:
There are no forested lands within the study area.
Agriculture, in the form of irrigated farmlands, occurs
near the communities of Tropic, Cannonville, and
Adairville. These areas of agricultural use are not
within the study area. However, the farming has an
impact on the river study area. Water is diverted out
of the channels to irrigate the farmland and the runoff
returns to the river bed. When this water returns, it
can be carrying remnants of chemicals used to spray
the fields.
Livestock grazing is permitted on public lands
throughout the river area. The Paria and tributaries
flow through seven allotments and serve as
boundaries for others. The Paria flows through
Bunting Well, Cottonwood, and Headwaters
Allotments. Grazing along the river and on the
uplands is primarily a fall/winter/spring operation.
The river is the major source of water in this area for
livestock. Grazing would continue to be governed by
applicable laws and regulations.
Six fences cross the Paria within the corridor. These
include allotment boundary fences, pasture fences,
and state section line fences. If not removed after use,
these wire fences typically wash out or are taken up
during high flows, but are rebuilt each year as flows
recede or grazing operations start up. Landowners are
concerned that they will not be able to maintain these
fences with designation. WSR designation would not
affect the ability of landowners or ranchers to
maintain fences.
• Recreational Use and Facilities: Corridors of the
Paria River and tributaries provide outstanding
opportunities for recreational activities. These
include hiking (canyoneering), backpacking, bird-
watching, photography, camping, and nature study.
Recreational use is estimated to be about 7,200 visits
per year (based on 1997 RMIS data).
The BLM has developed trailheads at Whitehouse,
Buckskin Gulch, and Wire Pass. These sites receive
most of the Paria visitors (6,986 in FY 1997). Access
for hiking and river-based activities is available at
these trailheads. A visitor contact station and
developed campground are located near the
Whitehouse trailhead. The old Pahreah townsite and
Paria Movie Set are located near the river corridor
north of Highway 89.
• Transportation/Utility Facilities: U.S. Highway 89
travels over the river at the lower end of the Upper
Paria. Outside of the Wilderness area, dirt roads
approach the water's edge, and in some places, ford
the river. An historic travel route goes along the
Upper Paria river channel, in and out of the river.
Power transmission lines cross over the river at three
places between the Pahreah townsite and Highway 89,
and two others cross the Paria at the Wilderness
boundary. WSR designation would not affect the
ability to maintain these lines.
• Private and Commercial Development: All major
visitor facilities and developments would be outside
the Monument boundaries. There are 1,152 acres (5
miles) of private land within the river area.
Development on these parcels is not a concern for
river management.
• Rights-of-Way, Leases or Traditional Uses: Three
rights-of-way (ROW) fall within the Paria River study
area. They are for utility lines at T41 S, Rl W, S29
and 32; T42S, R1W, S16; and T43S, R1W, S 23.
Al 1.13
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Appendix I
Resources and Uses that Would be Enhanced or
Curtailed by Designation
• Scenic - The inventory indicates that 85 river miles
possess outstanding scenic values. Deep, narrow
canyons and colorful rock walls provide exceptional
opportunities for sightseeing and photography.
During a BLM visual resources inventory, the river
corridors were determined to have scenic quality A.
This indicates that scenic qualities of the landforms,
vegetation, and water form are extremely high, with
great variety and distinction. Designation would
ensure that the scenic values of this river system
would not be impaired by additional water diversions
or dams.
• Recreation - The Paria River and major tributaries
provide outstanding opportunities for hiking,
backpacking, photography, and nature viewing. The
canyons and colorful sandstone outcrops, known as
slickrock, attract visitors from throughout the United
States and other countries. Thousands of hikers and
backpackers a year visit the river as it flows through
the Paria Canyon/Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area.
Outside the Wilderness area, visitor use is quite low
and dispersed. Designation would enhance the
recreation values for this river system through the
increased focus that a WSR management plan would
provide.
The Paria River Corridor is also accessed by
motorized users. This use would be curtailed for the
entire river corridor by the Monument Plan zone
prescriptions. WSR classifications support the zone
prescriptions.
• Geological - The Colorado Plateau is a region of
generally horizontal geologic strata where plateaus
and mesas are separated by deep canyons. The Paria
River cuts through strata of successively older rocks
ranging in age from Cretaceous through Permian, a
time span of more than 150 million years, as it
descends toward the Colorado River near Lee's Ferry.
The upper tributaries of the Paria include slot
canyons, so defined because they are very deep with
extremely narrow walls, are incised mostly into the
Jurassic Navajo Sandstone. Southern portions of the
Paria River and tributaries such as Buckskin Gulch,
also form slot canyons. Kaibab Gulch, the upper
reaches of Buckskin Gulch, is the stratigraphic type
section for the Permian Kaibab Formation.
Designation would help prioritize research projects
and ensure that knowledge would be enhanced by
providing an additional reason for scientific study.
• Riparian and Wildlife Habitat - The river and
tributaries provide riparian corridors through an
otherwise semi-arid region that support a wide variety
of wildlife. As typical of wetland areas, the diversity
of plants and wildlife around the washes and streams
is greater than in the surrounding uplands. Various
wildlife species rely upon the river area for
consumptive use and other requirements. Special
status wildlife species include bald eagles,
southwestern willow flycatcher, Mexican spotted owl,
and peregrine falcons. The riparian area is potential
habitat for the recently reintroduced California
condor. Other wildlife include bighorn sheep, mule
deer, raccoons, bats, reptiles, amphibians, waterfowl,
raptors and other birds. WSR designation would
contribute to the protection of habitat for these
species and would provide an additional reason to
conduct scientific studies.
• Vegetative Composition Varies Depending on the
Zone: Riparian and Upland Riparian communities
associated with the river consist of native willows,
cottonwoods, bulrushes, cattails, and non-native
tamarisk. Stretches that receive disruptive, scouring
floods on a regular basis remain in a disclimax
successional stage. Other vegetation includes rushes,
sedges, and a variety of grasses and forbs. Algal mats
are found in some quiet pools. Upland vegetation is
described as a mixture of desert shrub, sagebrush,
pinon and juniper, grasslands, mountain shrub and
coniferous woodlands. The distribution of these
associations is determined largely by elevation and
precipitation.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act states "...selected
rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate
environments, ...shall be preserved in free-flowing
condition, and that they and their immediate
environments shall be protected ...". There is a
chance that without WSR designation, rivers could be
dammed or diverted upstream, jeopardizing the
instream flow in downstream segments. Therefore,
designation could protect the viability of riparian
communities by protecting the instream flow upon
which these "immediate environments" rely.
• Cultural (Prehistoric and Historic) Resources -
There is evidence to suggest that cultural properties
and features representing the entire time span of
human occupation of the region are present along or
immediately adjacent to the Paria River. This should
not be surprising since water is a limiting factor to all
human activity. The probable span of use of the
riverine habitat covers from about 1 1 ,000 years before
present to the most recent activities of our own time.
Numerous prehistoric sites can be attributed to several
Native American cultures: Anasazi and Fremont,
Hopi, Zuni, Paiute, and possibly Navajo. The river
system continues to be important to modem societies.
Cultural properties likely to be encountered along the
river include rock art sites, agricultural features,
storage cists, rock shelters, habitations, artifact
scatters and pioneer-era homesteads, ranches, and
travel routes. These cultural properties exhibit a
challenge in balancing conservation and utilization,
but also offer great opportunities for scientific study,
public education and interpretation.
• Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas - 75
percent of the Paria River and tributaries run through
Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) and a designated
Wilderness areas. The river and tributaries flow
through the Paria-Hackberry WSA and The
Cockscomb WSA. Lower Paria River-2 segment and
the entire eligible segments of Buckskin Gulch and
Wire Pass are within the Paria Canyon/Vermillion
Cliffs Wilderness Area (23 miles or 19 percent).
WSR designation would complement the BLM's
management of Wilderness and WSAs.
• Streamflow and Water Quality - The Paria River
and tributaries are free-flowing streams, although
intermittent. A mean flow of 9.08 cfs is recorded by
USGS south of the town of Tropic. High flows
typically occur during the spring runoff period and as
a result of summer thundershowers. Frequent
Al 1.14
Appendix I I
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
scouring of the river as a result of high flows
constantly affects channel morphology and the stage
of riparian ecosystems.
Utah Division of Water Quality has classified the
Paria River and tributaries from the State line to
headwaters as 2B, protected for secondary contact
recreation (boating, wading), 3A, protected for cold
water fish and other cold-water aquatic life, and 4,
protected for agricultural use.
The Paria generally is turbid and saline. The water
appears turbid for most of the year to the degree that
the substrate is not visible. Dissolved salt and
sediment loads are high, reducing the feasibility and
success of impoundments on the river. There is heavy
algal growth in pools during periods of low water.
River designation would further protect streamflow.
Federal, Public, State, Tribal, Local, or Other
Interests
Kane County Water Conservancy District does not
support WSR designation for the Paria River System.
They are specifically concerned about being able to
maintain the powerlines on the lower portion of the Paria
River and upgrading the crossing on Skutumpah road
over Bull Valley Gorge. However, WSR designation
may or may not affect the county's ability to improve the
crossing over the canyon, dependent on an individual
site specific assessment of impacts. This is not a
concern for this Plan, as Bull Valley Gorge is not
considered suitable. Powerlines would be able to be
maintained although upgrades would be evaluated in
light of impacts to river values.
Kane County Water Conservancy District also expressed
concern for the private property owners near Highway
89. They feel that those private property owners will not
be able to use their water rights if designation occurs.
They are also concerned that ranchers will not be able to
repair and build fences in the river corridor. Under the
WSR Act, designation neither gives nor implies
government control of private lands within the river
corridor. Although Congress (or the Secretary of the
Interior for 2(a)(ii) rivers) could include private lands
within the boundaries of the designated river area,
management restrictions would not apply.
There was also concern that motorized users will not be
able to access the Paria River Corridor as they have in
the past. Motorized and mechanized use would be
curtailed in this Plan.
Native American Indian tribes are concerned about rock
art in the canyons. WSR designation could contribute to
the protection of the rock art and surrounding area.
Ability to Manage
The Paria River study area is considered to be
manageable based on the current level and type of
activities taking place, and assuming that adequate staff
and funding is available to carry out management of a
designated WSR. Designation of the Paria River System
would slightly raise the level of management needed
above that being proposed in the Monument Plan. The
free-flowing character and outstandingly remarkable
values identified in the eligibility study can be protected
through management actions. If the rivers are
designated, a management plan would develop
management objectives and a strategy for long-term
protection of the river's outstandingly remarkable values
to the full extent of the WSR Act.
Ninety-six percent of the segments are on public lands.
Protective management has been in effect since
eligibility was determined, as outlined in BLM Manual
Section 8351. River protection is considered in
environmental assessments of proposed projects and in
all land use and activity plans.
Twenty percent of the river system is in a designated
Wilderness area. The majority of the remainder is on
public land is in WSAs. Dams could be constructed in
wilderness but not on WSR. Overlapping designations
complement WSR designation and provide additional
authority, protection, and guidance for the BLM to
manage the river if designated.
Historical or Existing Rights that Could be Adversely
Affected by Designation
No impact on existing or historical rights would occur as
a result of designation.
Estimated Cost
No additional easements or land acquisitions are
anticipated as a result of NWSRS designation. Section
6(b) of the National WSR Act specifically prohibits the
use of condemnation for fee title purchase of lands if 50
percent or more of the acreage within the river area
boundary is in public ownership (Federal, state or local
government). This is the case with both the Escalante
and Paria River Systems. It is estimated that an
additional $70,000 or 1 FTE would be needed to
develop, implement, and maintain actions identified in
the river plans.
All. 15
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Appendix I I
Table All. 3
Paria River System Suitable Segments
Segment
Segment
Description
Length
(Nearest
0.1 mile)
Tentative
Classification
Characteristics which
make the area a
worthy addition to
NWSRS
Current uses and land
ownership concerns
Resources and uses that
would be enhanced or
curtailed by designation
Federal, public, state,
tribal, local, or other
interests
Upper Paria
River - 1
Little Dry Valley
(T38S, R2W, S21)to
T41S, R1W, S7
22.0
Wild
• High quality
scenery, recreational
attraction, exposed
geologic strata and
arches, and historic
sites make this area a
worthy addition.
