WSP10967

• File Number: 8200.765
• Description: Little Snake River General
• State: CO
• Basin: Yampa/White
• Water Division: 6
• Date: 6/1/1989
• Author: DOI-BLM
• Title: Little Snake Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

OJJ!z91

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This approved resource management plan (RMP) sets
forth the land-use decisions, terms, and conditions for guiding
future management actions in the Little Snake Resource
Area. All uses and activities in the resource area must
conform with decisions, terms, and conditions as described
herein. This plan was prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.

The plan describes how the resource area will be managed
and includes mitigation to avoid or minimize environmental
harm. The plan also identifies resource-specific plans which
may become necessary to meet the management objectives.

This document does not present information on the
existing environment or environmental consequences of the
decisions. That information was previously discussed in the
environmental impact statement (EIS) which may be
reviewed at the Little Snake Resource Area Office. The
draft EIS was issued in February 1986 and the final EIS
was issued September 1986.

PURPOSE AND NEED

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) conducted three planning efforts on
small sub-units of the Little Snake Resource Area. These
planning efforts resulted in three management framework
plans (MFPs) that provided management direction for
resources and resource uses. The Little Snake MFPs, which
are being replaced hy this approved RMP, are the Williams
Fork MFP, the Maybell/Great Divide MFP, and the
Vermillion MFP. Because of changing circumstances and
conditions, including new legislation, changing policies, and
new land use conOicts and issues, a resource management
plan was needed. The Little Snake resource management
planning effort covering the entire resource area was initiated
in 1983.

In addition to meeting the requirements in the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 for land-use
planning (43 CFR, Part 1600), this plan satisfies BLM's
policy to identify (l) public land suitable for wilderness
designation (the study phase of BLM's wilderness review
process); (2) land with potential for coal leasing (43 CFR,

Part 3400); (3) public land as open, closed, or limited for
vehicle use (Executive Order 11989); and (4) puhlic land
available for disposal and exchange.

Conflicts and management issues centered around
protecting the land's resources while providing for coal, oil,
and gas production; livestock and wildlife forage; wilderness,
floatboating, and other recreation uses; and other uses of
the public lands.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING
AREA

The planning area encompasses approximately 3,258,000
acres in the Bureau of Land Management's Craig District,
located in the northwest comer of Colorado (Map I). The
area includes most of Moffat and Routt counties and a
small portion of Rio Blanco County. The area is bordered
on the north by the state of Wyoming; on the west by
Dinosaur National Monument and the state of Utah; on
the south by the White River Resource Area (Bureau of
Land Management, Craig District), the Routt National
Forest and the White River National Forest; and on the
east by the Routt National Forest.

Of the total, 40 percent (or 1.3 million acres) of the
surface ownership is public land administered by the Bureau
of Land Managemen~ concentrated primarily in the western
half of the resource area. Fifty-three percent is privately
owned, and 7 percent is administered by the state of
Colorado. However, 56 percent (1.1 million acres) of these
private and state lands are underlain by federally-owned
minerals.

Approximately 34,000 aCres of the public lands within
the resource area are jointly maoaged by the Craig District
and the Vernal (Utah) District. The Vernal District
administers livestock grazing, watershed, forest and_woodland products, and wildlife habitat. The Craig District
is responsible for lands and minerals management. In
addition, a portion of the Diamond Breaks and West Cold
Spring wilderness study areas extend into Utah. Because
of this interrelationship between the Craig and Vernal
districts, coordination during the plan preparation process
was essential. In particular, procedures set forth in the
Memorandum of Understanding for Wilderness Study