![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.2811023622047244in"
height="1.101968503937008in"}![](media/image2.png){width="0.7570866141732283in"
height="0.6637795275590551in"}![](media/image3.png){width="0.760236220472441in"
height="0.7673228346456693in"}

Executive Summary 3

Introduction 5

Rawlins Field Office RMP/EIS Planning Schedule 6

Scoping Process 7

Rawlins RMP Website 8

Public Scoping Meetings 10

Meeting Logistics and Attendance 10

Informal Meeting Comments 11

Written Scoping Comments 12

Method of Submittal 12

Number and Type of Comments Received 12

Comment Summaries 14

Cultural and Historic Resources 14

Fire Management 14

Forestry 14

Mining and Oil and Gas Development 14

Range Management and Livestock Grazing 16

Recreation and OHV Use 16

Special Management Areas 17

Transportation and Access 17

Wilderness 18

Wild Horses 18

Wildlife and Fisheries 19

General Comments and Other Resource Concerns 20

**Appendices**

Appendix A: Written Comments Summary

Appendix B: Federal Register Publication: Notice of Intent

Appendix C: Legal Notices and Press Releases

Appendix D: Planning Bulletin #1

Appendix E: Scoping Meeting Handouts and Sample Sign-In Sheet

Appendix F: Two Form Letters Received During Scoping Period

Copies of comments received during the scoping period are available at
the Rawlins Field Office and the BLM's Wyoming State Office.

## Executive Summary

## This report documents the public scoping process of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rawlins Field Office (FO) Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Scoping Report includes a description of the scoping process and an overview of the planning schedule; a description of the four scoping meetings; a summary of the comments submitted by the public; and an overview of the issues identified through all scoping comments.

The purpose of "scoping" is to identify issues important to the future
management of public lands and resources. These issues will guide
development of alternatives that will be evaluated in the EIS and will
ultimately guide development of the RMP. The scoping process also
provides an opportunity to educate the general public about the
management of public lands and for BLM to gauge the concerns of those
who have a stake in the resources of the area.

## Public Scoping and Issue Identification

Upon publication in the Federal Register of the Notice of Intent (NOI)
to prepare an RMP, the BLM Rawlins FO initiated the first phase of the
public scoping process, including a call for resource information and
the identification of issues for this planning effort. The official
60-day scoping period began February 3, 2003 with the availability of
the Scoping Notice and the Management Situation Analysis (MSA) on the
project website. The scoping period lasted until April 7, 2003.

Public Scoping Meetings

During the four scoping meetings, 82 people registered their attendance,
with some people attending more than one meeting. The meetings were
structured in an open house format, with various information tables
representing issues such as Livestock Grazing, Mineral and Gas
Development and other resource areas. The meetings were held from 4:00
PM until 8:00 PM, with the public arriving and departing at their
leisure. Instead of formal presentations, BLM specialists manned the
resource stations and were available to answer any questions the public
had. This open house format allowed BLM staff to mingle with the public
in a casual environment. Comments were collected at the scoping meetings
both electronically (databases set up on computers and a live link to
the website) and in hard copy (using preprinted comment forms).\
\
Besides comments collected during the scoping meetings, additional
comments were received through letter, email, fax, and on the
interactive project website (www.Rawlinsrmp.com).

Approximately 26,745 comments were received through the various methods.
For organization and analysis purposes, comments were categorized into
the following 12 topic areas that were predetermined by the BLM:

-   Cultural and Historic Resources

-   Fire Management

-   Forestry

-   Mining and Oil and Gas Development

-   Range Management and Livestock Grazing

-   Recreation and OHV Use

-   Special Management Areas

-   Transportation and Access

-   Wilderness

-   Wild Horses

-   Wildlife and Fisheries

-   General Comments and Other Resource Concerns

**Scoping Results**

The largest category of comments received (38.8%) brought up issues with
Mining and Oil and Gas Development. Almost all comments expressed a
desire for preservation over continued development. A major concern
identified in the comments deals with the disruption of migration
corridors for big-game herd animals and the degradation of
environmentally sensitive areas.