• The Paria River runs
through 3.1 miles of
private lands in the
Recreation segment.
• The landowner in the
lower segment
periodically constructs
a diversion utilizing
their water rights.
While this blocks the
flow temporarily, the
diversion is frequently
washed out by high
flows retaining the free-
flowing character .
• There is motorized use
and commercial
horseback rides in the
river corridor. It is
used as a livestock
driveway and historic
throughway.
• Motorized use would
be curtailed if
designated Wild
• Enhance southwestern
willow flycatcher
habitat
• Enhance deer
population and all other
wildlife if no OHV use
allowed.
• Kane County Water
Conservancy District
is concerned that
private property
owners will be
constrained from
using their water
rights or building
fences.
• They also are
concerned that
ranchers will not be
able to drive their
cattle down the Paria
like they do now.
• They are also
concerned that the
existing powerlines
could not be
maintained if
designated.
Upper Paria
River - 2
T41S,R1W, S7to
downstream side of
private property
south of Highway 89
(T42S, R1W, S28)
16.9
Recreational
Lower Paria
River - 1
Downstream side of
private property
(T43S, R1W, S10)to
wilderness boundary
(T43S, R1W, S23)
3.3
Recreational
• High quality
scenery, wilderness
area, high recreation
use, narrow canyon,
peregrine, and
historic travelway
make this a worthy
addition.
• Habitat for peregrine
and southwestern
willow flycatcher
would be enhanced
• 4.9 miles is in the
designated Paria-
Vermilion Cliffs
Wilderness area
outside GSENM
boundaries
Lower Paria
River - 2
Segment in
wilderness (T43S,
R1W, S23toT44S,
R1W, S12)
4.8
Wild
Deer Creek
Canyon
Headwaters (T40S,
R3W, SI) to Paria
River (T40S, R2W,
S4)
5.1
Wild
• High quality scenery
and recreation values
make this a worthy
addition.
All. 16
Appendix
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Table Al 1.3
Paria River System Suitable Segments
Segment
Segment
Length
Tentative
Characteristics which
Current uses and land
Resources and uses that
Federal, public, state,
Description
(Nearest
Classification
make the area a
ownership concerns
would be enhanced or
tribal, local, or other
0.1 mile)
worthy addition to
NWSRS
curtailed by designation
interests
Snake Creek
Entire (T39S, R2W,
S26 to T40S, R2W,
S10)
4.7
Wild
• High quality scenery
and recreation values
make this a worthy
addition.
Hogeye
Entire (T40S, R2W,
6.3
Wild
• High quality scenery
Creek
S 1 to T40S, R2W,
S26)
and recreation values
make this a worthy
addition.
Kitchen
T40S, R2W, S28 to
1.2
Wild
• High quality scenery
Canyon
Starlight Canyon
(T40S, R2W, S34)
makes this a worthy
addition to the
system.
Starlight
Entire (T41S, R2W,
4.9
Wild
• High quality scenery
Canyon
S7 to T40S, R2VV,
S35)
makes this a worthy
addition to the
system.
Lower
Bull Valley Gorge
1.5
Wild
• High quality
• Motorized use
• Motorized use would
Sheep Creek
(T39S, R2W, S7) to
scenery, recreational
• Livestock driveway
be curtailed if classified
Paria River (T39S,
values, a known
• Historic throughway
Wild
R2W, S17)
spotted owl sighting
make this a worthy
addition to the
NWSRS.
Hackberry
Top(T38S, R1W,
20.0
Wild
• Recreational and
• Limited OHV use at
• Motorized use would
Creek
S29) to Cottonwood
Creek
scenic values,
spotted owls, and
riparian area make
this a worthy
addition to the
system.
upper and lower ends.
be curtailed if classified
Wild.
Al 1.17
Wild and Scenic River Suitability
Appendix I I
Table Al 1.3
Paria River System Suitable Segments
Segment
Segment
Description
Length
(Nearest
0.1 mile)
Tentative
Classification
Characteristics which
make the area a
worthy addition to
NWSRS
Current uses and land
ownership concerns
Resources and uses that
would be enhanced or
curtailed by designation
Federal, public, state,
tribal, local, or other
interests
Lower
Cottonwood
Creek
Confluence with
Hackberry Creek to
Paria River
2.9
Recreational
• Recreational values
and ecological
continuity make this
a worthy addition to
the system.
• 1 .3 miles run through
private lands.
Buckskin
Gulch
Wilderness
boundary (T43S,
R2W, SI 5) to Paria
River (T44S, R1W,
S12)
18.0
Wild
• High quality
scenery, high
recreational use, slot
canyons make this a
worthy addition.
• There is a lone
watering hole in this
segment used for
livestock.
• Motorized vehicles are
used to maintain range
improvements.
• Spring and vegetation
could be enhanced.
• These segments are in
the designated Paria-
Vermilion Cliffs
Wilderness area
outside GSENM
boundaries.
Table Al 1.4
Paria River System Segment Determined Non-Suitable
Segment
Segment
Description
Length
(Nearest 0.1
mile)
Characteristics which do or do not
make the area a worthy addition to
NWSRS
Current uses and
land ownership
concerns
Resources and uses that
would be enhanced or
curtailed by designation
Federal, public, state,
tribal, local, or other
interests
Bull Valley
Gorge
Little Bull Valley
(T38S, R3W,
S28) to Sheep
Creek (T39S,
R2W, S7)
5.9
• High quality scenery, recreational
values related to slot canyons,
Mexican spotted owls
• The BLM felt that the quality of river
characteristics in this segment would
not significantly enhance nor
contribute to the NWSRS
Al I. II
Appendix 12
Economic Conditions
Appendix 1 2
Economic Conditions
INTRODUCTION
The Southwest region includes five counties: Beaver, Garfield, Kane,
Iron, and Washington. The region also encompasses the area covered by
the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Cedar City District. These
five counties are also included in the Five County Association of
Governments and in the Southwest Multi-County District. The counties
of the region are linked by common problems, resources, and
opportunities. The people of the region are interdependent economically
and socially, and the region forms a functional economy. The region has
a closed labor market in the sense that about 90 percent of the income
generated in the region is also received there, and, conversely, about 90
percent of the income received in the region is also generated there. For
these reasons the impacts of the Proposed Management plan have been
modeled at the regional level.
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) is located in
both Garfield and Kane Counties and includes over 1.8 million acres.
The population in both Kane and Garfield Counties can be characterized
relative to the State as small, sparsely distributed, increasing slowly, and
old. Approximately 10,500 people live in the area. Both counties have
among the lowest population per square mile of any of the counties in
Utah. The two largest towns in the area are Kanab, with approximately
3,600 people, and Panguitch, with approximately 1,400 people.
Population growth in the counties has generally been lower than the state
average. In Garfield County, net out-migration has occurred in five of
the past ten years. Kane County's population has been increasing at a
faster rate than in Garfield County, and net out-migration has only
occurred in two of the past ten years.
The populations in both counties are among the oldest in the State. For
instance, the median age in Garfield County of 31.8 years is the sixth
highest in the State, Kane County is eight highest, with a median age of
30.5.
These unique demographic characteristics are closely associated with the
economic realities faced by both counties. The population is small
because there are relatively few employment opportunities for local
residents. The population is old and net out migration is common
because many of those aging into the labor force have to leave to find
work.
The performance of the economies in Kane and Garfield Counties can be
characterized as cyclical and sluggish compared to the vibrant
performance of the State's economy in recent years. Both counties
struggle with unemployment rates higher than the state average, per
capita personal income lower than the State average, and a lack of
employment diversity. For instance, in Garfield County unemployment
is currently the second highest in the State at 8.3 percent, and
unemployment rates have been in the double digits in five of the past ten
years. Per capita income in Garfield County is estimated to be $16,900,
just 83 percent of the State average. Kane County is faring better, with
an unemployment rate of 4. 1 percent and per capita personal income of
$19,900, close to the State average of $20,400.
Many of the economic problems in both counties can be explained by a
general lack of diversity in the economic structure. The area relies
heavily on the economic performance of just four major industries:
agriculture, government, timber and tourism. The first three of these
industries are fairly stagnant or declining. For example, while agriculture
is an important economic resource to both counties, employment in
agriculture has been stagnant and at times declining for many years.
Employment in the timber industry has been cyclical and declining, as
sawmills have downsized and closed. Employment in local, state, and
Federal government has been increasing, but slowly. It is only in the
tourism industry that employment growth has been sustained. In fact, the
economies' dependence on the tourism industry has steadily increased.
AI2.I
Economic Conditions
Appendix 1 2
Modeling the Impacts of the Proposed Management Plan
The impacts of the proposed management plan are driven by these
factors: BLM spending and employment, and spending by visitors. The
direct, indirect and induced effects of this spending and employment on
population, employment, employee earnings, and local government
revenues in the Southwest region are the focus of this analysis. Below is
an illustration of the regional modeling framework used for the analysis.
Direct Spending
The base budget for the Monument was projected at approximately
$3 million. Spending above that level is assumed to be new spending
associated with the Proposed Management Plan. For 1998 that figure is
$3.4 million. In 1999, $4.3 million is assumed. In the year 2000
spending of $ 1 1 million is assumed, about two-thirds of which will be
spent on construction, furniture and/or exhibits. Afterwards (2001 to
2012), spending is assumed to be approximately $3.4 million.
Direct Employment
Employment remains constant for the years 1998 to 2012.
Approximately 30 jobs are associated with the Proposed Management
Plan.
Visitors, Projections and Spending
Visitor Days
Visitor days were estimated using BLM data on visitor counts and
activities. The information was compared to data collected at comparable
destination in the Southwest region and at other national destinations.
Analysis of BLM Visitation Data for 1997 and 1996 Baseline
Although the methodology used by the National Park Service differs
from the methodology to develop GSENM visitor days estimates,
Local
Information
Worksheet
Visitation at
Comparable
Destinations
Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument
Economic, Demographic, Fiscal Impacts
Regional Modeling Framework
Visitor
Spending per
Visitor Day
t
1997 Visitor
Days, and
Projections by
Alternative and
for Baseline
Direct Basic
Employment and
Spending
f I
Indirect Basic
Employment and
Spending
\
/
Economic and
Demographic
Projections
Demographic
Impacts
Local
Expenditure
Economic
Impacts
Direct, Indirect,
and Induced
Spending
Local Revenue
AI2.2
Appendix 12
Economic Conditions
comparing the estimates offers a frame of reference. The 1997 estimated
visitor days at GSENM are: more than twice the estimates for Capitol
Reef; about half of visitor days at Canyonlands; two-thirds of visitor days
at Arches; a quarter of visitor days at Bryce Canyon; and 15 percent of
visitor days at Zion National Park.
Visitors to GSENM participate in a broad range of activities. BLM
records indicate that many of the visitor days are accounted for by
backpackers. Off-highway-vehicle (OHV) use, camping, and hunting are
also popular activities in the Monument. The category "other" includes
activities such as biking, fishing, nature study, photography, picnicking,
and viewing wildlife, as well as other activities. This category accounts
for the second highest percent of visitor days. Camping and hunting are
also significant activities in the Monument.
1997 GSENM Visitor Days by Activity
Activity
Visitor
Days
Camping
Backpac
king
Hunting
Hiking
Driving
OHV
Other
Total
30,460
80,428
23,483
7,314
16,197
36,000
13,500
207,382
1997 Visitor Days
Recreation
Recreation
Visitor
Park Name
Visits
Hours
Days
Arches NP
858,525
3,715,704
309,642
Bryce Canyon NP
1,174,824
9,336,175
778,015
Canyonlands NP
432,697
4,461,952
371,829
Capitol Reef NP
625,680
1,142,783
95,232
Cedar Breaks NM
608,399
1,273,678
106,140
G S- Escalante NM
192,096
2,488,584
207,382
Zion National Park
2,445,534
16,651,269
1,387,606
A baseline projection of visitation was also developed. The methodology
for developing the baseline was similar to that used for 1997. However,
counting procedures are judged to be more accurate in 1997 than in 1996
by BLM officials. Because of this, the estimate for 1996 produced using
the same methodology as the 1997 estimate for visitor days was
determined to be too low; half of the difference between the 1996
estimate and the 1997 estimate was attributed to undercounting.The
purpose of the baseline is to analyze how the visitation associated with
the Proposed Management Plan differs from what would have occurred
in the area without designation of the Monument. The baseline is a
projection of 1996 visitor days (178,097) assuming a constant growth
rate of 4.25 percent. This is the same rate at other national destinations in
Southern Utah.
