DOCSLIB.ORG

Record of Decision Approved Resource Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Record of Decision Approved Resource Management Plan BLM Bureau of Land Mangagement VERNAL FIELD OFFICE Record of Decision ANDApproved Resource Management Plan OCTOBER 2008 BLM Mission To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Bureau of Land Management BLM-UT-PL-09-003-1610 UT-080-2005-71 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Utah State Office P.O. Box 45155 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0155 http://www.blm.gov IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 (UT-935) Dear Reader/Interested Party: I am pleased to announce that, after several years of hard work and collaborative efforts, the Vernal Field Office Resource Management Plan (Approved RMP) is complete. This document will provide guidance for the management of over 1.7 million acres of public land and 3.9 million acres of Federal mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Daggett, Duchesne, Uintah, and a small portion of Grand Counties in Northeast Utah. The attached Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved RMP have been prepared in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The ROD/Approved RMP is available to members of the public and will be sent to pertinent local, State, Tribal and Federal government entities. The Approved RMP finalizes the proposed decisions presented in the Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that was released on August 22, 2008 and subject to a 30-day protest period that ended on September 22, 2008. Fourteen protest letters with standing were received. The protests were reviewed by the BLM Director in Washington, D.C. After careful consideration of all points raised in these protests, the Director concluded the responsible planning team and decision makers followed all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and pertinent resource considerations in developing the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Minor adjustments or points of clarification are incorporated into the Approved RMP in response to issues raised in the protest process and final BLM review. These minor changes are discussed in the ROD under the section titled Notice of Modifications and Clarifications, but the protest review did not result in any significant changes from the Proposed RMP. The approval of this ROD by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management serves as the final decision by the DOI for all land use planning and implementation-level decisions described in the attached Approved RMP. Implementation of land use plan decisions (e.g., oil and gas development, and land and realty decisions) will not be undertaken without suitable further NEPA analysis, including all appropriate public involvement and any hearings available to the public. Notification of the approval of this ROD/Approved RMP will be announced via local news releases and on the Vernal Field Office website at: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/vernal/planning.html VERNAL FIELD OFFICE RECORD OF DECISION AND APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN October 2008 Prepared by: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office Vernal, Utah Cooperating Agencies: State of Utah Daggett County Duchesne County Uintah County Ute Indian Tribe Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Table of Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................. V RECORD OF DECISION .............................................................................................................. 1 A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ................................................................................................................. 1 Vernal Planning Area ................................................................................................................................ 2 B. OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................ 4 Alternatives Considered in Detail .............................................................................................................. 6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ............................................................. 14 C. RESULTS OF PROTEST PERIOD .................................................................................................... 17 D. THE DECISION ................................................................................................................................... 19 What the Decision/RMP Provides ........................................................................................................... 19 What the Decision/RMP Does Not Provide ............................................................................................. 21 Implementation Decisions ....................................................................................................................... 22 E. NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS & CLARIFICATIONS ....................................................................... 23 Modifications ........................................................................................................................................... 23 Clarifications ............................................................................................................................................ 24 F. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING THE APPROVED RMP ............................... 25 All Surface Disturbing Activities .............................................................................................................. 26 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................ 26 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 26 Fire Management .................................................................................................................................... 27 Forage ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 Lands and Realty Management .............................................................................................................. 28 Livestock and Grazing Management ...................................................................................................... 29 Minerals and Energy Resources ............................................................................................................. 29 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics .................................................................................. 32 Recreation: Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) .............................................................. 34 Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) ............................................. 35 Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) .......................................................................... 43 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................... 44 Travel: Roads and Trails ......................................................................................................................... 45 Visual Resource Management ................................................................................................................ 46 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources ............................................................................................................ 46 G. CONSISTENCY AND CONSULTATION REVIEW ............................................................................ 47 Governor’s Consistency .......................................................................................................................... 48 NHPA Section 106 Consultation ............................................................................................................. 48 Native American Consultation ................................................................................................................. 48 Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act ................................................................... 49 i Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan H. MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................................. 49 I. PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 49 J. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................................... 51 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 51 Scoping and Notice of Intent to Plan (NOI) ............................................................................................. 51 Notice of Availability (NOA) of Draft RMP/EIS and Proposed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Boating Guide to the White River