The second category receiving the most comments was Wildlife and
Fisheries (35.7% of all comments). Although fewer in number, comments
were also received dealing with Range Management and Livestock Grazing,
Recreation and OHV Use, Cultural and Historic Resources, Special
Management Areas, Wilderness, Transportation and Access, and General
Comments.

**Introduction**

The BLM Rawlins FO administrative area is located in south central
Wyoming (see Figure 1). The Rawlins FO includes approximately 11.2
million acres of land in Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and Sweetwater
Counties. Within that area, the Rawlins FO administers approximately 3.4
million acres of public land surface and mineral estate, 0.1 million
acres of public land surface where the mineral estate is private, and
1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate where the surface is
privately owned or state owned. The area includes the larger communities
of Cheyenne, Laramie, Rawlins, and Saratoga and the smaller communities
of Arlington, Baggs, Bairoil, Dixon, Elk Mountain, Encampment, Hanna,
McFadden, Medicine Bow, Pine Bluffs, Riverside, Rock River, Savery,
Sinclair, and Wamsutter.

The existing Resource Management Plan, developed in 1990, requires
modification due to new data, changing resource conditions, changing
uses of BLM administered public lands and resources, and as a result of
new laws, regulations, and policies. The Rawlins RMP will, pursuant with
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), revise this land use plan resulting in
a document with updated management actions, objectives, and resource
allocations.

In compliance with NEPA, the Rawlins FO initiated a scoping process to
receive public input on issues related to the development of an RMP and
the associated EIS. This report describes the scoping process, the
methods of comment retrieval, and includes a summary of issues,
categorized by resource category, that were brought forward during
scoping.

Figure 1. RMP Planning Area

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="4.606944444444444in"
height="3.5618055555555554in"}

**Rawlins Field Office RMP/EIS Planning Schedule**

The process for the Rawlins RMP revision and accompanying EIS began with
the publication of the NOI in the Federal Register on February 25, 2002.
The process continues through scoping, alternatives development, and the
development of a Draft EIS and Final EIS as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Rawlins Field Office RMP/EIS Planning Schedule

![](media/image2.wmf)

**Scoping Process**

Scoping is the process required by NEPA in the early stages of
developing an EIS to determine the scope and significance of issues
related to a proposed action, in this case, the implementation of a new
RMP (40 CFR 1501.7). Knowing the scope and the significance of issues
allows for an accurate and timely environmental analysis. In addition,
scoping helps identify issues important to the management of the area,
as well as which issues warrant consideration throughout the planning
process. The scoping process is designed to encourage public
participation and to solicit public input. Although only one of the many
steps in the planning process (see Figure 3), scoping is an essential
step that ensures all issues are brought to the table.

# Figure 3. Planning Process

Rationale will be provided in the plan for each issue. Alternatives that
incorporate a range of objectives, actions and land use allocations will
then be developed and analyzed. Each alternative will address the issues
identified during the scoping process.

In accordance with the planning schedule (Figure 2), the scoping process
formally began with the publication of the NOI (Appendix B), documenting
BLM's intent to prepare an RMP. During the scoping meetings, BLM
officials made presentations to the County Commissioners from the
counties in the Rawlins FO area, user groups, and other interested
parties. In addition, interested individuals and organizations, affected
Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as affected Indian Tribes
were invited to submit comments to the BLM.

The official 60-day scoping period began February 3, 2003 with the
publication of the Scoping Notice and the availability of the MSA on the
project website. Although the scoping period ended April 7, 2003, the
BLM will consider issues brought forward any time during the planning
process. Only comments submitted during the scoping period, however, are
summarized in this report.