Again, the baseline for these GSENM visitor projections is visitation that
would have occurred in the absence of national monument designation.
The impacts of this visitation are assumed to be embedded in the regional
economic and demographic projections* The impacts of the various
management plans represent deviations from this visitation baseline path.
However, part of the increase in visitation may come at the expense of
tourism to other attractions in the area. This has not been formally
modeled. Instead, a 5 percent "crowding out" factor has been assumed
for both positive and negative visitation impacts.
AI2.3
Economic Conditions
Appendix 12
Visitor Projections
Visitor Day Projections for the Proposed Management Plan
The BLM projected visitor days for five categories of use: motorized
use, scenic driving, mountain biking, backpacking, and car camping.
These five categories of uses accounted for almost 80 percent of visitor
days in 1997. Projections developed by the BLM are for the year 2012.
The ratio of the five categories to total visitor days are assumed to remain
constant. The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) holds
the growth rates constant throughout the projection horizon.
Visitor Days Projections
for the Proposed Mmagement Plan Compared
to Baseline 1996 to 2012
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
,^+
+-+'+ .
+^'+ . ■'■"
***£*~~
+?"-■
j Baseline
(._ Proposed
Management Plan
1
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
With this Plan, visitor days are projected to grow from 207,382 in 1997
to 442,633 in 2012. Visitor days are projected to increase for all
categories of use. Scenic driving is projected to triple from 16,200 visitor
days in 1997 to 48,600 in 2012. All-terrain-vehicle (ATV) use is
expected to double from 35,000 visitor days in 1997 to 70,000 in 2012.
Mountain biking is assumed to increase from 3,000 visitor days in 1997
to 12,000 in 2012. Backpacking is assumed to double from 80,500
visitor days in 1997 to 161,000 in 2012. Car camping is assumed to
increase from 30,500 visitor days in 1997 to 61,000 in 2012. Other uses
increase from 42, 182 in 1997 to 90,033 in 2012.
Visitor Spending
An estimate of visitor spending of $20 per visitor day was selected for the
analysis. A review of six different surveys of visitor expenditures and
reliance on assumptions about the area and the types of visitors support
this estimate, and the estimates of spending by industry.
Proposed Visitor Expenditures
(Per Visitor Per Day Spending)
Earing and Drinking
$4.40
22%
Hotel and Personal Services
$4.00
20%
Transportation
$160
8%
Trade
$7.00
35%
Amusement and Recreation
$3.00
15%
Average Daily Visitor Spending
$20.00
100%
Direct, Indirect, and Induced Impacts of the Proposed Management
Plan
Direct and indirect employment impacts used as inputs to the Utah
Process Economic and Demographic (UPED) model were estimated
using the base period 1995 Utah Multi-Regional Input-Output (UMRIO-
95) model of Southwest Utah and assumptions developed by the
monument planning team and GOPB. (Technical documentation of the
UMRIO-95 model will be forthcoming on the Internet at
AI2.4
Appendix 12
Economic Conditions
http://www.govemor.state.ut.us/dea. UPED is a structural equation,
economic-demographic model that relates changes in economic structure
to demographic changes. Documentation is available at:
http://www.governor.state.ut.us/dea/publications/MODEL/Model.htm).
Direct impacts involve the BLM's activity and visitor spending. It was
assumed that BLM would have an additional $3.4 million budget and
about 30 jobs over what would have been the case without Monument
designation.
Socio-Economic Impacts of the Proposed Management Plan
Population
An increase of 244 people is projected for 1998. The largest increase in
population is for the year 2000, in which 961 people are projected.
However, in 2001 this number declines to 284 and grows slowly each
year to reach 422 in 2012.
Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument
Visitor Days in 1997 and Projected for 2012
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Backpacking
T | ATV
I Camping
Scenic Driving
/5 Mountain Biking
All Others
•
EriLjff
//////i
1997
2012
Employment
Employment is projected to increase by 157 in 1998. The largest
increase in employment is 615 in the year 2000. However, in 2001 this
number declines to 172, then increases slowly to 248 in 2012.
Earnings
Employees earnings are projected to be $4.6 million in 1998, peak at
$18.4 million in 2000, then grow from $4.9 million in 2001 to
$6.6 million in 2012.
Local Government Revenues and Expenditures
Local government revenues are projected to be $361,000 in 1998, peak at
$1,356,000 in 2000, then increase steadily from $397,000 in 2001 to
$598,000 in 2012. Local government expenditures follow the same path,
and are projected to be $201,000 in 1998, peak at $791,000 in 2000, then
increase steadily from $232,000 in 2001 to $362,000 in 2012. The
results of this are net revenues of $160,000 projected for 1998, peaking at
$565,000 in 2000, then increasing steadily from $165,000 in 2001 to
$236,000 in 2012.
AI2.5
Economic Conditions
Appendix 12
Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Impacts to the
Southwest Region from the
GSENM Proposed Management Plan
Visitor
Days
1998 218,134
1999 229,443
2000 241,338
2001 253,850
2002 267,011
2003 280,854
2004 295,414
2005 310,730
2006 326,839
2007 343,784
2008 361,607
2009 380,355
2010 400,074
2011 420,816
2012 442,633
Earnings Revenue Expenditures Net Revenue
Population
244
338
961
284
299
309
319
328
344
347
360
372
388
405
422
2005 310,730
328
195
2006 326,839
344
203
2007 343,784
347
209
2008 361,607
360
215
2009 380,355
372
222
2010 400,074
388
231
Employment
157
215
615
172
179
183
190
195
203
209
215
222
231
240
248
($000)
4,616
6,459
18,446
4,940
5,132
5,241
5,526
5,412
5,762
5,913
5,947
6,079
6,279
6,444
6,636
($000)
361
496
1,356
397
416
429
455
453
485
502
512
530
553
574
598
($000)
201
278
791
232
244
253
262
274
295
299
310
320
334
349
362
Impacts Beyond the Scope of this Study
The socio-economic impacts reported are driven by two factors: direct
BLM spending and employment, and spending by visitors. The direct,
indirect and induced effects of this spending on population, employment,
employee earnings, and government revenues in the Southwest region are
the focus of this analysis. The analysis relies on the current structure of
the economy and historical averages to estimate these impacts.
However, the economy in Southwest Utah will be affected by many
factors that are not directly the result of BLM actions, but may be
influenced by how the Monument is managed. Some of these factors
may have socio-economic impacts that are even larger than those
associated with the Proposed Management Plan analyzed here.
($000)
160
218
565
165
172
176
193
179
189
203
202
210
219
225
236
Private enterprises, local government and others will make
decisions regarding infrastructure, business development,
service expansions and the like. These decisions may
result in significant economic impacts. For example, a
decisionmade by a private business to open a lodging
establishment could have the effects of capturing more
visitor spending, employing more people, and generating
higher tax revenues. Similarly, decisions made about
restaurants, tow truck companies, car rental companies,
outdoor supplies sales/rental companies, grocery stores,
tour guides (air, horseback, jeep, etc.), and research
projects are not decisions made by the BLM, but impact
the Southwest economy and are not captured in this
analysis. Another example of factors beyond the scope of
this analysis are actions taken by local governments.
Local governments can increase or decrease levels of
services such as emergency search and rescue, law
enforcement, emergency medical services, road
maintenance, police protection, fire protection, waste
management services, etc. Decisions about service levels
will effect revenues and expenditures.
Many small rural communities in the western United
States that have been supported by extractive industries or agriculture
have experienced a transition toward greater reliance on tourism. This of
course drives a different type of development in these communities,
bringing in services that had not previously been present and changing
the economies and character of these communities. Property values are
often driven upward and greater demands are made on local governments
to provide for the increased infrastructure and service needs.
Unfortunately, adequate data does not exist to systematically evaluate
these potential impacts to the area.
AI2.6
References
References
Betencourt, J. 1984. Late Quaternary Plant Zonation and Climate in
Southeastern Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 44: 1-32.
Welsh, S.L. and C.A. Toft. 1981. Biotic Communities of Hanging
Gardens in Southeastern Utah. National Geographic Society Research
Reports 13:663-681.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 1997. Introduction to Microbiotic Crusts.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999.
Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection From Human and Land
Use Disturbances. Salt Lake City, Utah. 41 pp.
R.I
Glossary
Glossary
ACTIVE PREFERENCE: The total
number of animal unit months of forage that
can be licensed.
AIR QUALITY: A measure of the health-
related and visual characteristics of the air,
often derived from quantitative measurements
of the concentrations of specific injurious or
contaminating substances.
AIR QUALITY CLASS I AND II AREAS:
Regions in attainment areas where
maintenance of existing good air quality is of
high priority. Class I areas are those that
have the most stringent degree of protection
from future degradation of air quality. Class
II areas permit moderate deterioration of
existing air quality.
ALLOCATION: Process to specifically
assign use between and ration among
competing users for a particular area of public
land or related waters.
ALLOTMENT: An area allocated for
livestock use by one or more qualified
grazing permittees including prescribed
numbers and kinds of livestock under one
plan of management.
ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
(AMP): A written program of livestock
grazing management including supportive
measures, if required. An AMP is designed
to attain specific management goals in a
grazing allotment and is prepared
cooperatively with the permittee(s) or
lessee(s).
ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV): All-
terrain vehicle - 42" width or smaller. A
small, amphibious motor vehicle with wheels
or tractor treads for traveling over rough
ground, snow, or ice, as well as on water.
ALTERNATIVE: One of at least two
proposed means of accomplishing planning
objectives.
ANALYSIS: The examination of existing
and/or recommended management needs and
their relationships to discover and display the
outputs, benefits, effects, and consequences
of initiating a proposed action.
ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM): The
amount of forage required to sustain the
equivalent of 1 cow for 1 month; 1 wild horse
for 1 month; or 5 sheep for 1 month; 8.9 deer
for 1 month (winter season), 5.8 deer for 1
month (summer season); 9.6 antelope for 1
month; 5.5 bighorn sheep for 1 month; 2.2
burros for 1 month; 1 .2 elk for 1 month
(winter season) or 2.1 elk for 1 month (year-
long) (usually 800 lbs. of useable air-dried
forage).
AQUATIC: Living or growing in or on the
water.
AQUIFER: Stratum or zone below the
surface of the earth capable of producing
water, as from a well. A saturated bed,
formation, or group of formations which yield
water in sufficient quantity to be of
consequence as a source of supply. An
aquifer acts as a transmission conduit and
storage reservoir.
ARCH: A natural opening through a narrow
wall or plate of rock.
ARCHAEOLOGY: The scientific study of
the life and culture of past, especially ancient,
peoples, as by excavation of ancient cities,
relics, artifacts, etc.
AREA OF CRITICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
(ACEC): An area of 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/provide safety from natural hazards.
BIODIVERSITY: The variety of life and its
processes, and the interrelationships within
and among various levels of ecological
organization. Conservation, protection, and
restoration of biological species and genetic
diversity are needed to sustain the health of
existing biological systems. Federal resource
management agencies must examine the
implications of management actions and
development decisions on regional and local
biodiversity.
G.I
Glossary
BIOLOGICAL SOIL CRUSTS:
Composed of cyanobacteria, green and brown
algae, mosses, and lichens that bind together
with soil particles to create a crust.
BITUMEN: Any of various mixtures of
hydrocarbons such as asphalt, tar, or
petroleum.
CENOMANIAN-SANTONIAN AGES:
Span of geologic ages including Cenomanian,
Turanian, Coniacian, and Santonian during
Late Cretaceous time, 98 to 84 million years
ago.
CONCESSIONAIRE: Someone who holds
a long term authorization to possess and use
public lands to provide recreation facilities
and services for a fixed period of time
authorized under BLM regulations.
