WSP10967 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Record of Decision alternative was described and the environmental consequen' ces of that alternative were predicted. The Current Management Alternative was the "No Action" alternative. It reflected the current management of the Lillie Snake Resource Area and portrayed how it would continue to be managed under existing management policy and practices. The Energy and Minerals Alternative emphasized the production and development of energy and other mineral resources. Energy resources, minerals of high interest, rights- of-way, and other support actions were favored to m""t nationwide needs for energy and minerals. The Commodity Production Alternative emphasized both mineral and livestock production from public lands. The Renewable Resource Alternative emphasized the production and management of renewable resources. It maximized the sustained yield of renewable goods and services from public lands to meet local, regional, and national needs. The Natural Environment Alternative emphasized the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and resources of substantial scientific interest. It favored management and uses that do not detract from the natural selling. This was the environmentally preferable alternative. The Preferred Alternative provided an optimum multiple, use mix hy balancing oonnicts and providing a variety of uses. It Jllovided the necessary constraints for protecting renewable resources from irreversible decline, while accommodating production of minerals, livestock grazing, off-road vehicles, recreation, and other uses. The proposed plan was then developed from: 1) issues raised throughout the multiple-use land planning process, 2) decision criteria, 3) public input received during the 90- day comment period and at the meetings and workshops on the RMP/EIS, and 4) the environmental analyses developed on the six alternatives. Vnder the proposed plan, use of forage and other natural resources was refined and optimized, energy sources were available, and other critical resource values such as wildlife; cultural resources; and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species were protected. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS The Proposed Plan received four lellers of protest which have been resolved by the BLM Director. Several issues were raised in these letters and are summarized below. One protesting party was concerned about the implications of the proposed designation of the LillIe Yampal Juniper Canyon area as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) on eXlSbng rights associated with coal mIDlDg activities, including maintenance of facilities and rights-<>f- way, and the development of present (and future) coal leases. Another protesting party was concerned the SRMA designation (and the wilderness suitability recommendation) prejudiced the prior withdrawal ofthe Lillie Yampal Juniper Canyon sites for hydropower purposes. Language has heen incorporated to make it clear that valid existing rights are unaffected and that necessary maintenance of existing coal mining facilities within the upper unil of lhe SRMA is compatihle with the plan. New public lands rights-<>f-way will be processed where they are associated with development of the nearby Des Mountain coal lease tracts and are otherwise in conformance with the RMP. Also. administering the Yampa River oorridor for recreation will have no effect on prior hydropower withdrawals since this management will not preclude the possibility of constructing a dam or reservoir in the Little Yampal Juniper Canyon. The recommendation of tbe Cross Mountain Wilderness Study Area (WSA) as "preliminarily suitable" was rasied as an issue, primarily because the protesting party believed the change in the recommendation between draft and final had not had sufficient public review. The rationale for tbe recommendation and the public review and comment upon whicb it is based were explained to the protesting party. Also, the quesiton of reserved water rights in wilderness areas, anotber protest issue, was not addressed because Congress takes that mailer into consideration when considering wilderness legislation. (Wilderness recommen- dations may not be protested since Congress makes the final decision about wilderness designation). The plan to continue applying the wilderness interim management policy on areas with wilderness characteristics under Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) adjacent to similar areas within Dinosaur National Monument was protested. It was decided that the public land values involved should continue to be protected so that Congress could make a decision considering the areas together as a whole. Vse of management priority areas and use of federal mineral concern areas in tbe proposed RMP, particularily with regard to fluid mineral leasing under non-federal surface, were protested as inoonsistent with the FLPMA and in the latter instance beyond BLM's authority. To reduce possible confusion the revised proposed plan described management prescriptions, geographical locations, the acreage involved, and the management objectives of individual management units. Also, since the individual management units cover broader areas and their management prescriptions apply only to federal surface andlor federal minerals, there is no need to designate areas as federal mineral concern areas. They are dropped from this document. iv