**Rawlins RMP Website**

An important vehicle used during the scoping process to solicit comments
and educate the public is the Rawlins RMP Website. Figure 4 shows the
Rawlins RMP website homepage. Located at www.Rawlinsrmp.com, the website
houses the latest information on the development of the RMP/EIS,
including background documents, maps, meeting announcements, published
bulletins, and other documents. An interactive feature entitled "How to
Get Involved" enables the user to add themselves to the Rawlins RMP
mailing list or to submit scoping issues directly onto the website. In
order to better analyze the comments, the user is instructed to choose
from a list of twelve categories. Categories include: Cultural
Resources, Livestock Grazing, Mining and Oil and Gas Development,
Recreation/OHV use, Wilderness, Wildlife and Fisheries, Transportation
and Access, Special Management Areas, General Comments, Other Resource
Concerns, Fire Management, and Forestry. The user can choose multiple
categories for submittal. The user can type their issues directly into
comment fields or they can choose to upload a file that contains the
comments they want to submit. This was done to encourage comments to be
submitted electronically and to decrease the time and resources of
keying in hard-copy comments for analysis.

Figure 4. Rawlins RMP Website Homepage

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="3.433333333333333in"
height="3.2916666666666665in"}

The Rawlins RMP website site is divided into 8 main sections:

-   **Home**: General Overview of the Program and details of the RMP

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Area Photo Tour:** Photos of the Rawlins RMP Planning area

-   **Contact Information:** Contact for John Spehar, Planning &
    Environmental Coordinator

-   **Public Meeting Schedule:** Information of time/date/location of
    all public meetings

-   **General Schedule**: Schedule of Process and Public Participation
    Components

-   **How to Get Involved**: Functionality provided for interested users
    to join the mailing list or submit comments.

-   **Documents and Bulletins:** Library of various RMP documents
    available for online viewing or download

-   **Links:** Related Links, Other Planning Efforts and Agency Links.

The site has received a great number of visits from users all over the
country. The pages that received the most number of hits are the
"Documents and Bulletins" and "How to Get Involved" sections. All
pertinent RMP documents (such as the MSA, Minerals Occurrence and
Development Report, Socioeconomic Report, etc.) were split into
"manageable" pieces (either .pdf or .gif) for easy download. The most
downloaded file was Chapter 3 of the MSA, which was downloaded 736
times.

Users were encouraged to enter comments through the "How to Get
involved" section of the website. These comments were stored in a
database that eventually merged with comments received from other
sources. A total of twenty-one comments were submitted on the project
website.

**Public Scoping Meetings**

Public scoping meetings provide an opportunity for interested parties to
submit scoping comments and may be a part of the early and open scoping
process NEPA requires (40 CFR 1501.7). These meetings are especially
important when there is "substantial environmental controversy
concerning the proposed action or substantial interest in holding the
\[meeting\]" (40 CFR 1506.6c1).

**Meeting Logistics and Attendance**

The Public Scoping Notice (Appendix C) announced four public scoping
meetings. Public notice of the scoping meetings was sent to local
newspapers, radio stations, and media.

A press release was sent to all the above newspapers, the radio stations
(*need information from BLM*), the County Commissioners of the Counties,
and to the offices of Wyoming US Senators and Congresswoman. The four
public meetings were held in March. The total registered attendance for
all four meetings was 82 people, with some people attending more than
one meeting. Table 1 illustrates the attendance at each scoping meeting.
The number of participants in communities closest to the planning area
indicates the high level of local interest in the planning and
management of the area.

Table 1. Meeting Location and Attendance

+-----------------------+------------------------+--------------------+
| ## Meeting Location   | **Meeting Date**       | Attendance         |
+-----------------------+------------------------+--------------------+
| Rock Springs, WY      | March 3, 2003          | 22                 |
+-----------------------+------------------------+--------------------+
| Rawlins, WY           | March 4, 2003          | 20                 |
+-----------------------+------------------------+--------------------+
| Baggs, WY             | March 5, 2003          | 18                 |
+-----------------------+------------------------+--------------------+
| Laramie, WY           | March 6, 2003          | 22                 |
+-----------------------+------------------------+--------------------+
| Total                 |                        | 82                 |
+-----------------------+------------------------+--------------------+

Attendance at each public scoping meeting was recorded using a sign-in
sheet at the registration station at each meeting. An example of this
sign-in sheet can be found in Appendix E. Resource-specific handouts
were made available to the public. Copies of the handouts can also be
found in Appendix E.