CONSULTATION: A meeting to discuss,
decide, or plan something.
CRYPTOBIOTIC CRUST: See
BIOLOGICAL SOIL CRUSTS
CRYPTOGAM: A plant that bears no
flowers or seeds but propagates by means of
spores. Cryptogamic organisms make up a
cryptogamic crust or surface on certain soils.
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (cfs): As a
rate of stream flow, a cubic foot of water
passing a referenced section in 1 second of
time. One cfs flowing for 24 hours will yield
1 .983 acre-feet of water.
CULTURAL RESOURCES: Those
resources of historical and archaeological
significance.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: Additional
and interactive combinations of activities that
are not necessarily individually quantitatively
different, but together require different
management techniques and applications.
Cumulative impacts occur when there are
multiple infringements on the same values.
DIRT BIKE: Non-street legal motorcycle.
EASEMENT: A right or privilege one may
have on another's land.
ECOSYSTEM: A system made up of a
community of animals, plants, and bacteria
and its interrelated physical and chemical
environment.
ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENT: A section
of a river that qualifies for inclusion into the
National Wild and Scenic River System
through determination that it is free-flowing
and with its adjacent land area possessing at
least one river-related value considered to be
outstandingly remarkable.
ENDANGERED SPECDXS: Any animal or
plant species in danger of extinction
throughout all of a significant portion of its
range. These species are listed by the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
EPHEMERAL STREAM: A stream that
flows only in direct response to precipitation,
and whose channel is at all times above the
water table.
EQUESTRIAN: Of horses, horsemen, or
horseback riding.
FAUNA: The animals of a specified region
or time.
FLOODPLAIN: A plain along a river,
formed from sediment deposited by floods.
FLORA: The plants of a specified region or
time.
FORAGE: Vegetation of all forms available
and of a type used for animal consumption.
FORESTRY PRODUCT AREAS: Forest
lands stocked with other than timber species
(i.e., pinon, juniper, mountain mahogany,
etc.). Uses of the products are generally
limited to firewood, posts, and harvest of
pinon pine nuts
FORMATION: The primary unit in
stratigraphy consisting of a succession of
strata useful for mapping or description.
Most formations possess certain lithologic
features that may indicate genetic
relationships.
FOSSDL: The remains or traces of animals
or plants which have been preserved by
natural causes in the earth's crust exclusive of
G.2
Glossary
organisms which have been buried since the
beginning of historic times.
FOUR-WHEEL-DRIVE (4WD): Four-
wheel-drive, differential transfer case
disperses 50/50 front and rear displacement.
Trucks, cars, buses, or sport utility vehicles
with high clearance and the ability to operate
off-pavement as well as on highways.
FUNCTIONING-AT-RISK: Riparian-
wetland areas that are in functional condition
but an existing soil, water, or vegetation
attribute makes them susceptible to
degradation.
GEOLOGY: The science which studies the
Earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and
the changes it has undergone or is
undergoing.
GRAZING ALLOTMENT
CATEGORIES: Direction under which all
grazing allotments are categorized for
management purposes into three groups. The
overall objectives are: M-maintain the
current resource conditions; I-improve the
current resource conditions; and C-custodial
manage the existing resource values.
GRAZING PERMIT: An authorization
which allows grazing on public lands.
Permits specify class of livestock on a
designated area during specified seasons each
year. Permits are of two types: preference
(10 year) and temporary nonrenewable (1
year).
GRAZING PREFERENCE: The total
number (active and suspended non-use) of
animal unit months of livestock grazing on
public land apportioned and attached to base
property owned or controlled by a permittee.
GRAZING SYSTEM: A prescribed method
of grazing a range allotment having two or
more pastures or management units to
provide periodic rest for each unit.
HABITAT: A specific set of physical
conditions in a geographic area(s) that
surrounds a single species, a group of species,
or a large community. In wildlife
management, the major components of
habitat are food, water, cover, and living
space.
HANGING GARDEN: Small pockets of
vegetative associations surrounding "canyon-
wall" springs that often contain a wide variety
of unique plant and insect species. Hanging
gardens are characteristic of flat-lying strata
with deeply incised canyons of the Colorado
Plateau.
HYDROCARBON: An organic compound
containing only hydrogen and carbon, such as
petroleum or crude oil.
HYDROLOGY: The science dealing with
the properties, distribution, and circulation of
water.
IMPACT: Synonymous with effects.
Includes ecological, aesthetic, historic,
cultural, economic, social, or health, whether
direct, indirect, or cumulative. Impacts may
also include those resulting from actions
which may have both beneficial and
detrimental (adverse) effects. Impacts may be
considered as direct, indirect, or cumulative:
• Direct: Impacts caused by an action an
occurring at the same time and place.
• Indirect: Impacts caused by the proposed
action and occurring later in time or farther
removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable.
• Cumulative: Those which result from the
incremental impact of the action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency or person undertakes such
other actions.
INHOLDING: A non-Federal parcel of land
that is completely surrounded by Federal
land.
INSTANT STUDY AREA (ISA): A
designation of all primitive or natural areas
formally identified prior to November 1,
1975, that were to be studied for wilderness
suitability and recommended to the President
by July 1, 1980 as mandated under Section
603 of FLPMA.
INTERIM MANAGEMENT POLICY
(IMP): An interim measure governing lands
under wilderness review. This policy protects
Wilderness Study Areas from impairment of
their suitability as wilderness.
G.3
Glossary
INTERMITTENT STREAM: Seasonal
stream. A stream that flows only at certain
times of the year when it receives water from
springs or from some surface source, such as
melting snow in mountainous areas.
INVERTEBRATE SPECIES: Any animal
without a backbone or spinal column.
KIND OR CLASS OF LIVESTOCK:
• Kind: The species of domestic livestock-
cattle and sheep.
• Class: The age class (i.e., yearling or
cows) of a species of livestock.
KNOWN GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES:
Technically, the known geologic structure of
a producing oil or gas field is construed by
the Geological Survey to be the trap, whether
structural or stratigraphic, in which an
accumulation of oil or gas has taken place,
and the limits of said trap, irrespective of the
degree to which it may be occupied by oil or
gas. Known geologic structures are
frequently much more extensive than the
pools of oil or gas they may contain, and the
extent and place of any oil or gas
accumulation therein, though influenced by
structure, is finally determined by such
factors as stratigraphy, hydrocarbon supply,
sand conditions, and hydrostatic pressure.
The Geological Survey seeks to evaluate the
net effect of these several factors in terms of
reasonably presumptive productive acreage
and, as far as practicable, to conform the
results, modified to include a fair safety
margin, to the subsurface contours of the
dominant structural feature involved.
LAND USE PLAN: A plan that reflects an
analysis of activity systems and a carefully
studied estimate of future land requirements
for expansion, growth control, and
revitalization or renewal. The plan shows
how development in the area should proceed
in the future to insure the best possible
physical environment for living, the most
economic and environmentally sensitive use
of land, and the proper balance in use. The
land use plan embodies a proposal as to how
land should be used in the future, recognizing
local objectives and generally accepted
principals of health, safety, convenience,
economy, and general living amenities.
LEASE: An authorization or contract by
which one party (lessor) conveys the use of
property, such as real estate, to another
(lessee) in return for rental payments. In the
case of oil, gas, and coal leases in the
Monument, the U.S. Department of Interior is
a lessor and has conveyed the right to
explore and develop these resources to
corporations or individuals on various land
tracts. In addition to rental payments, lessees
also pay royalties (a percentage of value) to
the lessor from resource production.
LEASABLE MINERAL: A mineral such as
coal, oil shale, oil and gas, phosphate, potash,
sodium, geothermal resources, and all other
minerals that may be developed under the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended.
LOCATABLE MINERAL: Any valuable
mineral that is not saleable or leasable
including gold, silver, copper, uranium, etc.,
that may be developed under the General
Mining Law of 1872.
MANAGEMENT IGNITED FIRE:
Controlled application of fire to natural fuels
under conditions of weather, fuel moisture,
and soil moisture that will allow confinement
of the fire to a predetermined area and, at the
same time, will produce the intensity of heat
and rate of spread required to accomplish
certain planned benefits to one or more
objectives to wildlife, livestock, and
watershed values. The overall objectives are
to employ fire scientifically to realize
maximum net benefits at minimum
environmental damage and acceptable cost.
MIGRATORY: A group of people, or of
birds, fishes, or plants that move from one
region to another with the change of seasons
or climate.
MINERAL ENTRY: The location of
mining claims by an individual to protect
his/her right to a valuable mineral.
MINERAL MATERIALS: Refer to
saleable minerals.
MINERAL POTENTIAL:
• High: Those lands currently producing oil
or gas or having high current industry
interest.
G.4
Glossary
• Moderate: Those lands which have had oil
and gas shows in favorable geologic
environments.
• Low: Those lands where either the
geologic environment appears to be
favorable for the accumulation of oil and
gas, or where little or no information is
available to evaluate the oil and gas
potential.
MINERAL WITHDRAWAL: A
withdrawal of public lands which are
potentially valuable for leasable minerals.
This precludes the disposal of the lands
except with a mineral reservation, unless the
lands are found to not be valuable for
minerals.
MINIMUM IMPACT FILMING: A
filming activity which does not involve:
• impact to sensitive habitat or species
• impact to Native American Indian sacred
rites
• use of explosives or major use of
pyrotechnics
• more than minimum impacts to land, air, or
water
• use of exotic species with danger of
introduction into the area
• adverse impacts to sensitive resources
including historic, cultural, or
paleontological sites; sensitive soils; relict
environments; wetlands or riparian areas.
• use of heavy equipment
• use of vehicles off designated routes
• set construction
• significant restriction of public access
• significant use of domestic livestock
• aircraft taking off, landing, or flying less
than 1 ,000 feet above the site
• 15 or more production vehicles, or 75 or
more people
• continue in excess of 10 days
MITIGATING MEASURES: Constraints,
requirements, or conditions imposed to
reduce the significance of or eliminate an
anticipated impact to environmental,
socioeconomic, or other resource value from
a proposed land use. Committed mitigating
measures are those measures BLM is
committed to enforce (i.e., all applicable laws
and their implementing regulations).
MOUNTAIN BICYCLE: Bicycle designed
for off-pavement use. Generally are multi-
geared with fat knobby tires. Frames and tire
rims are stronger than road bicycles.
Sometimes referred to in this document as a
mechanized vehicle.
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC
RIVERS SYSTEM: Established by the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1958 to
protect rivers and their immediate
environments that have outstanding scenic,
recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife,
historic, cultural, and other similar values and
are preserved in free-flowing conditions. The
system provides for the designation of three
types of rivers:
• Recreation: Rivers or sections of rivers
readily accessible by road or railroad that
may have some development along then-
shorelines and may have undergone some
impoundment or diversion in the past.
• Scenic: Rivers or sections of rivers free of
impoundments, with shorelines or
watersheds still largely undeveloped, but
accessible in places by road.
• Wild: Rivers or sections of rivers free of
impoundments and generally inaccessible
except by trails, with essentially primitive
watersheds or shorelines and unpolluted
waters.
NATURALNESS: An area which
"generally appears to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with the
imprint of man's work substantially
unnoticeable." (Section 2c, WILDERNESS
ACT).
NON-FUNCTIONING: Riparian-wetland
areas that clearly are not providing adequate
vegetation, landform, or large woody debris
to dissipate stream energy associated with
high flows.
OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES (OHV):
Any motorized vehicle designed for or
capable of cross-country travel over lands,
water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swamp-land,
or other terrain.
G.5
Glossary
OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE
DESIGNATIONS:
• Open: Designated areas where OHVs may
be operated.
• Limited: Designated areas and trails
where the use of an OHV is subject to
restrictions, such as limiting the dates and
times of use (seasonal restrictions); limiting
use to designated roads and trails; limiting
use to existing roads and trails.
Combinations of restrictions are possible.
• Closed: Designated areas, roads, and trails
where the use of an OHV is permanently or
temporarily prohibited. Emergency use of
vehicles is allowed.
OUTSTANDING: Standing out among
others of its kind; distinguished; excellent.
OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREA
(ON A): These are established to preserve
scenic values and areas of natural wonder.