    CONTENTS Dedication -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hazards ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Camping considerations ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Principles of low impact river camping ----------------------------------------------- 7 Natural features -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Wildlife and vegetation ---------------------------------------------------------------- 13 Human settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Resource exploitation along the White River --------------------------------------- 17 Shuttle route details -------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 Alternative shuttle routes -------------------------------------------------------------- 24 River trip resources --------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 Acknowledgements and using the river map --------------------------------------- 27 River guide sponsors ------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 GPS mileage coordinates -------------------------------------------------------------- 29 River map (navigate from back cover) ----------------------------------------------- 48 Dedication Two friends have frequently come to mind as I’ve been assembling this guide. Mike
    [Show full text]
  • Transwest Express Transmission Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    TransWest Express EIS Chapter 5.0 – Cumulative Impacts 5-1 5.0 Cumulative Impacts NEPA requires an assessment of potential cumulative impacts. Federal regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) define cumulative impacts as: “…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 same resources evaluated for Project effects (Chapter 3.0) are evaluated for cumulative effects. The cumulative impact discussion assumes that all environmental mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 3.0 would be applied to the Project as well as other reasonably foreseeable transmission lines proposed on federal lands in the same alternative corridors. It also is assumed that these and any other projects on federal lands would comply with the applicable BLM Land Use Plans and Forest Service Forest Plans, as well as applicable federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements. The structure and content of the cumulative impacts analysis in this EIS follows the guidance contained in the BLM NEPA handbook (BLM 2008) and the CEQ Guidance on Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Policy Act (CEQ 1997). 5.1 Physical and Temporal Boundaries of Cumulative Impacts In general, physical boundaries for cumulative impacts analysis vary by resource and would be identical to those analysis areas used in Chapter 3.0 to determine the context of project impacts. Temporal effects are measured over the length of the effect to the resource, not the Project life.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Hearing Committee on Natural Resources U.S
    H.R. 5780, TO PROVIDE GREATER CONSERVATION, RECREATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL LANDS IN UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘UTAH PUBLIC LANDS INITIATIVE ACT’’ LEGISLATIVE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION Wednesday, September 14, 2016 Serial No. 114–51 Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov or Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 21–547 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:41 Dec 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 J:\114TH CONGRESS\FEDERAL LANDS\09-14-16\21547.TXT DARLEN COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman RAU´ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI John Fleming, LA Niki Tsongas, MA Tom McClintock, CA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR Glenn Thompson, PA Jared Huffman, CA Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Raul Ruiz, CA Dan Benishek, MI Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Jeff Duncan, SC Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA Paul A. Gosar, AZ Norma J. Torres, CA Rau´ l R.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Management Plan Appendix
    UINTAH COUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2017 APPENDIX DEVELOPING ALL OUR RESOURCES 2 | Uintah County R esource Management Plan Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS STATE STATUTE ...................................................................................................................................................4 DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PLAN ............................................................................................................................6 AGRICULTURE FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................7 AIR QUALITY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................... 10 CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, GEOLOGICAL, and PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE FINDINGS ................................ 15 DITCHES, CANALS, and PIPELINE FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 19 ENERGY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................... 21 FIRE MANAGEMENT FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 27 FISHERIES FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 31 FLOODPLAINS and RIVER TERRACE FINDINGS ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tar-Sand Resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah a Catalog of Deposits
    TAR-SAND RESOURCES OF THE UINTA BASIN, UTAH A CATALOG OF DEPOSITS compiled by Robert E. Blackett Utah Geological Survey SOUTHWEST NORTHEAST 12 MILES 19.30 KILOMETERS UINTA ASPHALT ASHLEY BASIN RIDGE VALLEY +5000 - SEA LEVEL MESAVERDE GR . -5000 - . ~--- MANCOS SH. -10000 - . ~ DAKOTA SS . JURASSIC-TRIASSIC Open-File Report 335 May 1996 UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY a division of o Utah Department of Natural Resources IR - 000503 TAR-SAND RESOURCES OF THE UINTA BASIN, UTAH A CATALOG OF DEPOSITS compiled by Robert E. Blackett Utah Geological Survey Prepared for: State of Utah Department of Community and Economic Development Permanent Community Impact Board Prepared by: Utah Geological Survey and Utah Engineering Experiment Station University of Utah Open-File Report 335 May 1996 UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY a division of o Utah Department of Natural Resources This open-file release makes information available to the public during the lengthy review and production period necessary for a formal publication. It is in the review process, therefore it may be premature for an individual or group to take actions based on its contents. IR - 000504 CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................. IV INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1 Background . 1 Previous Work . 1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................................... 6 Physiography . 6 Climate ................................................................. 8 GEOLOGy ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment UT- 080 – 06 – 280 April 2007 OIL SHALE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WHITE RIVER MINE, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office 170 South 500 East Vernal, Utah 84078 Phone: 435-781-4400 Fax: 435-781-4410 C O N T E N T S Page 1.0 PURPOSE & NEED 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Purpose(s) of and Need for the Proposed Action 3 1.4 Project Overview 4 1.4.1 Prior Development – The White River Shale Project 5 1.4.2 Remaining On-Site Facilities 6 1.5 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan 7 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans 8 1.7 Identification of Issues 11 1.7.1 Air Quality 13 1.7.2 Wastes (Hazardous and Solid) 14 1.7.3 Water Resources 14 1.7.4 Soils 15 1.7.5 Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy Production 15 1.7.6 Flood Plains 16 1.7.7 Wetland/Riparian Zones 16 1.7.8 Threatened/Endangered (T&E) Wildlife Species 16 1.7.9 Fish and Wildlife Including Special Status Species other than USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 17 1.7.10 Threatened/Endangered (T&E) Plant Species 18 1.7.11 Vegetation Including Special Status Species other that USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 19 1.7.12 Invasive, Non-native Species 20 1.7.13 Recreation 20 1.7.14 Visual Resources 20 1.7.15 Cultural Resources 21 1.7.16 Paleontological Resources 21 1.7.17 Socio-economics 21 1.7.18 Special Designation Areas 22 1.8 Summary 23 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION 24 2.1 Introduction
    [Show full text]