Comments were solicited in a manner that provided an opportunity for
everyone attending the public meetings to provide input. Meeting
comments were recorded in two ways. First, computer stations were
available for participants to key-in their comments directly into a
comment database. In addition, hard-copy forms were provided to
attendees so that their individual comments could be written and handed
to a BLM representative or mailed to the Rawlins FO.

**Informal Meeting Comments**

Individual comments were categorized by primary topic, regardless of the
position of the comment towards the topic. Several comments addressed
more than one comment category, or topic; these comments were
categorized by the driving topic unless the associated topics were of
equal importance to the issue being presented, in which case the comment
was placed under both comment categories. Examples of this include
comments regarding surface stipulations for oil and gas drilling in
wilderness quality areas in order to preserve the wilderness qualities.
There are two potential topics presented, with the driving topic being
that of preserving wilderness characteristics.

Comments categorized as "Other" generally discussed very broad
management concepts or very specific issues.

While each public scoping meeting raised unique issues and concerns, a
number of common elements materialized. When all the public meetings are
viewed as a whole, the ideas and concerns relating to mining and oil and
gas development were the most frequently mentioned, with Wilderness and
Wildlife and Fisheries also popular topics. Only "written" comments were
recorded and analyzed in this report. Informal comments addressed to BLM
staff during conversations at the open houses were not formally
recorded, but noted in general.

There are a variety of scoping meeting comments on other topics that
surfaced during informal conversations with BLM staff, including, but
not limited to the following:

-   Acknowledge and analyze economic impacts on the local communities;

-   Concern for grazing and range management, both for the continuation
    of a historic use and improved management of range resources;

-   Request for better management of and continued use for recreational
    OHV users, including requests for signage and trail maps and
    markers;

-   Continued OHV access for permitted users, such as livestock
    management and firewood gathering;

-   Realty issues;

-   Quality and enforceability of responsible oil and gas development;

-   Write a plan that is enforceable (money, time, and manpower);

-   Management of the resources through education and enforcement,
    rather than additional rules and regulations;

-   Concern with negative impacts wildlife has on livestock and
    ranchers;

-   Request for a diversity of recreation uses; and

-   Protection of riparian areas and watersheds.

**Written Scoping Comments**

In addition to receiving comments during the public scoping meetings,
the Rawlins FO also received comments through the mail, fax, and email.
Written comments summarized in this report were received during the
scoping period (February 3, 2003 through April 7, 2003), as well as
comments that were received shortly after the deadline, yet postmarked
by April 7^th^, to compensate for mail delay.

**Method of Submittal**

Written scoping comments were accepted via mail, e-mail, the website and
fax resulting in a total of 10,496 (see Table 2). A response is defined
as one email, fax, letter or website submittal. One person could submit
more than one response. Because some responses had more than one
comment, the total number of comments received is greater than the
number of respondents, or individuals who submitted comments. For
example, one person could submit two emails with one email containing a
comment on wildlife and another on forestry. The second email could
contain one comment on wilderness. Thus, this example would be
calculated as two responses and three comments, all from one person.