The preservation of these resources in their
natural condition is the primary management
objective. Access roads, parking areas, and
public use facilities are normally located on
the periphery of the area. The public is
encouraged to walk into the area for
recreation purposes wherever feasible.
PALEONTOLOGY: The branch of geology
that deals with life forms from the past,
especially prehistoric life forms, through the
study of plant and animal fossils.
PERCHED WATER TABLE: Water table
above an impermeable bed underlain by
unsaturated rocks of sufficient permeability to
allow movement of ground water.
PERENNIAL STREAM: A stream that
flows continuously. Perennial streams are
generally associated with a water table in the
localities through which they flow.
PERMIT: A short-term, revocable
authorization to use public lands for specific
purposes.
PERMITTEE: (Livestock Operator) A
person or organization legally permitted to
graze a specific number and class of livestock
on designated areas of public land during
specified seasons each year.
PETRIFIED WOOD: Fossilization of
wood through introduction or replacement by
silica (silicified wood) in such a manner that
the original form and structure of the wood is
preserved.
PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION: Region of
similar geologic structure and climate with a
unified history of land formation.
PLACER DEPOSIT: A mass of gravel,
sand, or similar material derived from
weathering and erosion of bedrock. These
masses often contain heavy mineral grains
concentrated due to the action of water.
PREY SPECIES: An animal taken by a
predator as food.
PROPERLY FUNCTIONING
CONDITION (PFC): Riparian- wetland
areas are functioning properly when adequate
vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is
present to dissipate stream energy associated
with high water flows, thereby reducing
erosion and improving water quality; filter
sediment; capture bedload, and aid floodplain
development; improve flood-water retention
and ground- water recharge; develop root
masses that stabilize streambanks against
cutting action; develop diverse ponding and
channel characteristics to provide the habitat
and the water depth, duration, and
temperature necessary for fish production,
waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and
support greater biodiversity.
RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS: Any
activity or program on or relating to
rangelands that is designed to improve forage
production, change vegetation composition,
control patterns of use, provide water,
stabilize soil and water conditions, and
enhance habitat for livestock, wildlife, and
wild horses and burros. Rangeland
improvements include land treatments (e.g.,
chaining, seeding, burning, etc.), stockwater
developments, fences, and trails.
RAPTORS: Birds of prey, such as the eagle,
falcon, hawk, owl, or vulture.
RELICT PLANT COMMUNITY: Areas
of plants that have persisted despite the
pronounced warming and drying of the
interior west over the last few thousand years
G.6
Glossary
and/or have not been influenced by settlement
and post-settlement activities.
RESEARCH NATURAL AREA (RNA):
A natural area established and maintained for
research and education, which may include:
• typical or unusual plant or animal types,
associations, or other biotic phenomena
• characteristic or outstanding geologic, soil,
or aquatic features or processes.
The public may be excluded or restricted
from such areas to protect studies.
RIGHT-OF-WAY: Federal land authorized
to be used or occupied for the construction,
operation, maintenance, and termination of a
project, pursuant to a ROW authorization.
RIPARIAN HABITAT: Riparian habitat is
defined as an area of land directly influenced
by permanent (surface or subsurface) water.
They have visible vegetation or physical
characteristics reflective of permanent water
influence. Lake shores and stream-banks are
typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites
as ephemeral streams or washes that do not
exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent
upon free water in the soil.
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Plants
adapted to moist growing conditions along
streams, waterways, ponds, etc.
ROUTE: A path, way, trail, road, or other
established travel corridor.
SALEABLE MINERALS: Minerals that
may be sold under the Material Sale Act of
1947, as amended. Included are common
varieties of sand, stone, gravel, and clay.
SEASON-OF-USE: The timing of livestock
grazing on a rangeland area.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES: Wildlife
and plant species either Federally listed or
proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened; state-listed or BLM determined
priority species.
STRATIGRAPHY: The branch of geology
which treats the formation, composition,
sequence, and correlation of stratified rocks
as part of the Earth's crust.
STREET LEGAL MOTORCYCLE: Utah
law defines this as a motorcycle which has a
tail light, headlight, turn signal, and is
registered.
SUSPENDED: Term used when describing
an administrative state of mining operations
or oil, gas, and mineral leases, whereby the
operation or lease is "suspended" or on
standby while an administrative action is
contemplated. When mineral leases are
suspended, the lessee cannot explore,
develop, or otherwise enjoy the benefits of
the lease. Also, the term (time period) of the
lease is suspended.
TAR SAND: A commonly used name to
describe a sedimentary rock reservoir
impregnated with a very heavy, viscous crude
oil which cannot be produced by conventional
production techniques. Tar-sand infers a
sandy sedimentary rock as the host, but this is
not always the case as other porous rocks
such as siltstone and fractured carbonates
have also been classified as tar-sand.
THREATENED SPECIES: Any animal or
plant species likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all of
a significant portion of its range. These
species are listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
TINAJAS: Surface depressions in rock
formations, particularly sandstone, that
collect water and provide habitat for
specialized plant and animal species.
TOPOGRAPHY: The accurate and detailed
description of a place.
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS):
The total quantity (reported in milligrams per
liter) of dissolved materials in water.
TREND IN RANGE CONDITION: An
interpretation of the direction of change in
range condition. These determinations may
relate to ecological site or forage conditions.
Also vegetation trend that is improving
(upward) not changing (static) and declining
(downward).
G.7
Glossary
TWO- WHEEL-DRIVE (2 WD): Vehicle
clearance generally lower than with a 4WD.
Not designed to travel off-pavement.
UTILITY: A service provided by a public
utility, such as electricity, telephone, or water.
VEGETATION RESTORATION
METHODS: Mechanical, chemical,
biological, and fire vegetation treatments used
to restore and promote a natural range of
native plant associations. Treatments are
designed for specific areas and differ
according to the area's suitability and
potential. The most common land treatment
methods alter the vegetation by spraying with
pesticides, burning, or plowing, followed by
seeding with native plant species.
VERTEBRATE SPECIES: Any animal
with a backbone or spinal column.
VISITOR DAY: Twelve visitor hours
which may be aggregated by one or more
persons in single or multiple visits.
VISITOR USE: Visitor use of a resource
for inspiration, stimulation, solitude,
relaxation, education, pleasure, or
satisfaction.
VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
(VRM) CLASSES: Management classes are
determined on the basis of overall scenic
quality, distance from travel routes, and
sensitivity to change.
• Class I: Provides primarily for natural
ecological changes only. It is applied to
wilderness areas, some natural areas, and
similar situations where management
activities are to be restricted.
• Class II: Changes in the basic elements
caused by a management activity may be
evident in the characteristic landscape, but
the changes should remain subordinate to
the visual strength of the existing character.
• Class HI: Changes in the basic elements
caused by a management activity may be
evident in the characteristic landscape, but
the changes should remain subordinate to
the visual strength of the existing character.
• Class IV: Changes may subordinate the
original composition and character but
must reflect what could be a natural
occurrence within the characteristic land-
scape.
WATERSHED: All land and water within
the confines of a drainage divide.
WETLANDS: Lands including swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas, such as wet
meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and
natural ponds.
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS: See
National Wild and Scenic River System.
WILDERNESS AREA: An area officially
designated as wilderness by Congress.
Wilderness areas will be managed to preserve
wilderness characteristics and shall be
