|
<br />Major Rights-or-Way (Issue 4-2)
<br />
<br />L No rights-of-way corridors would be formally
<br />designated,
<br />
<br />2. The existing and potential corridors identified as suitable
<br />in Table 9 and displayed on Map 3 would be considered
<br />open and would be preferred/ encowaged routes,
<br />
<br />3, Specific areas unsuitable for major rights-of-way are
<br />shown in Table 10.
<br />
<br />4. Specific areas that would be sensitive for siting major
<br />rights-of-way are shown in Table] I,
<br />
<br />5. Minor rights-of-way would be processed on a case-by-
<br />case basis, generally guided by the criteria identified
<br />for major rigbts-of-way.
<br />
<br />6, Rights-of-way would be allowed in all areas if needed
<br />to develop valid exisling rights.
<br />
<br />Access, Boundary Marking, and Road
<br />Requirements (Issues 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3)
<br />
<br />An access/transportation activity plan would be prepared
<br />that lists areas needing attention, types of access to be
<br />acquired, preferred and alternate routes, roads and trails
<br />to be closed or constructed, survey and support needs, and
<br />construction or maintenance guidelines.
<br />
<br />MANAGEMENT PRIORITY AREAS
<br />
<br />Management priority areas are geograpbic areas thaI are
<br />unique, significant, or unusually suited for development,
<br />management, protection, or use of a particular resource.
<br />Management priority areas were delineated for all public
<br />lands within the Little Snake Resource Area to identify
<br />how particular geographic areas would be managed and
<br />to provide a tool for resolution of conflicts (see map of
<br />tbe proposed plan), The discussions in this section of the
<br />different kinds of management priority areas and the map
<br />of the proposed plan should he used in conjunction witb
<br />the description of management actions for a full understand-
<br />ing of the proposed plan,
<br />
<br />Management priority areas would be managed under the
<br />multiple-use concept: lands would not be managed
<br />exclusively for the priority use or value,. but for other
<br />compatible uses and values as well, fn a few cases, such
<br />
<br />PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
<br />
<br />as proposed wilderness designations, many uses would be
<br />restricted, but the majority of the management priority areas
<br />would allow most uses to continue,
<br />
<br />Environmental values would he considered and
<br />appropriately protected within all management priority
<br />areas.
<br />
<br />Management priority area boundaries depicted on the
<br />map of the proposed plan have not, in many cases, been
<br />located on the ground, Before specific activity planning
<br />decisions are made or project locations are determined,
<br />locations of the management priority area boundaries will
<br />be determined, to the extent necessary, hased on the resource
<br />information that was used to place the boundary on the
<br />alternative maps, For example, a wildlife priority area may
<br />be based on critical winter range, and tbe boundary might
<br />be determined by a ridge line or a vegetative type; it may
<br />be necessary to make an arbitrary decision in the case of
<br />a gradual transition of actual use hy wildlife. Management
<br />priority area boundaries or definitions of compatible and
<br />excluded uses may also be adjusted, hased on new resource
<br />data or proposals for site-specific actions, Major changes
<br />would require a plan amendment.
<br />
<br />The management priorily areas depicted on lhe map may
<br />include areas of split-estate (private surface over federal
<br />minerals). private, state. or other nonfederallands. However,
<br />the management priority areas apply only to BLM-managed
<br />surface and federal mineral estate, On split-estate lands,
<br />management priority area designations indicate how BLM
<br />would manage tbe federal mineral estale; they would not
<br />dictate other surface uses unrelated to federal mineral
<br />development. None of the management priority areas apply
<br />to pri vate, state, or other lands or minerals nol managed
<br />by BLM, In addition, management priority areas do not
<br />supersede valid existing rights, Nothing on the map or in
<br />tbis plan should be inlerpreted as challenging lhose rights,
<br />
<br />Tbree kinds of management priority areas have been
<br />identified in the proposed plan: priority use areas,
<br />environmental value areas. and special designations, They
<br />are descrihed separately below,
<br />
<br />Priority-Use Areas
<br />
<br />Priority-use areas are one of the three categories of
<br />management priority areas identified in the proposed plan.
<br />Land-use priorities addressed in the RMP and sbown on
<br />the map of the proposed plan include coal, oil and gas,
<br />other minerals, federal mineral concern areas, livestock,
<br />wildlife, forest lands and woodlands, and recreation, Each
<br />use listed has specific areas identified on tbe map where
<br />it has been assigned as a priority for management. The
<br />
<br />1-18
<br />
|