Table 2. Comment Source Data

+------------------------------------+------------------+--------------+
| ######### Method of Submittal      | Responses        |              |
|                                    | Received         |              |
+------------------------------------+------------------+--------------+
| Mail/Fax                           | 542              |              |
+------------------------------------+------------------+--------------+
| E-Mail                             | 9,868            |              |
+------------------------------------+------------------+--------------+
| Website                            | 21               |              |
+------------------------------------+------------------+--------------+
| Scoping Meetings                   | 65               |              |
+------------------------------------+------------------+--------------+
| Total Responses                    | 10,496           |              |
+------------------------------------+------------------+--------------+

Several responses were received multiple times and/or in multiple
formats (ex. fax and mail). If the author(s) were the same for each
response and the comments in the response were identical, the earliest
response with the author's original signature was retained in the public
record.

A majority of the comments, 22,950 of 26,745, are not unique to specific
individuals, but instead can be attributed to two form letters (provided
in Appendix F). Both form letters have wildlife and fisheries and mining
and oil and gas development as their main issues.

**Number and Type of Comments Received**

Comments received during the scoping period were compiled into a master
database. Searches were conducted to group like comments and several
form letters were identified and grouped accordingly. Summaries were
also written for each comment. Each comment was provided an ID \# that
corresponded with the appropriate Person information. Reports were
created for comments and organized by comment type, source and category.
Each response was read in its entirety and all distinct comments were
categorized for enumeration and analysis. Comments were enumerated using
standard database and spreadsheet software.

It should be noted that while the enumeration of various submittal types
was performed separately, the comment analysis process considered all
comments collectively.

Table 3 shows the relative interest of respondents who submitted written
comments towards various broad topics in a position-neutral perspective.
This enumeration is not intended to show bias towards any issue; it is
simply to indicate the level of interest in various issue areas. All
issues will be addressed equally in the EIS and RMP.

Table 3. Comment Category Enumeration

+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| ######## Comment Category         | **Number |       | **     |     |
|                                   | Re       |       | Percen |     |
|                                   | ceived** |       | tage** |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Special Management Areas          | 14       |       | .052   |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Transportation and Access         | 14       |       | .052   |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Cultural / Historic Resources     | 8        |       | .029   |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Range Mgmt / Livestock Grazing    | 856      |       | 3.20   |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Mining and Oil and Gas            | 10,380   |       | 38.81  |     |
| Development                       |          |       |        |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Recreation / OHV                  | 13       |       | .049   |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Wilderness                        | 5,825    |       | 21.78  |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Wildlife and Fisheries            | 9,552    |       | 35.72  |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Forestry                          | 4        |       | .014   |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Fire Mgmt                         | 6        |       | .022   |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Wild Horses                       | 14       |       | .052   |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| General Comments                  | 32       |       | .12    |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Other Resource Concerns           | 27       |       | .1     |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+
| Total                             | 26,745   |       | 100    |     |
+-----------------------------------+----------+-------+--------+-----+

**Comment Summaries**

As previously discussed, each of the comments were categorized into one
(or more than one if necessary) particular resource category. Following
is a summary of the comments received.

#### **Cultural and Historic Resources**

> []{.mark}

Some comments were submitted regarding cultural and historic resources.
Some individuals requested that the BLM protect/maintain a five-mile
buffer zone around the Overland and Cherokee trails in order to protect
the areas from oil and gas development. Other individuals requested that
these trails be mapped and appropriately marked.

Additional comments received regarding cultural and historic resources
included general requests for the protection of Native American
traditional and cultural sites.

#### 

#### **Fire Management**

Respondents generally encouraged BLM to allow naturally occurring
wildfires to burn without human intervention. However, some individuals
provided more specific comments regarding controlled burn measures, such
as requests that BLM use controlled burn measures on Squaw Mountain and
as a useful tool to improve habitat in the Great Divide resource area.

#### 

#### **Forestry**

Comments submitted regarding forest issues included requests that BLM
not allow logging on lands in the Rawlins FO. An additional comment
recommended abandoning clear cutting methods in favor of singletree and
group selection, and group shelter woodcuts. The comment emphasized that
ecological goals should be placed ahead of timber volume production.
Another respondent requested that BLM require the retention of coarse
woody debris on ponderosa and subalpine forest logging site.