devoted to "the public purposes of recreation,
scenic, scientific, educational, conservation,
and historical use."
WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA):
Areas under study for possible inclusion as a
Wilderness Area in the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
WILDFIRE: A free-burning fire requiring a
suppression response.
WITHDRAWAL: Removal or
"withholding" of public lands from operation
of some or all of the public land laws
(settlement, sale, mining, and/or mineral
leasing). An action which restricts the use or
disposal of public lands, segregating the land
from the operation of some or all of the
public land and/or mineral laws and holding it
for a specific public purpose. Withdrawals
may also be used to transfer jurisdiction of
management to other Federal agencies.
G.8
ndex
Index
access (also see transportation) 1.2-1.4, 1.14, 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.11, 2.15-18, 2.20-25, 2.37, 2.41, 2.56, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.8, 3.10, 3.13, 3.14, 3.16, 3.19,
3.20, 3.23, 3.26, 3.27, 3.30, 3.33, 3.34, 3.36, 3.37, 3.42-3.44, 3.51, 3.52, 3.55, 3.59, 3.60, 3.67, 3.72, 3.75, 3.82,
3.84, 3.86, 3.89,3.90, 3.92, 3.94, 3.95, 3.97, 3.103, 3.106, 3.108, 3.109, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, 4.10, 4.11, 4.14, 5.1, 5.4,
5.51-53, 5.58-60, 5.67, 5.68, 5.72, 5.82, 5.85-87, 5.94, 5.96, 5.97
adaptive management 1.11, 1.14, 1.15, 2.3-8, 2.19, 2.25, 2.26, 2.28, 2.31, 2.33, 2.37, 2.45, 2.46, 2.49, 2.72, 2.73, 3.3, 3.6,
3.12, 3.18, 3.19, 3.25, 3.29,3.31, 3.32, 3.37, 3.36, 3.38, 3.41, 3.42, 3.41, 3.42, 3.47, 3.49, 3.50,
3.49, 3.50, 3.55, 3.57, 3.58,3.56, 3.58, 3.63, 3.65, 3.66, 3.65, 3.73, 3.77, 3.80, 3.82, 3.84, 3.85,
3.88, 3.92, 3.93, 3.96, 3.97,3.96, 3.102, 3.103, 3.108, 4.12, 5.58, 5.71, 5.72, 5.75, 5.83, A3
administrative routes 1.4, 2.15, 2.20, 2.22, 2.25, 3.9, 3.15, 3.21, 3.27, 3.38, 3.45, 3.53, 3.61,
3.62, 3.67, 3.68, 3.72, 3.75, 3.79, 3.103, 5.52, 5.54, 5.58-60
advisory committee, GSENM 1.14, 1.18, 1.20, 2.19, 2.30, 2.31, 2.44-46, 2.49, 2.51, 2.72, 3.3, 3.6, 3.12, 3.18,
3.25, 3.37, 3.42, 3.50, 3.65, 3.85, 4.12, 5.2, 5.68-70, 5.72, 5.74, A3.5, A3
air quality 1.3, 1.16, 2.13, 2.14, 3.10, 3.17, 3.23, 3.30, 3.35, 3.40, 3.47, 3.55, 3.64, 3.69-3.74, 3.77,
3.80,3.84,3.87,3.91,3.92,3.96,3.98,3.102,4.13,5.57,5.69
aircraft operations 2.23, 5.67
allocations 1.14, 1.15, 2.19, 2.33, 2.34, 2.38, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.11, 3.13, 3.14, 3.32,
3.37, 3.48, 3.51, 3.56, 3.59, 3.79, 3.87, 3.89, 3.92, 5.88, 5.90
alternative comparison table 1.16
animal damage control (see Wildlife Services)
analysis assumptions 3.2
archaeology 2.4, 2.56, 2.73, 3.85, 3.107, 4.14, 5.70, 5.80, Al, A4
areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC) 2.52, 3.108, 4.2, 4.3, 5.71-73, A10
authorizations 1.13, 2.2, 2.14, 2.22, 2.38-43, 3.2, 3.102, 4.8, 5.52, 5.67, 5.69, 5.81, 5.82, 5.93
authorized users 1.4, 2.20, 2.22, 2.25, 3.9, 3.15, 3.94, 5.52, 5.59, 5.60
bald eagle 2.33, 3.56, 3.61, 3.62, 5.57, A7, A8
biological control 2.45, 3.69
biological soil crusts 2.6, 2.19, 2.20, 3.6, 3.7, 3.10, 3.11, 3.13, 3.17-3.25, 3.30, 3.41, 3.50, 3.55, 3.59,
3.64, 3.65, 3.70, 3.71, 3.74, 3.108, 5.89, 5.90,A1, A4
California condor 2.35, 3.56
campfires 1.15-16, 2.25, 2.38, 2.44, 3.37, 3.47, 3.96, 5.90, 5.91, A7, A8
camping 1.16, 2.3, 2.4, 2.15, 2.17-20, 2.22, 2.25, 2.33-35, 2.38, 2.44, 2.46, 2.56, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 3.13, 3.14, 3.17,
3.19, 3.20, 3.23, 3.25-3.27, 3.32, 3.37, 3.38, 3.42-3.45, 3.48, 3.50-3.52, 3.56, 3.59-3.61, 3.64, 3.66-3.68,
3.71, 3.72, 3.74, 3.75, 3.82, 3.83, 3.87-3.90, 3.92-3.94, 3.96, 3.97, 3.103, 4.8, 5.52, 5.58, 5.60, 5.75, 5.91
chaining 2.45, 3.10, 3.15, 3.16, 3.23, 3.30, 3.55, 3.64, 3.68, 3.84
changes in management situation 1-14
changes between the draft and proposed plan 1-14
Christmas trees 3.96
I.I
Index
,. ,. 2.3, 2.8, 2.16, 2.34, 2.35, 3.60, A4
chmbinS 272 4 12
collaborative management ' '
Z iLri_, 2.25, 3.5, 3.11, 3.23, 3.24, 3.31, 3.36, 3.48, 3.49, 3.56, 3.69, 3.73, 3.77, 3.78, 3.84,
COile 3.85, 3.92, 3.96, 3.98, 3.102, 3.105, 5.68, Al
comments ^ ^ $ ^ 5 5g ^ $ ^ $ ^ $ g3
RTO " 5.1-24, 5.26-32, 5.34-48, 5.50, 5.61-66, 5.83
" " 5.1-50,5.66-77,5.80-83
ZZ" 5.1-50,5.83-85
laND; : :".;;;;;'.'.;'.".".!!'. !'.!".".; 3.74,5.1-50,5.85-87
^T 5.1-50, 5.87-91
WA7^ .... 5.1-13,5.15-21,5.23-27,5.29-32,5.35-38,5.40-47,5.49,5.50,5.91-94
wJa" 5'1-50' 5'94' 5'95
™" " 5.1-50, 5.95-99
1112143515515 97
™Slfiing (also see filming) '.'.'. W. !! '.'.'. ! ! ". ! ! ! ! "I '.'. '■ '■'■ '■'■ ' LIS. 2-'^ 2:30,'2.37; ^i W.ii! ^.IS, 3.17 3 k 331,3.36 ,3.41
gv b, 3 49, 3.57, 3.65, 3.73, 3.77, 3.80, 3.81, 3.87, 3.88, 3.92, 3.96, 3.98, 3.104, 5.66, A4
communication sites 1-4, 1.16, 2.3, 2.22-24, 2.30, 2.37, 2.44, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 3.10-3.12, 3.11, 3.12, 3.15, 3.18, 3.21,
communication 3 24 3 27 3 31 3 36 3.41, 3.44, 3.49, 3.53, 3.57, 3.61, 3.65, 3.68, 3.70, 3.71, 3.70, 3.72, 3.74, 3.78, 3.81,
3 87 3 91, 3.92, 3.96, 3.98,3.102, 3.103, 4.7, 4.9, 4.11, 5.52, 5.59, 5.85, 5.87, 5.92, A4
communities 1-1, 1-4, 1-13, 1.14, 2.2, 2.4-7, 2.9, 2.11, 2.12, 2.14-17, 2.20, 2.22, 2.23, 2.28, 2.29, 2.31, 2.44, 2.72,
communities i2i\* 3.30, 3.36-3.40, 3.54, 3.64, 3.101, 3.103, 3.105-3.109, 4.1, 4.7-12, 5.51, 5.54,
5.56, 5.58, 5.60, 5.63, 5.64, 5.68, 5.70, 5.77, 5.78, 5.80, 5.87, 5.88, 5.90-92, 5.96, 5.97
1.17,2.16, 5.89, 5.91, A12
consultation ^ ^ ^ ^^ 3 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ A?
cryptobiotic soils (see biological soil crusts) 3.105-3.107, 3.109, 5.71, 5.73, 5.76, 5.77, 5.80
cumulative impacts Ji> J ' ' 2 31
education and outreach . , ,
^"nTmlgement exceptions' '. '. \ \ '. '. \ \ \ '. . \ '. '. \ \ \ '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. \ '. \ '■ ^.3* W& W& WW ^f^'^Z
enSc™fsh :\:\z:\::\\::\\^^
entorcement 3 ^ ^ ^ ^^ 3 ^ 3 ^ 3 ^ 3 1Q5> ^ 55l> 5 53> 5 72> 5 82
12,3.1-3.3,5.53,5.58,5.61,5.65,5.74,5.76,5.79,5.85
environmental consequences v"t' '
1.2
Index
facilities (also see recreational facilities) 1.2, 1.4, 1.13, 1.14, 1.18, 1.20, 2.3, 2.6, 2.8-1 1, 2.14-18, 2.24, 2.25, 2.30, 2.38, 2.44, 2.46, 2.61, 2.62,
3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.6-3.8, 3.10, 3.11, 3.13, 3.14, 3.1 1-3.13, 3.17, 3.19, 3.20,
3.18-3.20, 3.23, 3.25, 3.26, 3.24-3.26, 3.32, 3.33, 3.31-3.33, 3.37, 3.38, 3.36-3.38,
3.40, 342-3.44, 3.41-3.43, 3.46, 3.48, 3.50-3.52, 3.49-3.51, 3.56, 3.59, 3.60, 3.57,
3.59, 3.60, 3.64, 3.66, 3.67, 3.65-3.67, 3.71, 3.72, 3.70, 3.71, 3.73-3.75, 3.74, 3.79,
3.80, 3.82, 3.81, 3.85, 3.87-3.89, 3.88, 3.90, 3.92-3.94, 3.93, 3.98, 3.100, 3.103,
3.102, 3.103, 3.108, 4.6, 4.7, 4.9, 5.52, 5.53, 5.61, 5.64, 5.68, 5.70, 5.73, 5.76,
5.77,5.85-89,5.91,5.92,5.96
federal register notices 4.3
fees 2.25, 2.27, 2.39, 5.66, 5.84
fences 2.17, 2.18, 2.22, 2.25, 3.7, 3.12, 3.14, 3.19, 3.26, 3.37, 3.44, 3.51, 3.60, 3.71, 3.75, 3:82, 3.94, 5.88, 5.89
filming (also see commercial filming) 1.15, 1.17, 2.16, 2.30, 2.37, 3.5, 3.6, 3.5, 3.6, 3.11, 3.17, 3.18, 3.17, 3.24, 3.31, 3.36, 3.41, 3.49,
3.57, 3.65, 3.73, 3.77, 3.80, 3.81, 3.87, 3.88, 3.92, 3.96, 3.98, 3.104, 4.6, 5.66, 5.78, A4
fish and wildlife 1.12, 2.2, 2.7, 2.8, 2.25, 2.52, 3.30, 3.48, 3.78, 4.4, 4.13, 4.14, 5.3, 5.61, 5.63-65, 5.73
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 1.1, 1.12, 1.13, 2.2, 2.8, 2.20, 2.26, 2.28, 2.40, 2.41, 2.51, 2.52, 2.71, 4.3, 4.6, 4.8, 4.10, 4.1 1,
5.53, 5.70, 5.72, 5.73, 5.79, 5.80, 5.83-85, 5.94,5.95, A7, A8
forestry products 2.20, 2.25, 2.36, 2.46, 3.21, 3.28, 3.54, 3.62, 3.76, 3.83, 3.95-3.98, 4.7, 5.58, 5.63
frontcountry zone 1-15, 2.14, 2.17, 2.18, 2.21, 2.62, 3.87, 3.108, 5.52, 5.53, 5.88, 5.89
fuelwood 1-4, 2.32, 2.36, 2.46, 3.21, 3.28, 3.95-3.97, 5.58, 5.63, 5.68
geology 2.3, 2.29, 2.56, 2.73, 3.73, 3.108, 4.15, Al
group size 1.15, 1.17, 2.16, 2.18, 2.19, 2.30, 2.33-35, 2.38, 2.44, 3.7, 3.11, 3.13, 3.19, 3.26, 3.43, 3.51, 3.59,
3.66, 3.71, 3.74, 3.79, 3.82, 3.87, 3.88, 3.91-94, 3.103, 5.73, 5.74, 5.78, 5.79, 5.88, 5.91
guidelines 1.12, 1.13, 2.26-29, 2.40, 2.49, 2.50, 2.62, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 3.12, 3.19, 3.25, 3.26,
3.37, 3.42, 3.44, 3.50, 3.52, 3.57, 3.58, 3.66, 3.71, 3.74, 3.78, 3.79, 3.82,
3.88, 3.93, 3.95, 3.102, 3.106, 4.4, 4.10, 5.65, 5.83, 5.84, 5.91, 5.94, A4, A5
hanging gardens 2.7, 2.9, 2.30, 2.44, 3.30, 3.36-3.40, 3.64, 5.56, 5.63, 5.64, 5.75, 5.90, Al
history 1-3, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.30, 2.34, 2.56, 2.73, 4.1, 4.11, 4.15, 4.16, 5.70, Al
impact analysis 3.4, 5.54, 5.55, 5.62, 5.66
impacts on
adjacent agencies management 3.101
air quality 3.70-3.72, 5.69
archaeological and historic resources 3.10
biological soil crusts 3.17-3.20
forestry product use 3.96
livestock operations 3.93, 3.94
local economies 3.98, 5.77
outfitters and guides 3.91
1.3
Index
paleontological resources 3.5, 3.78
recreational use 3.87, 3.91, 3.92
relict plant communities and hanging gardens 3.36
research activities 3.84
riparian resources 3.26, 3.40, 3.43, 3.52, 3.59, 3.60
scenic quality 3.73, 3.74, 3.76, 3.90
water quality 364> 367> 3104
wild and scenic river values 3.78