#### 

#### **Mining and Oil and Gas Development**

Issues related to mineral exploration, leasing, and development were
common topics in the comments received. Respondents identified a full
range of issues both in support for and against oil, gas, and mining
development. The majority of the mineral development comments discussed
access, ecosystem health, planning, and technology issues. Each of these
categories was discussed as it relates to oil, gas, and mining.

Commenting on the responsibility of BLM to protect the environment, some
respondents urged BLM to ensure that oil, gas, and mining development is
performed in a manner that recognizes and protects other natural
resources. Respondents also stressed the importance of ensuring that all
stakeholders have a voice in the decision of lands acceptable for energy
development. For example, some respondents asked that BLM prohibit oil
and gas development in inappropriate and sensitive parts of the planning
area, such as critical wildlife habitats, potential or proposed
wilderness areas, and WSAs. Specific examples offered by respondents of
sensitive areas to be protected included wintering and calving ranges
for big game species, prairie dog colonies, mountain plover habitat, and
within three miles of sage grouse leks and one mile of raptor nesting
sites. Some respondents specifically requested that the Atlantic Rim
area, Great Divide Region, and the Red Desert area be protected from
oil, gas, and mining development. Several respondents also commented
that new roads should not be installed for oil, gas, and mining
development in WSAs and other areas in the planning area that are
currently roadless.

Proponents of oil, gas, and mining development commented that oil, gas,
and mining development must be allowed to continue at current levels.
Some individuals stated that such development should be allowed in
sensitive areas but should be managed under tight controls and
protection measures. Other comments received included remarks that BLM
should permit the fullest development of natural gas and oil resources
in the area and that existing stipulations related to restrictions on
drilling operations in critical habitats during breeding or wintering
periods should be reduced.

Regarding technology used in oil and gas development, a number of
respondents urged BLM to require oil companies to utilize best available
technology (BAT) in order to minimize environmental harm. Some
respondents also stated that directional and horizontal drilling
techniques should be required on all federal lands in order to minimize
road building and the impacts of "footprints" from drilling rigs. Other
respondents disagreed, stating that directional drilling is not always
an appropriate solution.

Comments specifically requesting the broad use of the No Surface
Occupancy (NSO) designation for WSAs, ACECs, and other special
management areas were received. Also, a number of respondents requested
that BLM require the re-injection of wastewater from coalbed methane
development (CBM) activities.

Regarding planning for oil, gas, and mining development, some
individuals commented that BLM must include the basic elements of the
Supplemental Program Guidance (SPG) for fluid mineral resource planning
as planning criteria. The SPG criteria require that BLM develop a
leasing strategy based on the resource values and the estimate of oil
and gas development potential in the planning area. Additionally, some
respondents requested that BLM consider the Western Heritage Alternative
when developing the RMP. Focused on sustainable use of public lands and
resources, the Western Heritage Alternative supports the use of BAT to
minimize landscape impacts and avoid habitat destruction in sensitive
areas and includes strong protections to prevent water and air
pollution, widespread erosion, and the discharge of CBM wastewater.

#### 

#### **Range Management and Livestock Grazing**

[]{.mark}

Several comments were submitted regarding livestock grazing. These
comments included requests that BLM address ecosystem integrity and
impacts to wildlife habitats. Several respondents also insisted that
livestock grazing to be managed at levels that are ecologically
sustainable. Some individuals also specifically requested that grazing
be restricted or eliminated from riparian and other sensitive resource
areas, such as the streamside habitats in the valleys that descend from
the slopes of the Sierra Madres.

A number of respondents requested that livestock grazing be eliminated
and restricted in big game crucial winter range areas. Other requests
stated that existing fencing should be modified to be more compatible
with natural wildlife movements and migration. In addition, some
individuals submitted comments that included more general requests,
including requests for BLM to (1) continue to require permittees to meet
established standards and (2) protect the Great Divide wilderness
resources from overgrazing.

[]{.mark}

In contrast to the above comments, one individual requested that BLM
maintain or increase current levels of livestock grazing and provide
management through the monitoring and implementation of Allotment
Management Plans (AMP), which are developed in coordination with the
permittee.

#### 

#### **Recreation and OHV Use**

Comments received regarding recreation were related to OHV use. Some
respondents requested that BLM implement regulations and restrictions on
OHV use to minimize (1) degradation to water quality and wetland areas,
(2) erosion of sensitive hillsides and grasslands, and (3) disturbance
of wildlife and other land users. A number of respondents also requested
that OHV restrictions be enacted in the Pedro Mountains, Wild Cow Creek,
Ferris Mountains, Adobe Town area, and all wilderness quality lands. In
contrast, a request that all existing routes remain open for OHV use was
also received.

Other individuals urged BLM to limit OHV use to roads only and to adopt
a 'closed if not posted' policy for OHV trail use. Other comments
included general requests for adequate enforcement of the restrictions
and limitations.

#### **Special Management Areas**

[]{.mark}

Some comments were received regarding special management areas, most of
which indicated support for existing WSAs and ACECs and requested that
the RMP consider additional designations. Several respondents cited
specific areas to be considered for special designation. Table 4
presents areas recommended for special designation.

## Table 4. Areas to be Considered for Special Designation. {#table-4.-areas-to-be-considered-for-special-designation. .sub-heading}

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  Specific areas requested to be        
  considered for ACEC                   

  Red Rim                               Atlantic Rim

  McCarty Canyon                        Wild Cow Creek

  Savery Dam                            Areas surrounding North Platte
                                        Res.

  The Powder Rim-Cherokee Rim           Flattop Mountain

  West Shirley Basin                    Ferris Dunes

  Chain Lakes                           

  Specific areas requested to be        
  considered for WSA                    

  Kinney Rim                            Wild Cow Creek

  Ferris Mountains                      Expand to include Adobe Town
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

[]{.mark}

Some comments received simply requested that the above listed areas be
considered for special designation. In addition, some individuals
requested that some general habitat areas be considered for special
designation, including mountain plover concentration areas and any
crucial wildlife habitat.

In addition, respondents requested that the Continental Divide National
Scenic trail be properly managed according to the qualities for which it
was designated.

#### 

#### **Transportation and Access**

Some individuals submitted comments concerning transportation and access
issues. These comments generally fell under two categories: (1) requests
to restrict vehicle use to designated roads and trails and (2)
opposition to restricting access to public lands.

Several respondents suggested that all vehicles should be restricted to
designated roads and trails. However, some individuals commented that a
reasonable amount of new roads would need to be open and maintained if
vehicle use is to be limited to designated areas. These same individuals
suggested that oil, gas, and mining development companies be restricted
to existing roads, and added that these companies should be required to
upgrade and maintain the roads they use.

#### Other comments received included requests that no land should be sold or exchanged that would restrict access to public lands. Specifically, the comments included requests that access to National Forest areas and hunting grounds used by local residents should be maintained. Also, a suggestion was made that access maintained in such situations did not have to include vehicular access.

#### 

#### **Wilderness**

Comments received regarding wilderness and other types of special
designations were numerous. Unlike most of the other types of comments,
wilderness comments were either for or against the use of special
designations. A number of individuals indicated support for existing
WSAs and requested that the RMP consider additional designations in
order to "protect the wild character of the area." Conversely, comments
were received that do not support additional special designations in the
new RMP. The designations to which the comments refer include WSAs,
ACECs, and wilderness proposals.

In numerous comments, individuals indicated a desire for the RMP to
consider additional areas for WSA designation, including Wild Cow Creek
and the Pedro Mountains. Some respondents requested that BLM protect all
remaining wilderness quality lands as WSAs. In addition, some
individuals requested an inventory of all remaining unprotected lands
for wilderness qualities, while others requested that such lands be
protected as Wilderness. Comments were also received that supported the
designation of additional ACECs in the planning area in order to protect
the occurrences and habitat of all threatened and endangered species and
other species of special concern.