wilderness values 3.80
wildlife 3.40, 3.48, 3.49, 3.51, 3.54, 5.66
implementation 1.11, 1.15, 2.7, 2.14, 2.19, 2.25, 2.26, 2.34, 2.45, 2.49, 2.72, 2.73, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.12, 3.13, 3.19,
3.23, 3.25, 3.26, 3.32, 3.37, 3.38, 3.42-44, 3.50-3.52, 3.58, 3.59, 3.65, 3.66, 3.70, 3.74, 3.79,
3.80, 3.82, 3.88, 3.89, 3.98, 3.101, 3.107-109, 4.3, 4.12, 5.58, 5.65, 5.72, 5.75, 5.83, A3
intergovernmental coordination 4-^
internet homepage
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources 3.107
iSSUeS 1.2-1.4, 1.11, 1.12, 1.14, 1.18, 2.1, 2.20, 2.21, 2.25, 2.28, 2.30, 2.51, 2.72, 2.73, 3.9, 3.16, 3.22, 3.28, 3.29, 3.34,
3.39, 3.46, 3.54, 3.50, 3.62, 3.63, 3.68, 3.69, 3.73, 3.77, 3.79, 3.80, 3.84, 3.87, 3.90, 3.92, 3.95, 3.98,
3.103, 3.104, 3.108, 4.2, 4.4, 4.7, 4.8, 4.12, 5.59-61, 5.64, 5.65, 5.68, 5.70, 5.75-77, 5.81-84
issues considered but not analyzed in detail 3.108, 3.109
Jones' cycladenia 2.36, 2.37, 3.30-3.33, 3.35, 5.55, A7, A9
Kanabambersnail 2.35, 3.56, 3.58, A7, A8
Kodachromebladderpod 2.36, 2.37, 3.30-3.35, 5.55, A7, A9
law enforcement (also see enforcement) 2.22, 2.32, 2.38, 3.31, 3.34, 3.56, 3.101, 4.7, 5.51, 5.82
livestock grazing 12, 1.12, 2.2, 2.26-29, 2.32, 2.36, 2.41-45, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7, 3.6, 3.7, 3.12, 3.13, 3.12, 3.18,
3.19, 3.25, 3.31, 3.32, 3.31, 3.32, 3.37, 3.42, 3.50, 3.58, 3.64, 3.66, 3.71, 3.74, 3.78,
3.79, 3.78, 3.82, 3.85, 3.87, 3.88, 3.92-3.96, 3.98, 3.102, 3.103, 3.102, 3.105-3.107,
4.5, 4.7, 4.8, 4.10, 4.1 1, 5.1, 5.58, 5.81, 5.83-85, 5.96, 5.98, Al, A5, A6
maintenance 1.4, 1.11, 1.21, 2.6, 2.8, 2.21-23, 2.32, 2.33, 2.38, 2.40, 2.41, 2.44, 2.50, 3.1, 3.3, 3.8-3.10,
3.15, 3.16, 3.21, 3.22, 3.26-3.28, 3.33, 3.34, 3.38, 3.39, 3.44-3.46, 3.52-3.54, 3.60-3.64,
3 68 3 72, 3.74, 3.76, 3.83, 3.90, 3.101, 4.6, 4.7, 5.52-54,5.59-61, 5.64, 5.79, 5.85-87, A4
management ignited fire 1.22, 2.7, 2.14, 2.45, 2.50, 2.51, 3.91, 5.62, A4
management strategies and scenarios •■ ■■ ■■••■ ■■■•■■■■■ ■ ■• — ^
Mexican spotted owl "^» Z"JJ' ' ' ' '
minerals 2.26, 2.40, 2.43, 4.9, 4.13, 4.15, 5.1, 5.68, 5.81, Al
mitigation 1.23, 2.6, 2.13, 2.14, 2.61, 3.1, 3.3, 4.9, 5.69, 5.71, 5.72, 5.74, A3, A4
Monument management direction ' ' '
1.4
Index
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1.1, 1.3, 1.12, 1.13, 2.6, 2.16-18, 2.21, 2.23, 2.27, 2.29, 2.39, 2.43, 2.46, 2.50, 2.72, 3.1, 3.8, 3.9,
3.13-3.16, 3.18, 3.20-3.22, 3.24, 3.26, 3.28, 3.29, 3.33-3.35, 3.38, 3.39, 3.41, 3.44, 3.46,
3.49, 3.52, 3.54, 3.57, 3.60, 3.62, 3.63, 3.65, 3.67-3.69, 3.72, 3.75, 3.77, 3.81, 3.82, 3.93,
3.95, 3.103, 4.1, 4.6, 5.1, 5.53, 5.58, 5.60, 5.63, 5.68, 5.71, 5.72, 5.74, 5.84, 5.86, 5.87, 5.90, A4
Native American Indians 1-4, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.22, 2.25, 2.72, 3.108, A4
night skies 2.29
noxious weeds (also see weeds) 2.32, 2.33, 2.45, 2.46, 2.49, 3.17, 3.22, 3.29, 3.34, 3.39, 3.46, 3.54, 3.63, 3.69, 3.77, 3.91, 3.95, 3.108, 5.62, A4
oil and gas 2-3V, 2.39, 2.43, 5.68, 5.71, 5.72, 5.76
open house sessions 1-H> 4.2
other existing authorizations 2.38, 3.2, 5.67, 5.81, 5.82, 5.93, Al
outback zone 2.15, 2.18, 2.20, 2.24, 2.46, 3.8, 3.14, 3.20, 3.27, 3.45, 3.52, 3.61, 3.68, 3.72, 3.75,
3.83, 3.88, 3.90, 3.92, 3.97, 5.89, 5.91
outfitters and guides 118, 2.5, 2.19, 3.91, 3.92, 5.58, 5.88, 5.89
overall resource objectives 2.32
pack stock use (also see recreational stock use) 3.7, 3.13, 3.19, 3.26, 3.32, 3.37, 3.43, 3.51, 3.59, 3.66, 3.82, 3.88, A4
paleontology 2.3, 2.56, 2.73, 3.78, 3.85, 3.108, 4.14, 4.15, 5.80, Al, A4
passage zone 1.15, 2.15, 2.17, 2.18, 2.21, 4.6, 5.54, 5.88, 5.89
peregrine falcon .... 2.33, 2.34, 3.56, 3.60, 5.57, A7, A8
planning consistency review 4.5-4.12
planning criteria 11 1> 1-12> 4.2, 5.81
planning process 1.2-1.4, 1.11-1.13, 1.15, 2.1, 2.12, 2.52, 2.62, 2.71, 2.72, 3.22, 3.28, 3.46, 3.76, 3.78,
4.1-3, 4.9, 5.53, 5.64, 5.67, 5.72, 5.73, 5.76, 5.81, 5.95, 5.97, 5.99
posts 3.7, 3.13, 3.96
preparers, list of 4.15, 4.16
prescribed fire (see management ignited fire)
Presidential Proclamation 1.1-1.4, 1.11-14, 2.1-7, 2.9, 2.12, 2.13, 2.25, 2.26, 2.29, 2.30, 2.38-41, 2.44, 2.51, 2.52,
2.56, 3.5, 3.11, 3.24, 3.31, 3.36, 3.48, 3.56, 3.78, 3.84, 3.85, 3.93, 3.102, 3.106, 4.5,
4.7-11, 5.58, 5.61, 5.63, 5.66-68, 5.70-73, 5.77, 5.79-81, 5.83-86, 5.91, 5.95, 5.97, Al
primitive zone 1.15, 2.15, 2.18-21, 2.24, 2.44, 3.73, 3.88, 3.92, 4.6, 5.80, 5.88, 5.89, 5.91, 5.94, 5.95
private land 2.24, 2.41, 2.61, 3.3, 3.22, 3.30, 3.47, 3.105, 3.106, 4.8, 4.15, 5.82, 5.86
Proclamation (see Presidential Proclamation)
protest procedures 1.15, 5. /o
purpose and need
public participation and coordination 4.1-4.16
reasonably foreseeable actions -'•1, 3-3, 3.4
recreation allocations (also see allocations) 2ly> 5yo
1.5
Index
recreational stock use 2.20
relict plant communities 2.7, 2.20, 2.44, 3.30, 3.36-3.40, 5.54, 5.56, 5.63, 5.90, Al
research 1.2-1.4, 1.11, 1.13, 1.16, 1.18-1.21, 2.2-8, 2.15, 2.19, 2.25, 2.29-32, 2.36, 2.44, 2.45, 2.49,
2.61, 2.73, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.12, 3.17, 3.18, 3.21, 3.25, 3.29, 3.31, 3.32, 3.36, 3.37, 3.36,
3.37, 3.40-3.42, 3.41, 3.42, 3.47, 3.49, 3.50, 3.48-3.51, 3.55, 3.57, 3.58, 3.56-3.58,
3.63, 3.65, 3.66, 3.65, 3.66, 3.73, 3.77, 3.80, 3.84-3.88, 3.92, 3.93, 3.96, 3.97, 3.96,
3.100, 3.102, 4.2, 4.8, 4.10, 4.11, 4.14, 5.3, 5.52, 5.63, 5.65, 5.71-75, 5.84, 5.89, 5.96, A3
reseeding after fires 2.7,2.49,3.39,3.95, 5.62, A4
restoration methods 1.22, 2.7, 2.30, 2.44, 2.73, 3.4, 3.5, 3.9-3.11, 3.15-3.17, 3.21, 3.23, 3.28, 3.30,
3.34, 3.38, 3.40, 3.45, 3.47, 3.48, 3.53, 3.55, 3.64, 3.65, 3.68, 3.73, 3.76,
3.83, 3.86, 3.90, 3.95, 3.97, 4.10, 5.62, A4
revegetation 2.7, 2.46, 2.49, 2.50, 2.61, 3.22, 3.24, 3.27, 3.28, 3.40, 3.46, 3.73, 3.76, 3.95, 4.10, A4
ri arian " " 2.7-9, 2.11, 2.15, 2.16, 2.28-30, 2.33, 2.36, 2.38, 2.41, 2.50, 3.10, 3.17, 3.22, 3.23,
3.26, 3.27, 3.24, 3.26-3.29, 3.33, 3.32-3.34, 3.38, 3.40, 3.44, 3.41-3.48, 3.52, 3.49, 3.50,
3.52, 3.54, 3.56, 3.60, 3.58-3.60, 3.62-3.64, 3.67, 3.66-3.69, 3.73, 3.75, 3.78, 3.79,
3.78-3.80, 3.84-3.86, 3.89, 3.90, 3.92, 3.95, 3.96, 3.98, 3.101, 3.103, 4.16, 5.51, 5.56,
5.57, 5.64, 5.65, 5.74, 5.86, 5.90, 5.96-98, Al, A4
2 22
road restoration
science and research 2.30, 2.31, 3.86, 5.52, 5.65, 5.74, A4
4.1
science symposium
scoping process 1.3,2.20,4.1,5.60,5.81
scoping workshops
SITLA 2.39, 2.42, 2.43
S0lls l'jj 2~2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.16, 2.22, 2.29, 2.49, 3.17-3.19, 3.25, 3.42, 3.82, 3.86, 3.103, 4.6, 5.65, 5.80, Al, A4
southwestern willow flycatcher 2.35, 3.56-3.58, 3.61, 3.62, 3.79,4.5, 5.57, A7, A8
special events 1.17,2.16,2.25,5.89
special management designations
special recreation management areas ' '
special status animal species 2.8, 2.31, 3.32, 3.56-3.64, 5.57, 5.63, 5.65, 5.84, A7, A8
baldeagle 2.33, 3.56, 3.61, 3.62, 5.57, A7, A8
California condor 2.35, 3.56, A7, A8
endangered fish 2.12, 2.33, 3.63, A7, A8
Kanabambersnail 2.35, 3.56, 3.58, A7, A8
Mexican spotted owl 2.34, 2.35, 3.56, 3.59, 5.57, A7, A8
peregrine falcon 2.33, 2.34, 3.56, 3.60, 5.57, A7, A8
southwestern willow flycatcher 2.35, 3.56-3.58, 3.61, 3.62, 3.79, 4.5, 5.57, A7, A8
special status plant species 2.7, 2.20, 2.36, 3.30, 3.32, 3.35, 5.55, 5.63, 5.65, 5.84, 5.89, 5.90
1.6
Index
Jones' cycladenia 2.36, 2.37, 3.30-3.33, 3.35, 5.55, A7, A9
Kodachrome bladderpod 2.36, 2.37, 3.30-3.35, 5.55, A7, A9
Ute ladies'-tresses 2.36, 2.38, 3.30, 3.32-3.35, 3.79, 5.55, A7, A9
spotted owl (see Mexican spotted owl)
stock use (also see pack stock use) 2.20, 3.7, 3.13, 3.19, 3.26, 3.32, 3.37, 3.43, 3.51, 3.59, 3.66, 3.82, 3.88
T&E animal species (see special status animal species)
T&E plant species (see special status plant species )
tnjik 1.4, 2.4, 2.5, 2.14, 2.17-19, 2.21, 2.30, 2.33, 2.34, 2.38, 2.56, 3.2, 3.7, 3.10, 3.13, 3.19, 3.25,
3.32, 3.37, 3.38, 3.42, 3.43, 3.50, 3.59, 3.66, 3.71, 3.74, 3.78, 3.79, 3.88, 3.89, 3.93,
3.108, 4.15, 5.2, 5.4, 5.51, 5.53, 5.54, 5.60, 5.78, 5.79, 5.90, 5.91, A4
transportation 1-2, 1.4, 1.14, 1.21, 2.3, 2.19-21, 2.25, 2.37, 3.5, 3.8, 3.9, 3.8, 3.11, 3.14, 3.15, 3.14,
3.20, 3.21, 3.20, 3.27, 3.28, 3.27, 3.33, 3.34, 3.33, 3.38, 3.44, 3.45, 3.44, 3.52,
3.53, 3.52, 3.60-3.62, 3.60, 3.67, 3.68, 3.67, 3.72, 3.75, 3.76, 3.75, 3.79, 3.82,
3.83, 3.82, 3.86, 3.89, 3.90, 3.89, 3.91, 3.92, 3.94, 3.95, 3.94, 3.97, 3.103,
4.5-7, 4.10,4.11, 5.1, 5.4, 5.51-55, 5.58, 5.60, 5.61, 5.76, 5.79, 5.82, 5.89, 5.90
update letters 42' 5'81
Ute ladies'-tresses 2.36, 2.38, 3.30, 3.32-3.35, 3.79, 5.55, A7, A9
utility rights-of-way 1-22, 2.2, 2.23, 2.24, 2.30, 2.37, 2.44, 3.4, 3.6, 3.11, 3.12, 3.11, 3.12, 3.18, 3.24, 3.31,
3.36, 3.41, 3.49, 3.57, 3.65, 3.70, 3.71, 3.70, 3.74, 3.78, 3.81, 3.87, 3.91, 3.92, 3.96,
3.98, 3.102, 3.103, 3.106, 4.7, 4.9, 4.1 1, 5.87, 5.92, A4
valid existing rights (VER) 1.2, 1.4, 1.12-1.14, 2.2, 2.10, 2.13, 2.20, 2.24, 2.38, 2.39, 2.61, 2.62, 3.2, 3.4, 3.109,
4.6-9, 5.10, 5.53, 5.58, 5.60, 5.67, 5.71, 5.81, 5.82, 5.86, 5.93, 5.97
vegetation 1.2, 1.22, 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.15, 2.20, 2.22, 2.25, 2.29, 2.30, 2.32-34, 2.36-38, 2.44-46,
2.49-51, 2.56, 2.73, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.9, 3.5-3.7, 3.9-3.11, 3.15, 3.11, 3.13, 3.15-3.17,
3.21, 3.22, 3.17-3.24, 3.28, 3.24-3.30, 3.34, 3.31-3.36, 3.38, 3.37-3.40, 3.45, 3.46,
3.41-3.48, 3.53, 3.54, 3.50, 3.52-3.55, 3.62, 3.58, 3.59, 3.61-3.65, 3.68, 3.65, 3.68,
3.69, 3.73, 3.70-3.73, 3.76, 3.74-3.78, 3.80, 3.83, 3.81-3.84, 3.86, 3.90, 3.88-3.90,
3.92, 3.93, 3.95, 3.94, 3.95, 3.97, 3.96-3.98, 3.101, 3.102, 3.104, 3.107, 4.7, 4.10,
5.62, 5.63, 5.65, 5.73, 5.74, 5.82, 5.83, 5.89, 5.90, Al, A4
2.24,2.25
H™^^ ::::::::";;;:";;;;;;;;";;":;;. 1.3,4.1
"resource management (VRM) ' '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. ' '.'. ' '.'.'. ' \.22,2.\1, 2.24,',225, 2.56, 2.61, 3.10, 3.17, 3.23, 3.30, 3.35, 3.40, 3.47, 3.55 ,3.64 ,3.69
3 73, 3.74, 3.76, 3.79, 3.80, 3.83, 3.87, 3.90, 3.92, 3.96, 3.97, 3.103, 4.15, 5.69, A4
water 1 1-1.4, 1.12, 1.14, 1.23, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.8-13, 2.16-18, 2.20, 2.22-24, 2.26-28, 2.32, 2.33, 2.35, 2.36,
2.38,2.41-44,2.50,2.52,3.4,3.5,3.9,3.10,3.16,3.17,3.22,3.23,3.28,3.29,
3 25, 3.27-3.29, 3.34, 3.33, 3.34, 3.39, 3.37, 3.39, 3.40, 3.46, 3.41-3.48, 3.54,
3.50, 3.52, 3.54, 3.62, 3.63, 3.58-3.65, 3.68, 3.69, 3.65-3.69, 3.73, 3.77-3.80,
Index
3.79, 3.80, 3.84, 3.86, 3.87, 3.90, 3.88-3.93, 3.95, 3.98, 3.103, 3.104, 3.102-3.107,
4.2, 4.4, 4.6-14, 5.1-3, 5.52, 5.57, 5.59, 5.64, 5.65, 5.85-87, 5.89, 5.91-95, 5.97, 5.98, Al
availability 1-4, 2.9-12, 2.33, 2.38, 3.34, 3.62, 5.64, 5.92
developments 1.2, 1.23, 2.6, 2.8, 2.11, 2.44, 2.50, 3.4, 3.5, 3.9, 3.10, 3.16, 3.17, 3.22, 3.23, 3.28, 3.34,
3.39, 3.40, 3.46, 3.48, 3.50, 3.54, 3.62-3.64, 3.68, 3.69, 3.77, 3.79, 3.80, 3.90,
3.93,3.95,3.106,5.65,5.85,5.92
quality 1.2-1.4, 1.23, 2.13, 2.20, 2.27, 2.28, 2.33, 3.17, 3.23, 3.27, 3.29, 3.33, 3.40, 3.41, 3.44,
3.46, 3.50, 3.52, 3.54, 3.58-3.61, 3.64-3.69, 3.86, 3.90, 3.102-3.106, 4.13, 5.57, 5.64, 5.93, 5.94
rights 2.9-13, 2.42, 2.43, 3.106, 4.7-9, 4.13, 5.85, 5.91-94
weeds 2.32, 2.33, 2.45, 2.46, 2.49, 3.17, 3.19, 3.22, 3.23, 3.25, 3.29, 3.31, 3.32, 3.34, 3.37-3.39, 3.42,
3.46, 3.54, 3.63, 3.69, 3.77, 3.91, 3.95, 3.108, 5.62. A4
wild and scenic rivers 2.12, 2.61, 3.10, 3.17, 3.23, 3.30, 3.35, 3.40, 3.47, 3.54, 3.63, 3.69, 3.73, 3.77, 3.80,
3.84, 3.87, 3.91, 3.92, 3.96, 3.98, 3.104, 5.1, 5.57, 5.96-98, All
wilderness inventory 1.12, 2.62, 2.71, 4.9, 5.67
Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) 1.2, 1.12, 2.15, 2.51, 2.61, 2.71, 2.72, 3.9, 3.80, 3.81, 3.83, 4.9, 5.1-50, 5.64, 5.67, 5.69, 5.84, 5.91, 5.94, 5.95
wildfire management 2.50, 3.0, 3.16, 3.22, 3.0, 3.29, 3.30, 3.35, 3.39, 3.0, 3.47, 3.55, 3.64, 3.69, 3.0, 3.80, 3.83,
3.84, 3.86, 3.0, 3.91, 3.92, 3.95, 3.96, 3.0, 5.64, 5.65
wildlife (see fish and wildlife)
Wildlife Services 1.24, 2.33, 2.51, 3.10, 3.17, 3.23, 3.30, 3.35, 3.40, 3.47, 3.55, 3.64, 3.69, 3.73, 3.77,
3.80, 3.84, 3.87, 3.91, 3.92, 3.0, 3.98, 3.104, 4.4, 5.3, 5.66, 5.69
withdrawal review 2.51
zone management 2.14, 3.88, 5.95
Errata for the DEIS
Errata to the DEIS
CHAPTER 2
• Alternative A reads: "Animal damage control activities within the
Monument would be limited to the taking of individual animals
responsible for verified livestock kills." Alternative A should read:
"The BLM would urge Animal and Plant Inspection Service, through
amendments to existing agreements and other measures, to target
individual predators rather than predator populations."
• Alternative B: Corrected route mileage:
Administrative routes: 310 miles
Public (no ATVs) : 227 miles
Public ATVs allowed: 591 miles
Total: 1,128 miles
• Wild and Scenic River DEIS Maps 2.2 and 2.7 are incorrect. Replace
with new DEIS Maps 2.2 and 2.7 found on the following pages.
CHAPTER 3
• Information received from Conoco Inc. during the comment period
revealed an error in the Draft on page 3.56 under the heading Oil and
Gas. The Reese Canyon State 32 well, drilled in 1997, encountered
hydrocarbons and methane rather than trace amounts of C02 as
indicated in the Draft Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. The Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone tested 54.4 percent
hydrocarbons (CI through C6), 45 percent nitrogen and only 0.5
percent C02. The Cambrian Muav Limestone tested 99 percent
methane and 1 percent C02.
activities, because they would not be allowed." instead of "Animal
damage control activities would directly and indirectly impact visitor
experiences."
• During the comment period it was brought to the BLM's attention that
there was a math error in the economic analysis under Alternative C
on pages S.27, 4.47, and 4.73. The following is a correction to the
Draft: "Local government revenues attributable to this alternative
would be $288,000 in 2012, with expenditures of $245,000, for a net
revenue of $236,000 to local governments..." The net revenue figure
was brought forward from Alternative B. The reference table in
Appendix 19 (A19.2) notes that the net revenue is $43,000, which is
also the correct calculation if $245,000 is subtracted from $288,000.
The $236,000 figure has been replaced with $43,000.
APPENDICES
• The scientific names used for Brewer's blackbird and for the mallard
in Appendix 15 of the DEIS are in error and are corrected as follows:
Brewer's blackbird should be Euphagus cyanocephalus . Mallard
should be Anas platyrhynchos.
• Appendix 4 (page A4. 1 1 ) in the DEIS incorrectly identified the
Bonneville cutthroat trout as being present in the West Fork of
Boulder Creek. It should have read the Colorado cutthroat trout.
• A word is missing on page A6. 1 in the Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern discussion. The missing words, "these
resources," has been added to the text in Appendix 10 of this
document.
CHAPTER 4
• The Summary of the Environmental Consequences Table - Alterative
D, pages S.24 and 4.70, is incorrect. The text in Chapter 4, page 4.40,
is correct. Change table (under Alterative D) to read "Visitor
experience would not be impacted by animal damage control
E.I
Map 2.2: (Corrected 10/30/98)
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Suitable Segments
Alternatives B and E (DEIS)
© Principal Communities
A/ Monument Boundary
RIVER CLASSES
A/ wild
."%•" Scenic
A/ Recreational
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
GRAND STAIRCASE
ESCALANTE
',•.',. „~.;:,T
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Map 2.7: (Corrected 10/30/98)
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Suitable Segments
Alternative D (DEIS)
© Principal Communities
A/ Monument Boundary
RIVER CLASSES
A/ wild
."•/ Scenic
A/ Recreational
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
of sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This map represents
available information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
GRAND STAIRCASE
ESCALANTE
Produced by
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
1999
Management Zones Map 2. l
and Transportation System
0 Principal Communities
/\/ Monument Boundary
A/ Highways 89 & 12
A/ Administrative Roads
A/ Open Roads
A/ Open/ATV Roads
A/ Other Roads
Frontcountry Zone
The Frontcountry Zone. (78,056 acres) is intended to be the
focal point for visitation by providing day- use opportunities
close to adjacent communities and to Highways 12 and 89.
This Zone would accommodate the primary interpretation, overlooks,
trails, and associated facilities necessary to feature Monument resources.
Passage Zone
The Passage Zone (38,316 acres) includes secondary travel routes
which receive use as throughways and recreation destinations.
Rudimentary facilities necessary to protect resources, educate visitors
about Monument resources, or for public safety would be provided.
Outback Zone
The Outback_Zone (537,662 acres) is intended to provide an undeveloped,
primitive and self- directed visitor experience while accommodating
motorized and mechanized access on designated routes. Facilities
would be rare and provided only where essential for resource protection.
| Primitive Zone
The Primitive Zone (1,21 1,386 acres) provides an undeveloped, primitive
and self- directed visitor experience without motorized or mechanized
access. Some administrative routes are included in the Zone, which could
allow very limited motorized access to authorized users. Facilities would
be virtually nonexistent.
V&
Location Map
Data has been gathered from a variety
ol sources and has been integrated
to provide a planning context. The
data shown outside the Monument may not
have been verified. This majj repiesents
available Information, and should not be
interpreted to alter existing authorities
or management responsibilities.
mt,
Produced by
Grand Slalicase-Escalante
National Monument
0
5
0
10m
10
5
0
10
20 km
R02W
ROtW
R06W
\R05W
FJM2W
R03W
*Dixie Natf
rJ
National
Dixie National
Forest
Gaffieid Coiinu_ ' 1
Kane Cfuinly
M
is*
J®
Kcalante
Bryt'e,. )
CaajbnJ^ gTropiir
' -i-'r Nati6nal r
letfar Wasl> Aicn ■
CUen <_ anyon
National Recreation Afea
IS!
V^ .-' i
, Glen Canyon _
i -\
rj National Recr^alieS -\ J
UTAH
1ARIZONA
.- 1
S
Navajo '%fc\(_
4iReservation\ ' V