Some individuals expressed an opinion opposite to those that supported
special designations. These individuals only requested that the RMP not
include new wilderness designations.

#### 

#### **Wild Horses**

#### 

Comments were received regarding wild horse herd numbers and the
negative impacts the herds can have on native wildlife. Requests were
received that specifically called for BLM to (1) remove and manage wild
horse levels to objective levels and (2) consider wild horses comparably
with other resource values. A request that the Powder Basin allotment be
excluded from wild horse management was also received.

In contrast, some individuals expressed their opinion that wild horses
must be a component on public lands, as mandated by the Wild and
Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. These respondents also requested
that the BLM identify and encourage opportunities to improve the natural
quality and quantity of wildlife and wild horse habitat through
acquiring essential areas identified through the planning process via
the land tenure adjustments and exchange program. These respondents also
encouraged BLM to consider the designation of wild horse ranges that
offers the public opportunity for viewing wild horses.

#### []{.mark}

#### **Wildlife and Fisheries**

#### 

#### Comments on wildlife management and other issues associated with animal species in the planning area were received from many individuals and organizations as well as some government agencies. A range of issues was addressed in these comments, including the protection of certain wildlife species and crucial habitat, winter range management, threatened and endangered species, predator management, and wildlife/livestock conflicts.

#### 

#### Comments received regarding wildlife and fisheries management consisted of specific requests that the management and protection of several individual species be given significant consideration in the RMP, including the pronghorn antelope, mountain plover, burrowing owl, and the ferruginous hawk. In addition, some individuals specifically requested the protection of the migration routes of big game be given significant management attention in the RMP. A specific request that BLM address the protection of invertebrate species and their habitats in the RMP in order to preserve important opportunities for future research and education was also submitted.

#### 

#### Some respondents requested that BLM restore wild bison to the planning area. Other respondents specifically suggested that wild bison be restored to the Great Divide area. 

#### 

#### Regarding conflicts between wildlife and livestock populations, some respondents requested that wild horses be managed to minimize the effects of their populations on other wildlife and livestock. Another suggestion stated that more animal units should be designated for wildlife use in areas where wildlife species compete with domestic livestock.

#### 

#### Some comments received proposed that future management actions address specific areas in the planning area that include crucial habitat for certain species. For example, some respondents requested that the RMP include significant consideration of the protection of the Atlantic Rim area, stating that this area contains crucial habitat for elk and deer populations. In addition, a number of individuals commented that protection and conservation of the sage grouse should be a priority in the RMP. Specifically, individuals requested the protection of sage grouse populations from CBM projects in the Powder River and Upper Green River Valley basins. Some respondents requested that the RMP include management actions aimed at protecting the home ranges of sage grouse.

#### 

#### Additional comments were made regarding the protection of winter grazing ground for elk and deer both from industrial uses and from overgrazing. Some respondents also requested that all crucial winter ranges in this area should be protected as ACECs.

#### 

Finally, some respondents urged BLM not to eliminate or manipulate
native wildlife populations for the benefit of certain stakeholders.
Also, a number of individuals requested that all special status species
in the planning area be given significant management attention in the
RMP.

**General Comments and Other Resource Concerns**

Comments that were categorized as "Other" did not have a single theme
that was easily identifiable or in some cases covered many different
topics. Some of the comments related to issues that were extremely
focused on a specific issue, and/or received very few comments. Since a
summary of the comments in this category would be impractical, a sample
of some of the topics is listed below.

-   Need to retain multiple use management guidelines

-   Enforcement of policies and laws

-   Ecosystem management

-   Air and water quality

-   Wild and Scenic River review

-   Don't let outside environmentalists influence the process

-   Streamline the RMP planning process

Additional comments categorized as "Other" are listed in Appendix A.